Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Enviornmental Impact of Raising Livestock
J72FIT
Posts: 6,002 Member
So I am going to officially hit my mid 40's next week and lately, maybe by total coincidence, I have started to reflect on some of my past beliefs. Came across this article the other day and it made me stop for a moment and reflect. Honestly though, I am never sure if I am reading propaganda or truth. What are everyones thoughts on this...
http://science.time.com/2013/12/16/the-triple-whopper-environmental-impact-of-global-meat-production/
http://science.time.com/2013/12/16/the-triple-whopper-environmental-impact-of-global-meat-production/
1
Replies
-
I have read similar before but in my opinion bacon is worth it.5
-
trigden1991 wrote: »I have read similar before but in my opinion bacon is worth it.
Do you believe the article?
I like bacon as well though I don't eat it often so environmentally speaking it does not bother me to buy it. But for other animal products that I eat every day I am starting to question...1 -
FAO has sam really good skýrslur (can't remember the english word) about this stuff. I've read a few..
http://www.fao.org/home/en/0 -
Raising live stock has been a human concept for thousands and thousands of years. Its not livestock that is the issue. Its mankind. Industrializing the world is what impacted the environment in a negative way. Human "wisdom" is what is destroying this world. Think back to biblical times. Before biblical times. Before the turn of the century when technology started making an impact. There will always be an environmental impact in anything we do. Humans are the biggest impact behind natural disasters.7
-
trigden1991 wrote: »I have read similar before but in my opinion bacon is worth it.
Do you believe the article?
I like bacon as well though I don't eat it often so environmentally speaking it does not bother me to buy it. But for other animal products that I eat every day I am starting to question...
I've read stuff like that enough from a variety of sources that I do believe it, but the question is what it means. For example, if you are buying food in the US (or a specific location), what really does minimize carbon footprint in terms of actions -- just reducing meat alone might not do it, as it depends on what it's replaced with (for me eating less meat tends to be a positive goal, though, although I've found that's a trade-off in some ways, at least so far).
I keep meaning to actually figure out the environmental affects of the various choices available to me, but admittedly haven't really done that yet.0 -
The article said that production of beef for the developed world is much more efficient than the production of beef for the developing world, the consumption of beef is much higher in the developed world than in the developing world, and the production of pork and poultry is more efficient than the production of beef.
It also said that there's not enough cultural compatibility in sub-Saharan Africa to import developed-world beef production efficiencies to them there.
I didn't detect anything that was intended to challenge the beliefs of anyone: The sky is blue. People eat. There's a lot of people.2 -
Oh man... so many thing to laugh about here. I agree that every time we progress with new technology and new concepts we are impacting the environment. But to minimize livestock being raised to help minimize our carbon footprint? I am hoping everyone is well educated enough to know HOW many products we use daily that are made with some for of animal byproducts... I work for a Pork Production Company... yep I am the bad guy in that article. We raise pigs, have over 70 barns and send 3000 hogs/day to the slaughter houses.
To anyone that reads this that is a vegetarian or vegan... this one is for you (oh and this is just a very SMALL list)
http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/9-everyday-products-you-didnt-know-had-animal-ingredients.html6 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »I have read similar before but in my opinion bacon is worth it.
Do you believe the article?
I like bacon as well though I don't eat it often so environmentally speaking it does not bother me to buy it. But for other animal products that I eat every day I am starting to question...
I've read stuff like that enough from a variety of sources that I do believe it, but the question is what it means. For example, if you are buying food in the US (or a specific location), what really does minimize carbon footprint in terms of actions -- just reducing meat alone might not do it, as it depends on what it's replaced with (for me eating less meat tends to be a positive goal, though, although I've found that's a trade-off in some ways, at least so far).
I keep meaning to actually figure out the environmental affects of the various choices available to me, but admittedly haven't really done that yet.
If I'm understanding the article, replacing red meat (cattle-larger animals) with pork and chicken (smaller animals) would help since it requires less energy to make them grow...0 -
Jules_farmgirl wrote: »Oh man... so many thing to laugh about here. I agree that every time we progress with new technology and new concepts we are impacting the environment. But to minimize livestock being raised to help minimize our carbon footprint? I am hoping everyone is well educated enough to know HOW many products we use daily that are made with some for of animal byproducts... I work for a Pork Production Company... yep I am the bad guy in that article. We raise pigs, have over 70 barns and send 3000 hogs/day to the slaughter houses.
To anyone that reads this that is a vegetarian or vegan... this one is for you (oh and this is just a very SMALL list)
http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/9-everyday-products-you-didnt-know-had-animal-ingredients.html
I am not making a statement as much as I am asking questions. Again, my understanding is that pork and chicken is more enviornmentally friendly then cattle. Is this off base? Since you are in the industry your input is valuable (at least to me anyway...)
Thank you for the article.0 -
Jules_farmgirl wrote: »Oh man... so many thing to laugh about here. I agree that every time we progress with new technology and new concepts we are impacting the environment. But to minimize livestock being raised to help minimize our carbon footprint? I am hoping everyone is well educated enough to know HOW many products we use daily that are made with some for of animal byproducts... I work for a Pork Production Company... yep I am the bad guy in that article. We raise pigs, have over 70 barns and send 3000 hogs/day to the slaughter houses.
To anyone that reads this that is a vegetarian or vegan... this one is for you (oh and this is just a very SMALL list)
http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/9-everyday-products-you-didnt-know-had-animal-ingredients.html
That's a really interesting list, and more proof that I'm too lazy to be vegan (this is not news to me, but the list was). Thanks for sharing it.1 -
Raising live stock has been a human concept for thousands and thousands of years. Its not livestock that is the issue. Its mankind. Industrializing the world is what impacted the environment in a negative way. Human "wisdom" is what is destroying this world. Think back to biblical times. Before biblical times. Before the turn of the century when technology started making an impact. There will always be an environmental impact in anything we do. Humans are the biggest impact behind natural disasters.
Not agreeing or disagreeing, but we also didn't have the means or knowledge to be able to identify how much CO2 emissions come from cattle raising until more recently.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »I have read similar before but in my opinion bacon is worth it.
Do you believe the article?
I like bacon as well though I don't eat it often so environmentally speaking it does not bother me to buy it. But for other animal products that I eat every day I am starting to question...
I've read stuff like that enough from a variety of sources that I do believe it, but the question is what it means. For example, if you are buying food in the US (or a specific location), what really does minimize carbon footprint in terms of actions -- just reducing meat alone might not do it, as it depends on what it's replaced with (for me eating less meat tends to be a positive goal, though, although I've found that's a trade-off in some ways, at least so far).
I keep meaning to actually figure out the environmental affects of the various choices available to me, but admittedly haven't really done that yet.
This is pretty much where I am. I would like to do more research into what choices I could make that would be helpful, but I haven't put in the work yet.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »I have read similar before but in my opinion bacon is worth it.
Do you believe the article?
I like bacon as well though I don't eat it often so environmentally speaking it does not bother me to buy it. But for other animal products that I eat every day I am starting to question...
I've read stuff like that enough from a variety of sources that I do believe it, but the question is what it means. For example, if you are buying food in the US (or a specific location), what really does minimize carbon footprint in terms of actions -- just reducing meat alone might not do it, as it depends on what it's replaced with (for me eating less meat tends to be a positive goal, though, although I've found that's a trade-off in some ways, at least so far).
I keep meaning to actually figure out the environmental affects of the various choices available to me, but admittedly haven't really done that yet.
If I'm understanding the article, replacing red meat (cattle-larger animals) with pork and chicken (smaller animals) would help since it requires less energy to make them grow...
But part of that is assuming they eat grain. My maternal grandparents (for example) came from a part of the country where farming really wasn't a good use of the land, but ranching was, and I wonder how much the environmental impact of cattle grazing in such areas is. Then again, of course rainforest being stripped for pasture seems terrible, but are the two necessarily connected on the basis that even if I don't buy beef from there my buying beef increases overall demand, etc.?
And then, of course, there's the fact that although I buy cattle that's grazed only it's in a different area of the country (more local to me). And how does all this vary based on the specific practices of the farm? For example, I know large scale chicken and pork producers (which I avoid for other reasons) have major environmental impact in some other ways (waste, for example).
But then people think some things are helpful that may not be, or may be counterproductive -- for example, saving costs of transport by buying local vs. the cost of trying to maintain small farms in some areas. (Basically, this argument: http://freakonomics.com/2011/11/14/the-inefficiency-of-local-food/.)
I honestly don't know and haven't put in the time to feel like I have adequate information to judge, so focus on other reasons for my preferences (I like local for other reasons even if it's not environmentally better).
I know local isn't what you are talking about, but beef, but I feel like there are a ton of different issues all tied up together.4 -
Jules_farmgirl wrote: »Oh man... so many thing to laugh about here. I agree that every time we progress with new technology and new concepts we are impacting the environment. But to minimize livestock being raised to help minimize our carbon footprint? I am hoping everyone is well educated enough to know HOW many products we use daily that are made with some for of animal byproducts... I work for a Pork Production Company... yep I am the bad guy in that article. We raise pigs, have over 70 barns and send 3000 hogs/day to the slaughter houses.
To anyone that reads this that is a vegetarian or vegan... this one is for you (oh and this is just a very SMALL list)
http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/9-everyday-products-you-didnt-know-had-animal-ingredients.html
OP isn't a vegan, so I'm curious as to why you've decided to direct your comments to vegetarians and vegans here.
That said, one reason why so many products have animal byproducts is that those who raise animals for money often offer the byproducts at a cheap price in order to maximize profit by selling every part of the animal. In a world where byproducts were not so prevalent, we might easily develop alternatives to using animal products for things like fabric softener and shampoo (which are both relatively easy to source animal product-free versions of, by the way -- vegans are already aware of how prevalent byproducts are in everyday products).
There may be legitimate arguments against veganism, but "shampoo often has animal products in it" isn't one of them.8 -
trigden1991 wrote: »I have read similar before but in my opinion bacon is worth it.
Do you believe the article?
I like bacon as well though I don't eat it often so environmentally speaking it does not bother me to buy it. But for other animal products that I eat every day I am starting to question...
In all honesty I don't know. It's far too big of a problem to simplify or quantify so I take all figures published with a pinch of salt.1 -
trigden1991 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »I have read similar before but in my opinion bacon is worth it.
Do you believe the article?
I like bacon as well though I don't eat it often so environmentally speaking it does not bother me to buy it. But for other animal products that I eat every day I am starting to question...
In all honesty I don't know. It's far too big of a problem to simplify or quantify so I take all figures published with a pinch of salt.
I feel like one of the biggest problems of the modern world is the number of "too big to quantify" problems. It's like they paralyze our minds and make us feel powerless. Not specifically in reference to this, I see it everywhere and I frequently feel it myself.4 -
I am not making a statement as much as I am asking questions. Again, my understanding is that pork and chicken is more enviornmentally friendly then cattle. Is this off base? Since you are in the industry your input is valuable (at least to me anyway...)
Thank you for the article.
Thanks! I truly believe the impact on the environment has everything to do with the farming methods adopted by the company. One issue that always comes up as mentioned above are the emissions that are released. Well... that's coming from cow *kitten* and wont matter where those cows are... that's gonna happen. As well as the nitrogen from that *kitten* being leaked into the ground and getting into the water table. Its life. Sorry.
Our pigs produce a lot too... what do we do to help be environmentally friendly? We have a Pump crew... our solids get flushed into lagoons that have flow and constantly being stirred (gross right?). Our Pump crew fills trucks with this and then injects this manure into farmers fields that purchase it. Ya we literally sell *kitten*.
I can't speak so much for chickens as my only knowledge of that is on a personal scale with the 350 chicks my family gets in the spring, let them free range it in an area til fall and then butcher.
4 -
ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »
That's a really interesting list, and more proof that I'm too lazy to be vegan (this is not news to me, but the list was). Thanks for sharing it.[/quote]
No problem! And I agree.. vegetarian is one thing... but saying your a vegan (and condemning those who aren't and enjoy meat) without really knowing where animal by products are found? Its entertaining!
**Please note that I have no issue with those who don't eat meat, that is a personal choice. My issue comes when someone tries to lecture without knowing the facts.0 -
As stated above, I have less concern about US (or, say, Argentine)-raised beeves than I do about meats coming from delicate ecosystems like the Amazon. The US and Canada, after all, supported a herd of 60,000,000 buffalo on our vast grasslands; we still support a large herd of beeves (including some buffalo), some of whom are directly grass-fed, but all of whom are still supported by the produce from the grasslands, just in the format of one particular super-grass, corn (both grain and silage).
It is kind of eye-opening to think that actually, as this article notes, industrially-raised feedlot/dairy herds might be the more efficient environmental option, especially as there is a push to capture and re-use the methane produced from the waste process (bio-gas recovery has the potential to provide additional income streams for farmers). It also makes me sad, as I like to support the farms with the cows relaxing in the fields and the pigs running through the woods. Although the article is highlighting first world industrial results with the results of cows attempting to scrounge for sustenance in fairly brutal conditions; proper high-quality temperate pasturage likely puts things on a more even footing.
It is also interesting that the article blames *meat* for heart issues and fatness, which is just ridiculous. That part to me feels like propaganda and ties in with the articles I see my more aggressive vegan acquaintances posting to the facebooks and infused throughout the media, and even here--I am thinking particularly of one of the dairy threads where a link was posted to a sciency-appearing site with a scary study saying we're all going to die from dairy and meat, when it was actually a very slick vegan propaganda group. (Not to pick on vegans, many of whom I admire! Some can just be somewhat shrill--and hence less than persuasive--in their educational efforts.)4 -
How so?Raising live stock has been a human concept for thousands and thousands of years. Its not livestock that is the issue. Its mankind. Industrializing the world is what impacted the environment in a negative way. Human "wisdom" is what is destroying this world. Think back to biblical times. Before biblical times. Before the turn of the century when technology started making an impact. There will always be an environmental impact in anything we do. Humans are the biggest impact behind natural disasters.
Natural disasters such as earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc, will occur - and have been occurring since before Biblical days - irrespective of the mere mortals who live on the planet's surface.
3 -
French_Peasant wrote: »As stated above, I have less concern about US (or, say, Argentine)-raised beeves than I do about meats coming from delicate ecosystems like the Amazon. The US and Canada, after all, supported a herd of 60,000,000 buffalo on our vast grasslands; we still support a large herd of beeves (including some buffalo), some of whom are directly grass-fed, but all of whom are still supported by the produce from the grasslands, just in the format of one particular super-grass, corn (both grain and silage).
It is kind of eye-opening to think that actually, as this article notes, industrially-raised feedlot/dairy herds might be the more efficient environmental option, especially as there is a push to capture and re-use the methane produced from the waste process (bio-gas recovery has the potential to provide additional income streams for farmers). It also makes me sad, as I like to support the farms with the cows relaxing in the fields and the pigs running through the woods. Although the article is highlighting first world industrial results with the results of cows attempting to scrounge for sustenance in fairly brutal conditions; proper high-quality temperate pasturage likely puts things on a more even footing.
It is also interesting that the article blames *meat* for heart issues and fatness, which is just ridiculous. That part to me feels like propaganda and ties in with the articles I see my more aggressive vegan acquaintances posting to the facebooks and infused throughout the media, and even here--I am thinking particularly of one of the dairy threads where a link was posted to a sciency-appearing site with a scary study saying we're all going to die from dairy and meat, when it was actually a very slick vegan propaganda group. (Not to pick on vegans, many of whom I admire! Some can just be somewhat shrill--and hence less than persuasive--in their educational efforts.)
Yeah I saw that too...1 -
Jules_farmgirl wrote: »No problem! And I agree.. vegetarian is one thing... but saying your a vegan (and condemning those who aren't and enjoy meat) without really knowing where animal by products are found? Its entertaining!
I can only speak from my own experience, but the vegans I've known are extremely likely (and motivated) to know those kinds of things (and also don't lecture others, although they will discuss the issue and their thoughts if people express interest).2 -
I work in the environmental field, albeit industrial focused. I consider it to be likely. What do I do? I eat less meat in general, and most of my meat consumption is poultry. This benefits me either way, since poultry is leaner and less expensive than beef. Will that really help, environmentally? Maybe.
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »OP isn't a vegan, so I'm curious as to why you've decided to direct your comments to vegetarians and vegans here.
That said, one reason why so many products have animal byproducts is that those who raise animals for money often offer the byproducts at a cheap price in order to maximize profit by selling every part of the animal. In a world where byproducts were not so prevalent, we might easily develop alternatives to using animal products for things like fabric softener and shampoo (which are both relatively easy to source animal product-free versions of, by the way -- vegans are already aware of how prevalent byproducts are in everyday products).
There may be legitimate arguments against veganism, but "shampoo often has animal products in it" isn't one of them.
OP asked for thoughts. I said my thoughts. In my life, where I live and what I do, the arguments on the environment and meat production always revolves around either GMO-free or Vegans/vegetarians. We sell our byproducts not only as a way to maximize profit, but to reduce waste. 100 years ago, all parts of the animals were still used, just like today. the difference? How those byproducts are now manufactured. Instead of using whale oil to put in a lamp, we are using pig fats to create our beauty products. They have always been used in one way or another.
This is a debate forum. So "debate and debunk". Don't simply say I have no legit ground, as I have done my research for my job.3 -
French_Peasant wrote: »It is also interesting that the article blames *meat* for heart issues and fatness, which is just ridiculous. That part to me feels like propaganda and ties in with the articles I see my more aggressive vegan acquaintances posting to the facebooks and infused throughout the media, and even here--I am thinking particularly of one of the dairy threads where a link was posted to a sciency-appearing site with a scary study saying we're all going to die from dairy and meat, when it was actually a very slick vegan propaganda group. (Not to pick on vegans, many of whom I admire! Some can just be somewhat shrill--and hence less than persuasive--in their educational efforts.)
This is true, although as I noted above I don't see it with vegans I know personally, but people on the internet.
I think it's unfortunate, as that kind of things loses credibility and as a result I tend to take everything from certain sources with extreme skepticism.
(Although in the current world starting with skepticism probably isn't a bad idea.)0 -
WickedPineapple wrote: »I work in the environmental field, albeit industrial focused. I consider it to be likely. What do I do? I eat less meat in general, and most of my meat consumption is poultry. This benefits me either way, since poultry is leaner and less expensive than beef. Will that really help, environmentally? Maybe.
I'm leaning the same way...1 -
Jules_farmgirl wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »OP isn't a vegan, so I'm curious as to why you've decided to direct your comments to vegetarians and vegans here.
That said, one reason why so many products have animal byproducts is that those who raise animals for money often offer the byproducts at a cheap price in order to maximize profit by selling every part of the animal. In a world where byproducts were not so prevalent, we might easily develop alternatives to using animal products for things like fabric softener and shampoo (which are both relatively easy to source animal product-free versions of, by the way -- vegans are already aware of how prevalent byproducts are in everyday products).
There may be legitimate arguments against veganism, but "shampoo often has animal products in it" isn't one of them.
OP asked for thoughts. I said my thoughts. In my life, where I live and what I do, the arguments on the environment and meat production always revolves around either GMO-free or Vegans/vegetarians. We sell our byproducts not only as a way to maximize profit, but to reduce waste. 100 years ago, all parts of the animals were still used, just like today. the difference? How those byproducts are now manufactured. Instead of using whale oil to put in a lamp, we are using pig fats to create our beauty products. They have always been used in one way or another.
This is a debate forum. So "debate and debunk". Don't simply say I have no legit ground, as I have done my research for my job.
I didn't say *you* had no legitimate ground, I said I didn't think the article you presented was a legitimate argument against veganism.
The fact that animal byproduct use is prevalent isn't a reason to not do what we can to avoid unnecessary animal exploitation (if it is something that we don't feel is appropriate). It simply means that those who oppose such exploitation may have to be more vigilant than they initially thought they would.
Maximizing profit and reducing waste go hand-in-hand in business. Anything you can't sell, you will have to dispose of (and disposing often carries additional costs). I understand that animal byproducts have always been used -- the question is whether or not there is an environmental impact to eating as much meat as we do. I think the whole "shampoo often has animal products in it" argument isn't really relevant to the conversation and your (apparent) belief that vegans aren't aware of the widespread use of animal byproducts doesn't match my own experiences or what I've observed in vegans I know.1 -
My beliefs on this are fairly simple.
We (humans) have a responsibility to be good stewards of this earth, and to minimize any destructive impacts we have on it. It's the only Earth we have, and it's not infinite in scale. If we do enough damage, both isolated and cumulative, we're weakening and possibly destroying the only home we have at the moment.
Most of the actual debates I read and participated in seem to center more around the percentage of damage caused by each factor, rather than what the actual factors are themselves,. With that in mind, this planet has supported more animals that expel methane into the atmosphere, and graze, than we can hazard a guess at, and it's thrived until humans began artificially contributing to the mix.
I think we know where the problems lie, and what order of severity they fall in. I also think we have the capability to mitigate much of what's an issue today.
I also believe the nature of mankind will always place power and money far above a lowly priority like a healthy planet and population to consistently and evenly do the right things.
That may or may not answer any questions OP, but to me it's like focusing on the paper cut while the artery gushes blood.1 -
I agree with @janejellyroll that every vegan I have known has had a minute, detailed, encyclopedic knowledge of which products do and do not contain animal products.1
-
French_Peasant wrote: »I agree with @janejellyroll that every vegan I have known has had a minute, detailed, encyclopedic knowledge of which products do and do not contain animal products.
We're a detail-oriented people!2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions