ALDF: Fix Global Warming the Easy, Low-Tech Way
Published December 10, 2008 @ 06:00AM PT
If you stopped by here yesterday, you saw a post on an upcoming CNN special Planet in Peril. At one point in that post, I lamented the fact that the most obvious, most effective, and easiest thing humans can do to go green and combat global warming was left off of recommended-actions lists featured on the show's Web site. You may also recall that Animal Person recently provided some related commentary.
The director of communications of the Animal Legal Defense Fund has also weighed in on this topic now. She published a fantastic, smart response yesterday to the New York Times article "As More Eat Meat, a Bid to Cut Emissions" and to the issue in general.
I really recommend that you read the whole post, but here's part of it:
According to the article, “As More Eat Meat, a Bid to Cut Emissions,” published on December 3 in the New York Times, consumption of “red meat,” i.e. cows and pigs, is expected to double globally between 2000 and 2050. . . .
Because, according to a United Nations report, livestock generates 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions—more than from cars, buses, and airplanes—the projected spike in meat consumption over the next few decades is a piece of the global warming juggernaut that can no longer be ignored.
Or can it? All evidence points to society’s desperate attempts to ignore this very fact, even as we’ve come to grips (most of us, anyway) with the stark reality of global warming. . . .
We just do NOT want to talk about the fact that the personal choice to eat animals, multiplied by several billion, is one of the single biggest factors contributing to impending environmental devastation. Do I sound hysterical? Because honestly, I feel a little hysterical here. Rather, the Times piece details, like a wish list for a sci-fi Santa, the variety of high-tech fixes that we’ve dreamed up and will dump countless millions of research dollars into to avoid prescribing people away from a meat-based diet. In one such futuristic fix for the problem of high-methane-emitting pig poop, “the refuse from thousands of pigs is combined with local waste materials (outdated carrot juice and crumbs from a cookie factory), and pumped into warmed tanks called digesters. There, resident bacteria release the natural gas within, which is burned to generate heat and electricity.” Yum. Alternatively, we might focus on “inventing feed that will make cows belch less methane.”
Who dares suggest the low-tech fix, here? Even environmental organizations have by and large shied away from the most obvious, most elegant of prescriptions to the problems caused by raising animals for food: people need to stop eating meat. Not some other, abstract people, who live in very-far-away, oh-so-polluting countries like China and India, but people like Al Gore, for example. People who read the New York Times. How about you?
I’m not suggesting people should stop eating animals because I said so, for god’s sake (I’m hysterical, remember?). But why not listen instead to Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Nobel Prize-winning United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “I’m not sure that the system we have for livestock can be sustainable,” the article quotes him as saying. It goes on: “A sober scientist, he suggests that ‘the most attractive’ near-term solution is for everyone simply to ‘reduce meat consumption,’ a change he says would have more effect than switching to a hybrid car.” Simple, right?
Let’s see what kind of mental gymnastics humankind will resort to next.
Read the post in its entirety here: "The Low-Tech Fix That Dare Not Speak Its Name"
---
Image courtesy of Animal Aid.
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
-
Have Plans on Earth Day? Watch This
-
Researchers: Even "Organically Raised" Cows Are a "Climate Bomb"
-
Veganic Farming: A Sustainable (and Compassionate) Solution
Comments (42)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Stephanie is an independent animal rights advocate, a vegan, a tree-hugging environmentalist, and a freelance editor and writer. She lives in St. Louis with an aging corgi-lab and an adolescent rescued pit bull.
At the very end the best piece of it all was said, "reduce meat consumption". That is the key, to expect everyone to eliminate its consumption is simply asking too much but we can replace it with other foods. For example I think Fish would be an adequate replacement once or twice a week. In fact there are other bonuses to consuming more fish: http://www.care2.com/greenliving/feed-your-brain.html
Posted by Aaron Franchi on 12/10/2008 @ 06:24AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The solution isn't to stop or reduce the consumption of meat. The solution is to put the animals back onto pastures where the manure and methane emissions are utilized by the plants. In a well maintained biodiverse pasture setting more carbon can be sequestered in the soil than in a forest. This carbon comes from the air and so Mother Nature has the solution for us we just need to manage the resources wisely.
Posted by Carol Osterman on 12/10/2008 @ 09:38AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Carol, the owners of factory farms aren't going to change the way they do business voluntarily. It's up to the consumers to force them to change. Aaron is right -- at the very least reduce one's meat consumption.
However, increasing one's fish consumption is not the answer, as we would simply be trading one problem for another:
http://www.fishinghurts.com/EnvironmentalConcerns.asp
There are so many benefits to eating a whole-foods, plant-based diet: It's better for the environment, for our health and for the animals.
Posted by Tracy Habenicht on 12/10/2008 @ 11:05AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
With cows and pigs we have methane to contend with. With fish we have the destruction of ecosystems to contend with. With veganism personal freedom comes up, choosing what one wants to eat.
Unless I am missing some pieces then as I see it no matter what route is taken there are obstacles to overcome. At this point I don't have any solutions to propose.
Posted by Aaron Franchi on 12/10/2008 @ 01:23PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Personal freedom, "choosing what one wants to eat," comes up regardless if one is a meat-eater or a vegan. Like with all other aspects of our lives, we have the ability to choose the route that leads to the greater good.
Posted by Tracy Habenicht on 12/10/2008 @ 01:27PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I agree with you that cutting back one's meat intake is an effective and manageable way to live more responsibly. That's why I work for Meatless Mondays, a campaign dedicated to encouraging Americans to stop eating meat on Mondays. If everyone stopped eating meat just for one day per week, meat intake would go down 15%. Not only would that reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly, but cutting out meat once a week significantly reduces one's risk of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and stroke- the four leading causes of death in the US, all preventable.
One day a week without meat makes the effort manageable, but it's still effective, in both health and environmental sustainability. You should check out our website for great articles and meatless recipes, http://www.meatlessmonday.com. This week features a meatless party dishes theme, but be sure to check out the recipe archives too, they even have a quick sautees and on the go section, perfect for cooking when you're busy.
Posted by Joey Lee on 12/11/2008 @ 01:53PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
It seems that even if there was some critical mass reached, where enough people realized how much harm comes from a society of meat-eaters, the public would refuse to be guilted into giving up their cheeseburgers. The United States, for one, is a society with deep-seated affinities for meat. People aren't going to rush to swap steak for tofu any more than they've rushed to trade in their SUVs for little hybrids.
Perhaps something like a federal meat tax would do the trick. If meat is just a little too expensive for the middle class, maybe we'll see the industrial agriculture moguls come crawling to D.C. for their handout, too. And maybe Washington will respond by giving them $40 billion of Wendy's Frostie coupons.
But, something tells me that the meat farmer lobby isn't going to let anything like that happen.
Posted by Zane Taylor on 12/12/2008 @ 11:45AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I know that a lot of people want to change the world and expect people to live up to their way of life but it just aint happening.Making people drive ecological and fuel efficient cars is one thing but asking people to stop eating meat thats insane. Me personally i love meat and will never stop eating it i dont care how much vegetarians try to make me feel guilty about it with there leather shoes and leather car interior.you hypocrits!!!!God did not give us canines to rip the flesh off of a tomatoe.I tell you what tell a lion or a cheetah or a tiger to stop eating meet you know what they'll do, tear your head off.I mean really how much global warming can this actually cause. we cant stop all polution no matter what you do.This country is one day gonna turn into a communism and with causes like this its just another step to takig away our freedom.
Posted by Daniel Fuller on 12/12/2008 @ 11:58AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"...the owners of factory farms aren't going to change the way they do business voluntarily. It's up to the consumers to force them to change."
Thank you very much, Tracy. Consumer choice is most certainly a key in addressing the problems of all all agriculture -- both animal and non-animal alike. How and where we buy our food is equally as important as the food we choose to eat. With that said, decreasing global meat consumption much be part of the solution as well.
Posted by Greg Plotkin on 12/12/2008 @ 12:17PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
There is NO WAY free range farming would support the amount of dairy and meat people eat even now.
Switching to fish is not the answer either. (look up the articles about it in National Geographic.)
Dairy is often not mentioned as part of this problem as well when it clearly is.
I think people need to strongly consider going vegan. It is far easier to do than you think it is and it is the best thing to do for your health, environment and the animals we "share" the planet with.
I was once a person who never dreamed I'd even be a vegetarian but once you try it is really easy to do. Just do some reading about it. Watch the movie Earthlings on Google videos for more information.
Posted by Courtney Brown on 12/12/2008 @ 02:10PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
@Daniel Fuller - I'm sorry you seem to be so hysterical about communism, butI can assure you that doesn't have anything to do with the issues being discussed here. Not even going to touch your canines comment - although if you can use your god-given tools of carnivory to rip people's heads off, more power to you, I guess. But even if you stopped eating meat a couple days a week, it'd make a difference. You'd likely even see noticeable health benefits if you only ate meat a couple times a week.
But you've nicely demonstrated why people's mentality about food is such a problem - eating what they LIKE instead of considering other factors. By the way, my car's interior isn't leather and I have non-leather shoes.
@ Zane Taylor & the meat tax idea - actually if people knew how much tax money was paying for subsidies on meat and saw the actual cost, they'd see that it's already *many* times that of even the most expensive alternative. Meat already generally costs more than vegetarian alternatives, but people aren't paying anywhere near the full cost at the supermarket.
Posted by Bryan Schultz on 12/12/2008 @ 02:47PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thank You for Posting this topic...
Eating meat is neither "green" nor "healthy", however...
It is pointless to talk about a problem if we overlook the
"Elephant in the Living Room": Overpopulation...
Even at the UN talks, it is an "off limits" topic, yet it IS the real cause of Global Warming.
Also...
Change...???
VP Biden just bought a Puppy from a breeder...!!!
and there are THOUSANDS of purebred Puppies in kill shelters right now of that same breed...
TALK IS CHEAP...
Thank You for reading...
Gary
Tampa
Posted by Gary Haun on 12/12/2008 @ 03:12PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
What I'm sure you REALLY meant was that livestock raised in the commercial, confinement way is harmful to our planet & I totally agree! However... livestock raised as God intended them to live do not. Feeding grain to rumenants is very unatural & very unhealthy for them & for us! Eating grain gives them indigestion, the same as you would get if you eat things you shouldn't. And, just as when you feed your intestinal fauna certain foods, they emit gas & I haven't seen a bovine Beano yet. It is the unatural diet that needs to be removed & they should live as they were designed to live.
I have livestock, who live their entire lives on pasture. The sheep & goats have a barn to go into if they wish & they usually do at night, or in the heat of a summer day. The cattle, pigs and horses either choose the big barn, the woods or the open pasture. It's usually the woods in winter & open pasture in summer, I've never seen them stay in the barn on their own. They are happy, and healthy... living as God/Mother Nature intended for them to live. And, living as they do & being healthy as they are, they very rarly have gas.
Posted by Linda DerBoggsian on 12/12/2008 @ 05:02PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
My wife and I stopped eating meat in China during our recent3000 kilometer walk to find out one of the reasons why please take a look at this video on youtube
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=OOQPXJJ-dQs&feature=channel_page
If you want to more reasons check out the other videos from China. And I understand that pork is often smuggled into the US from China.
Posted by Paul Coleman on 12/12/2008 @ 05:48PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Hi everyone i just wanted to post one last comment. I realize in my previous comment that i was way out of line calling people hypocrits that is not the type of person I am I assure you.I guess I missunderstood the the cause. All you guys want to do is decrease methane emissions and i took it as trying to turn everyone in to vegans or what ever its called. Im all for that.But all your gonna do by trying to hurt the meat companies is hurtour economy even worse witch by the way is in way worse shape than our enviroment but that is another issue. If the great obama is realy our savior then just try to bring this up to him and im sure he will do the right thing.I promise i will try to be a little more unbiased in my blogs again i appologize.
Posted by Daniel Fuller on 12/12/2008 @ 11:43PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
In most circumstances, especially here in the lower 48, reducing, or even better, eliminating the consumption of animal products will significantly help lower carbon emissions, and be overall better for the environment. There are exceptions however, but especially factory farmed livestock, egg, and milk production is not sustainble.
Eating wild fish and game at times can be sustainable, but with the current U.S. population, only a small percentage of us should be doing that.
Most fishing, fresh and saltwater is not sustainble and especially in our oceans leading to the entire collapse of balance and life in our oceans. If the oceans die.....WE DIE! Also 60% of what is caught in the oceans is fed to livestock. So is 90& of our soybeans, 80% of our corn, 50% of our water, etc.
If we fed this grain directly to people, it is a lot more efficient and sustainable. Its not for me, but much of the world eats insects for protein, and if more people in the U.S. would try this, it would be a lot better for us all. Also superfoods like spirilina (which per oz has 50 times the protein of beef, should be utilized more.
Posted by Randall Hartman on 12/12/2008 @ 11:44PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Eating fish is not the answer. The oceans are overfished, and the fisheries are in a state of collapse. Many fish are caught before they reach the age of sexual maturity. The BBC, National Geographic and others have quoted scientists who believe that if commercial fishers don't change the way they fish, the fish will be gone by 2048. And in case anyone cares about the survival of subsistence cultures, they might also care about what kinds of mass extinctions this would also cause to other forms of sea life and bird species.
Why is it too much to "expect" for people to go vegan, other than the fact that people don't want to change? It may be an unpopular idea for those who can't do without their steaks, but it isn't impossible. It just takes a different way of thinking, like people are thinking differently about public transportation.
I don't "expect" anyone to go vegan. I just expect the environmentalists who preach about Global Warming to acknowledge the problems with animal agriculture, and to lead by example.
I think we should leave the "God" argument out of it. It is unwinable. Animals are not raised as "God intended". And they aren't killed as "God intended". Sorry. I have a different theology. And the world's population and cultural mindset isn't what it was 5000+ years ago. (They also didn't have the choices we have now, or the problem of Global Warming 5000+ years ago that we are beginning to see now.)
You might be interested in reading (the Rev.) J.R. Hyland's book, "God's Covenant with Animals: A Biblical Basis for the Humane Treatment of All Creatures". http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Covenant-Animals-Biblical-Humane/dp/1930051158/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1229182335&sr=8-1
Some of the comments on that page are interesting, too.
Posted by Sue G. on 12/13/2008 @ 07:42AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Well, I didn't leave the "God" argument out of it, did I. I guess I was arming myself against any possibility of a biblical debate over various passages.
Posted by Sue G. on 12/13/2008 @ 07:45AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Stephanie, is this article also referenced somewhere in the Global Warming category of this site?
Posted by Sue G. on 12/13/2008 @ 07:52AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Since factory farms supply "95 %"(?) of our country's meat, they will not go away until people greatly reduce their demand.
Here's a suggestion for people who aren't willing to give up meat.How about giving up eggs?
I realize that chickens aren't mentioned in the methane equation, but by people giving up eggs, we could end that form of factory farming within weeks, and spare hundreds of thousands of hens from being cramped in small cages with 6-8 others their entire, miserable lives until they're sent to slaughter.
As for job loss, factory farms are virtually automated. And there is a large turnover, so attrition could take care of that problem. Profit loss may be another issue, though.
Posted by Sue G. on 12/13/2008 @ 08:04AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I was vegan and for 17 year only ate soy protein, no eggs, no dairy, no fish, no chicken. I also am a DES exposed individual which has the same affect as agent orange with causing a compromised immune system. After life threatening health issues I found out that I needed one or two bites of well chewed high quality beef once or twice a month to stimulate my pititary gland. See the dangers of soy as the only source of protein at Mercola.com. Soy can cause a compromised immune system!
My conclusion is that absolutes in any area of our lives are illogical. The big picture: the real threat isn't global warming, it's nuclear winter. I'm not being absolute and am open to other's ideas.
Posted by Barbara McSpadden on 12/14/2008 @ 10:22AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Veggies, nuts and beans also contain protein.
Unfortunately, meat-eaters aren't eating one or two bites of meat a month. It's much, much more than that.
Posted by Tracy Habenicht on 12/14/2008 @ 07:03PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
We all need to remember that there is more than one way of seeing things and more than one right answer to every question.The following info expresses a tie in with the idea of how dietary requirements may benefit the environment.
If all fossil fuels and their derivatives, as well as trees for paper and construction, were banned in order to save the planet, reverse the Greenhouse Effect and stop deforestation; then there is only one known annually renewable natural resource that is capable of providing the overall majority of the world's paper and textiles; meet all of the world's transportation, industrial and home energy needs, while simultaneously reducing pollution, rebuilding the soil and cleaning the atmosphere all at the same time...and that substance is the same one that has done it before . . . CANNABIS HEMP!Today we know hempseed is the plant kingdom’s richest source of life-giving essential fatty acids, and may well be the cure for cancer and heart disease. Hempseed: Humanity's Best Single Food Source Of the 3-million plus edible plants that grow on Earth, no other single plant source can compare with the nutritional value of hempseeds. Both the complete protein and the essential oils contained in hempseeds are in ideal ratios for human nutrition. - from Jack Herer's "Emperor Wears No Clothes"
Posted by Barbara McSpadden on 12/15/2008 @ 02:01AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
@ Barbara McSpadden: I strongly encourage you to do your reseach more thoroughly. There is a LOT of crap information out on the internet and Mercola is a good example. You should only do health research like that in medical journals and talk to certified nutritionists and take note of who paid for the study you are reading. You'd be astounded to learn how much money meat & diary industries put towards trying to make soy and other alternatives look bad but when really read into the studies its bogus.
Here is the disclaimer from the bottom of Mercola's page:
"Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked. The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional."
DONT believe everything you read.
Posted by Courtney Brown on 12/15/2008 @ 10:49AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
As many people do, I believe most of you do not take into account the land base that sustains all agricultural production (both "good" and "bad"). In the United States, for example, we lose about one million acres of farmland every year (that's about two acres per second). See this map for a visual representation of where we are losing the best farmland: http://www.farmland.org/resources/fote/states/default.asp.
When farmland is lost, it's gone forever. Every mini-mall, housing development, parking lot and office complex that is built on converted farmland results in a negative impact on our environment.
The key is to maintain the land base first, and then we can argue about methods after. If there is no farmland left, there will be nowhere to raise animals or to grow fruits and veggies, and the morality/utility of eating meat will be a moot argument.
Also, since this is really an entry about climate change, you may be interested to learn that although the EPA estimates that agriculture contributes 6-8 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), studies confirm that changes in agricultural practices, paired with the foresting of marginal agricultural lands, could offset up to 20 percent of current U.S. GHG emissions. This makes agriculture one of the best, most cost-effective ways to mitigate climate change.
Save the farmland, utilize the environmental benefits that farmers can produce and THEN argue about whether or not people should eat meat. (I do however agree, completely, that decreasing meat consumption is a step that needs to be taken in order to combat climate change. However, I do not agree that it is priority number one.)
Posted by Greg Plotkin on 12/15/2008 @ 11:49AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
We don't have to do one thing and then the other. We can stop eating meat while, at the same time, work on whatever else needs to be fixed.
Posted by Tracy Habenicht on 12/15/2008 @ 12:00PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
That's the attitude I'm talking about....
Stop eating meat, attempt to drive small-scale animal producers out of business, lose what was well-managed farmland to development, incur increased environmental harm from said development, and be left with no way to feed ourselves.
You can only transition from animal to non-animal agriculture if there is land left to farm.
I wouldn't call that "whatever else needs to be fixed" when we're losing a million acres a year....
Posted by Greg Plotkin on 12/15/2008 @ 12:19PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"Let’s see what kind of mental gymnastics humankind will resort to next."
See Greg's response for your answer.
The easiest, most effective change that individuals can have on curbing global warming is to stop eating meat. This can be done right now.
When "small-scale animal producers" are run out of business, this land can be used to grow vegetables.
Posted by Brandi H. on 12/15/2008 @ 12:43PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Brandi, you obviously did not read my last two posts. When these producers go out of business, they sell their land to be developed into cookie-cutter mcmansion neighborhoods, highways and even dumps. Good luck trying to grow veggies on that. Once farmland is gone, you can't get it back.
The answer is to first help protect these lands, and then advocate for changes in how they are farmed.
And, as I also mentioned in my previous two posts, I support decreasing demand and consumption of meat.
Posted by Greg Plotkin on 12/15/2008 @ 12:53PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I this is just ridiculous i very seriously doubt that we are gonna destroy this environment with cow and pig fart.im all for helping the environment but come on cow and pig fart thats just laughable.It seems kinda funny that as soon as scientists mentioned this you vegans were all over. Wow here's our chance to get people to be vegetarians.People love meat way to much you will never get people out side of this little forum to stop eating meat.I saw one comment that said that this fart is going tocause 20 percent of emissions.That is a flat out lie you need to check your info cause i will never believe that.I dont care what anyone says or what bible passage you wanna quote,eating meat is a totally natural part of life. we are omnivores people that is a scientific fact.I like salads too just as much as you guys.but soy food is disgusting and its unnatural.This world will end by warfare not pig and cow farts.no offense on this comment intended.
Posted by Daniel Fuller on 12/15/2008 @ 01:15PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Daniel, the UN does estimate that 18% of the world's GHG emissions are caused by agricultural livestock operations. Most agree that number is a bit inflated, but the US EPA does acknowledge (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/index.html) that agriculture has a significant impact on these emissions.
They key seems to be, as I've already acknowledged, that agriculture has the opportunity to also offset 20% of GHG emissions through improved farming practices.
Just so we have our facts straight....
Posted by Greg Plotkin on 12/15/2008 @ 01:28PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
like i said there is no way to prove any of this even the epa cant state a fact like that.im more worried about iran getting ahold of a nuclear bomb then you wont have to worry about emissions cause everything you know will be destroyed.There are alot more serious things to worry about.
Posted by Daniel Fuller on 12/15/2008 @ 01:48PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Daniel, you and I can't do a damn thing about Iran. However, we can help our health, our environment and the animals by not eating meat.
Posted by Tracy Habenicht on 12/15/2008 @ 02:02PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
If, as Daniel says, people "love meat way too much" to stop eating it to help the environment, then why not in vitro meat? In vitro meat or cultured meat is meat grown from animal cells that would have none of the environmental ill effects of factory farming.
Posted by Gloria L on 12/15/2008 @ 02:06PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
This won't change the feelings of the die-hards but it is possible to raise enough animals for the human population of meat eaters by sustainable, humane and enviromentally sound means. It will take spending more that a buck or two per pound to do it as being a sustainable, small farmer we do not hide our costs behind subsidies and other means. But we also provide a nutrient dense food that not only helps our body to heal but also provides a sense of satisfaction and fullness without eating everything in sight. The meat, dairy and eggs in grocery stores cannot compare in taste, nutrient density, humane treatment/respect of the animal or any other quality to what can be produced on the small farm by your local, knowledgeable and caring farmer that is stepping outside of the mega-corporate box.
As for our health, soy should not be a mainstay of our diet, traditional cultures used very little and it was fermented. Our systems are omnivorous - we do not have a fermentation vat like the rumen (cow or goat) or cecum (horse), nor do we eat our poop (rabbit) in order to get the benefits of what the bacteria produce.
The best way that I see that we can help the environment is to get rid of Monsanto and the GMO's.
Posted by Carol Osterman on 12/15/2008 @ 09:59PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I don't think it is possible to raise enough meat for the human population in a "sustainable" means. First of all, much of the land in the world (60%) already goes to livestock grazing, and more developing countries such as India and China which have been very vegetarian are eating meat as they can afford it. If you attempt to start grazing all world livestock in a "sustainable, humane and environmentally sound means," you will have food shortages and food crises and humanitarian nightmares, not to mention deforestation the likes of which we have never seen. Already, the rainforest is disappearing due to deforestation for livestock grazing.
There is no way that all the world's meat demand can be produced by the "local farmer." There simply isn't enough land in the first place. Unless we colonize Mars, we simply need to look into either becoming more vegetarian or start making cultured meat.
Posted by Gloria L on 12/19/2008 @ 10:27AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Willie Nelson- "Hemp and the Family Farm"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0XGGgO9GlQ&eurl=&feature=player_embedded
-and-
"A peaceful solution"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0XGGgO9GlQ&eurl=&feature=player_embedded
Posted by Barbara McSpadden on 12/20/2008 @ 12:59AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! ALERT!
DO NOT ATTEMPT TO VIEW LINKS ON THE PRIVIOUS POSTING.
I think they've been spammed by ANOMYOUS and are inaudible due to loud rap music played over the audio track.
I apologize.
Posted by Barbara McSpadden on 12/20/2008 @ 01:09AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Willie Nelson- "Hemp and the Family Farm"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0XGGgO9GlQ&eurl=&feature=player_embedded
-and-
"A peaceful solution"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0XGGgO9GlQ&eurl=&feature=player_embeddedPlease check out the above links. There is no problem with them.
I just mistakenly opened my computer's CD player with an album playing from my teenage son's selection. So please ignore my ALERT! post. Thanks.
Posted by Zvi Baranoff on 12/20/2008 @ 12:59PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The following links show beneficial work that is being done by one of America's oldest vegetarian communes. View the all at:
http://www.thefarm.org/
The history of The Farm:
http://www.thefarm.org/lifestyle/index.html
Natural and non-toxic buildings
• Organic gardening and composting
• Preservation of wilderness
• Biological waste management
• Reuse, recycle, rebuild
• Renewable power systems
• Conservation land planning
• Egalitarian and open democratic governancehttp://www.thefarm.org/ecovillages/index.html
Permaculture is PERMAnant agriCULTURE...
permaculture is the way to go:
http://www.thefarm.org/permaculture/index.html
The Soybean Germ Plasm Collection of the USDA donated 100 each of 34 varieties of soybean seed for Plenty's soybean variety trials on Huichol lands in Mexico. Plenty soy tech Louise Hagler is assisting the Huichols in establishing the first soy dairy in Jalisco.
Students from the Farm School helped put siding on the hemp house and build the volunteers camp kitchen at the Pine Ridge Reservation in Porcupine, South Dakota.
Posted by Zvi Baranoff on 12/20/2008 @ 01:23PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Sue Grisham
You can substitute Evolution or Mother Nature for God if you like. I wasn't using God as a religious Deity, although I can certainly see how everyone, except people who know me :) would think so!
The fertility of my farm increases every year. I use managed grazing & the sun gives me more energy than my livestock turn to meat. The carrying capacity of my land increases every year.
My type of farming is new & we don't know what the max capacity of good farmland is. We do know that none of us has reached it. I'm increasing my herd very gradually, to make sure that I don't overpopulate. Right now, I have 8 cows on land that could easily carry 40, along w/ 2 horses, 25 sheep, 20 goats, 250 chix (in the summer), turkeys, geese, ducks & pigs. We make our own hay & just see the fertility increase every year. What we do NOT do it till our land!!!! That is what causes soil loss! We are grass farmers & we keep our land in pasture, that holds, deepens & enriches the soil. This is how the grass prairies were built.
And.... yes, we do keep our animals in a microcosm of how Nature designed them to live. They don't live in herds of thousands, wandering over thousands of acres. Their lives are smaller in every way. But, it is balanced. They do move over the pasture & are NEVER fed unnatural food that is grown thru unsustainable methods.
Posted by Linda DerBoggsian on 01/05/2009 @ 09:18PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I like how it said about reducing the amount of meat you eat, instead of just telling people to stop it. I'm vegetarian already, and I asked my family to do a meat free day each week, and they've agreed, so we're starting that as of next week. =]
Posted by M N on 01/06/2009 @ 06:56PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.