Welcome to Gaia! ::

Suicidesoldier#1
Riviera de la Mancha
Suicidesoldier#1
Riviera de la Mancha
Suicidesoldier#1
wasabichan

Yeah ok, I see what you're getting at. Problem is - there's more than one reason to be vegetarian and most of them have their separate moral reasoning.
Anyway, egg hens, even from supposedly ecological or "animal friendly" farms lead shitty lives. I'm not going to disagree with you there. Unless you've got a line into some really tiny local producer eggs come at a steep price for the hen. That's why I avoid them most of the time. In the end I do value my own well-being over that of the hen, hence my occasional egg intake. Milk production on the other hand doesn't need to be the cow hell it sometimes is.

Wait - are you now saying meat takes less land and resources to produce than crops? Because that's just not the case.

This source has one of the lower estimates I've seen and they're still saying cutting meat out of the equation means better sustainability.


The issue rests in a number of things, though. Number one, most animals, like say chickens and cows, produce eggs and milk during their life time, and they also usually eat grass, say in the case of ranching, which means meat takes previously useless materials, like say grass or corn stalks, and turns them into other energy/protein packed materials.

Also, what's more easily digestible for humans. Plant cellulose is thicker and actually takes a lot more calories to burn, and you often times don't even get any calories from food like celery, after you calculate how much you get from it and how much it takes to digest it.


So food that's easily digestible by humans, in terms of calories, protein, vitamins etc. it takes a lot less food to get the same thing. Actually, cows are able to turn stuff like grass into protein with bacteria in their gut.

Unless we just learn to process grass with just a/artificial cow stomach, process the protein somehow, and somehow eat just that, it won't be as efficient for a human digestion system. In other words total calories aren't the same as total calories consumed. Even your source says that plant eaters have to eat a lot more, in terms of volume and mass, to get the same amount, which requires even more to compensate for the stuff you just burned, and you have to consider getting all your essential vitamins and nutrients, which almost invariably takes supplements from meat based products or massive quantities of food in the first place.

Your lack of understanding in just everything physically hurts me alittle.


Yes, because cows don't eat grass or corn feed more often than grain. xp

Everytime you post, I am only more and more convinced that the only real solution to deal with your lack of knowledge is to go all Superman on you; stick you in a space capsule where you sit and are forced to watch nothing but informational films and video about your new planet, and then make you some other world's problem.


lol

That's why YOU want to ban semi-automatic weapons and assault weapons even though you don't know what they are. xp

Like I said, some other world's problem.

Before you go though, I would like to have any and all tax dollars spent on your education returned to the tax payers of your respective state or country. Lord knows that was a wasted investment. I would have rather seen that go to an equitable conversion of KFC "Double Down" sandwiches.
wasabichan
AChocolateMouse

I am saying that there is nothing morally superior about being a vegetarian. It's not a problem I have with vegetarians; be vegetarian. I don't care. But don't pretend it's because it reduces cruelty because animals raised for eggs and dairy live bad lives.

Yeah ok, I see what you're getting at. Problem is - there's more than one reason to be vegetarian and most of them have their separate moral reasoning.
Anyway, egg hens, even from supposedly ecological or "animal friendly" farms lead shitty lives. I'm not going to disagree with you there. Unless you've got a line into some really tiny local producer eggs come at a steep price for the hen. That's why I avoid them most of the time. In the end I do value my own well-being over that of the hen, hence my occasional egg intake. Milk production on the other hand doesn't need to be the cow hell it sometimes is.
Quote:

The food value you throw away comes from your natural fertilizer. Studies that show that vegetables are more productive on a per-acre scale are looking at raw numbers from factory farmed meat VS factory farmed vegetables such as corn and soybean. These numbers come without the additional factors of the thousands of pounds of chemicals poured on the land two of every four years that are produced using fossil fuels and water fracking and are completely unsustainable. There are also studies that show using a 5-year crop rotation of grain, legume, vegetables, forage(IE grass) and ruminants (cows, sheep, goats, often in conjunction with chickens) produces the SAME amount of vegetable food by giving the land a break through growing forage and renewing it with amazing fertilizer provided by the animals.
But you now have a by-product of animals that you HAVE to take into account. 1/5th of a farmer's land will go to these animals at all times making them grow, breed and eventually die.
Now if you make these animals dairy cows/goats, egg chickens and wool sheep then you have a vegetarian lifestyle that could be potentially supported.
But you also have the food value of the animals themselves. All the animals die eventually anyhow. If you are a responsible omnivore, part of your food is a small portion of meat that comes from these animals when they get older and stop being very productive. This food is high in value, lots of vitamins and calories.
If you DON'T eat meat then you need to make up these calories and proteins other ways. A plate of food that is all vegetarian needs a lot more on it to sustain a human than a plate with even a few ounces of beef. Just look at how many calories 5oz of beef has and try to figure that in lbs of carrots. It's MASSIVE. Which means that if a society wants to take on the most sustainable way of growing we know of WITHOUT eating meat you must grow a lot MORE vegetables/grains to make up the difference. Which means clearing even more land and depriving wild animals of natural resources to maintain the same population. This gets way worse with a vegan-only mindset when you don't even get the food value of eggs and dairy.

Now if 1/8th(ish because ratios aren't exact here depending on what animals are grown some would give better meat ratios) of your food comes from meat then that means 1/8th less space needs to be dedicated to growing your food. And when we're talking large numbers of people that makes a big difference.

Now I'm not saying that someday we might not be able to magically manufacture vegetables freely in a lab and veggie farming will get SO efficient it outstrips even the need for conventional farming. But until we no longer need to fertilize the ground, the most natural and lowest-impact way to do that is by raising meat animals too. :3 And by eating those animals we reduce the amount of total space we need to dedicate to food, thereby allowing forests and natural landscapes to come back.

Wait - are you now saying meat takes less land and resources to produce than crops? Because that's just not the case.

This source has one of the lower estimates I've seen and they're still saying cutting meat out of the equation means better sustainability.


Gosh no! Re-read what I wrote!

Actually that is the exact type of study I was referring to as being biased and wrong because their facts are off. Here;

http://blog.ucsusa.org/crop-rotation-generates-profits-without-pollution-or-what-agribusiness-doesnt-want-you-to-know/
Scientific study the above link references; (http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0047149)
http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPC/doc/integration/papers/integration_benefits.htm

This is what I am talking about. These are independent studies being done to try to reduce problems with current agriculture.

Current agriculture uses a four-year rotation. Corn-Soybean-Pesticides-Fertilizer. The pesticides and fertilizers are made using lots of fossil fuels and are heavy in chemicals that are unsustainable. This two-crop-two-chemical rotation causes soil degradation and erosion, meaning they need to pour in even MORE chemicals to fix it. THIS is the type of farming where those "uses less water etc" studies are coming from. Plant growing still uses less water in a 5-year rotation, but the important aspect of it is that the livestock is NEEDED for the fertilizer, and the forage crops that renew the land aren't able to be consumed by humans (as in clover or alfalfa) and are best suited to feeding livestock.
These are crop-rotations that use cattle or cattle manure as a fertilizer. One of the studies references that they use manure in a 4-year cycle, which means you could probably just add cows as a year in the cycle making it a 5-year cycle instead of shipping in manure.

And plants need their nutrients from SOMETHING. And cow, goat, sheep and chicken manure leaves behind LOTS of nutrients. Have you ever tried growing a plant in a pot with just water and sunlight, no mulch, compost, fertilizers, anything? A select few plants CAN grow like this, but not well and not veggies or grains... And certainly not to the degree we need them to. This is why my mom always keeps around a 2 liter of coca-cola to add to her water for her indoor plants. She has the biggest, healthiest most vibrant plants I have ever seen in a pot and they are all tropical (we live in Ohio) and hard to maintain. Some are a good 40 years old. She has palm trees growing in her dining room that have been cut down and re-rooted when they got too tall not once, but twice and are still alive. You can't do that without an intense form of plant food.

So to maximize production in a smaller space we can add chemicals or animals. Obviously chemicals are produces almost exclusively from fossil fuels and are unsustainable so we have to add animals. (At least until a third option comes around.)

So if you have a farm that is maximizing it's production it has animals as a by-product. If we eat the meat these animals produce, we reduce our need to intake vegetables which means the amount of land needed to GROW vegetables goes down. If a farm produces 1/8th of it's total product in animal meat as a byproduct of growing veggies and we eat it we use all the calories a farm can produce in a single space. And whether we eat the meat or not, the animals will die in the end because all life ends and something must be done with the carcasses.

But if we refuse to eat the meat then more space is needed to grow an additional 1/8th of our diet out of vegetables. A farm that can provide for 600 people on 80 acres with an omnivore diet needs to be 90 acres to provide for a vegetarian one. And if we go vegan and refuse to eat anything non-veggie that number goes up even more.

And this isn't even taking into account other natural by-products that can reduce fossil fuel use like leather hides, furs and wools that will reduce our need for synthetic fabrics and cotton fields.

So what I am saying is that if we use animals as an important form of fertilizer to get maximum-yields from a smaller space we should also eat those animals so be don't need even MORE space for even MORE plants and the animals to support it.

So if I get 500 calories a day from the meat that is a byproduct of growing veggies, then that's 500 calories of veggies a day that don't need to be grown.

Does that now make sense?
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Riviera de la Mancha
Suicidesoldier#1
Riviera de la Mancha
Suicidesoldier#1
Riviera de la Mancha

Your lack of understanding in just everything physically hurts me alittle.


Yes, because cows don't eat grass or corn feed more often than grain. xp

Everytime you post, I am only more and more convinced that the only real solution to deal with your lack of knowledge is to go all Superman on you; stick you in a space capsule where you sit and are forced to watch nothing but informational films and video about your new planet, and then make you some other world's problem.


lol

That's why YOU want to ban semi-automatic weapons and assault weapons even though you don't know what they are. xp

Like I said, some other world's problem.

Before you go though, I would like to have any and all tax dollars spent on your education returned to the tax payers of your respective state or country. Lord knows that was a wasted investment. I would have rather seen that go to an equitable conversion of KFC "Double Down" sandwiches.


That's pretty cruel; I mean, even I wouldn't want to make some other planet have me as a problem.

I wouldn't wish myself on anyone.


You're a heartless monster.

You should be ashamed.
Aporeia's avatar

Obsessive Sage

Keltoi Samurai
frozen_water
Keltoi Samurai
kitti kat
yay, responsible meat eating! blaugh

I think people should eat more rabbit 3nodding


except that's a genuinely bad idea.
How so?


rabbit starvation.

it lacks . . . something, that the human body needs, so it has to be supplemented by other meats.
Rabbit starvation happens when you eat rabbit and nothing else, usually attributed to hiking. It's because it's high protein, but lacks fat, which you need when you're hiking.

But just eating a lot of rabbit isn't going to make you sick. We get enough fat in our diets without meat to begin with.
Keltoi Samurai's avatar

Benevolent Dog

16,050 Points
  • Citizen 200
  • Voter 100
  • Mark Twain 100
Riviera de la Mancha
Suicidesoldier#1
Riviera de la Mancha
Suicidesoldier#1
Riviera de la Mancha

Your lack of understanding in just everything physically hurts me alittle.


Yes, because cows don't eat grass or corn feed more often than grain. xp

Everytime you post, I am only more and more convinced that the only real solution to deal with your lack of knowledge is to go all Superman on you; stick you in a space capsule where you sit and are forced to watch nothing but informational films and video about your new planet, and then make you some other world's problem.


lol

That's why YOU want to ban semi-automatic weapons and assault weapons even though you don't know what they are. xp

Like I said, some other world's problem.

Before you go though, I would like to have any and all tax dollars spent on your education returned to the tax payers of your respective state or country. Lord knows that was a wasted investment. I would have rather seen that go to an equitable conversion of KFC "Double Down" sandwiches.


the more you type, the more I'm left to wonder how you do so with a straight face.

ahh, well. Trollololol, yeah?
FlySammyJ's avatar

Liberal Dabbler

False Dichotomy
Keltoi Samurai
frozen_water
Keltoi Samurai
kitti kat
yay, responsible meat eating! blaugh

I think people should eat more rabbit 3nodding


except that's a genuinely bad idea.
How so?


rabbit starvation.

it lacks . . . something, that the human body needs, so it has to be supplemented by other meats.
Rabbit starvation happens when you eat rabbit and nothing else, usually attributed to hiking. It's because it's high protein, but lacks fat, which you need when you're hiking.

But just eating a lot of rabbit isn't going to make you sick. We get enough fat in our diets without meat to begin with.


Thanks for staying with the discussion past the first page.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Keltoi Samurai
Riviera de la Mancha
Suicidesoldier#1
Riviera de la Mancha
Suicidesoldier#1
Riviera de la Mancha

Your lack of understanding in just everything physically hurts me alittle.


Yes, because cows don't eat grass or corn feed more often than grain. xp

Everytime you post, I am only more and more convinced that the only real solution to deal with your lack of knowledge is to go all Superman on you; stick you in a space capsule where you sit and are forced to watch nothing but informational films and video about your new planet, and then make you some other world's problem.


lol

That's why YOU want to ban semi-automatic weapons and assault weapons even though you don't know what they are. xp

Like I said, some other world's problem.

Before you go though, I would like to have any and all tax dollars spent on your education returned to the tax payers of your respective state or country. Lord knows that was a wasted investment. I would have rather seen that go to an equitable conversion of KFC "Double Down" sandwiches.


the more you type, the more I'm left to wonder how you do so with a straight face.

ahh, well. Trollololol, yeah?


He wants to think he's smart.

It's highly unfortunate though D:
kitti kat's avatar

Greedy Giver

FlySammyJ
False Dichotomy
Keltoi Samurai
frozen_water
Keltoi Samurai
kitti kat
yay, responsible meat eating! blaugh

I think people should eat more rabbit 3nodding


except that's a genuinely bad idea.
How so?


rabbit starvation.

it lacks . . . something, that the human body needs, so it has to be supplemented by other meats.
Rabbit starvation happens when you eat rabbit and nothing else, usually attributed to hiking. It's because it's high protein, but lacks fat, which you need when you're hiking.

But just eating a lot of rabbit isn't going to make you sick. We get enough fat in our diets without meat to begin with.


Thanks for staying with the discussion past the first page.
hey now, it got boring after that. (you can tell by my absence, obviously mrgreen )
Suicidesoldier#1
Riviera de la Mancha


Hey hey. Both of you chill out. Respectful discussion only please, no name calling. It's on the first page.

You're allowed to disagree with each other but this is a little far and has no basis in the topic. If you need to get all pissy at each other that's what PMs are for, please. This is not a place to hash out personal disagreements.
frozen_water's avatar

Aged Gaian

11,400 Points
  • 50 Wins 150
  • Crack Shot 50
  • Forum Regular 100
AChocolateMouse
I'm done discussing this with you.

I did not miss whole points, I read every bit of your rant, I pulled out the main points and addressed them, just because something wasn't quoted doesn't mean it wasn't taken into account, but it would have been impossible to hold a coherent discussion leaving in that wall of text you continually produce, you'd be served well by learning to be concise.

You keep acting as if you've proven points you've in no way proven, (your personal experiences and unsubstantiated theories as to how scenarios would play out do not constitute proof) and seem to be under the impression that just because you don't personally agree with an opinion an opposing one holds no merit.

You also don't understand the terms being discussed, you certainly don't understand what Utilitarianism is, nor do you understand what circular reasoning is. There is nothing to be gained for either one of us as you clearly have no intention of actually addressing the points I bring up (as you have failed to do so thus far, you just produce a massive text wall that repeats the same points you made previously without actually responding to the points I was nice enough to pull out in a clear and concise way) and sorting through your posts has become more of a hassle than it's worth.

If you'd like an actual discussion you need to actually listen to others ideas and address them instead of attempting to smother them with your own bias.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

AChocolateMouse
Suicidesoldier#1
Riviera de la Mancha


Hey hey. Both of you chill out. Respectful discussion only please, no name calling. It's on the first page.

You're allowed to disagree with each other but this is a little far and has no basis in the topic. If you need to get all pissy at each other that's what PMs are for, please. This is not a place to hash out personal disagreements.


He's the one who got all crazy and attacked me D:

I'm trying to be nice about it. xp


Why he would attack me in a food thread, idk.

Probs because he still can't refute my argument; just don't worry about it, a lot of ED'ers are just crazy.
Suicidesoldier#1
Brothern
AChocolateMouse
Quote:
We haven't always raised animals to eat, we don't need to do so to survive.
We have in fact raised animals to eat for thousands of years already. 3000-4000 if memory serves. And we didn't do it more because natural resources such as hunting and gathering could sustain our population. That's no longer true.

... and in the next 100 years we're going to face an even larger food scarcity problem. We're straining resources on nitrogen (for fertilizer), potable water and water tables and arable land. I don't doubt that we're going to be able to figure out a solution, but it's going to cause quite a bit of long term food price inflation.


We're not going to run out of nitrogen.

That's just crazy!


We have so much nitrogen our bodies and even plants waste it all the time!

We practically are oozing out nitrogen with every breath!

I'm talking about nitrogen compounds used for fertilizers. We cannot use elemental nitrogen as a fertilizer.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Brothern
Suicidesoldier#1
Brothern
AChocolateMouse
Quote:
We haven't always raised animals to eat, we don't need to do so to survive.
We have in fact raised animals to eat for thousands of years already. 3000-4000 if memory serves. And we didn't do it more because natural resources such as hunting and gathering could sustain our population. That's no longer true.

... and in the next 100 years we're going to face an even larger food scarcity problem. We're straining resources on nitrogen (for fertilizer), potable water and water tables and arable land. I don't doubt that we're going to be able to figure out a solution, but it's going to cause quite a bit of long term food price inflation.


We're not going to run out of nitrogen.

That's just crazy!


We have so much nitrogen our bodies and even plants waste it all the time!

We practically are oozing out nitrogen with every breath!

I'm talking about nitrogen compounds used for fertilizers. We cannot use elemental nitrogen as a fertilizer.


Don't we already. confused

Bazinga. ninja


In all seriousness ammonium nitrate is made from ammonia and nitric acid, of which ammonia is created via hydrogen reacting with atmospheric nitrogen and nitric acid made via nitrogen dioxide reacting with water; nitrogen dioxide is made with an in air reaction etc.

Unless we literally run out of hydrogen, nitrogen in the air, and oxygen in the air, we won't actually run out of ammonium nitrate, which is a staple in farming. In other words it would take millions of years, easily millions, and considering sulfur and potassium nitrate can make nitric acid etc., and ammonia is really easy to make, by the time we do run out we'll have colonized other planets and earth sized moons, probably whole solar systems. That's assuming it doesn't recycle itself.


If anything, we need to worry about how many nitrates we're putting into the wild.

Algae blooms can kill local wild life by becoming the dominate species and sucking up all the nutrients. If it wasn't for the initial spike they couldn't grow so rapidly so it's an upset of the natural balance. Run off is more important than conserving what we have, at the moment. xp

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games