• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Animal Cruelty - Why should we care?

I'm already biased in the general direction but the vegan arguments being put forward in this thread are increasingly swaying me - even those made by certain people in the most dickish way possible.

That being said, I still bought a small tub of sour cream a few minutes ago :o
 
Last edited:
Related reading:

Eating Less Meat and Dairy Essential to Curb Climate Change

You probably know most vegetarians than you're used to. You may even know some vegans—people who eat no animal products, including eggs, butter, milk and cheese. But did you know that their dietary habits may be essential to save the planet? A new research paper from UK think tank Chatham House, Livestock—Climate Change’s Forgotten Sector, explains why it may be necessary for a lot more people to go vegetarian or at least dial down their consumption of meat and dairy products, and how to get them to do that.
 
That is a perfect example of the deception I have been ranting against. Simply stated, The article is spot on regarding the factory farming of animals, but the article makes broad statements without considering the production method.[1] Because of the inprecise way they made their argument, the conclusion "essential to save the planet" is categorically false. Shall I break it down for you so you understand? Or are you good with it regardless of the quality of the article?

There really is only a minor change needed to make the article good.....

Eating Less Meat and Dairy Essential to Curb Climate Change
FTFY
Eating Less no CAFO Meat and Dairy Essential to Curb Climate Change
 
Last edited:
That is a perfect example of the deception I have been ranting against. Simply stated, The article is spot on regarding the factory farming of animals, but the article makes broad statements without considering the production method.[1] Because of the inprecise way they made their argument, the conclusion "essential to save the planet" is categorically false. Shall I break it down for you so you understand? Or are you good with it regardless of the quality of the article?

There really is only a minor change needed to make the article good.....

I would suggest bypassing the article and reading the report it references. In retrospect, I should have gone straight to the source:

http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/f...tWellesley.pdf?dm_i=1TY5,30JL0,BHZILT,AUGSP,1

Note that the phrase "save the planet" is not used in the Chatham House source :)

ETA:

Eating Less Meat and Dairy Essential to Curb Climate Change
FTFY
Eating Less no CAFO Meat and Dairy Essential to Curb Climate Change

That's not an argument being presented by the source report. Indeed, one of the major drivers identified is deforestation for livestock which really has nothing to do with CAFO methods.
 
Last edited:
I would suggest bypassing the article and reading the report it references. In retrospect, I should have gone straight to the source:

http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/f...tWellesley.pdf?dm_i=1TY5,30JL0,BHZILT,AUGSP,1

Note that the phrase "save the planet" is not used in the Chatham House source :)

I have seen the report before. Please point out the calculation in the report of the quantity of greenhouse gases sequestered in the soil depending on production method. Also please point out the net gain or loss of greenhouse gases when that calculation is added to the system. I don't remember that calculation being there. A brief rereading of the article and I still don't see it.

ETA Please note that the source I provided did do that calculation and the result was that for the grazing system there was a net decrease in greenhouse gasses making the system a sink, not an emissions source.
A positive value of NCS and Att-NCS denotes a sink activity of the grassland ecosystem.[1]


ETA: That's not an argument being presented by the source report. Indeed, one of the major drivers identified is deforestation for livestock which really has nothing to do with CAFO methods.
Not true. First of all the wood is harvested for lumber. Then Soy and corn is grown until the soil gets so deteriorated that it is no longer fertile enough to grow those crops (which supply CAFOs) profitably. The last thing that happens is conversion to pasture to regenerate the soils. Once the soil is stabilized and fertile, it is actually generally possible to replant the forest. The most destructive part of that rotation, even more destructive than the initial clear cut and burn for the timber, is the growing of corn and soy for CAFOs.
 
Last edited:
I have seen the report before.

In the last four days since it was released? Impressive...

Please point out the calculation in the report of the quantity of greenhouse gases sequestered in the soil depending on production method. Also please point out the net gain or loss of greenhouse gases when that calculation is added to the system. I don't remember that calculation being there. A brief rereading of the article and I still don't see it.

ETA Please note that the source I provided did do that calculation and the result was that for the grazing system there was a net decrease in greenhouse gasses making the system a sink, not an emissions source.

Clearly you didn't read it in detail - Chatham House 2014, pp. 12

For example, one recent assessment of mitigation opportunities in agriculture estimated that shifting dietary trends so that average worldwide per capita meat consumption falls to 90g per day, as recommended in the Harvard healthy diet, could avoid 2.15Gt CO 2 e of emissions per year by 2030. 38 This is considerably more than the estimated reductions available from supply-side mitigation of enteric fermentation, management of grazing soils, and manure storage combined. A study published in the journal Nature Climate Change estimated 5.6 Gt CO 2 e of emissions savings per year by 2050 from reducing meat and dairy consumption to levels consistent with nutritional recommendations, compared with 4Gt CO 2 e per year from ‘sustainable intensification’ of the entire agriculture sector (where global yields converge on maximum levels). 3


Not true. First of all the wood is harvested for lumber. Then Soy and corn is grown until the soil gets so deteriorated that it is no longer fertile enough to grow those crops (which supply CAFOs) profitably. The last thing that happens is conversion to pasture to regenerate the soils. Once the soil is stabilized and fertile, it is actually generally possible to replant the forest. The most destructive part of that rotation, even more destructive than the initial clear cut and burn for the timber, is the growing of corn and soy for CAFOs.

That's quite literally insane and at odds with all the evidence.
 
Clearly you didn't read it in detail - Chatham House 2014, pp. 12
Still don't see it. Keep in mind "supply-side mitigation" means reduction in emissions and has nothing to do with sequestration in a sink such as the soil.






That's quite literally insane and at odds with all the evidence.
Insane? Yes I would agree. What makes it more insane is a significant % of that grain in the case of south America, goes to China to supply their CAFOs. Some comes from US as well. Some also goes to biofuel production. Critically though, it's largely not even used to feed South Americans directly or indirectly, since the majority of their production is still grassfed.

This piece aired November 13, 2012 on the NewsHour on PBS, it should explain the insanity.



China now imports 70% of of it soy and increasing amounts of its corn from the United States, Brazil, and Argentina
 
Last edited:
Insane? Yes I would agree. What makes it more insane is a significant % of that grain in the case of south America, goes to China to supply their CAFOs.

The 'insane' bit refers to the notion that running cattle on cleared land is regenerative and that somehow forest are being replanted and will offset the damage done to clearing them in the first place.

Still don't see it.

From the report:

Furthermore, while extensive livestock production systems can provide a means of sequestering carbon in certain contexts,55 the likely impact of the increasing intensification of production is to restrict the availability of land for carbon sequestration activities, such as reforestation and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), that are central to emissions reduction objectives in agriculture and forestry
 
The 'insane' bit refers to the notion that running cattle on cleared land is regenerative and that somehow forest are being replanted and will offset the damage done to clearing them in the first place.
OK Regenerative.......[1] That should cover that. As far as the second part....I said regenerate the soil that was depleted by corn and soy production. Remember forest soils are generally much shallower and much more easily depleted than grassland soils. What might take 50-100 years to deplete in a prairie soil, can be destroyed by farming in a decade or less many times in a forest soil. Amazon soils are notorious for this, sometimes depleting in a year or two, with the exception of the artificially created terra preta. Once depleted you cant replant the forest. It has to start the successional progression all over from scratch. Establishing a grazer/grassland ecosystem first can speed that process along dramatically.

Now if the timber were to be harvested and replanted right away instead of used to grow soy and corn for inhumane CAFOs in China, then sure, that would be better. But once you destroyed the fertility of the soil with corn and soy production, the best way to restore it in most cases is establishing lower successional species like grasses.



From the report:
Furthermore, while extensive livestock production systems can provide a means of sequestering carbon in certain contexts,55 the likely impact of the increasing intensification of production is to restrict the availability of land for carbon sequestration activities, such as reforestation and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), that are central to emissions reduction objectives in agriculture and forestry
Do you have any idea what that means? I don't want to treat you in a condescending way. So please, quite seriously, don't take this as an attack. But that paragraph does tend to back up my claims and I seriously doubt you are understanding what it says. I can reword it for you in more layman's terms if you wish? Or you can read it again? Give you a hint:
extensive livestock production systems can provide a means of sequestering carbon in certain contexts
That was my claim.[2]

but

increasing intensification of production is to restrict the availability of land

In other words we could do it, but the CAFO business model is taking all the land.

Keep in mind though I am advocating the elimination of the factory farming business model, that would mean instead of the inhumane CAFOs stealing all the land and causing all sorts of environmental damage, including AGW, Instead we could heal the land by turning it to pasture.

So what is ethical for the animals is also beneficial to the environment.:D
 
Last edited:
So what is ethical for the animals...

Oddly, you haven't explained this at all, despite the topic of the thread.

As for the Holistic Management redux, let us remember:

6. Can Grazing Livestock Increase Carbon Storage and Reverse Climate Change?

Over 3 billion hectares of lands worldwide are grazed by livestock, with a majority suffering degradation in ecological condition. Losses in plant productivity, biodiversity of plant and animal communities, and carbon storage are occurring as a result of livestock grazing. Holistic management (HM) has been proposed as a means of restoring degraded deserts and grasslands and reversing climate change. The fundamental approach of this system is based on frequently rotating livestock herds to mimic native ungulates reacting to predators in order to break up biological soil crusts and trample plants and soils to promote restoration. This review could find no peer-reviewed studies that show that this management approach is superior to conventional grazing systems in outcomes. Any claims of success due to HM are likely due to the management aspects of goal setting, monitoring, and adapting to meet goals, not the ecological principles embodied in HM. Ecologically, the application of HM principles of trampling and intensive foraging are as detrimental to plants, soils, water storage, and plant productivity as are conventional grazing systems. Contrary to claims made that HM will reverse climate change, the scientific evidence is that global greenhouse gas emissions are vastly larger than the capacity of worldwide grasslands and deserts to store the carbon emitted each year.

...

Among the most recent HM claims is that livestock grazing will lead to sequestration of large amounts of carbon, thus potentially reversing climate change [2]. However, any increased carbon storage through livestock grazing must be weighed against the contribution of livestock metabolism to greenhouse gas emissions due to rumen bacteria methane emissions, manure, and fossil fuel use across the production chain [85, 86]. Nitrous oxide, 300 times more potent than methane in trapping greenhouse gases [87], is also produced and released with livestock production. The livestock industry’s contribution to greenhouse gases also includes CO2 released by conversion of forests to grasslands for the purpose of grazing [86].

Worldwide, livestock production accounts for about 37 percent of global anthropogenic methane emissions and 65 percent of anthropogenic nitrous oxide emissions with as much as 18% of current global greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 equivalent) generated from the livestock industry [85]. It is estimated that livestock production, byproducts, and other externalities account for 29.5 billion metric tons of CO2 per year or 51 percent of annual worldwide greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture [88]. Lower amounts of greenhouse gas emissions due to livestock may be estimated by using narrower definitions of livestock-related emissions that include feed based emissions only and exclude externalities [89].

Some suggest that grass-fed beef is a superior alternative to beef produced in confined animal feeding operations [90]. However, grass provides less caloric energy per pound of feed than grain and, as a consequence, a grass-fed cow’s rumen bacteria must work longer breaking down and digesting grass in order to extract the same energy content found in grain, while the bacteria in its rumen are emitting methane [89]. Comparisons of pasture-finished and feedlot-finished beef in the USA found that pasture-finished beef produced 30% more greenhouse gas emissions on a live weight basis [91].

It is estimated that three times as much carbon resides in soil organic matter as in the atmosphere [92], while grasslands and shrublands have been estimated to store 30 percent of the world’s soil carbon with additional amounts stored in the associated vegetation [93]. Long term intensive agriculture can significantly deplete soil organic carbon [94] and past livestock grazing in the United States has led to such losses [95, 96]. Livestock grazing was also found to significantly reduce carbon storage on Australian grazed lands while destocking currently grazed shrublands resulted in net carbon storage [97]. Livestock-grazed sites in Canyonlands National Park, Utah, had 20% less plant cover and 100% less soil carbon and nitrogen than areas grazed only by native herbivores [98]. Declines in soil carbon and nitrogen were found in grazed areas compared to ungrazed areas in sage steppe habitats in northeastern Utah [84]. As grazing intensity increased, mycorrhizal fungi at the litter/soil interface were destroyed by trampling, while ground cover, plant litter, and soil organic carbon and nitrogen decreased [84]. A review by Beschta et al. [20] determined that livestock grazing and trampling in the western USA led to a reduction in the ability of vegetation and soils to sequester carbon and also led to losses in stored carbon.

Conclusion. Livestock are a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. Livestock removal of plant biomass and altering of soil properties by trampling and erosion causes loss of carbon storage and nutrients as evidenced by studies in grazed and ungrazed areas.

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijbd/2014/163431/

Again, this is an example of cherry picking one element of a system (carbon sequestration) and claiming victory.
 
Last edited:
Again, this is an example of cherry picking one element of a system (carbon sequestration) and claiming victory.
Sorry, posting junk science that was already falsified before it was even published doesn't cut it. Nor am I cherry picking. bit_pattern chose the topic of carbon sequestration, not me. I simply am addressing the issue he brought up. And in this particular case we are not talking about Savory's plan to regenerate desertified land, we are talking about eliminating the corn and soy fields that supply CAFOs and repurposing them to pasture instead. post#139 ETA and when possible and appropriate, reforesting.
 
Last edited:
So nothing about the ethical animal treatment then?

Sorry, posting junk science that was already falsified before it was even published doesn't cut it.

I loled. You forgot to call it unethical vegan CAFO science.

Nor am I cherry picking. bit_pattern chose the topic of carbon sequestration, not me. I simply am addressing the issue he brought up.

You do realise I can read the thread and see who wrote what, right?

You said:
Simply stated, The article is spot on regarding the factory farming of animals, but the article makes broad statements without considering the production method.[1]

And in this particular case we are not talking about Savory's plan to regenerate desertified land,

And who was talking about that? Me? Nope. Read my post again. I quoted about carbon sequestration, that thing you brought up.
 
I loled. You forgot to call it unethical vegan CAFO science.
I didn't forget. It isn't meat industry junk science. Sorry to inform you, but the meat industry is not the only purveyor of junk science.;)

And who was talking about that? Me? Nope. Read my post again. I quoted about carbon sequestration, that thing you brought up.
The junk science you posted was a lame attempt to hypothesize Savory's plan to regenerate desertified land can't work. But since it already is working, it is falsified already. Either way it has nothing to do with converting unsustainable corn and soy fields into pasture. That is a different subject and the evidence I posted is this: [1] and this [2] I have not posted Savory's plan here.
 
Last edited:
More on "happy meat":

For example, when someone buys eggs labeled “cage-free” or “free-range,” although they likely came from hens who aren’t in battery cages, these birds nevertheless are still overcrowded in miserable, windowless warehouses where the stench of ammonia is overwhelming. They are still painfully debeaked, brutally handled, and they still go to a terrifying slaughter at a young age. It is not cost effective for any egg operation to hatch their own chicks, so the babies still come from the harsh and heartless hatcheries where all male chicks are cruelly killed by the millions soon after hatching, as they are considered a waste product of the egg industry.

When someone buys dairy products with an “organic” or “humane” label, the cows were perhaps able to go outside for some of their life, but they were still artificially inseminated, kept pregnant their entire short lives, and were milked well beyond what was ever intended for their bodies naturally. Their calves were still taken away soon after birth, never to nuzzle their mothers or drink from their udders, or to frolic in a field. If the calves born to dairy cows are male, they are worthless to the dairy industry, and are sold at auction to be killed for veal, or perhaps for meat. If the operation is organic, sick and diseased cows languish untreated so the milk is not “tainted” with needed medications.

Animals raised for meat with a feel-good label have a similar story, frequently subjected to overcrowding and painful bodily mutilations: debeaking, tail cutting, ear notching, tooth filing or clipping, castration, and de-horning, all without pain medications. And they are all sent to a sickening slaughter in the very beginning of their lives.

No matter the label, no matter the scale, commercially “farming” an animal for her meat, milk or eggs is factory farming. If an animal is hatched into this world in a sterile metal drawer without the comfort of her mother and a soft nest – that is factory farming. If a calf is ripped from his mother at birth, and is kept separate from her and other cows, alone and frightened, chained and unloved – that is factory farming. If an animal has her beak burned off, her tail cut off, his genitals ripped out – that is factory farming. If an animal is hung upside down with his throat slit open – that is factory farming.

Indeed, I would encourage the animal activist community not to use the term “factory farming” anymore because it implies that there is some “humane” farming alterative somewhere that counters the large-scale, industrial operations. By using the term “factory farming” animal activists have inadvertently contributed to a demand for “alternative” animal products. This is what we have been hearing in the shifting rhetoric of apologists for the animal agricultural industry when they say “I only buy…”

There are inherent cruelties in any kind of animal agriculture that cannot be eliminated with feel-good labels or descriptions of joyful animals who are supposedly happy till that “one bad day.” It is an industry-wide lie. Small or large-scale, the animals are never happy to be killed. There is no such thing as “happy meat.”

Linky.
 
I didn't forget. It isn't meat industry junk science. Sorry to inform you, but the meat industry is not the only purveyor of junk science.;)

Again, tossing out labels isn't convincing or discussion of anything.

The junk science you posted was a lame attempt to hypothesize Savory's plan to regenerate desertified land can't work.

I'm not sure you even read it now.

But since it already is working, it is falsified already.

You get a

:dl:

for that.
 
Deleted rant against rude and off topic post.

Really?

Honestly? I didn't reply to you because your radical veganism the last time we discussed an issue was both a put off and made me believe you just are not capable of understanding any information on the issue after it is filtered by your bias.

Possibly I was wrong. I suppose I can send you some information and hope you do have the capability to interpret it. Here is something very simple. Lets see?

I left it up to you to interpret the evidence, to see if you were capable of such a feat.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom