Veganism: I honestly don't understand it

[madurobob]

Pls tell me you were just yanking their chain.

To a very large extent, yes. But, I had a point to make in bringing up the argument. Chickens in the big poultry houses are treated pretty shamefully. But, they're "just chickens". If anyone treated dogs like that there would be a national outcry and people jailed. Just as other societies, we have our sacred cows (ahem, dogs).

 

[Drudgewire]

To a very large extent, yes. But, I had a point to make in bringing up the argument. Chickens in the big poultry houses are treated pretty shamefully. But, they're "just chickens". If anyone treated dogs like that there would be a national outcry and people jailed. Just as other societies, we have our sacred cows (ahem, dogs).

You make a valid point. I couldn't watch dogfighting, but have to admit cock fights are pretty cool.

 

[madurobob]

You make a valid point. I couldn't watch dogfighting, but have to admit cock fights are pretty cool.

Bingo - would Vick be considered the villain he is today if it had been cock fighting instead? The treatment of the animals is identical. But if it were cock fighting he might still be playing - with opposing fans waving rubber chickens as a friendly and funny taunt.

Hell, the mascot of the state university one state South of my home is a rooster bred specifically for fighting - and unabashedly identified as such.

 

[Drudgewire]

Hell, the mascot of the state university one state South of my home is a rooster bred specifically for fighting - and unabashedly identified as such.

If I'd stayed in Journalism rather than bolting for film school it would be my alma mater.

But seriously, even as a cat person I have to admit dogs have personality. Conversely chickens are stupid and thus hold no higher purpose in life than to be eaten.

 

[bigred]

To a very large extent, yes. But, I had a point to make in bringing up the argument. Chickens in the big poultry houses are treated pretty shamefully. But, they're "just chickens". If anyone treated dogs like that there would be a national outcry and people jailed. Just as other societies, we have our sacred cows (ahem, dogs).

ah got ya - whew

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I also have to wonder what the shoes, belts wallets etc vegans own are made out of.

The ones I know are very careful not to wear leather.

I'm a vegetarian, and I don't wear leather belts, and buy shoes made of "all man-made material" (i.e. plastic probably made from petroleum). My wallet is nylon.

I also doubt there is enough farmland to feed the entire world (even just to the point we do now) without supplementing with animal food.

You think?

A big bunch of farmland is devoted to growing grain that we use to feed animals. It's not a very efficient conversion process.

In fact I do respect it in a way, because going from omnivore to that is likely not easy, and I have to respect someone making a change in their life that is not easy for moral reasons, even if I disagree with them or think some of their reasonings have flaws. Just spare me the alleged superior morality of it .

I certainly don't hold myself out as morally superior. Nor was the switch to vegetarianism about 20 years ago any great sacrifice for me. I never did care much for steak. Most of the meat that I preferred to eat was processed so it didn't much resemble meat.

I bet that if our society DID decide killing animals for food was cruel and it was outlawed, cost of plant food would absolutely go through the roof, and more than a few vegetarians/vegans would be quite willing to go back to being omnivores if meat was cheap enough.

I'm still not sure that argument works.

We use fertilizer (if that's what you mean by "plant food"*) to grow grain and convert a lot of the grain into meat. MOST of the nutrition in the grain is burned up keeping the animal alive. If we suddenly switched to growing only human food crops, I don't think the price of fertilizer would increase much (if at all). It might even drop.

Oh--except cow manure for "organic" farming would become dear!

*I just realized you might be using "plant food" to mean the crops we grow to feed humans. Anyway--pretty much the same economics apply--except for that bit about manure.

 

[gumboot]

You think?

A big bunch of farmland is devoted to growing grain that we use to feed animals. It's not a very efficient conversion process.

According to the FAO about 4570 million tonnes of crop product are produced every year. Of that 635 million tonnes is used for animal feed - about 7%.

The overwhelming majority of fodder is hay or silage, and this is grown on pastureland which is generally chosen because it is unsuitable for raising grain.

As such it is incorrect to claim that the use of agricultural land for growing fodder has a negative impact on available crops for human consumption.

ETA. The FAO statistics do not include hay, so it would be correct to assume that much of the 635 million tonnes fed to livestock does not come from the 4570 million tonnes of crop product, thus reducing further the amount of agricultural product used to feed livestock.

ETA2: According to the EPA, for example, the USA produces over 150 million tons of hay a year which is a good chunk of that 635 million tonnes of feed given to livestock each year (hay is not exclusively fed to livestock but that is overwhelmingly its primary use).

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm surprised the percentage is that low. Does that count grain that is exported (both as human food and livestock feed)? Do you have a link to that info? (I just took a quick look at the FAO's website, but you could doubtless save me time if you've already got it.)

At any rate, the conversion rate for grain to beef is around 7 to 1 (7 pounds of grain to yield 1 pound of weight increase in the cow).

Here's some info on the impact of feeding the grain directly to humans rather than livestock:

"If all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million," David Pimentel, professor of ecology in Cornell University's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, reported at the July 24-26 meeting of the Canadian Society of Animal Science in Montreal. Or, if those grains were exported, it would boost the U.S. trade balance by $80 billion a year, Pimentel estimated.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/aug97/livestock.hrs.html

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I found much different figures on this page.

People consume a little less than half (48 percent) of the world’s grain directly—as steamed rice, bread, tortillas, or millet cakes, for instance.8 Roughly one third (35 percent) becomes livestock feed.9 And a growing share, 17 percent, is used to make ethanol and other fuels.10

It's got footnotes, but you have to pay for the article to see them.

These numbers are substantially different from the ones you found.

ETA: This database site agrees--shows figures ranging from around 35-37% (percentage of grain crop that is fed to livestock) over the last ten years.

 

[madurobob]

These numbers are substantially different from the ones you found.

ETA: This site agrees--shows figures ranging from around 35-37% (percentage of grain crop that is fed to livestock) over the last ten years.

I get different numbers everywhere I look. But, this beef propaganda site says

Globally, humans still directly consume nearly two-thirds of total cereal grain production, while beef cattle consume only 5 percent, according to the CAST 1999 Animal Agriculture and Global Food Supply Report

Given the source I'm inclined to believe the real proportion of grain fed to animals is at least 1/3. Some of this is for non-meat production, though.

 

[RandFan]

I've not been following the thread very closely of late so if my info is redundant I apologize.

As for feeding grain to cows vs feeding grain to humans, one thing many people don't understand is that most cows raised for beef consumption (dairy cows) are not fed pure grain.

Cows have evolved to do something that humans simply cannot do. They can convert fibrous grass, stalk, husk and silk and other non edible plant material into energy and muscle.

I grew up with cows and saw them graze every day. Much of a cows diet comes from grass grown on rocky and hilly terrain not suitable for farm crops. When they are fed grain they are fed silage. When humans eat grains such as corn or wheat they eat only a tiny fraction of the plants mass. When a cow eats silage it eats all of the plant. 100%.

Also, these cows provide milk all the while they are being raised before slaughter.


So, to summarize:

• Cows and other ruminants get much of their daily food from grazing land that is not suitable for raising plants.
• Cows and other ruminants get the rest of their daily food from silage, a fermented food product that is composed of 100% of the plant (above ground).
• Cows provide milk which is high in both calories and protien in addition to meat.

In your equations you need to account for the fact that ruminants can convert sizable quantities of otherwise non-edible food stuffs to dense nutrient rich food.

Yes, I agree that there are costs to the environment and other unforeseen costs but let's keep everything on the table.

 

[gumboot]

The figures I gave were for total cultivated agricultural product - so it wasn't just grain. This might explain part of the difference. Another rather glaring mistake I have made is that the agricultural production figures indicate raw production quantities whereas the feed consumption figures are "end product" - it is likely that more than 635 million tonnes of agricultural product is required to produce the 635 million tonnes of animal feed.

I think the real issue is places like the United States where a large percentage of agricultural land is set aside for the growing of maize which is primarily exported, and which 80% is used for livestock feed.

It's actually quite funny that many arguing against livestock claim that the first world is exploiting third world agricultural and using their plant agriculture to feed out livestock. In reality the exact opposite is true - first world plant agriculture is being exported to feed third world livestock.

I agree with the general sentiment that we eat too much meat, and that this is detrimental to our environment as well as our health. However I disagree with the conclusion that the way to solve this is to simply cease eating meat altogether. There is a lot of land that cannot be used for plant based agriculture, and as long as this land is relatively self supporting as livestock agriculture (in other words growing mostly their own feed via hay and silage) I see no reason to be against it.

More importantly, I agree that we consume too much dairy product, and unlike land used to raise livestock for slaughter, dairy farming is usually conducted on highly fertile land that might be productive as cropland. I'm not fully certain on this, as many crops require relatively dry climates and dairy farming is best based in areas with high rainfall.

Of course I am also aware that agricultural practices vary greatly from country to country, and the above principles are not necessarily true of all countries.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Some of this is for non-meat production, though.

I hadn't thought of that. Sure, at least some portion of that is for dairy farms.

The 5% figure they give is just what's fed for beef (though I would think that's the single biggest chunk of it)--not chickens, pigs, etc. (and not dairy animals).

 

[madurobob]

As for feeding grain to cows vs feeding grain to humans, one thing many people don't understand is that most cows raised for beef consumption (dairy cows) are not fed pure grain.

Cows have evolved to do something that humans simply cannot do. They can convert fibrous grass, stalk, husk and silk and other non edible plant material into energy and muscle.

You are mistaken. In most factory farms cattle are fed pure grain - mostly corn. This wreaks havoc on their health, but it packs on the pounds faster than anything else. They get so sick that high doses of antibiotics are necessary to keep them healthy until slaughter.

Cattle have indeed evolved to browse stuff we cannot eat. We've more or less ended that in our quest for efficiently producing meat.

I'll find you some linkies.

ETA: Wikipedia as a start:

In the United States, cattle in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are typically fed corn, soy and other types of feed that can include "by-product feedstuff". As a high-starch, high-energy food, corn decreases the time to fatten cattle and increases yield from dairy cattle.

And interesting stuff here from the Kentucky Corn Growers Assoc.

Corn for livestock feed is the largest market for U.S. grown corn, utilizing 55 to 60 percent of the crop annually

 

[gumboot]

In your equations you need to account for the fact that ruminants can convert sizable quantities of otherwise non-edible food stuffs to dense nutrient rich food.

One thing I'd be interested in looking at is what percentage of "grain" fed to animals is actually edible to humans. In some places only the byproducts of grain production are used for silage - for example in New Zealand grain is not really primarily grown for animal feed, but grain farmers will sell byproducts to livestock farmers for silage.

As such you might be getting a double up on statistics, giving the appearance that livestock are taking away more grain from humans than they in reality are.

It seems at least possible to me that a good chunk of that 1/3 fed to animals is actually an inedible byproduct of the 2/3 fed to humans.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The figures I gave were for total cultivated agricultural product - so it wasn't just grain. This might explain part of the difference. Another rather glaring mistake I have made is that the agricultural production figures indicate raw production quantities whereas the feed consumption figures are "end product" - it is likely that more than 635 million tonnes of agricultural product is required to produce the 635 million tonnes of animal feed.

That makes sense.

I think the real issue is places like the United States where a large percentage of agricultural land is set aside for the growing of maize which is primarily exported, and which 80% is used for livestock feed.

It's actually quite funny that many arguing against livestock claim that the first world is exploiting third world agricultural and using their plant agriculture to feed out livestock. In reality the exact opposite is true - first world plant agriculture is being exported to feed third world livestock.

I wasn't arguing that we're exploiting third world agriculture. I know the U.S. is pretty much the "bread basket" of the world. I just think the inefficiency of converting grain to meat is an argument against that practice. The need for quick-fattening feed lots, I think, is because of the very high demand for meat.

Apparently we're also exporting our appetite for meat with almost every single meal every day. I had no idea we exported that much grain for livestock feed. Any idea how that compares to the amount of wheat for human consumption we export?

I'm also not out to convert anyone to vegetarianism, but I do think meat-eaters should consider cutting down the quantity of meat.

I was also arguing against AWPrime's contention that poor people can't afford not to eat meat.

 

[gumboot]

In most factory farms cattle are fed pure grain - mostly corn.

Could this be an issue with the American system? The above is certainly not true of New Zealand where factory farm cattle do not exist.

In New Zealand livestock other than swine and poultry are almost exclusively fed on pasture and grass-based feed. In contrast in the United States only 5% of consumed beef is raised on pasture land.

There is ample evidence that pasture-raised food has much greater nutritional value, a reason New Zealand beef is so highly valued overseas. It is also less susceptible to diseases such as BSE. Pasture-raised meat is lower in fat, higher in omega 3 fatty acids, Vitamins E and A. Pasture raised animals are also healthy and don't require enormous amounts of antibiotics as you referred to.

If the US switched to pasture-based farming the average meat consumer would consume 18,000 less calories every year.

Thus the problem is not that we are are farming animals for food, but how we are farming them.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

One thing I'd be interested in looking at is what percentage of "grain" fed to animals is actually edible to humans.

That Cornell prof I quoted earlier says that in the U.S. it's enough to feed 800 million people. I have to assume he would take into account that silage and such isn't edible for humans.

On a side note, anyone ever heard that stuff about how corn (corn syrup, corn starch, corn sugar, etc.) is in almost everything? I remember an NPR program about it--I think the guest had a book on that topic.

 

[GreNME]

Could this be an issue with the American system?

Yes, I do believe it is. That's why I tend to try to support farmers who have more reasonable conditions (including better diets) for their cows.

I even found out about a local farm who not only pasture-feeds, but actually keeps the cows on a large pasture right up to the day they are brought in to be butchered. They do custom orders both large and small, and they deliver. I still can't believe more places like this aren't the norm here, especially in the state where I live (Texas).

 

[madurobob]

Could this be an issue with the American system? The above is certainly not true of New Zealand where factory farm cattle do not exist.

It sure could. As I understand it we invented the CAFO process and its fairly unique to the USA. I expect it will be exported more and more in the coming years. Its certainly be growing greatly in the US over the past few years.

I've heard that grass-fed is is safer, healthier, etc... but never read up on it as it didn't impact my stomach directly