Veganism: I honestly don't understand it

[GreNME]

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.

Oh my goodness yes. Corn and soy, and I absolutely hate it. There really is something to the complaints out there about corn farming and their amazingly strong yet very little-known stranglehold on the American diet. Did the NPR bit you heard also mention how the corn industry after WWII basically took the chemicals from numerous munitions dumps (nitrates and phosphates) for fertilizer? It's really bizarre how corn has become so ubiquitous here in the States.

 

[RandFan]

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

Me mistaken? Moi? Nah.

I grew up on farm accross from a dairy farm. That doesn't make me an expert but I'm willing to take what I know against wiki any day.


One word: Grade.

• Prime
• Choice
• Select
• Standard
• Commercial
• Utility
• Cutter

Prime is raised only for its meat to be consumed. Prime isn't alowed to graze much if at all as grazing builds tendons and other fibrous tissue. Cows that are raised for prime grade are fed mostly or only pure grain. Prime is sold in fine restaurants and through butchers, upscale grocery stores, distributors and wholesalers.

Choice is raised with less care. Allowed some graizing and some silage. Choice is sold along with select at grocery stores.

Most beef sold for consumption is not Prime and Choice combined.

All the rest of the grades are mostly dairy cows and comprise most of the beef used for cold cuts, hot dogs, hamburgers and everything else. No one is using corn fed beef for hamburger unless it is Kolby Beef or some other high end burger.

I'll stand by my statement.

 

[RandFan]

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.

I'd like to see something that has been peer reviewed.

 

[gumboot]

Any idea how that compares to the amount of wheat for human consumption we export?

Not sure but this table provides statistics on global wheat use which might provide a guide.

Total consumption is 549 million tonnes, of which 91.56 million tonnes is used for livestock (about 16%).

The figures appear to vary quite considerably from nation to nation - Australia uses almost half of consumed wheat for livestock feed while North Africa uses just over half a percent.

 

[gumboot]

That makes sense.

Actually my mistake is even more glaring, more obvious, and more shameful than I first realised. I must admit I am surprised no one has called me on it.

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%.

635 is not 7% of 4570. It's closer to 14%. I can't believe I calculated something so stupid. Grains amount to less than 50% of all agricultural plant production, so this would actually fit in pretty neatly with the 1/3 figure assuming that mainly grain product was used for animal feed and not other products like root vegetables or fruit.

 

[madurobob]

Me mistaken? Moi? Nah.

I grew up on farm accross from a dairy farm.

Me too! I continue to live across from a dairy farm today.

I think we are making different points. You are saying that most of the beef sold in the US is grazed, not grain-fed. I agree. I am saying that cattle are responsible for using a large chunk of US grain production. This is because of the quickly growing market for grain fed (prime) beef and the growth of CAFOs to keep up with the demand.

 

[Personal Grudge]

I'm afraid I must admit a moral dilemma on this topic.

I am an armchair animal activist. I would hate to think of my cats being treated in an "inhumane" manner. My cats are my children, and I treat them as a member of the family. I treat other live animals that I encounter in the same manner. When I encounter a live cow, I respect them... talk to them, try to connect with them.

And then I go to Outback and have a nice seasoned and seared prime rib. Delicious! And I do this by some ability to suspend what I know and what I think. And if I consider it logically, it is abhorrent!

If I had to kill a cow myself to have this delicious prime rib, could I do it? I think not. This is all so easy when I don't have to see the live animal. Am I thinking of the actual animal when I consume its flesh? Definitely not. And it is a difficult issue for me to live with when I think about it.

I have no answers to this dilemma. If I were forced to hunt for my own food, I may be a vegan. I'm not certain I could kill a deer for food or clothing. They seem so peaceful, they're not hurting me... and in this modern society, I think my conscience would kill me.

But I'm not in a society where hunting is a necessity. Others take care of my meat production for me, and I don't have to think about it. Is this a good thing? Bad thing? I really don't know.

I realize that animals raised for slaughter are often mistreated, and I wish that weren't so. But, I'm obviously doing nothing to stop it. I like meat in my diet... and it seems that our biology is meant to include meat in our diet... but I'm often unsure of what I can do to improve the situation. I suffer from a form of apathy... just because I stop eating meat, it doesn't mean that everyone else will. Therefore, why should I stop?

Even I admit, that's a pretty pathetic argument.

 

[gumboot]

Prime is raised only for its meat to be consumed. Prime isn't alowed to graze much if at all as grazing builds tendons and other fibrous tissue. Cows that are raised for prime grade are fed mostly or only pure grain. Prime is sold in fine restaurants and through butchers, upscale grocery stores, distributors and wholesalers.

This suggests that the corn industry in the USA really does have a ridiculous strangle hold on your diet. Animals raised exclusively or primarily on grain produce inferior meat to pasture-raised animals.

you might find "prime" meat in fine restaurants, at butchers, and in upscale grocery stores, but I wouldn't mind betting you'll find New Zealand meat in the finest restaurants, butchers and grocery stores.

 

[RandFan]

Me too! I continue to live across from a dairy farm today.

You never escape the smell.

They tore down my dairy to put up a condominium project and housing tract.

I think we are making different points. You are saying that most of the beef sold in the US is grazed, not grain-fed. I agree. I am saying that cattle are responsible for using a large chunk of US grain production. This is because of the quickly growing market for grain fed (prime) beef and the growth of CAFOs to keep up with the demand.

Gotcha. I'd like to see some hard numbers.

 

[RandFan]

This suggests that the corn industry in the USA really does have a ridiculous strangle hold on your diet. Animals raised exclusively or primarily on grain produce inferior meat to pasture-raised animals.

you might find "prime" meat in fine restaurants, at butchers, and in upscale grocery stores, but I wouldn't mind betting you'll find New Zealand meat in the finest restaurants, butchers and grocery stores.

Check out how Kobe Beef is raised sometime.

Uh, I'm not going to argue. Though I've had some damn fine Prime meat.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I appreciate your comments P.G. I think your attitudes are shared by many people--perhaps the majority.
ETA: But I think few are as honest as you.

I realize that animals raised for slaughter are often mistreated, and I wish that weren't so. But, I'm obviously doing nothing to stop it.

There's the regular mistreatment of factory farms (overcrowding, not allowing chickens to flap or peck, etc.), and then there's the really sick abuse that PETA claims is pretty widespread:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/09/16/abused.pigs.ap/index.html

I like meat in my diet... and it seems that our biology is meant to include meat in our diet...

Meant by what or whom? God? Mother Nature? Evolution? I don't believe the first two exist, and the third has no ability to mean or intend anything.

Sounds like the naturalistic fallacy again.

Our bodies depend on nutrients. The essential nutrients (something 50 different molecules) are the ones our bodies can't produce themselves--the ones we must get from our diet. As I've been arguing throughout this thread, there is no essential nutrient that isn't available from sources other than meat. It makes no difference to our bodies what food those molecules come in.

 

[AWPrime]

From the link Lonewulf provided:

In a world where an estimated one in every six people goes hungry each day, the politics of meat consumption are increasingly heated, since meat production is an inefficient use of grain-the grain is used more efficiently when consumed directly by humans. Continued growth in meat output is dependent on feeding grain to animals, creating competition for grain between affluent meat eaters and the world's poor.
Global meat consumption is highly concentrated, dominated by only a few nations.

So. . . the poor can't afford not to eat meat? You're sticking by that?

You can't see that your argument is a complete fallacy? Most grain feeding is for red meat (cows and such).

Chickens and pigs are far more efficient in converting food into meat. Both are also more diverse eaters, they can also scavenge for food and they are often given what isn't fit for human consumption.
Insects, bushmeat and fish aren't actually farmed in poor regions.




Also considering you limited yourself to such a reply, it would seem that you understand that your choice is merely a choice.

 

[madurobob]

You never escape the smell.

They tore down my dairy to put up a condominium project and housing tract.

Gotcha. I'd like to see some hard numbers.

NP - check out the Kentucky Corn Grower's Assoc link I provided earlier. They identify animal feed as the single largest consumer of US corn.

See also this EPA link:
(lots of snippage by me)

Corn: According to the National Corn Growers Association, about eighty percent of all corn grown in the U.S. is consumed by domestic and overseas livestock, poultry, and fish production.

Soybeans: Approximately 2.8 billion bushels of soybeans were harvested from almost 73 million acres of cropland in the U.S. in 2000... Over 30 million tons of soybean meal are consumed as livestock feed in a year. Even the hulls are used as a component of cattle feed rations.

Wheat: Of the wheat consumed in the United States, over 70% is used for food products, about 22% is used for animal feed and residuals, and the remainder is used for seed.

Grain sorghum: In the United States, grain sorghum is used primarily as an animal feed, but is also used in food products and as an industrial feedstock.

Rice: About 60% of the rice consumed in the U.S. is for direct food use; another 20% goes into processed foods, and most of the rest into beer.

I don't know why they talk about soy in terms of bushels in total but in tons in relation to animal feed. I have no idea how much a bushel weighs, so don't know what percentage 30 million tons is.

ETA: going by the EPA table and assuming all hay is for animal feed and no cotton is for animal feed. Also assuming a bushel of soy weighs 150 pounds (giving me roughly 14% of soy to animal feed at 30M tons). I get 282.1 million acres dedicated to grain production. Of that, 147.8 million acres, or 52%, is allocated to animal feed:
[table=head]Grain|Tot Acres|Animal %|Animal Acres
Corn|72.7|80|58.2
Soy|72.7|14|10.4
Hay|59.9|100|59.9
Wheat|53|22|11.7
Cotton|13.1|0|0
Sorghum|7.7|100|7.7
Rice|3|0|0
Total|282.1||147.8
[/table]

 

[Lonewulf]

I don't know why they talk about soy in terms of bushels in total but in tons in relation to animal feed. I have no idea how much a bushel weighs, so don't know what percentage 30 million tons is.

BARLEY (48 pound bushel)
Bushels Metric equivalent
1 bushel = .024 short ton
1 bushel = .021772 metric ton
1 bushel = .021429 long ton

Metric equivalent Bushels
1 short ton = 41.667 bushels
1 metric ton = 45.9296 bushels
1 long ton = 46.667 bushels


CORN & SORGHUM (56 pound bushel)
Bushels Metric equivalent
1 bushel = .028 short ton
1 bushel = .0254 metric ton
1 bushel = .025 long ton

Metric equivalent Bushels
1 short ton = 35.714 bushels
1 metric ton = 39.368 bushels
1 long ton = 40.0 bushels

WHEAT & SOYBEANS (60 pound bushel)
Bushels Metric equivalent
1 bushel = .03 short ton
1 bushel = .0272155 metric ton
1 bushel = .0267857 long ton

Metric equivalent Bushels
1 short ton = 33.333 bushels
1 metric ton = 36.7437 bushels
1 long ton = 37.333 bushels

 

[madurobob]

WHEAT & SOYBEANS (60 pound bushel)
Bushels Metric equivalent
1 bushel = .03 short ton
1 bushel = .0272155 metric ton
1 bushel = .0267857 long ton

Metric equivalent Bushels
1 short ton = 33.333 bushels
1 metric ton = 36.7437 bushels
1 long ton = 37.333 bushels

Yikes, at only 60 pounds/bushel I get 1B bushels out of the EPAs 30M tons. That's 36% of the EPA's estimated 2.8B bushels in total raised in the US in 2000.

That changes my table to this:
[table=head]Grain|Tot Acres|Animal %|Animal Acres
Corn|72.7|80|58.2
Soy|72.7|36|30.0
Hay|59.9|100|59.9
Wheat|53|22|11.7
Cotton|13.1|0|0
Sorghum|7.7|100|7.7
Rice|3|0|0
Total|282.1||163.4
[/table]
That's 58% of acres used to grow grain in the US that are allocated to animal feed.

 

[RandFan]

That's 58% of acres used to grow grain in the US that are allocated to animal feed.

So, talk to us about impact. What if human consumption of animals like cows, pigs and chickens goes up? What if said consumption goes down? What would the outcome be if we (virtually) eliminated animals like horses and cows that consume grains and grasses?

 

[Lonewulf]

I'm no expert, but it seems pretty common sense to me.

If human consumption of animals like cows, pigs, and chickens went up, we'd have to pay for two things, as we do today; the raising and slaughtering of the animal, the production process that turns the meat into processed or pre-cut foods, and the landmass that is used to grow food to feed them. If human consumption of animals like cows, pigs, and chickens go up, more landmass is used up to feed the animals and more landmass has to be found to hold the animals. This either requires more land being used up (which will rise in price, I think, as it becomes more and more scarce), or lead to an increase in factory farming (which, I think, might very well lead to health deficiencies of the animals if taken to extremes, which might just cause a negative effect on us in turn).

If said consumption goes down, the opposite effect is to be had. Less landmass (not necessarily less factory farming, but at the very least there's not as much an economic necessity for it). This leads to more land being available to grow crops, or be used for other purposes if necessary.

If we (virtually) eliminated animals like cows (I'm not going to talk about eliminating horses, personally, I love horseriding myself), then a lot of land is made available to be put to other uses. This can include growing crops (whether gengineered or left normal), or whatever the landowners wish to make it into.

I'd also state that, if cows, pigs, and chickens were nearly eliminated (which can be accomplished if we simply didn't reproduce them to the next generation and let them die naturally), then there would be a decent decrease in global warming gasses (and yes, I know, almost everyone says "LOL ABSURD!", but argument from incredulity, which is all these hoo-hahs have to offer, is a fallacy). About 15 to 20% of global warming gasses.

 

[madurobob]

So, talk to us about impact. What if human consumption of animals like cows, pigs and chickens goes up? What if said consumption goes down? What would the outcome be if we (virtually) eliminated animals like horses and cows that consume grains and grasses?

Obviously there are a multiple countervailing influences. Higher demand for grains drives the price of those grains up as well as driving up demand for more acres to be allocated to growing grains. The impact on grain available for direct human consumption should be negligible... the price will simply fluctuate. There no current US grain shortage and its not likely growth or contraction in the animal feed needs would change this.

There is, of course, the ongoing demand for changing farm acreage to non-farm acreage. A reduction in overall meat consumption would free up acreage from meat production, making that acreage available for non-farm use. However, if we assume the reduction in meat intake is made up by an increase in grain intake then the effect may be a wash. In the US the total acreage used in meat production hasn't changed much, but the amount of meat per capita continues to climb (averaging today, I believe, 8 oz/day). This is made possible by the ever increasing density of livestock on existing acreage allowed by CAFOs. I believe this same increasing efficiency is at work in grain farming. So, an incremental decrease in total necessary farm acreage may be possible with a decrease in meat consumption simply because of increasing yields.

As Lonewulf points out, there are health and environmental problems with CAFOs. Its in everyone's interest to keep this sort of farming of meat at a minimum. The main benefit in reducing meat consumption is here, not in grain prices or in acreage used for other purposes.

 

[RandFan]

If human consumption of animals like cows, pigs, and chickens go up, more landmass is used up to feed the animals and more landmass has to be found to hold the animals.

I'm an insurance auditor. I work in the southern tip of the San Joaquin Valley and the Mojave dessert home of some of the largest farms in the world. From my anecdotal observations it doesn't appear that there is a shortage of land to grow crops. Not even close. In fact, think we use a tiny fraction of land capable of growing crops.

Is there any evidence that we face a shortage of landmass for growing crops?

FTR: I started a thread recently arguing that a reduction in animal consumption is important to the reduction of green house gases.

 

[RandFan]

Obviously there are a multiple countervailing influences. Higher demand for grains drives the price of those grains up as well as driving up demand for more acres to be allocated to growing grains. The impact on grain available for direct human consumption should be negligible... the price will simply fluctuate. There no current US grain shortage and its not likely growth or contraction in the animal feed needs would change this.

There is, of course, the ongoing demand for changing farm acreage to non-farm acreage. A reduction in overall meat consumption would free up acreage from meat production, making that acreage available for non-farm use. However, if we assume the reduction in meat intake is made up by an increase in grain intake then the effect may be a wash. In the US the total acreage used in meat production hasn't changed much, but the amount of meat per capita continues to climb (averaging today, I believe, 8 oz/day). This is made possible by the ever increasing density of livestock on existing acreage allowed by CAFOs. I believe this same increasing efficiency is at work in grain farming. So, an incremental decrease in total necessary farm acreage may be possible with a decrease in meat consumption simply because of increasing yields.

As Lonewulf points out, there are health and environmental problems with CAFOs. Its in everyone's interest to keep this sort of farming of meat at a minimum. The main benefit in reducing meat consumption is here, not in grain prices or in acreage used for other purposes.

I appologize. Perahps I'm just thick. There is an ongoing discussion regarding direct consumption of grain by humans compared with the use of grain for the raising of animals for consumption.

I don't understand the importance of the discussion. So what if it takes more grain? I don't see how land mass figures into it at all. We could increase land use by orders of magnitude and still not have any reason to worry about land use. There's one hell of a lot of land I'm pretty sure of. I've been asking this question on this forum for years and no one has ever supplied any evidence that land use is a concern as far as mere amount goes.

That aside, water usage and green house gases do seem to be a concern. But the link to grain is tenuous. If we eliminated cows we could eliminate the water needed for the cows but we would still need water to grow the grain to replace the beef.

So what I'm looking for is a bottom line comparison that is a bit more than we would produce more grain and less green house gases. By how much?

Sorry if I was not clear.