Cow dying in a local pasture. No one is doing....UPDATE on #260

[roseymare]

[QUOTE=RodeoFTW;8667510]
Worldwide, an estimated 2 billion people live primarily on a meat-based diet, while an estimated 4 billion live primarily on a plant-based diet. The US food production system uses about 50% of the total US land area, 80% of the fresh water, and 17% of the fossil energy used in the country. The heavy dependence on fossil energy suggests that the US food system, whether meat-based or plant-based, is not sustainable. The use of land and energy resources devoted to an average meat-based diet compared with a lactoovovegetarian (plant-based) diet is analyzed in this report. In both diets, the daily quantity of calories consumed are kept constant at about 3533 kcal per person. The meat-based food system requires more energy, land, and water resources than the lactoovovegetarian diet. In this limited sense, the lactoovovegetarian diet is more sustainable than the average American meat-based diet.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full

There’s your answer.[/QUOTE]

But that study says that as of now neither diet will support the food supply that will be needed. Who cares if one is more sustainable if neither are sustainable in the long run. This is why we continue to need science to increase production of both meat and vegetables. Instead many of you are suggesting going back in time and thus decreasing production in both meat and vegetables.

And the water for food production is not as horrible as that 80% number makes it seem as it passed on to the consumer in water in the diet whether it be in meat or vegetables.

[roseymare]

[QUOTE=RodeoFTW;8667559]
Did you read the study?

People managed to not starve before intensive farming. A lot of countries that aren’t meat based have no problem doing it, either. Going to South East Asia, literally no one eats red meat for the majority of their meals and chicken/fish is the main protein in the diet, along with eggs. With the water wasted on feeding cattle, you could make aqua farms that go from fish to plant and back. Geography would no longer matter. At all.

I’m surprised you wouldn’t know about that.[/QUOTE]

How is G going to build a pond when his ground is rock? And fish farms in this country have already played havoc with the environment and they are not as sustainable throughout the country as you seem to think.

[roseymare]

[QUOTE=Red Barn;8667567]
Well, they’re clearly a bunch of agri-terrorists over there anyway, so that’s probably just as well.

But why do you think all these stalwart Champions of Free Enterprise keep gliding right over all my references to government subsidies, without which America’s flabtastic eating habits wouldn’t exist to begin with?

Seems a bit strange to me.[/QUOTE]

Cattle farmers aren’t getting subsidies unless you want to count catastrophic loss insurance. And yes there were people who seemed to have issues with that during the early blizzard of a few years ago.

[Red_Barn]

[QUOTE=roseymare;8667571]
But that study says that as of now neither diet will support the food supply that will be needed. Who cares if one is more sustainable if neither are sustainable in the long run. This is why we continue to need science to increase production of both meat and vegetables. Instead many of you are suggesting going back in time and thus decreasing production in both meat and vegetables.

.[/QUOTE]
Right. The study says that the US system - heavy on petrochemicals, mono-cropping and GMOs in both plant and animal production - is unsustainable.

Lets all read for content, shall we?

[roseymare]

And who is the US feeding?

[RodeoFTW]

[QUOTE=roseymare;8667571]
But that study says that as of now neither diet will support the food supply that will be needed. Who cares if one is more sustainable if neither are sustainable in the long run. This is why we continue to need science to increase production of both meat and vegetables. Instead many of you are suggesting going back in time and thus decreasing production in both meat and vegetables.

And the water for food production is not as horrible as that 80% number makes it seem as it passed on to the consumer in water in the diet whether it be in meat or vegetables.[/QUOTE]

That is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that intensive farming doesn’t work (as shown by the study) and will collapse over time but a plant-based diet is more sustainable (using less resources in food, water, and energy) than a meat-based one.

This is nothing new.

Don’t put words in my mouth.

It takes more resources to grow a lb of beef than it does to grow a lb of vegetables.

[Red_Barn]

[QUOTE=roseymare;8667581]
Cattle farmers aren’t getting subsidies unless you want to count catastrophic loss insurance. And yes there were people who seemed to have issues with that during the early blizzard of a few years ago.[/QUOTE]
I’m talking about corn subsidies, obviously, the very life-blood of the CAFO.

Why do you suppose fatty meat and over-sweet snacks are so cheap, and why Americans are so prone to obesity and diabetes?

[RodeoFTW]

[QUOTE=roseymare;8667573]
How is G going to build a pond when his ground is rock? And fish farms in this country have already played havoc with the environment and they are not as sustainable throughout the country as you seem to think.[/QUOTE]

Google it. It’s not that hard. Seriously. You aren’t even trying.

"However, innovative scientists from the University of Maryland’s Department of Marine Biotechnology have developed what they call a new generation of aquaculture technology, a closed-contained system that operates entirely on land and expels zero waste into the environment. Dr. Yonathan Zohar, one of the leading pioneers in the development of this technology, is a scientist and professor at the university’s Institute of Marine and Environmental Technology (IMET) spearheading the project. Committed to creating a sustainable, low-impact aquaculture system from the start, Zohar developed a system that recycles 99 percent of its water, with losses coming from evaporation. It brings in common household tap water, adds the necessary salt components, controls temperature and pH, and does it all for each specific species of fish. It also filters waste products from the fish through different microbial communities in order to detoxify the water and creates methane as a supplemental biofuel.

This land-based alternative aquaculture system provides fish a continuous supply of clean water, reducing the spread of pathogens, disease, contaminants, and toxins. It also allows for fish to grow more efficiently, as they don’t need to expend energy fighting currents like fish farmed in open-net pens would likely experience and can instead convert more energy into biomass. Zohar and his team also addressed one of the biggest obstacles in aquaculture, getting fish to reproduce at predictable cycles. By simulating environmental cues such as altering water temperature, lighting, and salinity levels, and then providing fish a pellet they created that mimics the hormone to induce natural reproduction, they were able to get predictable reproductive events.

The fish are clean, they grow faster, and they taste the same as fish you would eat from the ocean. A nearly self-sustaining system, its a combination of the latest in scientific knowledge and technology. Zohar’s system eliminates many of the detrimental environmental impacts from open-net pens and cages in coastal aquaculture production. Ultimately the goal would be to have such systems close to large urban areas where the demand for fresh fish is very popular. The environmental footprint of transportation would be drastically reduced thus reducing the emission of CO2. But like all growing industries, sustainable aquaculture still has many challenges to face."

http://www.oceanfutures.org/news/blog/future-sustainable-fish-farming

Fish waste can be turned around into plant fertilizer. They already have similar systems in places like Chicago, inside warehouses. Fish farms and vegetable crops could literally be grown in any and all environments.

[RodeoFTW]

[QUOTE=Red Barn;8667600]
I’m talking about corn subsidies, obviously, the very life-blood of the CAFO.

Why do you suppose fatty meat and over-sweet snacks are so cheap, and why Americans are so prone to obesity and diabetes?[/QUOTE]

The saddest thing is watching the middle class in a lot of Asian countries beginning to eat like Americans and the results are showing in how obese their young kids are becoming. It’s sickening.

[Silver_Silence]

[QUOTE=moving to dc;8667393]
This countries meat consumption needs cannot be met by pasture raised cattle (or other livestock - pork/poultry). It is not logistically, physically or economically possible.[/QUOTE]
No kidding, this is why we all need to eat less meat. Bottom line, our planet is going to suffer so everyone can eat a cheap burger every day.

[Manni01]

[QUOTE=RodeoFTW;8667594]
That is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that intensive farming doesn’t work (as shown by the study) and will collapse over time but a plant-based diet is more sustainable (using less resources in food, water, and energy) than a meat-based one.

This is nothing new.

Don’t put words in my mouth.

It takes more resources to grow a lb of beef than it does to grow a lb of vegetables.[/QUOTE]

Thank you for writing all this! I so agree with you and I love your quote “dont put words in my mouth” I hope its ok, if I use it once in a while. Thank you!!!

[RaeHughes]

[QUOTE=RodeoFTW;8667594]
That is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that intensive farming doesn’t work (as shown by the study) and will collapse over time but a plant-based diet is more sustainable (using less resources in food, water, and energy) than a meat-based one.

This is nothing new.

Don’t put words in my mouth.

It takes more resources to grow a lb of beef than it does to grow a lb of vegetables.[/QUOTE]

ONLY if you are talking about feedlot farming as per the USA (for example). This is where those referenced studies have been undertaken.

Where you are raising grass-fed beef or mutton, you are able to utilise marginal to very marginal land. This is not as intensive as dairy farming. (Google Gisborne, New Zealand or Wellington, New Zealand and have a look what we raise mutton and beef on - not all of NZ like that but a fair % of it.) This cannot be used for vegetable based farming without extensive environmental reconstruction … that actually wrecks the environment. We crop grass/feed from our small block during the growing periods to feed out when we are low in grass. We rarely buy in feed at all… even for the horses.

[roseymare]

[QUOTE=RodeoFTW;8667604]
Google it. It’s not that hard. Seriously. You aren’t even trying.

"However, innovative scientists from the University of Maryland’s Department of Marine Biotechnology have developed what they call a new generation of aquaculture technology, a closed-contained system that operates entirely on land and expels zero waste into the environment. Dr. Yonathan Zohar, one of the leading pioneers in the development of this technology, is a scientist and professor at the university’s Institute of Marine and Environmental Technology (IMET) spearheading the project. Committed to creating a sustainable, low-impact aquaculture system from the start, Zohar developed a system that recycles 99 percent of its water, with losses coming from evaporation. It brings in common household tap water, adds the necessary salt components, controls temperature and pH, and does it all for each specific species of fish. It also filters waste products from the fish through different microbial communities in order to detoxify the water and creates methane as a supplemental biofuel.

This land-based alternative aquaculture system provides fish a continuous supply of clean water, reducing the spread of pathogens, disease, contaminants, and toxins. It also allows for fish to grow more efficiently, as they don’t need to expend energy fighting currents like fish farmed in open-net pens would likely experience and can instead convert more energy into biomass. Zohar and his team also addressed one of the biggest obstacles in aquaculture, getting fish to reproduce at predictable cycles. By simulating environmental cues such as altering water temperature, lighting, and salinity levels, and then providing fish a pellet they created that mimics the hormone to induce natural reproduction, they were able to get predictable reproductive events.

The fish are clean, they grow faster, and they taste the same as fish you would eat from the ocean. A nearly self-sustaining system, its a combination of the latest in scientific knowledge and technology. Zohar’s system eliminates many of the detrimental environmental impacts from open-net pens and cages in coastal aquaculture production. Ultimately the goal would be to have such systems close to large urban areas where the demand for fresh fish is very popular. The environmental footprint of transportation would be drastically reduced thus reducing the emission of CO2. But like all growing industries, sustainable aquaculture still has many challenges to face."

http://www.oceanfutures.org/news/blog/future-sustainable-fish-farming

Fish waste can be turned around into plant fertilizer. They already have similar systems in places like Chicago, inside warehouses. Fish farms and vegetable crops could literally be grown in any and all environments.[/QUOTE]

Why is science ok for fish farming and not meat?

[ThreeFigs]

Mmmmmm! Burgers!:yes:

Don’t bite the hand that feeds you. Farmers and ranchers sustain us all. You may not agree with every method of farming or livestock raising. Too damn bad. Food producers have to fit their methods to the land they have available.

As Guilherme noted, not every place has the rich black soil of Illinois.

[roseymare]

[QUOTE=Red Barn;8667600]
I’m talking about corn subsidies, obviously, the very life-blood of the CAFO.

Why do you suppose fatty meat and over-sweet snacks are so cheap, and why Americans are so prone to obesity and diabetes?[/QUOTE]

You don’t understand subsidies.

[RaeHughes]

[QUOTE=Red Barn;8667600]
I’m talking about corn subsidies, obviously, the very life-blood of the CAFO.

Why do you suppose fatty meat and over-sweet snacks are so cheap, and why Americans are so prone to obesity and diabetes?[/QUOTE]

If you cant make it without subsidies, you should really look at your farm management practices. NZ farmers went it alone >30 years ago as no subsidies. Over-night - we had notice, gulped and then found we can “manage”. There are years when we don’t make costs. There are other years when we are flush. There are years when our Government declares a farming emergency - which allows our Ministry of Social Development to provide monetary support for a limited time. ONLY available to the areas in need - extreme need. We all bleat that they should have revised the status earlier. Like any government, they can never be right.

[RodeoFTW]

[QUOTE=RaeHughes;8667627]
ONLY if you are talking about feedlot farming as per the USA (for example). This is where those referenced studies have been undertaken.

Where you are raising grass-fed beef or mutton, you are able to utilise marginal to very marginal land. This is not as intensive as dairy farming. (Google Gisborne, New Zealand or Wellington, New Zealand and have a look what we raise mutton and beef on - not all of NZ like that but a fair % of it.) This cannot be used for vegetable based farming without extensive environmental reconstruction … that actually wrecks the environment. We crop grass/feed from our small block during the growing periods to feed out when we are low in grass. We rarely buy in feed at all… even for the horses.[/QUOTE]

Which makes complete sense. I prefer some of the international models to raising food than the current US one.

[RodeoFTW]

[QUOTE=ThreeFigs;8667633]
Mmmmmm! Burgers!:yes:

Don’t bite the hand that feeds you. Farmers and ranchers sustain us all. You may not agree with every method of farming or livestock raising. Too damn bad. Food producers have to fit their methods to the land they have available.

As Guilherme noted, not every place has the rich black soil of Illinois.[/QUOTE]

haha what? I don’t bite the hand that feeds me because I don’t buy my meat from big national brands. Only regional, local sources.

:rolleyes:

[RaeHughes]

RodeoFTW - it was quite a change learning to manage in a dry-prone area of NZ. When I lived in our Waikato - think the rich black soils of Illinois from an earlier post - we were not so stringent on our cropping. Heck, we had silage pits that were opened only to add more to most years. Of course, when we needed it, it was all used.

[RodeoFTW]

[QUOTE=RaeHughes;8667644]
RodeoFTW - it was quite a change learning to manage in a dry-prone area of NZ. When I lived in our Waikato - think the rich black soils of Illinois from an earlier post - we were not so stringent on our cropping. Heck, we had silage pits that were opened only to add more to most years. Of course, when we needed it, it was all used.[/QUOTE]

I’ve never been to NZ (plan to, because I want to see the resident orcas ). What exactly were you growing there?