God Damned vegetarian

[HungrySomali]

I havent eaten Red Meat or Pork in over 10 years. I do it because it reduces my environmental footprint alot.

[pmchugh]

Can I ask why your a veggie?

I see no reason to be one, I see it as an atempt to convince yourself (or someone else) that you are a good person.

No offense intended btw just being honest, like you only can be on an internet forum or while drunk.

well im a veggie for several reasons
first off is religious, in Hinduism you are supposed to be a veggie
second is i dont like killing animals so i stay a veggie
third is i think that it gives me a sense of higher moral, once again opinion, that i am going out of my way to save a life.

Fair enough if it's religious, although out of intrest how religious are you? Do you follow every rule/guidline (excuse the pun) religiously?

Third and second point IMO are just what i said.

Can I ask why your a veggie?

I see no reason to be one, I see it as an atempt to convince yourself (or someone else) that you are a good person.

No offense intended btw just being honest, like you only can be on an internet forum or while drunk.

I'm a vegetarian, though im sure a few of you would have heard my stances on it before.

Just got home to Australia today, was in Mexico and Cuba for 6 weeks. Try as i might, i was vegetarian for 2 or 3 weeks over there, before i got sick of quesodillas! (chesse on tortilla and some tomato and avocado if i was lucky) So i ended up eating quite a bit of fish, because i was so damn hungry. (and sick of cheese) - i think when overseas, especially in third world countries, you're gonna have to change things you'd normally do.

In terms of your suggestion that it's an attempt to convince myself (or others) that I'm a good person is partly correct, but not the whole story. I don't eat meat at home because I don't want to participate in a industry that is so overtly run on oppression and torture of animals. I don't think it's right for me to go to a supermarket and pick up pre-packaged meat and have no idea where the animal came from, how it lived, and how it was killed. I also don't think i would do to well killing an animal so why should i eat one?

In terms of eating meat as a principle, it makes perfect sense. If you go out and hunt or fish your own meat and clean it up and serve it up, brilliant! A totally natural, wasteless way of eating. The meat industry, however, is so far removed from nature that it's not healthy, so that's why i avoid it

So your not a vegie because animals are being killed, rather the circumstances in which they lived?

I hear your reasons and understand them, but in my mind it comes down to making yourself feel better, good on you if you achieve that. Personally however I think that the negatives outway the positives, i.e. being able to eat good tasty food without worry of it being meat and being able to eat out anywhere (or in any country).

[a.sub]

im fairly religious, i try to adhere to what rules i can but im limited by my environment, time, and to be honest i disagree with a couple

[Artimis]

well im a veggie for several reasons
first off is religious, in Hinduism you are supposed to be a veggie
second is i dont like killing animals so i stay a veggie
third is i think that it gives me a sense of higher moral, once again opinion, that i am going out of my way to save a life.

And yet you continue to appropriate the biomass of vegetation with the purpose of incorporating it's nutrients into your own biomass.

Herbivores, Carnivores and Omnivores all have one thing in common, they steal the biomass(and therefore the life force) of other forms of life in order to sustain their own. It is an inescapable fact of animal life that we must feed on other living creatures or perish ourselves. I accept this simple fact and don't try to mitigate the fact that I 'steal' from other creatures to feed myself, everyone else should do so as well.

To go vegetarian or vegan for purely a moral stand point is utter folly! However I accept reasons of dietary need or animal food stuffs allergies as a valid reason for vegetarianism or vegan dietary adherence.

[Timminz]

For every animal you don't eat, I eat 3.

[Neoteny]

For every animal you don't eat, I eat 3.

I imagine that would lead to some fuzzy math.

[TruePurple]

I am a vegetarian, there are a number of reasons.

1. I don't like how commercially raised animals for meat are raised, this includes eggs & dairy too, and buying properly raised meat is expensive. Where as buying the occasionally organic dairy is not so expensive.

2. Being a vegetarian is better for the environment. It takes a number of times the weight of feed for every pound/kilogram/or whatever, of animal. It is just alot more efficient to grow the food we need directly, rather then grow it to feed to a animal that we then eat. And the waste from commercial meat farms is really noxious and has a tendency to escape come flooding, or you get some clown illegally dumping, or it contaminates ground water, or what ever else.

3. If you eat steak, you should have no trouble eating bugs or what not. Yet hypocritical meat eaters cringe at bugs, when the meat they do eat is at least as gross. So the reason is, I am less of a hypocrite this way

4. A small reason but, being a vegetarian can be a cheaper diet, if you are eating to be healthy. It is usually cheaper to buy fresh fruits and vegetables then meat, and just about always cheaper to buy dried grains & beans.

5. A big reason for me being a vegetarian is, I don't like meat! I mean it tastes bad to me, I can't even stand the smell. Your tastes buds adjust and you grow to really find it disgusting.(not everyone does I am sure, but I am also sure I am not the only one)

No where on this list, will you see me caring a shit about what other people thought of me. If that were a reason, it would be a reason against being a vegetarian, since some macho jackasses really look down on it and will give you grief about it. Others don't think much of it, even if they don't give you grief on it.

[Neoteny]

3. If you eat steak, you should have no trouble eating bugs or what not. Yet hypocritical meat eaters cringe at bugs, when the meat they do eat is at least as gross. So the reason is, I am less of a hypocrite this way

Mealworms aren't bad. For most bugs however, the texture is not my thing. Exoskeletons are weird.



I have tried chrysalis, however, which is kinda beany. It was pretty gross, but I think that may have had to do with the juices it came in.

[TruePurple]

That you? If so, don't you know your not suppose to eat with your mouth open?

[jonesthecurl]

I've eaten ants. They taste like sherbert powder - I guess its the formic acid.

[pmchugh]

I would eat anything (besided human) as long as it tasted good and wasn't too unhealthy. And by that I don't mean McDonalds I mean like seriously unhealthy.

People saying that they do it for the environment are doing it for the same reasons as saving animals IMO. Your are trying to gain a higher moral ground, I am not exactly a fully qualified scientist but I would think that the difference between your entire life as a vegitarian and a meat eater to the actual environment is so small that I doubt it will make any difference to the eventually outcome of the human race or in fact any human, more likely just to make yourself less healthy.

[PLAYER57832]

In terms of eating meat as a principle, it makes perfect sense. If you go out and hunt or fish your own meat and clean it up and serve it up, brilliant! A totally natural, wasteless way of eating. The meat industry, however, is so far removed from nature that it's not healthy, so that's why i avoid it

Those are not the only alternatives. I, too am opposed to factory farms. However, did you know that soy is actually one of the most destructive crops.. in terms of water use, pesticides, etc. there is?

By contrast, grass fed beef feed on a product we humans cannot consume. If properly managed grazelands turn land that is not suitable for standard crops into production. In semi confined conditions (most animals are kept indoors when winters are harsh, for example), they can be fed parts of the plant that we simply cannot eat. The animal further provides byproducts that are used in many ways.

Chickens and eggs can be raised in fairly small places, without resorting to the extreme conditions sometimes shown in documentaries, etc. Again, they can eat parts of plants that we cannot eat.

When it comes to fish, its important to know the state of the ocean stock or location in which it was raised. Farm raised Tilapia and catfish can be quite ecologically raised. Shrimp, orange roughy... generally not such good choices ecologically.

I am not opposed to vegetarianism by any means. Most Americans eat far too much meat. There are many, many reasons to choose that route. However, it is hardly the completely pure and sanctified choice some wish to put forward. Crops take up space, water formerly wild. Crops take huge amounts of water. Further, think on this. Which species are absolutely NOT endangered? Animals humans make use of. So, if you make the animals less useful to humans, it is more likely they won't be around in future years.

They key is moderation and thought .. whether you choose to be an omnivore or an herbivore.

(oh, and our freezer and shelves... deer my husband hunted, part of a cow we bought from a local Amish farmer and vegetables we grew or bought from local farms. The bread is mostly fluffy white junk.. but that is what my husband wants for sandwiches. The bread I make never makes it to the freezer )

[TruePurple]

@ PLAYER57832
Soy is a one of the crapiest of all beans out there, and it is just a stupid stereotype that most vegetarians eat it.

If properly managed grazelands turn land that is not suitable for standard crops into production.

A. Meat demand is far more then "land not suitable for standard crop" can supply. As a matter of fact, much soybean & corn crop go for meat animal feed.

B. There is no such thing as worthless land.(unless poisoned or something) If it can't be used for crops, it can be lived on, or given for a natural preserve. And whether grazing or growing crops to feed them, meat production takes up alot of land.

[PLAYER57832]

@ PLAYER57832
Soy is a one of the crapiest of all beans out there, and it is just a stupid stereotype that most vegetarians eat it.

Never said that's all they eat. (happen to not only have, but use both Laurel's Kitchen, Moosewood, etc.). Still, I have met quite a few young college students who are all hyped about vegetarianism as the way to save the world (not saying that's you) and then go on to brag about eating tofu burgers instead of hamburgers, etc. Are you denying that many do eat a lot of soy? (many non-vegetariens eat it, too, whether they know it or not)

If properly managed grazelands turn land that is not suitable for standard crops into production.

A. Meat demand is far more then "land not suitable for standard crop" can supply. As a matter of fact, much soybean & corn crop go for meat animal feed.

Yes, which is why I put the specific parameters around my statement "properly managed grazeland". They also used to get fed animal byproducts, probably do still get fed cement, etc. And that is why our beef comes from an Amish farmer we know. (I cannot raise them here).

B. There is no such thing as worthless land.(unless poisoned or something) If it can't be used for crops, it can be lived on, or given for a natural preserve. And whether grazing or growing crops to feed them, meat production takes up alot of land.

Again, you presume. However, you are wrong when you say that land not good for crops can be lived upon or become a nature preserve. (and not just talkin US, by-the-way). A lot of land not suitable for crops also does not have the water resources for a sustained community. This is one reason the nomadic lifestyle came about and persists in some desolate portions of the world. Animals can move, graze here and there and then provide their owners with a living. And before you start talking about over grazing, etc... I am talking cultures that have persisted for hundreds and thousands of years.

Similarly, putting land aside for a nature preserve, while worthy and certainly something I not only support, but actively work towards, is a luxury for many people and countries. Even here, I can gaurantee that if people were really hungry, the number of people willing to let something like Yellowstone even just be would diminish significantly. Natural security is closely tied to human security.

Or, just take a small farm. My friend's, in fact. They have a garden, grow a few animals. Mostly they use byproducts (milk, eggs), but they certainly eat them as well. The manure goes on the crops. The animals eat the extra vegetables, the parts my friends cannot eat. In the winter, they do by hay. This is not a completely self-sustaining place, but it is also just 2 acres in size. The animals are well tended, have room to roam, are healthy.

I am not saying you have to eat meat. I said right out that most Americans eat to much. Most Europeans do as well. And, yes, most meat is not produced in a sustainable manner. However, neither are many crops. The biggest reason? Because people want to build houses on that nice, fertile land instead of driving or living in an apartment building, etc. I don't either, but my house is not on prime agricultural land, either.

I am just saying that simply going vegetarien is not really a solution, either. In fact, eating some meat is quite sustainable. Sustainability is what we need, not extremes.

[TruePurple]

There isn't enough amish farmers, spare grazing land, or wild "game" population, to provide all the meat demand.

If everyone ate just a little bit of meat, that could be sustainable. But that isn't going to happen. So in fact every vegetarian make a significant difference environmentally speaking by reducing excessive meat demand, there by reducing the hugely negative impact commercial meat has on our environment and even our ability to keep ourselves fed.

It was kind of funny hearing people talk about ethanol and biodiesal as bad when food prices spiked, like that was driving it up. But I didn't hear anyone talking about the effects of the "meat industry" reducing our food supply.

[PLAYER57832]

There isn't enough amish farmers, spare grazing land, or wild "game" population, to provide all the meat demand.

If everyone ate just a little bit of meat, that could be sustainable. But that isn't going to happen. So in fact every vegetarian make a significant difference environmentally speaking by reducing excessive meat demand, there by reducing the hugely negative impact commercial meat has on our environment and even our ability to keep ourselves fed.

It was kind of funny hearing people talk about ethanol and biodiesal as bad when food prices spiked, like that was driving it up. But I didn't hear anyone talking about the effects of the "meat industry" reducing our food supply.

Because the effects of the meat industry are not as high. For one thing, every acre that goes to ethanol is gone. And, gone for products that could be used virtually 100%for food (its the grain primarily that gets cylced into ethanol). The same crops that are most cost-effective for ethanol are the energy and water consumers that require some of the most productive land. It is possible to convert waste products, but that is mostly not what has been happening.

The climate also makes a huge difference. In colder climates, people tend more to meat because it is much harder to find enough plants to sustain oneself.

The problem is not meat and the solution is not going vegetarian. The solution is sustainability and that requires a lot more than simple, pat answers.

A few years ago, the hype was eating algae and sea farming. Yes, it certainly has a good deal of potential, but neither of those was a solution. Each has its own problems.

Finally, there is the "worth to humans" aspect. We, here, in our society now value animals to a large extent. Its not perfect, but we have an endangered species act, etc. Even so, look at the fights every time a new species is listed, every time someone's development project is thwarted. THAT has been in what were pretty good economic times. Even now, things are getting tighter, but are no where near as bad as they are in many other areas. How much more pressure do you think will be exerted if things get even tighter? How much will we truly value those species.

For every animal-raising farmer, I will show you 3 city dwellers who have no understanding of wildlife or what it really takes to live on the land. To me, wilderness and forest are not some exotic thing that I go and visit on occasion. They are my home. They are the mountains that I used to look up at every day as I went to school, they are the small patches of unplowed land along every field that was home to wildlife of all kinds, they are the animals that I tended and do tend every day.

No, there are not enough Amish farmers around. But, THAT is the problem. Not lack of Amish, per se, of course. But lack of small farmers who live their lives on the land, who really care about every acre and not just every acre they plow, but the lands around as well. Amish farmers are not perfect, by a long stretch. They still often let the cattle erode stream banks, etc.. at least until someone explains the damage it does. However, for teh damage that Amish farmer might do is nothing to the big factory farms that often are allowed to simply dump their waste in streams or on fields without any sort of composting involved.

And don't make a mistake.. that manure is the most important aspect of an animal when it comes to farming. That is what allows you to have a fully sustainable field and crop system. Composting, etc. work, but are generally not practical on any large scale. Also, it takes a lot more know-how to really get good compost. Animals automatically produce pretty near perfect fertilizer. The reality is that when animal manure is not used, its usually chemicals.

There are far too many factory farms. We have lost site of what it really means and really takes to grow crops and animals and to have it all work together as a unit.

[TruePurple]

For one thing, biofuel reduces the cost of food by reducing the cost of fuel. Which is often a large component to the price of food.

Meat requires the same productive land that ethanol does. I would wager that meat wastes much more food then any biofuel, simply because there's vastely more meat "produced" then biofuel produced.

I have heard estimates of that for every pound/kilogram of beef, 7 times more land is needed then a equal amount of plant food stuff. I am sure producing biofuel isn't anywhere near as inefficient. Biofuel isn't simply "gone" either, but allows us to power our lives. Rather then using a resource that is finite.

The climate also makes a huge difference. In colder climates, people tend more to meat because it is much harder to find enough plants to sustain oneself.

If people are "living off the land" yeah, but more likely they are living off the grocery store. Often too many people to sustain living off the land with a largely meat based diet. Those that don't eat from grocery stores are usually the poor and starving that don't eat much meat anyway (because it is so hard to get for many starving people)

But lack of small farmers who live their lives on the land, who really care about every acre and not just every acre they plow, but the lands around as well.

That would help. But even if the world were small farmers, meat is still very inefficient. And current meat demand would still require too much of our precious food stuff.

Are you a farmer? If so, do you practice any no/till low till farming or organic farming?

[PLAYER57832]

For one thing, biofuel reduces the cost of food by reducing the cost of fuel. Which is often a large component to the price of food.

True, but not fully. Fuel costs do rise the price of food for purchase, but ethanol does not offset that cost enough for a lot of reasons. In fact, in many cases, producing ethanol is not cheaper at all. (varies) source, which perhaps spells out the problem more clearly and specifically:
http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/2008/Update69.htm

In many countries, the crops used to make biofuel take away farmland from subsistance farmers and produce oil for export. There is no trade-off in lower food costs because the people who get the money are not the people who would be buying the food. Food purchase prices have more to do with the world economy than local economy when it comes to crops like grains, rice, etc. (not 100% true, but true enough).

This gets very, very complicated. The economics are a huge matter of debate right now. However, no one supports the position you have put forward.. that ethanol will reduce the cost of food.

By-the way, my sources are NPR and Alternative Radio. I often question Alternative radio information, but NPR is trustworthy.

According to Alternative Radio, there is plain and simply not enough arable land to produce enough ethanol to meet our needs, even just in the US. This is actually born out by more conservative sources, wich is part of why the current energy policy is moving away from additional ethanol production and into other forms of energy production.

Meat requires the same productive land that ethanol does. I would wager that meat wastes much more food then any biofuel, simply because there's vastely more meat "produced" then biofuel produced.

You make 2 logical errors here, as well as factual errors.

First, the logic errors: Whether there is more meat produce or ethanol produced is irrelevant to the basic question of efficiency. Also, even if meat did use the same amount of edible food as ethanol production, meat is not a 100% loss because, like it or not, people DO eat meat. That meat eating translates into a lower need for some other high-energy and high protein foods.

Second, you again recite "facts" that are just plain wrong.

Meat does NOT require the same productive land that ethanol does. I made that point earlier. NOR do ruminants, that is, the grazers with hoofs -- cows, goats, sheep, primarily -- eat portions of foods that we simply cannot eat. They eat leaves, grasses that can grow under food producing trees and shrubs, grasses on hillsides and rocky areas not suitable for most crops (the crops that can be produced are not enough). AND, in particular, they eat the stalks and inedible portions of grains and beans. This is precisely why humans have always been so closely tied to forage animals.

Chicken and egg production right now is pretty bad, in general (huge factory farms). However, chickens and other poultry are easy to raise in relatively small acreage. When raised sustainably, they eat insects (this is why chickens roamed free historically and still do in many areas that don't use pesticides), grasses and other "leavings" of humanity.

Now pigs, on the other hand, have a digestive system similar to our, so that they need food that we can eat. However, where pigs are common, they are fed on the scraps and leavings of humans. I still will not argue that pigs are efficient, but that is a different matter.

In each of the above cases, it is possible to compost all but the insects, BUT that does not necessarily translate into a better transfer of energy than using the manure would. In fact, the more direct the use, the more likelihood of disease transmission. That is, the diseases that impact a cow are different from those that impact corn, but corn of course has diseases that can spread to corn and other plants.

I have heard estimates of that for every pound/kilogram of beef, 7 times more land is needed then a equal amount of plant food stuff. I am sure producing biofuel isn't anywhere near as inefficient. Biofuel isn't simply "gone" either, but allows us to power our lives. Rather then using a resource that is finite.

Its more like 4 times (quick source: http://www.inklingmagazine.com/articles ... e-up-steak

research article referenced: http://jas.fass.org/cgi/reprint/74/6/1395.pdf?ck=nck)
Anyway, the point is that yes, IF you compare what has become standard -- feeding cattle corn and other high-end grains, etc. to people eating those grains directly, then grains and beans come out more efficient.

BUT, and this is a pretty big "but", right now, ethanol in the US is produce almost 100% from grain corn. Source: http://zfacts.com/p/60.html

So, NEITHER meat nor ethanol are currently living up to their promise of sustainability. BOTH can. However, ethanol and meat will always be in competition to a large extent because the most of the byproducts that can be used for ethanol coul be used for meat production.


Your last statement, that biofeul is not "gone" is the most patently ridiculous. Ethanol produces energy, which we currently need, yes, but animals provide a fully natural fertilizer of extremely high quality, leather, meat, wool/hair, etc. Grain that goes into animals is absolutely NOT LOST!

The climate also makes a huge difference. In colder climates, people tend more to meat because it is much harder to find enough plants to sustain oneself.

If people are "living off the land" yeah, but more likely they are living off the grocery store. Often too many people to sustain living off the land with a largely meat based diet. Those that don't eat from grocery stores are usually the poor and starving that don't eat much meat anyway (because it is so hard to get for many starving people)[/quote]

Again, you completely miss the relationship between the problem you put forward and the solutions that do exist.

The real problem is overpopulation in some areas and poor transport of food. This has little to do with meat or lack of meat.

Grocery stores don't even exist in most of the world. In fact, they barely exist in Europe. That is, in Europe you are more likely to find fruits, vegetables, etc in various small shops and not in one big store as we are used to here in the US. This is changing and you find more and more combination "American-style" stores. Still, if you will live in a city, you need to buy your food from someone who brings it from the farm to you. It may be the farmer or marketers. This has nothing or little to do with how the food is produced or if its meat or produce. It has to do with whether people should live in cities or all move out to the country. The fact is that no land can sustain a bunch of individual growers. We need to let those who can so so effectively and efficiently farm, just as we leave other jobs to people in the cities.

Further, your reference to "starving people that don't eat much meat anyway" shows a decided lack of knowledge about the subject. The truth is that most of the world, not just those we consider poor, never mind starving, don't eat that much meat. Meat is, in much of the world, a luxury item. It is a sign of wealth, not lack of starvation.

However, this is not true in the far north. The inuit, the Laps, etc. all eat a significant amount of meat and do so in a quite sustainable manner. I will add, however, that the meat they eat is mostly not beef.

I already said that most Americans and Europeans eat far too much meat, but that is irrelevant to your basic comments on the production methods and efficiency. The answer is to return to better production, not insist everyone becomes vegetarien.

But lack of small farmers who live their lives on the land, who really care about every acre and not just every acre they plow, but the lands around as well.

That would help. But even if the world were small farmers, meat is still very inefficient. And current meat demand would still require too much of our precious food stuff.

Again, you are confusing issues. The current world population cannot be sustained entirely by micro-farmers (what you probably think of in a small farm) or "small farmers" of the kind we saw a generation ago or so. (that is, farmers who live on their land and do produce large quantities) Nor is confining oneself, say to just what you grow either practical or even the most efficient way to do things.

Just as an example, you might think that bananas use more energy than a NY apple, but in truth, because that banana was transported largely by boat, etc, it turns out that banana may actually be the better choice for energy. Now, does that mean that we should give up apples or simply that we should look at better ways of producing and transporting the apples?

This is the same issue with meat. The problem is not eating meat. The problem is the way it is grown. However, that IS a problem for almost all crops. I mentioned soybeans earlier, but you could substitute wheat, rice, even lettuce and broccoli. ALL agriculture right now relies heavily upon artificial fertilization and pesticides/herbicides. (selective herbicides, that is)

Further, you ignore the bigger issue I mentioned before. What happens when you have generations of people who have never grown up eating meat, who's only real experience with animals is to see them on TV, in zoos or off in the distance in parks? Truth is you can probably look around you right now (I am making an assumption that you live in a town or city, but even if not, you know people who do and certainly you yourself don't seem to be involved in real agricultural production at all). What happens is that the you very quickly go from "oh neat" to "oh yuck". Animals become something you champion, but not something you understand or live with on a day to day basis.

When push comes to shove, the animals quickly take the boot. Look at a list of the endangered species. Perhaps you have illusions that they are largely hunted animals. It is true that several big game species are on the list. However, a bigger group are the birds, other animals that have been killed not by direct hunting, but through everything from chemical poisoning to loss of habitat. The PRIMARY cause of species eradication is habitat loss. Even in fisheries, which does have a high percentage of loss do to over-fishing (though I will say this has a lot to do with how we gain our knowledge of the species ...that is, what we know about are mostly the species we fish), habitat loss in the form of drained wetlands, reduced river flows, etc. all have caused significant numbers of species to become threatened. Arguably, more than just fishing.

Further, and you can take Ducks unlimited as an example, when a species people value becomes endangered, then all stops come out to bring it back.

Know who is MOST responsible for all our wildlife preserves? Its not the conservationists, its the hunters! Hunters who sometimes may just want a trophy, but who more often than not eat what they take. Its definitely NOT and efficient form of getting meat. But, that "waste" in dollars translates into money in people's pockets-- everyone from the cothing suppliers to the gas station attendant that supplies the gas for them to go on the hunt. Fisherman, likewise, are responsible for ensuring that lakes and streams across this country have been cleaned.

Are you a farmer? If so, do you practice any no/till low till farming or organic farming?

Currently, I farm my yard. However, I grew up in agriculture, both her in the US and overseas, and I have studied it in school.

As for the "no till" and "low till" I suspect you are throwing out words you really don't fully understand. No till works in certain very dry climates and for certain types of crops. It is certainly not an efficient form of agriculture. I don't live on a steep hillside, so the contoring was done by the developer before I got here.

I compost, but the most effective fertilizer by far is manure. Sadly, my source is no longer in business, and raising any animals is against the ordinances where I live, but... I am working on it.

Anyway, my bottom line is not to convince you that you have to eat meat or any such thing. I am saying that If you will take a stand, then it behooves you to do far more than simply spout off pat phrases and partial facts that sound good. You owe it to yourself to really and truly look into the whole picture and to look beyond what those with particular agendas put forward.

When it comes to agriculture, there is absolutely a lot of room for improvement. However, it is in that improvement that I would say the focus should be, not in telling people to eliminate this or that.

Finally, regarding the "eating too much meat". You may not be aware, but if you are a low income american, then one thing you have a very hard time obtaining is produce. Fresh produce in a supermarket costs far more than tha box of mac and cheese, etc. That is even saying you HAVE a nice grocery store nearby. Many low income neighborhoods have nothing but fast food chains. Even for me, I am fortunate to live in an area with heavy rainfall. Still, sometimes I have to water for the first few days, when plants are just sprouting. And, just for that little us, my water and sewer bill increases to the point where the produce is barely cost-effective or even is simply not cost-effective. (I balance this by growing primarily the higher cost and more difficult to obtain produce -- I buy my potatoes, carrots, onions, etc.). I grow tomatoes, because while they are not efficient, there is just no comparison in taste between a store-bought one and one fresh out of the garden, never refridgerated.

[PLAYER57832]

One more note, from your original post:

I don't like how commercially raised animals for meat are raised, this includes eggs & dairy too, and buying properly raised meat is expensive. Where as buying the occasionally organic dairy is not so expensive.

Did you realize that the veal industry is a direct by-product of the dairy industry? Think about it! Only the females produce the milk. Those boy calves... either become steers or veal. Since many heavy milk-producing breeds don't put on meat efficiently, the practice of early slaughter became common.

[neanderpaul14]

[jonesthecurl]

Well, and there's plenty of other things taking up good growin' land. T0bacco, for instnace.

As I think Player said, much of the land that grows meat is no good for veg. Take a holiday to any of the national parks in the UK and you'll find them both pretty and full of sheep or other animals. Try growing wheat there.
I agree that people should eat less meat, and that "factory" farming is a bad idea for many reasons. This is a matter that governments should be looking at - government policies have a huge impact on farming practices, not least by what they give subsidies to. A change of emphasis is essential.
You can't eat guilt-free. What happens to all the wickle harvest mice at harvest time? Hint: you have probably eaten some.
Read Samuel Butler's Erewhon for an early take on vegetarianism.

[neanderpaul14]

I wanna open a chain of steakhouses and call it "Things That Used to Say MOO"

[jonesthecurl]

I first discovered that a very rare steak is known as "blue" for a similar reason - at a big outing from some job or another, we went to a steak house. When the waitress asked me how I'd like my steak. I said "Still going 'Moo' ". It was busy, and she thought I'd said "blue". If I'd kniown what it meant, I woulda.

[PLAYER57832]

I first discovered that a very rare steak is known as "blue" for a similar reason - at a big outing from some job or another, we went to a steak house. When the waitress asked me how I'd like my steak. I said "Still going 'Moo' ". It was busy, and she thought I'd said "blue". If I'd kniown what it meant, I woulda.

An Englishman with taste in food


(sorry, could not help myself... the English culinary reputation is too well established )