Comments on: Stop Global Warming for Better Meat

By: mpendulo

mpendulo — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 13:58:31 +0000

LMAO unvegan you rock!!! love the well articulated argument

By: The Unvegan

The Unvegan — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:26:32 +0000

In reply to Brian.

Yes and no. The truth is that livestock would be much happier and healthier if they were eating their natural foods, rather than crops like corn. These natural foods (grasses) can be found all over the place, so I don’t know why people would clear rainforest to grow crops that cattle don’t actually eat naturally. Nonetheless, I think we can agree that any cutting down of the rainforest is a bad idea.

By: Brian

Brian — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 22:39:16 +0000

Yes, much of the deforestation is due to plant agriculture, but most of that cultivated land is growing crops to feed livestock, not people, at a huge loss in efficiency. If they were growing crops directly for human consumption, only a fraction of that land would be required to meet their dietary needs.

http://www.vqronline.org/articles/2007/fall/joseph-soy-amazon/
http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-30610-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html

By: The Unvegan

The Unvegan — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 22:53:23 +0000

In reply to Smivey.

According to British Environmentalist Dr. Norman Myers, cattle ranching only accounts for 5% of deforestation. A whopping 54% is due to slash and burn agriculture, which is most often done for cultivating crops. It is sometimes used for animal pastures, but typically after the soil has been degraded.

As far as the methane goes, I am not saying that we should keep cows alive to harvest methane, but I am saying that the methane produced by them could eventually be seen as an asset rather than liability. No, shoving a tube in the end of a cow would not be a good idea, but flatulence only accounts for a minor percentage of their methane output. Belching and exhaling produce 90-95% of their methane and I wouldn’t be surprised if someone were able to develop a humane mask for cows that enables us to utilize this methane rather than emitting it into the atmosphere. Plus, there are already methods in place for decreasing this output, such as a “burp vaccine.”

For further info on either of these subjects, feel free to check my sources.

http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0515-hance_myers.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6431

By: Smivey

Smivey — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 21:37:52 +0000

You think they’re clearing the forests to plant food for people? You need to check your facts. And as for using the methane from the cows for energy, the cows need to be alive for that. They tend to produce more methane that way. Also, we’re only talking about the methane from cow crap, not cow flatulence, unless they’re planning on jamming a tube up there or something””which wouldn’t surprise me.

By: The Unvegan

The Unvegan — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 22:30:11 +0000

In reply to Smivey.

True, cows produce a great amount of methane, which is not good for the environment. Even worse than that, however, is the clear-cutting of forests for plant agriculture. This destruction of trees leads to even greater amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Also, although not fully utilized yet, methane emitted from cattle can be used as a natural fuel source, where cutting down forests only leads to greater devastation such as soil erosion and desertification.

By: Smivey

Smivey — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 22:20:04 +0000

I like how you didn’t mention all the methane gas cows produce. They say 18% of the greenhouse effect is caused by methane, which makes it the second most offending gas (carbon dioxide is the first). In other words, if we didn’t breed so many cows for their meat, we wouldn’t necessarily be in this situation, or at least it wouldn’t be as bad.