The Vegan vs. Omnivore Debate Part 1
90It's an On-Going Battle
This vegan vs. omnivore sparring is an ongoing debate that seems to have no end in sight. You can see this debate happening lots on many discussion boards on the web, as well as people (like me) posting their opinions about whether veganism or omnivorism is better and why. Most vegans I've sparred with base their arguments on their emotions and reports of little value, with mostly improper research to back them up. There are many omnivores out there that also cannot have enough gumption to come back with better research and evidence to fight against the claims that put a bad light on omnivores, not to mention animal agriculture itself.
There are three main things that vegans and omnivores clash over: green house gas emissions, animal agricultural practices, and the digestive tract in humans. And all three of these topics have been discussed over and over again, to the point where I kinda get tired of them, but I would like to shed some light on the facts behind the claims in a multi-part series.
Greenhouse Gass Emissions from Livestock: Is it as Big a Deal as People Make it Out to Be?
I was asked a while ago about beef being a major cause of global warming since, "cows' methane emissions are neck-and-neck with carbon emissions at cooking Mother Earth?" And, "If everyone on earth became vegetarian, decreasing the demand for gas-producing cattle, would that help?" Ever since I read Livestock's Long Shadow, and some reviews of what the FAO had to say about livestock methane and carbon emissions, including one from one of my favorite hubbers, I have come up with my own conclusions.
If you see Table 3.12 in Chapter 3 in Livestock's Long Shadow (Section 3.4: Summary of Livestock's Impact) on page 113, you will notice that this chart summarizes all that has been said in the previous sections of that chapter. Now I have done some calculations on the methane portion of the chart (as well as the other two GHG's), and have come up with an answer that strongly disproves the claim made by the first quote above: Of the Grand Total Anthropogenic (human activities) GHG emissions, which is 40 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent, methane emissions from livestock only contribute to 5.5% of that grand total. According to the table, total methane emissions from livestock (enteric fermentation and manure management) accounts for only 2.2 billion tonnes CO2 equivalent, whereas total anthropogenic methane emissions comprises of 5.9 billion tonnes of the grand total (14.75% methane contribution). That is a HUGE difference, far from being equal with total carbon emissions. Speaking of which, CO2 emissions from livestock only contribute to 0.4% of the grand total of anthropogenic emissions. Total anthropogenic CO2 emissions, on the other hand, is 31 billion tonnes, which contributes to 77.5% of all CO2 emissions. Well, the person who said that should be eating their words by now.
It is obvious from above that people make a big deal out of something so trivial. Going vegan simply because of misinformation, or fictional facts that are made to make the animal agricultural industry a sinful thing, including effects on global warming, is like trying to become a farmer simply because of the misconception that country life so much more peaceful and quieter than the big city. Those things, in themselves, are absolutely laughable! One has to get his facts straight before he gets into an argument, otherwise it's going to come back and bite him in the ass. Or her. And, getting emotionally involved doesn't help matters either. This is where a lot of brainwashing happens, as people nowadays tend to put their emotions first before the facts.
Now for the second quote, I had already written a response to that and I would like to post it again here:
"...it has many variables and is a very complex question, unable to be simply answered by a yes or a no.
"If everyone became vegetarian thus decreasing the demand for gas-producing livestock (not just cattle), it would and it wouldn't help.
"The reason it might help is economics. Less demand for red meat and dairy products, the less supply there needed in the market. Less supply means less cattle are being raised for slaughter and dairy production, thus reducing methane emissions. Less cattle also opens up land that had been used for forage production to be used for vegetable and crop production instead.
"But in reality, it is not that simple. Thus the "no" part. There are large tracts of land that cannot be used for producing crops and vegetables, but instead are much better suited to raising cattle, sheep, goats and other livestock. There happens to be much more of this type of land than the land available for crop production. Also, the land that is also great for producing fruits, vegetables and grains is also great for cities and towns to expand on. There has been a fierce war going on over this for a very long time. Only in a realistic world would it have no variation in soil type nor topography so that all crops can be grown on all land, which seems to be stuck in many a vegan's mind when it comes to fighting against animal agriculture of any sort (no offence).
"The second part of the argument is the fact that we humans are not biologically built as herbivores as ruminants are. We have digestive tracts very similar to pigs and bears, which are omnivores. Thus, this limitation also limits the parts of plants that we can eat. Lets take corn as an example. We can only eat 5% of the corn plant: the kernels, and this has to be at the right stage of growth. We cannot eat the corn plant during any of it's growth stages. A herbivore can and will happily do so. The same goes for other cereal grains including wheat, barley, oats, rye, canola, peas, beans, etc. We also cannot eat all parts of vegetables either: potatoes, tomatoes, carrots, celery, cauliflower, broccoli, etc. Though there is a method of producing "green manure" through composting plant matter, this does not produce the nutrients nor faster break-down of plant matter into manure than through the gut of a herbivore. This is the more efficient and economical means of using plant matter, especially the parts and types of plants that we do not nor cannot eat. According to my previous argument, since there is only a small percentage of land that can be used for crop production, grass and legumes are able to grow on the rest of the land that is not useable for crop production. The only way to "harvest" these tough plants is to either have livestock graze in those areas, or form larger wildlife habitats on that type of land.
"My third reason for not agreeing to the world-wide switch to veganism is water. If you think livestock "waste" so much water, you should see how much water we humans waste on a daily basis. We do not use water simply to drink it or to put into food production, but we also use it to water our pretty lil' lawns, for large industrial purposes from oil and gas to construction, to mix with fluids for many purpose other than personal consumption. Livestock only use water to drink it and cool themselves in. Pets only use water to drink and cool and bath in. Less livestock means more excuse for the corporate companies to waste it.
"Fourthly, is we have relied on the use of animals for as long as we started finding other means of using parts of the animal that we don't eat. And this has expanded greatly to the point were the general population don't even realize it. If the population of livestock decreased, we would have to find other means of making our tires work and wear like they do, our cosmetics as nice as they are, our mattresses, chairs, couches, love seats etc. have the lovely comfy fabric and parts to them like they are, among many other things.
"If we lessened our consumption of livestock purely on the fact that they produce too many farts and burps that harm our atmosphere, then we must have completely lost our minds. There are many other things we can do to decrease the production of methane from cattle than just stopping eating them.
As you can see, this issue with greenhouse gas emissions and the livestock industry shouldn't be made such a big deal out of. There are more important things to worry about right now.
CommentsLoading...
i never realized it was a big deal. as far as i know humans are evolutionarily omnivores and there are several key nutrients that we need that are only found in meat. particularly b vitamins which are not digested properly as pills taken by vegans.
but i look at it this way if I'm in that line at McDonald's and i don't eat that burger, the guy behind me is gonna
im doing a persuasive essay on vegans vs. omnivores and im having trouble finding sources
im not sure this really helped
Hi Alexia,
If I were doing a persuasive essay on this subject, I too wouldn't use such things as blogs or hub-pages as a source. So I'm not at all offended if you don't use this hub as a source. What you could use is the book Livestock's Long Shadow (you can find it by doing a google search on "Livestock's Long Shadow"), as well as other things like scholarly articles about humane treatment of animals, human diets, etc. Make sure that the articles that you are using as resources actually have cited sources so that they are relevant to your project, not something that is purely based on opinion, which is what my article is based on.
Good luck with your essay! :)
Thanks. Thats really going to help me on my essay!
Could you tell me the actual URL of the website?
to me veganism does not solve the problem instead it just hides it. A true solution would be to reduce animal methane and co2 using science
Akelly, you have a point there. And there is work being done on finding ways to reduce such emissions from livestock, whether its through the different diets that can be fed to improving the livestock themselves. And of course other things like finding ways of being sustainable and practicing holistics in agriculture are also gaining ground.
Thank you for the comment.
You've got to be kidding me. How are you extrapolating these numbers? A quick search reveals that the numbers you've posted are completely false. Check the EPA's website: http://www.epa.gov/rlep/faq.html for example. Livestock methane contributes 20% of the total methane gas production in the U.S. (28% globally).
You're having trouble being unbiased in your post because you have ties with cattle (I'm assuming a cattle farmer), so it's not surprise that this is very much one sided.
You can't deny the effect factory farms and the raising of livestock for food production has on the planet. Unless, of course, you have some sort of vested interest in it. From the methane gas production, to water contamination from seeping waste, to wasted resources and used up aerated land caused by growing the feed required for all of these animals. You would have to be blind to deny all of this.
Stop trying to located sources to support your confirmation bias and open your knowledge base to some new information. I know information that contradicts your theories may be hard to digest, but just because it's contradictory, doesn't make it wrong.
Also, some sources below for your viewing pleasure.
US Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. Report to Congress: Nonpoint Source Pollution in the US Office of Water Program Operations, Water Planning Division. Washington, D.C.
Merritt Frey, et al., Spills and Kills: Manure Pollution and America's Livestock Feedlots, Clean Water Network, Izaak Walton League of America and Natural Resources Defense Council (August 2000)
Bob, it's called "getting out the calculator." And it's also called "reading between the lines." Don't you see that those numbers you're quoting INCLUDE Land use, Forestry and Land Use Changes? Or is that something that you yourself wish to ignore because you're blaming me for being ignorant? The numbers that every media device, include the infamous EPA quotes the fabled numbers but FAIL to mention they include the LULUCF factor. It sounds like you need to do some re-reading yourself.
And was I supposed to make this hub unbiased?? Of course not!! Why are you nit-picking me for being "one-sided" when that's what the whole hub is about, to see THE OTHER SIDE of this vegan vs. Omnivore debate? Honestly!
And no I don't support factory farming, as you call it, but I sure as hell don't support the environmental extremists that claim that cows are the primary blame for "ruining" our planet. Sure they produce methane, but can't you see the other side of the picture?? Can't you see that there are much more significant sources of methane besides the products produced from animal agriculture? Lemme me put it this way: Have you passed gas any time today? Have you had to throw anything out that goes to the landfill this year? If you answered no to ANY of these questions, I really think you're out of your mind. Because if you look at the BIG PICTURE instead of focusing on one small, albeit insignificant factor in all this, it is HUMANS--yes, I said us humans--that are to blame for all this. Why you cannot see past this is beyond me. So I think you're pretty blind yourself to have to see you saying that animal agriculture is to blame for all our methane emissions.
You say that water is used up by aerated land used to feed animals, contaminated by animal waste and yaddi yaddi yadda but don't you stop and think that HUMAN waste is a much bigger contributor to water contamination??? What about run-off from landfills, the crap we dump in our toilets that can't be filtered out by the waste plant, the crap that is dumped into lakes and rivers by other industries besides agriculture?? Jeeze man don't tell me you've got your blinders on about that too! And the water "wasted" to produce animal feed is only a small part of it all: what about all that water wasted to keep your pretty big lawn all nice and green, that only sees a dog or cat crap on it once in a while?? What a bloody waste of space! That huge yard of yours is probably on prime agricultural land that should be used to grow crops or see livestock grazing on it!
Go ahead, tell me off for being stupid and ignorant and arrogant and insolent or whatever the hell else you have at the tip of your fingers, but don't you DARE tell me that I am misinformed! From where I come from and what I see, I see a hell of a lot more than what you can ever see out of that house or apartment you live in in the middle of a city.
Secondly, don't you dare tell me to stop "...[locating] sources to support your confirmation bias" because that's really what I did not do. Does the Livestock's Long Shadow look like a so-called "source to support my confirmation bias" to you? Have you even READ the book at all? Something tells me you haven't. And there you go making assumptions again about certain information that is contradicting my, what you call "theories," that are "hard to digest." No, you're really not getting the point at all! I am merely analyzing the information that is presented to my by the book made by the FAO and pointing out all the holes that this book has made! So why don't you take the time to read through the article again.
And yes I am a cattle farmer and DAMN proud of it. And no I don't crowd them in a tiny little pen and feed them grain all day like you're probably thinking I do, they're out on pasture 24/7 doing the very thing Nature intended them to do.
So here's a piece of advice for you: Stop assuming things because you're just going to end up making a complete ASS of yourself, like you just did just now. And while you're at it, maybe you need to stop and do some actual reading instead of skimming along and noticing certain words that have piqued your interest and are peckin' me about.
Look buddy, I applaud you for not crowding cattle in a pen all day and letting them roam like nature "intended them to". That's great and all, and from what it seems, that is not what's causing an environmental impact from livestock ranching. The problem stems from what I call "factory farming" (in quotes because it's not a term I made up, but a serious problem in the U.S.). It's an overproduction of meat that this country/world does not need. That is where this waste comes from.
"...HUMAN waste is a much bigger contributor to water contamination???" Ok bud, nowhere in my comment did I say this is NOT a problem. First: How much bigger issue is it than factory farming waste? Second: Water contamination needs to be controlled, regardless of where it comes from. Not eating meat is one way to REDUCE water pollution. It won't eliminate it, no, because of the human factor of course, but we have to start somewhere.
Your whole attack on vegetarianism is unbelievable. Especially when you compare it to a religious cult in a latter post. The best part about this whole thing is that you call it a "debate", but you only present one side of the argument. Last time I checked, that's not called a debate, but rather a preaching.
Also, if you're arguing with EPA's numbers then that is on you my friend. I am not an environmental scientist, but I somehow doubt the EPA is trying to deceive us. It seems like you're onto some sort of conspiracy theory here. The EPA report clearly says that the 20% of methane come from livestock.
One of the points of vegetarianism is to reduce the carbon footprint and leave the planet in a "usable" shape for future generations. Every piece of evidence shows this to be supported. For you to rip into vegetarians and to have this debate about it shows that you truly have an ulterior motive in this fight. How does someone argue against somebody's actions that are aimed at improving the lives of others (confined animals, affected humans, etc...) when these actions don't harm anyone else, and have been shown to be effective?
And I complete understand that factory farming is, indeed, a huge problem, so I'm not saying nor wasn't saying that it isn't. But I was also saying that it's not JUST factory farming that is a problem to water, soil and air quality. It's also due to a lot of other things, mostly human related, which you stated you are already aware of...which I commend you for knowing and understanding.
However, here stands the argument about the numbers I have above versus what the EPA has come up with. Maybe I am conspiring to something here, but maybe not, that's up to you to decide. The thing is is that, from the table that is presented in the FAO Livestock's Long Shadow that 18% or 20% is a number that includes the LULUCF factor, which is Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry. If we do NOT include this factor, then we end up with a different number. And I believe I have to correct you on something: That percentage is actually total greenhouse gas emissions in comparison to the anthropological emissions that take up the other 80% of the equation. But with the methane emissions, I've also done the calculations and have come up with the same percentage they have: Livestock emit 37% of the world's methane (including emissions from manure waste and what-not), not 20%. Boy, if the EPA is saying that livestock only emit 20% of methane to the atmosphere I think that's something we BOTH should be pleased about!!
But now I have a feeling we are reaching a misunderstanding here. What part of the numbers above is getting your hackles raised? Is it the part where I mention "methane emissions from livestock only contribute to 5.5% of that grand total" that is causing you concern? (I've a feeling it is...) How I got that calculation is by taking the value of the total methane emissions from livestock (which is 2.2 billion tonnes) and dividing it by the Grand Total (40 billion tonnes). I'd get a different number if I were to divide the 2.2 billion tonnes by the total methane emissions of both human and livestock activity, where the 37% would come from.
I totally agree that North Americans are eating too much meat. That is something that I would be totally stupid to deny, and I know you probably know that. But the hub above is more of a numbers game (Mathematics...gotta love it) to show you what was not mentioned by that book.
I'm sorry you're taking my criticisms about veganism/vegetarianism so hard, but like you were telling me, things that contradict your views are going to be hard to swallow, and it also doesn't mean that those views are wrong. We can argue and debate about this until we're blue in the face, and even then there's still disagreements that are going to come up. But why slam me for being so hard on vegetarianism when there are vegetarians that will slam omnivores and meat eaters just as hard?
My apologies for coming off to you so harsh, but at least we can agree to disagree.
I'm just going to leave this here because I don't want to spend a lot of times going into the details: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Env
It has many sources to peer-reviewed journals and studies. The scientific community unequivocally agrees that meat production harms the environment. If you want to doubt that, that's obviously your prerogative.
We all think we're climate scientists, but few of us actually listen to the real climate scientists.
I don't agree that completely taking out the meat industry is going to solve anything. There's even environmental concerns with producing grain and vegetables, especially with all the pesticides and fertilizers that are needed to produce them. Crops cannot be grown without some form of fertilizer, and most man-made fertilizers are petroleum-based. Tractors, which use petroleum-based fuel, are needed to till, sow, spray and harvest fields and crops, respectively. Non-renewable resources are needed to make tractors and other farm machinery. Wetlands, forests and trees are being plowed under for crops, to the point where there's no where for wildlife to live, no suitable areas for carbon dioxide to go back into the soil. Plowing releases a TON of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. And that doesn't sound like that's harming the environment to you? I hate to be blunt with you Bob, but vegetarianism can do just as much damage to the earth as your case against meat production.
Only a small portion of the world's soil is suitable for growing crops to feed 9+ billion people. The rest is best for grazing livestock on. We both can agree that the world can do without factory farming and CAFOs, but I will never EVER agree with you that completely taking out animal agriculture out of agriculture is the solution to the world's climate and environmental problems.
Like I said before, you can call me ignorant all you want, but the real truth about this environmental thing is that we need to achieve BALANCE in order to find what is TRULY best for the earth. Going to either extreme is never the solution for anything. I seriously hope you stop and think about this before you start bereaving me for being pro-meat production or anti-vegan.
It's clear nothing will change your mind on the pure and simple fact that producing crops is much more economical than raising animals purely for food production (those animals require lots of crops too).
Look, I agree with you that extreme situations can be wrong under many circumstances, but in order to adapt to new ways of life people have to be able to change from conventional thinking and conventional ways of doing things.
You really don't get it, do you? You are stuck on the fact that all animal agriculture is based solely on factory farming and can't seem to get your head around the other stuff, the more sustainable methods of raising livestock. Not all methods of producing livestock involves raising crops for them.
If you want to talk economics in an agricultural point of view you've really got the wrong ideas, and always think that things are "pure and simple" or black and white, which they're not. Let me ask you something: Have you ever been raised on a farm? Have you seen the costs that are involved with raising crops, versus raising livestock on just grass?
Cropping isn't economical when you look at all the money that has to be spent on fertilizer, pesticides and fuel, not to mention the depreciation costs, maintenance costs and repair costs that have to be done on machinery. Environmentally speaking, quite often too much fertilizer is put in the fields, all that excess fertilizer runs into lakes and rivers which harm the flora and fauna that live there. Vast amounts of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere from plowing over wetlands, pastures, natural grasslands, and from the fuel burned in the machinery needed to till the fields, sow seeds, spray herbicide and harvest and store the crops. Millions of animals are killed everyday (mice, voles, rabbits, hares, baby fawns, even deer if they eat pesticide-ridden crops) from these monoculture crops, and even worse these monoculture crops are in no way designed to sustain natural ecosystems: rather it's a battle to take over and rid these ecosystems. This is a different story when referring to the practices of ranching and grass-fed or free-range animals.
You don't need to spend money on fertilizer, feed or fuel if you know how to graze properly and sustainably. Letting the livestock do the work, and properly maintaining areas that are sensitive to both grazing and cropping system, particularly riparian areas, simply by fencing off the area and only letting livestock graze in there for a short period of time is much more economical and sustainable than trying to tame the land with the plow. Yes, this is doing it as "nature intended." I find we get a lot more wildlife coming around with such practices than what you would ever dream of getting with a field of GMO corn or canola. There was one ranch I visited that times its grazing practices with the nesting season of sharp-tail grouse, and the sharp-tail grouse population is certainly not threatened by the grazing action of cattle. It certainly would be if that same area was covered in crops. Same thing goes with managed grazing for elk come winter time: cattle are put in the elks' winter grazing areas in the summer to push out the sage brush and other forbs that elk won't eat, and encourages grass to grow for winter grazing. Do you get that with cropping systems? Definitely not!
If all livestock where made to be extinct and no meat was allowed to be eat or no animals allowed to be killed, what would happen with the areas that are not nor ever will be suitable for growing food for humans, nor for building houses, towns and cities on? Will more habitat be made for wildlife, or will this become so that even the wildlife themselves cannot manage themselves properly? I know that the government won't help in these matters because they tend to screw everything up in the first place. Parks where natural grasslands are prevailant can't be managed properly without some form of grazing. Since the buffalo herds are too small to even create much of an impact in these areas where grasses thrive and exist because of grazing, invasive species will come in and the park that is supposed be a natural reserve will only be a place for invasive species. Crested wheatgrass has taken over much of the Grasslands National Park in Saskatchewan because the federal government prohibited any cattle grazing in that park, which made a large number of ranchers not too happy, since they're the ones that have a much better idea how to manage such land more sustainably and economically than a bunch of bureaucrats from Ottawa how've never ranched in that area or even been in that area before. And now they've got a huge problem with Crested Wheatgrass, which is an invasive species that have pushed out a lot of natural grasses that have existed in the past because they've been grazed. Plowing this land over is definitely not the solution, since there's so little of natural grasslands left thanks to crop farming itself.
Yes of course factory farming is uneconomical, jeeze every one knows THAT! Look at what the documentary Food Inc. reveals to us about how hogs and chickens are raised and beef cattle are finished (NOT raised, they were raised on grass on a farm/ranch before they got to the feedlot). But I'm talking about grain farming versus the natural way of raising livestock. That's why I keep saying that I think you're really misinformed if you keep going on about how animal agriculture is "harming the environment" or how "producing crops is much more economical than raising animals purely for food production." That is a total load of bullshit when factory farming is taken out of the equation. And I seriously do hope some day factory farming WILL be taken out of the equation.
Open your eyes, Bob, quit paying attention to the bullshit advertisements and goings-on by PeTA and HSUS. And for God sakes quit pressing your views about how agriculture should be with someone who's got more farming experience under her belt than you'll ever have. Because nothing is ever "pure and simple" about producing food for 9 billion people in this world.
"Look, I agree with you that extreme situations can be wrong under many circumstances, but in order to adapt to new ways of life people have to be able to change from conventional thinking and conventional ways of doing things."
Yeah I know that, and that's what I was trying to tell you by saying that balance needs to be achieved in order to settle this whole meat vs. veggies thing. And the only way to do that is to step away from the factory farming thing and instead support local farmers and the small farmer by buying meat from people who take more responsibility in raising their own animals. Which I am in no way condoning. But how to step away from this conventional way of thinking is all down to the consumer, because that's what controls what should be grown and what people want: agriculture doesn't control what people should want to eat. So target the consumer here, not the farmer.
So let's stop beating a dead horse about this alright? We obviously both agree that factory farming is bad, and I've told you above how things in agriculture is definitely not pure and simple. I think I've (or we) have said enough about this already.
I don't have to be an expert on farming to be informed about the environmental effects of the livestock sector. You are obviously very well informed about farming, and are also well informed about your side of the argument. Which is precisely why you fail to see (or believe) the research that has been done in response to your proclamations.
You appear to refer to me as some unscrupulous consumer of advertisement propaganda, who needs to stop paying attention to "PETA and HSUS". The ironic part of this accusation is that it shows your ignorance, since the issues of PETA and HSUS have nothing to do with the environment but are rather ethical instead.
Again, you can argue with the many climate experts and scientists about livestock's effect on the environment if you want to. I'm sure that your expertise as a long time and experienced farmer is comparable to their expertise in environmental science.
Really? You have to stoop that low to pick out the trivial stuff that I mentioned, perhaps by accident, to make me look like a stupid, ignorant idiot? Who gives a rat's ass that I mentioned HSUS and PeTA, they're all integrated in this whole "factory farming" debate stuff, ethics or not? Apparently you do. Apparently you still like to believe you're always right and I'm always wrong. Fine, I get that. But if you're so damned concerned about the environmental implications that livestock agriculture is contributing to the earth, then don't eat. Don't use ANYTHING that has even a speck of animal by-product in it, that goes from your car to the paint and insulation in your house. Why don't you go live in a grass hut and wear nothing on your feet an back and take a nice long walk to and from work every day? Oh and how about not use any hair gels, lotions or shampoos or any of that sort? Jeeze the list could continue of all the things you shouldn't use that are by-products from livestock...esp. if you're that much of a vegan.
I am getting sick and tired of your mockery and false commemorations of my experiences and knowledge in the field of agriculture. You seem to want me to surrender to your views and want me to give up and state that your right and I'm wrong. Well I've got news for you buddy: I'm not. I've been called ignorant by you I don't know how many times on here, and I've done my best to show you my side of the story and my research that I've done to further understand this problem. And I've told you time and time again that things are different when factory farming is taken out of the picture, but you just go on right ahead and ignore that and instead get so condescending that it's down right offensive. Maybe I was being a little condescending myself, but who started this whole conversation anyway? Who was the one that took offense to what I wrote and told me that I was completely ignorant? Not me.
You say that I "fail to see (or believe) the research that has been done in response to [my] 'proclamations.'" I say you're wrong. I've read the research done by the scientists that wrote Livestock's Long Shadow and I certainly do see what they are trying to say. That is why I was saying in the first reply before your reply tonight how livestock farming is that much better than crop farming IF WE TAKE FACTORY FARMING OUT OF THE PICTURE. But why in the HELL do you choose to ignore that??? That's what I don't understand!! Why do you choose to be so God DAMNED ignorant about that and instead pester me for "not seeing (or believing the research"??
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I admit that I do not agree with factory farming. I said above that we BOTH don't agree with it. So why do you have to keep beating a dead horse about this? Why are you not seeing that I realize this? Is it something that I didn't mention or did mention that pissed you off enough to be so belligerent about this?
I don't get you. I really don't get you. So maybe I'll end by asking this: What do you want to know? What do you want me to do or say or whatever to resolve this whole thing so we can go our separate merry ways? I would honestly love to know.
Alright, please IGNORE the first paragraph, I didn't mean to go off on a tangent there, nor did I have enough time to edit it out. But I just want to add a thought here: Maybe the fact that I may seem ignorant to you is due to some sort of communication block that we seem to be having. You are talking about factory farming itself, and I want to and have gone off talking about animal agriculture with exception to factory farming. So I think maybe there is just a bit of confusion going on here, not ignorance, and that is what is causing both our feathers to be ruffled.
But I still would like to know the questions I asked in the last paragraph above.
Oh, and I also forgot to add to my previous comments above that I have seen first hand the damage that is done with having animals confined like we've had in the past. It's not a pretty sight, and it takes a lot of hard work to get things back to the way they were before our corrals were made into a bloody mud-bog. At least Nature is on my side in encouraging the grass to grow in places where it should've been before. No, factory farming or any kind of production system where livestock are confined to a corral for a lengthy period of time (like we've had no choice to do with our stocker steers over winter and into spring) certainly isn't the greatest for the environment, that's for sure.
Look I'm not trying to get you to change your views, nor do I want to argue with you. I really do not think you're ignorant. I've stated that I think you're well informed in your field of expertise, and I don't question that.
I understand that we have some things in common (like views on factory farming), I'm not ignoring this part. To kind of answer you question in the post above, what really gets me going about your position is that your whole view unfairly disparages vegans. This article you are writing makes them seem like evil beings who are doing more harm than good. And the evidence you're using is questionable at best.
Look, I'm not trying to be abrasive and deride you for your beliefs. But, even if we decide to doubt the scientific research, those who are vegans are still doing more harm than good.
This article, and frankly this whole debate whenever it comes up, is nothing but an inquisition against meat non-eaters. All the evidence points to saying eating meat does more good than harm, how much "more good" is it, well that's not exactly quantifiable. There is no need to get out the pitchforks when someone chooses not to consume animal products.
And just to be clear, raising cattle and using livestock for the support of humans is not what I (or most vegans) have a problem with. It's the way that it's presently done that is the problem.
3rd paragraphs should have said:
Look, I'm not trying to be abrasive and deride you for your beliefs. But, even if we decide to doubt the scientific research, those who are vegans are still doing more GOD than HARM.
Thank you for clearing that up for me. And I do have to agree with you. You know that sometimes these harsh comments that I've made can stem from something called a rant, which I believe, though it has been quite a while since I wrote this, was most likely where these comments stemmed from. And of course I tend to easily get carried away with what I have to say, and it's not uncommon for me to get a little bit of flack for what I have to say. You've seen that first hand. They are biased opinions, indeed they are, but you have to give credit to the fact that these opinions, however false, misleading, questionable or partly true they are, can be shared and won't get shut up where no one can read or make their comments on them. And of course it doesn't end with the non-meat-eater vs. meat-eater debate...
It used to be fun for me to be discussing stuff like this, getting flack for the opinions I have to say about this sort of stuff and coming back with more things. It still is kinda fun, of course if there's no personal insults thrown at each other...then it gets a bit ugly. And you know what? I LEARNED from these discussions. I learned a lot from reading articles and books like Livestock's Long Shadow, and those in itself helped open my eyes a bit more to what's really going on with agriculture. I was so niave about these things before I sat down and read those sort of articles, from the ethics of handling livestock to the environmental implications of raising livestock. The documentary and book Food Inc. are also amazing sources that really lay things out on the table for me to see. And even funnier was that I was able to relate these concerns with the sort of things that I called "normal" back at home, which are doing more harm than good. I'm still learning about this stuff and more! They say the day you stop learning is the day you're already dead, and that couldn't be more truthful.
But like you say, all debates like this is just beating a dead horse. But will everyone stop beating that dead horse about this? I doubt it, but it may cease when factory farming is finally banned, corporate farms are reined in a bit more than they are now, and more wholesome, healthy food is grown for the human population.
In short, I admit I honestly enjoyed this discussion with you, even though it got out of hand a little, and I hope it was the same with you. :)
Zoey 19 months ago
Hi - I really enjoyed reading all of your articles on omnovore -vegan debate. I am an animal scientist in Australia and we are working on ways to reduce methane from ruminants, like breeding for those that genetically rpoduce less or my particular one - plant bioactives and how they can inhibit methane-producing microbes in the rumen (and also do ther good stuff like control lactic acidosis). These plant bioactives are present in many plants - even in your favourite one, wild rose, but we only have looked into Australian native plants, Europeans have looked at their plants, but not much is happening in America - so maybe you can go and snoop around a bit about this. Anyway best luck in your work!