Reducing meat/beef consumption?

Question

So it would appear that livestock account for roughly 18% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ahj_9Ts6XCPlEPR8x0ZiSSPsy6IX?qid=20070904123859AAhh6Iw

Several groups have used this data to suggest that all environmentalists should become vegetarians. While this is certainly a good solution in theory, it strikes me that another possible solution would be to simply reduce beef consumption by increasing consumption of other meats such as pork and chicken.

These animals aren't ruminant, don't require large pastures, produce less waste, etc. etc. Granted there are other issues with raising these animals (mostly due to factory farming), but at least it would solve much of the greenhouse gas emission problem.

Does it strike anyone else that much of this problem could be solved by reducing beef consumption rather than the consumption of all meat?

Answer 1

First, it should be pointed out that the argument that there are fewer cows today than large ruminants 200 years ago is silly. It is estimated there were at most 60 million bison in N. America during their heyday (no pun intended) in the 1700's. It is reasonable there were a similar number of wildebeests and buffaloes in SE Asia. So put the number of pre-industrial ruminants at something like 200 million. In contrast it is estimated there are 1.3 billion cows alive today, most of these eating a grain-based diet during some portion of their lives. To suggest that the greenhouse gas emissions from 1/6 the total number of free-range animals was greater than today is at best silly. Wait, I said that already.

Anyway, the most realistic plan for reducing CO2 emissions I have read was the one in Scientific American in Sept. 2006 by Socolow and Pacala, "A Plan to Keep Carbon in Check." Reducing beef consumption didn't factor into their plan, although ceasing deforestation was a component. I would provide a link to the article but it is available online by subscription only. However, a link is provided below to the core proposals of their plan.

My hunch is that any realistic mitigation of anthropogenic greenhouse gas output is going to be so painful for a lot of people in the industrial world (e.g., air condition less in the summer, heat less in the winter, drive less (and in smaller cars!)) that they are going to have to have some luxuries to make it bearable. A hamburger seems like a small price to pay.

Answer 2

most of the meat produced in this country has some or a lot of corn fed to them to grow ,giving that corn tastes we have been sold to love for years. For many years. When corn is grown the soil is left exposed,causing erosion. causing silt to clog up the rivers down to the Gulf of Mexico. If that is not bad enough,the Artificial Fertilizers ,Minerals ,weed killers,insecticides also go down the rivers into the Gulf of Mexico killing the Sea life. The Corn nation is creating a Giant dead zone that keeps growing in the Gulf. It is not the fault of the meat. What is at fault is what we feed the meat and how. This is changing called organic.It is a Slow process.The organic idea stated when we began to farm. However the American way had a better idea that did not include organic. So now you and I are now experiencing the effects this American way of changing while we pay for it. We will be organic soon. There will be a bit time before this happens. An example 5 miles from where I live a Farmer has chickens in pens that he moves around on his farm. The chickens eat what ever they find,that is what wild birds do. He gets double/triple the price for his organic eggs that commercial egg producers do. His milk ,meat is organic also double ,triple in price you buy fresh off the farm. As a Child I grew up eating wholesome foods as this.

Answer 3

I dispute statements like, "livestock account for roughly 18% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions". I will not just accept those numbers without knowing how they were determined. I can understand how CO2 released by fossil fuel burning is determined and the method is in principle accurate, but I am not so sure about these other sources of greenhouse gasses that pop up from time to time in the discussion. Another one is rice paddy emissions; some claim that rice growing emits more greenhouse gas than all the cattle in the world. And on and on and on; there are countless sources that people like to point at, but the science is shaky at best.

Answer 4

Chicken isn't any better than beef unless you're ONLY concerned about climate change. I used to live in an area heavily populated by poultry houses and they are about the ugliest business in agriculture. You can smell them for miles away and they reduce property values. In a rural area where lots of people have well water, the runoff will ruin many wells and kill the fish in surrounding streams. Chickens are also the most mistreated of all animals as cruelty laws do not apply to birds. A large portion them are culled as chicks by a process of being suffocated in a bucket and even more die prematurely because they simply grow too fast; these are disposed of in giant rotting piles or simply plowed into the ground, some of them still half alive. Then, during transport, even more birds will perish, but Tyson, OK Foods, etc don't care because this is the most cost effective way for them to operate. Then you get into the shady business practices and human abuse involved in the chicken industry. The big companies sell poultry houses to rural people with promises of large profits, but the promises never pan out. Most of these ventures end with the farmer in debt and stuck with four or more large, empty, smelly structures on his or her property. Once the chickens leave the farm, they go to a plant to be killed and plucked, mostly by illegal immigrants which the companies recruit for the cheap labor. Pig farms operate in much the same way as poultry farms, with only slightly less blatant cruelty.

The solution isn't shifting the problem around to another industry; it's to reduce overall meat consumption and trade quantity for quality. People should buy organic, local if possible, and also get back to hunting their own food. Hunting is a much better and more natural way of procuring meat and helps keep the natural ecosystem in balance, especially in North America since humans were a part of the ecosystem before factory farming became widespread. People were also not meant to eat large quantities of meat with every meal. We don't need any more than one serving per day and one serving per week or even per month of beef is plenty. Look around at all the obese people; overconsumption of low quality meat is a huge contributer. Maybe if everyone were healthier we wouldn't have such a healthcare crisis. Maybe even that socialized medicine democrats seem to love would be affordable?

Your example here is another case of narrow sight when it comes to climate change. Sure, there is an easy solution that might benefit the climate change situation, but there is a much better solution that reaches far beyond even though it would require a bit more effort.

Answer 5

What I find amazing is the number of ignorant people and right-wingers who have seized on this fable *** an excuse to pretend that CO2 emmissions from oil and coal are not the main cause of global warming.

They are so ignorant they don't even realize that they are taking seriously a joke--and one that was at their expense to boot. A few years ago a scientist at a conference gave a mock "paper presentation" about cow "emissions" supposedly causing global warming--which was simply a spoof of the nonsense being spouted by the "deniers." But these same deniers didn't even know enough to realize it was a joke--with them as the butt.

Which makes it even funnier! Especially when its so obvious it's nothing but a joke. Stop antd think--cattle are large herbivores--and there are a lot of them. But--in the last 2 centuries, wild herds--buffalo in North America, wildebeast in Africa, and so on--hae been decimated. There are less large herbivores on earth than there were 2 centuries ago.

A good example of why people with educations don't take these "deniers" seriously. Tey're simply ignorant dupes who are indoctrinated to believe anything the special interests tell them! Pathetic, really.

Answer 6

I agree with a lot of points varrious folks have made to your question.

There are about as many beef & dairy cattle as there were Bison, before settlers came along and nearly drove them to extinction. So in effect, the numbers of bovine animals has not changed in the slightest, in 100's of years.

The problem is factory farming, and the concentrations of animals. Any time you get animal clustered in unnatural groups, the result is bad. If it happens in nature, and it does from time to time, there is a massive natural die off.

Of course factory farms do not want to have massive "natural" die off, so they fill the animals with antibiotics, hormones, and steroids.

Want to know what would actually help (and a large percentage of the meat eaters could do this)?

Rabbits. Every suburban home, and even some spots in large cities could raise their own rabbits. Problem is most people who eat meat would squel and scream" Oh gross, that's so cruel!"

Rabbits could produce more meat with less food, in tremendously less space than any beef cattle. The rabbit droppings do not smell, and can go dirrectly onto garden areas.

If people who ate meat delt with the reality of where meat actually comes from (hint it does not grow on styrofoam trays in the grocery store!) they could do the environment and their pocketbooks, AND their waste line a tremendous difference!

In England, during WWII about the only protien people got to eat was rabbit. They did Victory gardens just as we did in the U.S. Almost every home had rabbits. It's extremely healthy meat, easy to butcher out, and much kinder to the environment than the factory farm produced meat.

I think the overall problem is with the factory farms it takes to mass produce the cheap meat people want to see in the store.

I wish more people would get serrious (think of all those styrofoam meat trays NOT going to landfills!) about the polution of the environment, and make honest and true changes.

~Garnet
Homesteading/Farming over 20 years
Raising meat goats, and meat rabbits (because they are environmentally friendly)

Answer 7

No problem-I pretty much avoid it anyway for other reasons. There are plenty of protein alternatives out there-people need to wake up and pay attention to what they're eating!
For anyone who says they love the taste/feel of beef and can't live w/o it, they can still reduce their intake and actually turn it into a meaningful event.
Edit: Re James69...-I don't think he understood-Man can not control how often cows emit methane, of course, but a lower consumption of beef would lower the demand for cattle which would lower the supply eventually and a lower amt of cattle would effect the methane in the climate...but the girl who posted before me has a point-it's better to lessen animal consumption overall than merely switch it to another species

Answer 8

I agree with you in principle, but in my opinion, the less flesh the better. It's sad that the fish food chain has become so overloaded with Mercury, to the point where it isn't really an option anymore. I used to laugh at people in the 1960's who said that people who ate cattle were more angry and aggressive because of the adrenaline in the meat released when they are slaughtered. I don't laugh any more. After being off beef for a year or so, I grilled some one time just on a wild hair. I can't believe the effects! It took around a day to wear off. I'm not sure what we have that's better, but I'm pretty sure it's the worst, or close to it.

Answer 9

Of course, I think you have a great idea there. You're not going to be able to convince many people to be all out vegetarians, but it seems feasable that you could convince them to at least *reduce* their beef consumption, which in return would reduce the emissions of greenhouse gasses.

well researched. i didn't know about that. like most people, i'm not going to become a vegetarian, but maybe i'll try to eat more chicken instead of beef then. it's generally healthier for you anyway.

haha this reminds me of those Chik-Fil-A ads with the cows holding up signs saying "eat mor chikin" =P

Answer 10

Once again, an environmentalist poses a "solution" to an alleged problem without thinking through the ramifications of the solution. And as usual, it is a communistic solution where the government would have to mandate another area of our lives for the "common good." Have you ever been to a pig farm? Obviously not if you think a little less GHG is worth the environmental impact of millions of pigs. And are you the one that is going to replace the income that the cattle ranchers lose? Or would that be the responsibility of the communistic government that would be in place at that time? What would we do with all of the cattle? Kill them all and have one last nationwide cook-out?

Pretty drastic measures to prevent something that no one has proven. Even the IPCC can't prove man is responsible for global warming.