Animals farmed for meat damage the enviroment?

Question

I'm a vegetarian, so I get used to people saying things to 'get at me' about meat and things, but whatever I don't mind if you eat meat, its your choice, so I'd like some serious answers about this...

The new Viva! campaign says that animals farmed for meat produce more CO2 than the entire worlds transport system, and someone I know denounced this as rubbish and that these kind of animals are 'good for the enviroment' but didn't say why. And that if we all went vegetarian and didn't eat meat that the enviroment would be in a worse state. But surely there'd be less animals because of less demand and therefore less CO2 emissions?

I'm just wondering, how do animals mass produced for meat 'help' the enviroment?

Answer 1

They don't. The U.N. did a report that shows meat production is one of the top contributors to the most serious environmental problems and are responsible for more global warming emissions than all the transportation in the world combined.

The University of Chicago noted that growing crops to feed animals to eat the animals requires ten times the land as if people just ate a vegan diet. It takes 10 times the fossil fuels to produce a calorie of animal food as it does to produce a calorie of plant food.

Answer 2

They don't. If it's not left to roam free don't eat it. Wild meat is much better for you (similar nutrient values to wild fish, it has omega three and everything).

This is about the only veggie argument that holds water. It's come about because the planet is heavily overpopulated. Get us back down to about a billion and we won't have these kind of problems with farmed meat and pollution.

I'd just like to add to what Michael H wrote. A lot of the farmland in the Uk is non-arable. Where I Iive is fit only for sheep and cows, and this is true of a lot of the world. If you tried to force vegetarianism on the world in general you'd end up starving half of the third world to death.

Answer 3

I have been vegetarian for 22 years and vegan for 21.

This seems to assume that animals destined to be eaten are reared using current mainstream farming techniques. This is not inevitable, because of permaculture and cultural tabus against eating certain animals. If, for example, people in the West ate insects and earthworms, there would be less of a problem. One of the principles of permaculture is the creation of an "edible landscape" - an ecosystem in which as many organisms as possible can be exploited for food. This could mean that animals which eat plants which are inedible to humans could themselves be eaten, which would produce less carbon dioxide than growing conventionally eaten plants using mainstream agriculture. However, there are other options, for example veganic agriculture, the use of human waste as fertiliser and a symbiotic relationship with other animal species where they provide the nitrogenous waste and so forth without being harmed, all of which are compatible with permaculture.

Animals farmed for meat could help the environment in various ways. Their bodies could provide raw materials which would otherwise have to be mined unsustainably or produced in factories in an environmentally harmful way, or would have to be substituted by materials which were more harmful, such as PVC for leather. This substitution could harm more animals than actually using their bodies as raw materials. This does not justify their use however, but means that methods to find alternatives that are cruelty-free must be found. The other way in which farm animals could benefit the environment is by using their by-products, for example blood, manure, bone and horn, in organic farming. Again, however, this does not exactly require them to be used for food or other animal products, although it does mean there would be less economic incentive to keep them. This implies there is a problem with the current economic system.

The way things are right now, there could be a way of farming animals to help the environment, but this would mean an end to mass production for meat.

Answer 4

"Methane gas released by peat bogs in the northern-most third of the globe probably helped fuel the last major round of global warming, which drew the ice age to a close between 11,000 and 12,000 years ago, UCLA and Russian Academy of Sciences scientists have concluded. "

This was quoted from Science Daily. Who ever thinks about peat bogs. Peat bogs are one of the largest emitters of methane in the world.

As long as you support an agenda you will narrow your focus to that particular item. As long as you look at a cows butt, that is all your going to see. So now will you include this news item in your "Viva" campaign which is hailed as the saving grace of the world by the veg.... I took a look at the website. It is nicely done, very sensational and will draw many people, most who do not understand what is involved in agricutlure production. I was saddened to realize that Viva did not mention "peat bogs" or the fact that you are not promoting the riding of bicycles to work. Automobiles and peat bogs are the leading emitters of the world of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane and NOT ONE mention of this on your precious Viva campaign. It is a shame that the vegetarians and vegans that support this are so narrow minded. I would have thought that a group of intelligent thinking humans could grasp the big picture, but maybe I am wrong.

Ok, I got that off of my chest, there is no question that animal production has some effect on the environment. Meat is produced for the consumption of the masses (less the number of veg...). Some of your thought process regarding CO2 is correct, but lets put it in context here. Grasses grow in pastures that begin in the spring and continue through the growing season. When these grasses grow they take in carbon dioxide, removing it from the atmosphere. The cows consume this grass and through natural digestion of the food, the same as you and I, the by product is passed out the tail end of the animal, thus releasing the carbon products back into the atmosphere. So theoretically, the cows emit CO2, yet it was recently in the atmosphere to begin with before the plant took it in. Blame the animal, sure go ahead, but those stinking peat bogs and cars are more of the problem. Will Viva include this.... will a Vegan admit this... probably not, because they have an agenda to support.

Answer 5

Yes animals do give off quiet alot of methane and if you got rid of all the farm animals you would reduce the amount of methane going into the environment quiet significantly. the problem is you would have to intensively farm so much more land to produce similar amounts of protein. whereas animal left to graze in a traditional field system actually supports alot of wildlife in the ditches and hedgerows these would all have to be removed for in tensive tillage farming. lets not kid ourselves thinking that these crops would be grown in an organic manner.

Answer 6

Viva do sensationalise a lot, look at the emotive words they use in thier magazine, i dont think its necessary.

The July 2007 edition of "Farmers Link" - the UK government magazine for farmers - explains a lot about how damanging beef and dairy production is.

The figures were quite staggering. And this is from a body that supports farmers.

Its more than CO2, although those figues showed livestock farming was responsible for 60% of argicultural emmissions but less than 10% of food.

Livestock also imits 40% of the UK Nitrous Oxide - this has 296 ( yep, 296 ! ) times more global warming impact than CO2. Arables emit near to zero NOxide

So, in answer to your question, I can't think how the environment would be worst if we didn't have commercially farmed animals. Therefore, I can't see how they improve it.

Some arable land ( not all by any means ) is fertilised with animal waste - correct. Why is this ? Because we have squeezed all the arable land in favour of livestock. We need to get more per acre from arables than we used to and so have to wring the life out of the ground. If we didn't have livestock farming and use the permanent pasture the arables would be less intense, and we could return to land management by crop rotation. Its meat consumption that has forced arable farmers to use animal fertiliser so it can hardly be described as a "benefit". Its like a drug company poisoning you and then claiming they have the cure. Would you thank them ?

Answer 7

They don't help the environment. Neither does the transportation issue. Not all research has shown that the meat issue is worse than the transportation issue. As a veger you naturally latch onto and believe the research that supports your views. It happens in here all day long.

Some users here in V & V have actually come out and said that research that agrees with their veger beliefs is true and research that they disagree with must be biased and funded by the meat industry. Does that sound intelligent? Not to me.

Having Googled Viva! I see it's a veger propaganda site. So, using the logic continually displayed here in V & V I say it must be funded by the agriculture industry.

It's all about $$$ people. In an earlier question it was established that all anti-meat and anti-vege sites had no credibility as they are funded by differing sectors of the food industry.

I don't give this anti-meat site Viva! any more credit than I'd give an anti-vege site. Bias is assured on both sides.

Answer 8

If they have to feed an ever growing world population they would have to plant crops ie soya which would mean cutting down forests to plant the crops which would be bad for the environment. I am all for not eating animals but I dont know if it would work.

Answer 9

Animals bred for mass production do not help the environment.
They are very harmful to our bodies and environment.
People are misinformed about factory farming and are onesided about it.

Answer 10

Fertilizer
Manure can be spread on fields to increase crop yields. This is an important reason why historically, plant and animal domestication have been intimately linked. Manure is also used to make plaster for walls and floors and can be used as a fuel for fires. The blood and bone of animals are also used as fertilizer
Land management
The grazing of livestock is sometimes used as a way to control weeds and undergrowth. For example, in areas prone to wild fires, goats and sheep are set to graze on dry scrub which removes combustible material and reduces the risk of fires.
Labour
Animals such as horses, donkey, and yaks can be used for mechanical energy. Prior to steam power livestock were the only available source of non-human labour. They are still used for this purpose in many places of the world, including ploughing fields, transporting goods, and military function

In the US, which produces about 23% of global greenhouse gases, agriculture accounts for 7% of total greenhouse gas emissions (in CO2 equivalents), while transportation produces more than 25%. By comparison, the energy sector, which includes transportation, accounted for more than 85% of US greenhouse gas emissions