I think you've missed my point. Removing what is one of the primary constraints on population growth is exactly what we don't want to be doing if we want to save the planet.
Vegetarianism: what if we didn't eat meat
- Thread starter Fluke?
- Start date
except that's Australia, here most animals are not fed soley by pasture but by feed stock.
Cattle are grain fee, which means growing fields to cut down to feed tomcattle. Far more animals die in meat production.
As
A) you are growing mire crops to cut down, meat is highly inefficient.
B) on top of that your killing animals.
No I don't know everything, but clearly no more than you.
That report is not valid in the uk, where animal feed isn't used widely.
Lets look at chickens
In the uk most chickens are mass produced. They eat almost 100% animal feed, which is mainly made up of plant matter.
Free range chickens are rarely reduce animal feed by more than 30%, so still 70% feed
Even small holders which have low density chickens rarely drops below 50% feed
Then cows.
Cows feed on grass + usually feed during summer. Then feed + cut and stored grass in the winter. Even exclusively grass fed cattle which again isn't main stream still requires stored grass during the winter.
How are these feeds and/or grass gathered? That's right combine harvester and normal mass farming techniques.
Last edited:
I am merely stating that the OP is deluded by his belief. Australia may be different to the UK. But the USA is different to the UK too. We are not talking UK specific, we are talking about the concept of vegetarianism in general.
Show me some statistics that say more animals die in meat production? We can then argue it.
The report is valid wherever you read it. Its just it applies to Australia.
Show me some statistics that say more animals die in meat production? We can then argue it.
The report is valid wherever you read it. Its just it applies to Australia.
Last edited:
couldnt put it better
im attempting to cut out meat myself. i already have pretty much cut out some meats and just hope the alternatives get better and better.
i come from a farming background so have a good grip on what happens.
Actually egg laying is probably one of the worst if you look at it in a particular way.
male layer breeds get instant death sentence and as said a typical layer wont have a full life.
i have my own birds for eggs and wont get rid of them at laying expiration. they will have a full natural life span
im not hypocritical just would much prefer to not eat meat
The report is not valid. Theres not enough land, and yes the USA is even worse as nearly 100% is grain fed the whole time.
As I said you are wrong, you still are wrong and pretty deluded to say otherwise. More likely as you don't know how animals are raised.
How many chickens do you think we could raise on 100% wild?
How many cows do you think we could 100% passture, seeing as we have winter which means grass barely grows.
These things aren't possible for mass production.
Pasture does not mean no extra feed, so the report could well be wrong on that regard, but can't find any easy to find figures for Australian cattle.
Last edited:
How about supplying the evidence that more animals die from eating meat than by vegetarianism? You say a lot and prove nothing. You say the scientists report is not valid, but your own delusions are.
If you want to be taken seriously, you need to make an adult argument.
If you want to be taken seriously, you need to make an adult argument.
i am, just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's not a good argument.
You can use your reports figures if you want for how much dies in the production if crops, you can then apply that to how many tons of feed are used in animal production, you can plainly see how more die.
As mass chickens are near enough 100% fee, how many kilos of feed does it take to raise a chicken? Compared to how many calories we get from a kilo if crop.
In the US for example which will be the largest figure due to their farming method and love of corn, it can take up to 7kg of corn to make 1kg of beef.
Last edited:
Yes, chickens deaths are high relative to the number of calories provided, or food value. We can always be selective in our stats. But then again, so are eggs. Since we are talking about vegetarians, they are generally egg eaters. So part of their diet involves eggs.
Furthermore, if you look at beef, you get far more calories per life than chickens.
Source: http://measureofdoubt.com/2011/06/22/why-a-vegetarian-might-kill-more-animals-than-an-omnivore/
Furthermore, if you look at beef, you get far more calories per life than chickens.
Source: http://measureofdoubt.com/2011/06/22/why-a-vegetarian-might-kill-more-animals-than-an-omnivore/
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
Its rather impressive how little there is to talk about from the OP.
Cows give milks, pigs smell bad, sheep give wool, chickens give eggs.
However, male cows and chickens are economically useless, except for the rare few that win the lottery and become stud breeders.
And there in lies the difference between vegetarian and vegan, because if we don't slaughter the male lines for meat, they are a negative equity drain on the farmer.
It's not laziness - it takes knowledge and consistent application to be healthy on a purely vegetarian diet because humans are physiologically adapted to an omnivorous diet.
It can be done as long as you take B12 supplements (no plant sources of B12 usable by humans, none at all), but it takes knowledge and consistent application of that knowledge, every day. So it's not that you need to not be lazy - you need to be the opposite of lazy.
That being said, if you know what you're doing and consistently apply that knowledge to everything you eat and you have easy access to a wide variety of edible plants and you take B12 supplements, it can be a very healthy diet.
For most people though, it isn't healthy. It's entirely sensible for doctors to go straight to blood tests for many symptoms with vegetarian patients because it's most likely that the cause is malnutrition. Humans can get everything apart from B12 from plants in some circumstances, but we're very badly suited to doing so. We simply don't have the physiology for it.
The world would be less polluted as dairy and meat production contributes more co2 than every car on the planet
If more people cut meat out of their diet, we wouldn't need to breed so many cattle etc. so they wouldn't disappear. Unless everyone followed a strict vegan diet their would still be uses for those animals. My own belief is we shouldn't rely on animal suffering for our own gain and a a such follow a vegan lifestyle
If more people cut meat out of their diet, we wouldn't need to breed so many cattle etc. so they wouldn't disappear. Unless everyone followed a strict vegan diet their would still be uses for those animals. My own belief is we shouldn't rely on animal suffering for our own gain and a a such follow a vegan lifestyle
Lol, and non off this agrees with your stance vegetarians kill more. It is plainly wrong for everyone to see.
Unless you have such a low farming intensity you need no feed. Which is barely doable in most countries.
And I don't really believe the report that no feed or grass is cut for Australian cattle.
Don't know what percentage it is, but 600,000 per quarter are grain fed in Australia. That kills the report to start with.
Last edited:
A couple of counter arguments.
You are presenting a false dichotomy in that we either utterly ignore the ethical considerations or have to live on air causing no deaths at all. It's a matter of damage mitigation & reducing (as much as possible) the net suffering is the argument as I know it.
Additionally, you are comparing modern agricultural farming methods & applying that to all vegetable products - when in reality many small farms/home grown or even potentially hydroponics based farming methods could yield the food without any deaths. The consumption of animals (unless we move to artificially created meat) will always result in the deaths of animals so is therefore not really comparable.
I'm not saying that everybody should stop eating meat, just that the arguments you are presenting for eating meat are poorly thought out, I'm not judgemental personally . I've been a vegetarian, a meat eater & vegan for periods in my life & know how easy it can be to ignore the ethics when you sit at different points - but even as a fervent meat eater. I knew I couldn't ethically defend it, I just didn't think about it.
The term 'gift of life' seems a little strange when you factor in the qualify of life that most animals used for meat or dairy endure.
Those animals are also killed to feed animals which later are killed.
You are presenting a false dichotomy in that we either utterly ignore the ethical considerations or have to live on air causing no deaths at all. It's a matter of damage mitigation & reducing (as much as possible) the net suffering is the argument as I know it.
Additionally, you are comparing modern agricultural farming methods & applying that to all vegetable products - when in reality many small farms/home grown or even potentially hydroponics based farming methods could yield the food without any deaths. The consumption of animals (unless we move to artificially created meat) will always result in the deaths of animals so is therefore not really comparable.
I'm not saying that everybody should stop eating meat, just that the arguments you are presenting for eating meat are poorly thought out, I'm not judgemental personally . I've been a vegetarian, a meat eater & vegan for periods in my life & know how easy it can be to ignore the ethics when you sit at different points - but even as a fervent meat eater. I knew I couldn't ethically defend it, I just didn't think about it.
Last edited:
Yes, but combines move at around 5mph and make a lot of noise. The animals run away.
Have you conveniently forgotten about your chicken feed argument already? At least be truthful if you wish to be believed.
How is all of it wrong? Once again, no evidence from you.
You don't believe the report from the scientist because you are more interested in appearing right than accepting the truth.
The fact you don't know what the percentage is, but then state it kills the report, means you don't understand basic statistics. How else can you say it kills the report?
Please try harder next time.
Cows - Milk, leather
Sheep - Wool
Chickens - Eggs
We'd still see them
I'm a vegetarian, have been for 10 years now. In regards to whether we should eat animals or not, I can't answer that. I choose not to, but have never preached vegetarianism, it's up to you, I don't judge meat eaters.
In fact, I still cook meat, when I make my SO dinner.
This is one of my favourite theories (below) on the subject, a good approach to it. Usually I just get "but it tastes nice" or "you're not making any difference" which isn't the point. There isn't a way to live life comfortably without involving the breeding and killing of an animal. Veganism isn't a lifestyle it's a complete change of life and such a huge inconvenience and you can never be 100% certain. So you have to draw the line somewhere or not bother at all.
Improving animal welfare and being sure that it stays that way would see many vegetarians move back to eating meat I'm sure. I know I'd consider it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 3,462
- Location
- Sheffield
I can't supply any evidence but that argument makes complete sense, a cow takes at least 5x the weight of meat produced in feed to rear, if you simply ate the feed yourself instead, not only is the cow not killed but less animals are killed in the production of so much feed.
I went vegetarian only recently, because to produce enough "ethically produced" meat to feed everyone at the current rate of meat consumption isn't possible, and the easiest way to vote on the matter is with your wallet. I have nothing against eating meat itself, but I do believe we should eat less, and from more respectable, local sources. If I buy any now, it'll always be from a local small scale butchers. Expense isn't an issue because I've pretty much halved what I spend on food now too (I did eat a LOT of meat
).Have to say I'll miss steak and bacon (despite what some veggies say, tofu and quorn are not replacements, and soy brings up a whole 'nother debate), but I think it just makes it all the sweeter when I can treat myself to super noice double the proice cuts.
Last edited:
The fact if younfollow the link in your article, to rpthe stats body. 600,000 are grain fed, this doesn't even take into account grass fed but stored. Or bumped up with extra feed.
And what about the chicken feed?
Nothing you have said so far sports your argument.
In fact everything you produced so far works in my favour, as crops are grown to feed meat. that is less efficient than feeding us on crops.
Except for one extremely lowly populated country, and a suspect report.
Last edited:
I agree, the quality of life of animals is not to be ignored. I believe we need to do far more in this area.
I don't see any false dichotomy. If we are arguing between vegetarianism and eating meat, to me its about what causes minimal animal suffering. This may all be futile in the future anyway, since they will end up 3D printing food, reducing the need to kill animals for our Sunday lunches.
As for your last paragraph, the consumption of vegetables will result in the death of animals too. As will road building, travel, etc etc.