meat production and environment!

[razmatazz]

hey guys! so i was wondering if you could help me with something. At uni I've volunteered to write an eco article about meat production, with the aim of showing the other side of the story to the general view that meat production is destructive and a vegetarian diet is best for the environment (ill be talking about how local grass fed meat is very ecofriendly whereas its the industrial stuff thats bad)  But I need sources of info! I've found articles online and also have found Lierre keith's book "the vegetarian myth" useful in explaining how grain production is harmful to soil, how without animals and manure we need 2 use synthetic fertilizers which are bad for the environment, etc, but I also need some solid facts. For instance the veggies say 30 people on a grain based diet can be fed on the grain needed to feed an animal eaten by 1 person on a meat based diet, livestock production is responsible for 18% of greenhouse emissions etc etc . I need data for the other side of the argument.
Also, any interesting info you think I should include in the article!

[yon yonson]

talk about how agriculture creates monocrops whereas grass fed livestock replenish the soil and help maintain an actual ecosystem. i don't really have any sources but im sure you can find some by googling it. kudos on the idea!

[ys]

It is pretty difficult to quantify green house gas emissions raising animals vs. raising grain.  All the talk about environment impact is pure speculation as no one has solid facts and numbers.
It is true grazing animals release gas but so do people when they eat grain.

It is also true that more people can be fed grain than cattle meat.  The point was brought up in this forum there is not enough meat to feed every person on this planet.

[majormark]

Some interesting things about animal farming here:

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/vegetarian.html#link1


Note: you can also check the 50 references in that article if you want to get serious with it.

[PaleoPhil]

... But I need sources of info! I've found articles online and also have found Lierre keith's book "the vegetarian myth" useful in explaining how grain production is harmful to soil, how without animals and manure we need 2 use synthetic fertilizers which are bad for the environment, etc, but I also need some solid facts. For instance the veggies say 30 people on a grain based diet can be fed on the grain needed to feed an animal eaten by 1 person on a meat based diet, livestock production is responsible for 18% of greenhouse emissions etc etc . I need data for the other side of the argument.
Also, any interesting info you think I should include in the article!

Keith provides data on pp. 101 - 103 of that very book.

Plus the secondopinions site that was linked to, and the following from Ray Audette of NeanderThin:

Frequently Asked Questions
Originally retrieved on 5/5/04 at http://www.neanderthin.com/faq.htm

Q:  Is NeanderThin good for the environment?

A:  Since ancient times, the most destructive factor in the degradation of the environment has been monoculture agriculture.  The production of wheat in ancient Sumeria transformed once-fertile plains into salt flats that remain sterile 5,000 years later.  As well as depleting both the soil and water sources, monoculture agriculture also produces environmental damage by altering the delicate balance of natural ecosystems.  World rice production in 1993, for instance, caused 155 million cases of malaria by providing breeding grounds for mosquitoes in the paddies.  Human contact with ducks in the same rice paddies resulted in 500 million cases of influenza during the same year.

        A frequently argued assertion is that our continued reliance on animal foods constitutes a highly inefficient use of scarce food resources. It is argued that domestic animals compete with humans for food, eating perhaps three times as much food as they provide for humans.  This argument is based on the fallacy that the land used to raise domestic animals could be turned to use in raising plants. In fact, only 35 percent of Earth's landmass can be used for food production. The remaining landmass consists of mountains [although some cattle raising can be done on certain mountains], deserts, cities, snow, ice, marshes and other kinds of geographical features that render it useless for agricultural purposes.

        Of the 35 percent of the world's usable land, only one third is suitable for growing crops. This portion of the 35 percent is predicted to shrink as a result of global warming caused by the greenhouse effect and the erosion inherently caused by agrarian agricultural practices.

        The nature of the remaining two thirds of the usable land will only support the growth of plants that can be consumed by ruminant animals—not by humans. Only by raising domestic animals on this land can we derive any food value from the resources it offers. If we eliminated animal husbandry from our agricultural practices, two-thirds of the world's land currently used for agriculture would become useless. The result would be a net loss in overall food production. (source: Department of Animal Science at Oklahoma State University, web site at www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds)

         Many environmentalists now believe the only way to preserve the environment is to return to our natural place on the food chain. Over time nature produces more nutrients per acre than any method of agriculture.  Learning to intelligently harvest this natural bounty without destroying it is the biggest challenge facing modern man.

[TylerDurden]

It is true grazing animals release gas but so do people when they eat grain.

Yes, this is a key point in debunking notions of methane gas harming the environment. Vegetarians are more likely to fart  than other humans, thus countering any benefit from raising massive numbers of herbivores like cows.