Living Car Free - American diet compared to the combustion engine

Most of meat is local stuff, fed with local stuff, and I pay much higher prices for it than I would if I got it at the supermarket. But it's worth it costs it tastes so much better! MMMMMMM!!! :)

Cattle feed most of the year through the natural vegetation and drink from man made stockponds, rivers and streams. They have thousands and thousands of acres of non inhabited grassland. These resources are not being used by people, nor are people even trying to harvest these resources. (besides a local town or two) They sometimes get grain in the winter but is the farmers corn or silage straight out of the field, anyways, it is nothing special. I don't see how much of anything is being wasted.

It seems to me that you're missing the point that I'm trying to make. Granted, if cattle were grazing in pastures, they would be taking advantage of what mother nature has to offer with very little waste. But I'm referring to the amount of fossil fuel input required to bring the beef to your table.

Depending on the crop, inputs will vary (ie: hay would be somewhat less)
1. fuel burned while fertilizing soil
2. fuel burned while seeding crop
3. fuel burned while spraying crop
4. fuel burned while swathing crop (may be direct harvested depending on crop, maturity and dryness)
5. fuel burned while harvesting crop (if not direct harvested)
6. depending on crop, location, moisture and summerfallow rotation, there may be one final pass before fall.

Now if this were intended for human consumption, and not cattle feed, petroleum inputs would end here, excluding transportation and logistics required to process and bring to market. And, if these were organic crops, there would be reduced fuel inputs as well.

Then one must look at the water inputs. How much irrigation was there? If cattle were raised in the pasture, would they have access to a natural source of water as suggested?

gosmsgo mentioned that when finishing cattle (at feedlots), they only spend a few weeks there. The experience that I've had with feedlots here in Canada (namely Saskatchewan), cattle usually spend around 80-100 days. But here is what I've found with Alberta. This may be more relevant because of the greater production existing there.


Finishing rations are normally fed to cattle for at least 100 days. Depending on when they entered the feedlot, some animals can be ready for processing from 12 to 24 months of age.

http://www.albertabeef.org/industry/beef-production-chain/

So, one now must look at how much water is used during this finishing stage.

And according to the article in the Times...


The environmental impact of growing so much grain for animal feed is profound. Agriculture in the United States — much of which now serves the demand for meat — contributes to nearly three-quarters of all water-quality problems in the nation’s rivers and streams, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

I would think that this would be something to keep a watch on. This is from the EPA, not some city-slicker whose never been on a farm.

So I see more resources being consumed by a cow/calf to feedlot route; as opposed to being raised vis a vis the pasture method. And, if North Americans actually ate less meat, consumption of these resources would also drop.

I won't even bother getting into antibiotics. This is a separate topic with different issues.

So if one considers a vegetarian diet, I definitely see a reduction in resources being consumed in order to bring it to your table.

Here is the problem. People honestly must assume livestock is taken care of like a family dog getting special processed food and faucet water daily. Cattle feed most of the year through the natural vegetation and drink from man made stockponds, rivers and streams. They have thousands and thousands of acres of non inhabited grassland. These resources are not being used by people, nor are people even trying to harvest these resources. (besides a local town or two) They sometimes get grain in the winter but is the farmers corn or silage straight out of the field, anyways, it is nothing special. I don't see how much of anything is being wasted. (have you even been to eastern wyoming?!) You also have to realize that before cattle there were thousands of buffalo, antelope and various other creatures that lived off of the land in the same way (beef) cattle do now. We are creating any of the problems, not the animals.
Yee-ha! Git along little dogies!

You have provided an accurate description of meat production--50 years ago. The picture nowadays is quite different.

Pork and poultry, in particular, are usually raised in CAFOs (http://www.epa.gov/region09/animalwaste/terms.html), or concntrated animal feeding operations. Beef spend at least the last 3 months of their lives being "finished" on grain in CAFOs also, and that time is steadily increasing.

CAFOs house thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of animals in a single location. Obviously the waste produced by these animals is comparable to a human city of equivalent size. Unfortunately, unlike human cities, CAFOs have very lax regualtions governing the treatment and discharge of sewage. Tons of animal crap (to put it nicely) are lagooned and eventually either discharged into streams and rivers, or allowed to dry and blow away as dust. How does that sound? Not much like the idyllic family farms that the big agri-petroleum companies would like us to envision.

It's amazing how the American public swallows corporate lies like this one about the purity of meat production. A short trip into the country would convince you otherwise. Of course, the CAFOs have strict "security" policies that prohibit visits and especially photos. They certainly don't want us to be aware of the conditions in which our food is produced!

Tour the Food Supply (http://www.cspinet.org/EatingGreen/tour.html)

I do acknowledge that much of the way things are being produced is changing, especially with corporate entities getting involved in farming so much. I don't doubt that this is beginning to mess up the environment. Along with the mass production of anything, there will undoubtedly be pollutants and resources being used can affect things.

There are still however many farmers where I grew up and and elsewhere that do not farm like this. And when it was done like this there were no issues. For example there were no lagoons when I was growing up, which is a big factor on runoff and water pollutants.

Either way, you have to realize that yes fuel is being used means of planting, fertilizing, plowing, and harvesting. Wether or not we give it cattle or people farmers will be producing this. When we stop feeding cattle and put the grain more directly to plants and factories to make food. Great, crop prices dwindle, we just put the last percentage of small farms out of business so the entire industry can be run like the corporations causing the problems in the first place. We are all better off then, aren't we?

I think people are looking at too directly at the problems arising, and looking to fix it in the wrong places. I would argue that instead of putting the stress farming, farmers and livestock production, stop purchasing goods from places like walmart, and mcdonalds, which buy things at the lowest cost possible and produce vast amounts junk that people don't need.

Once people cut down on purchasing beef, poultry, and dairy at places like this and support places like farmers market, local grocery stores, and local eateries maybe, just maybe these corporations would slow down amounts and production causing the problem of needing to produce such sheer amounts of grain just for cattle.

I do acknowledge that much of the way things are being produced is changing, especially with corporate entities getting involved in farming so much. I don't doubt that this is beginning to mess up the environment. Along with the mass production of anything, there will undoubtedly be pollutants and resources being used can affect things.

There are still however many farmers where I grew up and and elsewhere that do not farm like this. And when it was done like this there were no issues. For example there were no lagoons when I was growing up, which is a big factor on runoff and water pollutants.

Either way, you have to realize that yes fuel is being used means of planting, fertilizing, plowing, and harvesting. Wether or not we give it cattle or people farmers will be producing this. When we stop feeding cattle and put the grain more directly to plants and factories to make food. Great, crop prices dwindle, we just put the last percentage of small farms out of business so the entire industry can be run like the corporations causing the problems in the first place. We are all better off then, aren't we?

I think people are looking at too directly at the problems arising, and looking to fix it in the wrong places. I would argue that instead of putting the stress farming, farmers and livestock production, stop purchasing goods from places like walmart, and mcdonalds, which buy things at the lowest cost possible and produce vast amounts junk that people don't need.

Once people cut down on purchasing beef, poultry, and dairy at places like this and support places like farmers market, local grocery stores, and local eateries maybe, just maybe these corporations would slow down amounts and production causing the problem of needing to produce such sheer amounts of grain just for cattle.

This is a thoughtful and well-written post. The real problem is that the American consumer wants meat (and other stuff) at the cheapest possible price. I blame consumers ahead of farmers, or even Walmart and MacDonalds. We're willing to put the real costs onto other people rather than bear them ourselves. And now we're putting the costs even further away, since we're buying more meat from foreign countries now, countries with even more lax pollution controls than we have here.

I agree with your solution too. We should eat less meat, probably, but definitely we should be buying meat that comes from small, sustainably-run local farms. Almost every community has this option now, if you're willing to seek it out. And of course when more consumers demand sustainably grown meat, more farmers will be willing to supply it.

It's amazing how the American public swallows corporate lies like this one about the purity of meat production. A short trip into the country would convince you otherwise. Of course, the CAFOs have strict "security" policies that prohibit visits and especially photos. They certainly don't want us to be aware of the conditions in which our food is produced!

Tour the Food Supply (http://www.cspinet.org/EatingGreen/tour.html)

I have various family members who have worked/or do work at CAFO's. Mainly for pork production and they do have very strict security policies, but a lot of this is due to the fact that pigs are considered bio-hazard. If you goto some other hog farm, or have been somewhere where there is a disease and bring it to a CAFO that is basically like bringing typhoid mary to a concentration camp. Wouldn't that turn out fantastically? the whole avian flue/mad cow disease thing is easier to keep under control with more strict rules.

I do agree that it is silly about the photo policies and such, but it is also a bit ridiculous when somebody sees 5000 chickens in a barn and are like "oh no, they are in such pain, i am never advocating eating meat again!" People definitely over react to a lot of the situations. Growing up on a farm raising, butchering, and consuming animals was and is a part of life. People who live away from that are detached from the food source and tend to be overly empathetic to animals.

Technically, along with these strict rules they have laws protecting the animals. I know for a fact that people HAVE gotten fired for being too rough with the animals (pigs again) and do have consequences.

Then again, I knew a kid during high school and went to a local farm and butchered several pigs with a samurai sword. Some people are just ****ty people and will always be a ****ty person. But they get what is coming to them.

As far as purity of meat, I don't see what the issue is. It is pretty easy to a local market and still purchase meat straight from a local butcher. I know a lot of people who just get one cow butchered a year and feed their family off of it. Again, quit supporting places like walmart and mcdonalds and pay extra for the quality.

its just a matter of convincing people for the right reasons in the right places

*edit* note, i am not in anyway supporting CFAO's just pointing out some stuff is there for a reason (given the situation) even though it may seem excessive.

I have various family members who have worked/or do work at CAFO's. Mainly for pork production and they do have very strict security policies, but a lot of this is due to the fact that pigs are considered bio-hazard. If you goto some other hog farm, or have been somewhere where there is a disease and bring it to a CAFO that is basically like bringing typhoid mary to a concentration camp. Wouldn't that turn out fantastically? the whole avian flue/mad cow disease thing is easier to keep under control with more strict rules.

I do agree that it is silly about the photo policies and such, but it is also a bit ridiculous when somebody sees 5000 chickens in a barn and are like "oh no, they are in such pain, i am never advocating eating meat again!" People definitely over react to a lot of the situations. Growing up on a farm raising, butchering, and consuming animals was and is a part of life. People who live away from that are detached from the food source and tend to be overly empathetic to animals.

Technically, along with these strict rules they have laws protecting the animals. I know for a fact that people HAVE gotten fired for being too rough with the animals (pigs again) and do have consequences.

Then again, I knew a kid during high school and went to a local farm and butchered several pigs with a samurai sword. Some people are just ****ty people and will always be a ****ty person. But they get what is coming to them.

As far as purity of meat, I don't see what the issue is. It is pretty easy to a local market and still purchase meat straight from a local butcher. I know a lot of people who just get one cow butchered a year and feed their family off of it. Again, quit supporting places like walmart and mcdonalds and pay extra for the quality.

its just a matter of convincing people for the right reasons in the right places

*edit* note, i am not in anyway supporting CFAO's just pointing out some stuff is there for a reason (given the situation) even though it may seem excessive.

A couple points about the "security."


One, the concern about disease wouldn't be so great if the animals were raised in a sustainable manner. Like jails and college dorms, when you get a lot of creatures jammed together in a small place, disease outbreaks are more likely and more severe.

Two, another reason commonly given for the "security" is a fear of "bio-terrorists endangering the food chain." Less centralized production would probably be a better safeguard against terrorism.

Three, I suspect the real reason for the security is to prevent consumers from seeing photographic evidence of the onditions in which their food is produced, and also to cover up the environmental crimes being committed by the CAFO operators.


And a point about the humanity issue. I'm not ethically concerned with the way the animals die. I'm concerned with the way they live.

One, the concern about disease wouldn't be so great if the animals were raised in a sustainable manner. Like jails and college dorms, when you get a lot of creatures jammed together in a small place, disease outbreaks are more likely and more severe.

Two, another reason commonly given for the "security" is a fear of "bio-terrorists endangering the food chain." Less centralized production would probably be a better safeguard against terrorism.

That is why I mentioned that the security things were beneficial conditionally. I agree with you fully. It is just a bad idea to put so many living things in such a limited space.

Three, I suspect the real reason for the security is to prevent consumers from seeing photographic evidence of the conditions in which their food is produced, and also to cover up the environmental crimes being committed by the CAFO operators.

The operators don't really have much leeway the way things go, environmentally speaking. They are limited to a certain number of animals and have certain resources to use. They use the lagoon waste on their farmland to fertilize it and such. At least in my area, which may be different elsewhere. These places aren't good for animals or the environment, but in all honesty they are what they are.


And a point about the humanity issue. I'm not ethically concerned with the way the animals die. I'm concerned with the way they live.

If it makes you feel any better, working in breeding in order successfully inseminate the sow there must be foreplay and sexual arousal for the semen to take. This requires a fair amount of bouncing and nipple rubbing while sticking your arm up the sow's bit's. Let's just say, it is a well payed job...

I guess the only answer is to be a vege munching, bicycling hippie complete with kick ass piercings.

Those are the only people NOT damaging the environment. They crap pure water and absorb CO2 and emit oxygen.

Give me a break.

I'm not ethically concerned with the way the animals die. I'm concerned with the way they live.

This is a key point; whether you're eating meat, vegetables, grains or fruit.

I guess the only answer is to be a vege munching, bicycling hippie complete with kick ass piercings.

Those are the only people NOT damaging the environment. They crap pure water and absorb CO2 and emit oxygen.

Give me a break.

Seems like you're being pretty black&white about a complex issue. It's very difficult to find the "greenest" way to live, and it takes a lot of research and discussion. If you're not up to it, that's fine by me.

I think one good point here is that it is possible to eat meat that is sustainably produced, if that's the way you want to go. It will cost you more per pound of meat, but this might encourage you to eat more sensible amounts of meat. (By "you" I don't mean you personally.)

Besides, you do get what you pay for. Bear in mind that the USDA just recalled 143 million pounds of cheap hamburger because the cost-cutting producer got caught grinding up diseased animals. And they weren't caught by government inspectors because inspection is almost totally in the hands of the meat producers now. They were caught (in a manner of speaking) by "vege munching, bicycling hippie complete with kick ass piercings."

BTW--143 million pounds--that's more than one quarter-pounder for everybody in the country! That's a lot of bad burger....

Seems like you're being pretty black&white about a complex issue. It's very difficult to find the "greenest" way to live, and it takes a lot of research and discussion. If you're not up to it, that's fine by me.

I think one good point here is that it is possible to eat meat that is sustainably produced, if that's the way you want to go. It will cost you more per pound of meat, but this might encourage you to eat more sensible amounts of meat. (By "you" I don't mean you personally.)

Besides, you do get what you pay for. Bear in mind that the USDA just recalled 143 million pounds of cheap hamburger because the cost-cutting producer got caught grinding up diseased animals. And they weren't caught by government inspectors because inspection is almost totally in the hands of the meat producers now. They were caught (in a manner of speaking) by "vege munching, bicycling hippie complete with kick ass piercings."

This is very true, it's a complex issue.

The lesson here, may be that things can no longer go on the way they have; even though it may have worked in the past. Resources and agriculture are being pushed to the limits with our expanding population. Ecosystems are being altered/affected at an alarming rate; and usually with dire consequences.

Unfortunately, by being a vegetarian, you may not be immune to incidents. I remember last year when the majority of spinach in California was recalled because of existing and potential E.coli contamination. This was linked back to cattle (I believe), but nonetheless the food chain was affected.

I am a vegetarian for more than one reason. Initially it may have only been two reasons, but now, this decision is aligning even moreso with my political, moral, ethical, health and spiritual beliefs. But, realistically, to each their own. To say that I could care less about one's eating habits would not be true. If I'm accused by a sweeping statement, of being a vege munching, bicycling hippie complete with kick ass piercings, so what. That type of statement says more about the person making it, than it does about me.

The point is things are going to have to change. But people hate change. It elicites the unknown; and to most, the unknown elicites fear. And it doesn't matter if the fear is rational or not; it's fear. Thus, there can be much resistance. And many voices heard.

I think that remaining on a course of mass consumption of our finite resources, with little regard for consequences, other than the bottom line, is insanity.

Do I trust multi-national corporations to do the right thing, with respect to my best interests? Absolutely not! Their number one responsibility is to their investors vis a vis, their board of directors.

But because I state my opinion as such, I may then I'm accused of being a pampered socialist, that needs the gov't to look after my best interests. But that isn't true either. It's a very complex issue indeed.

People who want to see (be) change in the world, are doing it right now. And their doing it by changing their purchasing habits.

Seems like you're being pretty black&white about a complex issue. It's very difficult to find the "greenest" way to live, and it takes a lot of research and discussion. If you're not up to it, that's fine by me.

I think one good point here is that it is possible to eat meat that is sustainably produced, if that's the way you want to go. It will cost you more per pound of meat, but this might encourage you to eat more sensible amounts of meat. (By "you" I don't mean you personally.)

Besides, you do get what you pay for. Bear in mind that the USDA just recalled 143 million pounds of cheap hamburger because the cost-cutting producer got caught grinding up diseased animals. And they weren't caught by government inspectors because inspection is almost totally in the hands of the meat producers now. They were caught (in a manner of speaking) by "vege munching, bicycling hippie complete with kick ass piercings."

BTW--143 million pounds--that's more than one quarter-pounder for everybody in the country! That's a lot of bad burger....


wrong again.

There is nothing wrong with that burger. The meat was recalled because they processed downer cows which is not allowed by law. I would personally eat every drop of that burger without fear of anything being wrong with it.

There are USDA inspectors at every plant. I guess you didnt read that from your ag education.....a bumper sticker.

You are nothing but lies my friend. "And they weren't caught by government inspectors because inspection is almost totally in the hands of the meat producers now"

You might as well said the average bicycle contains 9 wheels.

That crap might fly in a hemp circle somewhere but I just cant let you spread that crap where I can read it.

Suppose you had your own bit of land, and you had a chicken coop - would it be so bad on the environment to eat the eggs from your own chickens?

I think it would be good, considering that it does not need to be trucked to a store... just get up, walk to the coop and pick them up for FREE. =)

Suppose you had your own bit of land, and you had a chicken coop - would it be so bad on the environment to eat the eggs from your own chickens?

I think it would be good, considering that it does not need to be trucked to a store... just get up, walk to the coop and pick them up for FREE. =)

Dude, I grow my own vegetables in a community garden and I hunt, kill, skin and process my own meat.

The only meat I eat is wild game. I am also a car-free full-time bicycle commuter and own a oil free lawn business. Do not paint me as someone who HATES the environment just because I've cracked a science book.

Dude, I grow my own vegetables in a community garden and I hunt, kill, skin and process my own meat.

The only meat I eat is wild game. I am also a car-free full-time bicycle commuter and own a oil free lawn business. Do not paint me as someone who HATES the environment just because I've cracked a science book.


Cool, I want to be just like you some day.

In the mean time, it just sucks to be allergic to egg yolks !!!

Suppose you had your own bit of land, and you had a chicken coop - would it be so bad on the environment to eat the eggs from your own chickens?

I think it would be good, considering that it does not need to be trucked to a store... just get up, walk to the coop and pick them up for FREE. =)

No and I do...and believe me they ain't free. Those chicken like to EAT too:p the litter from the coop goes into the compost pile to fertilize the garden. FWIW I am in between chicken flocks at the moment, we had bantys but the foxes ate them all. Now that the fox population has been reduced (by live trapping and relocation) we are going to be starting over again with a different breed. I do miss the farm fresh eggs and knowing what went into producing them.

Aaron:)

No and I do...and believe me they ain't free. Those chicken like to EAT too:p the litter from the coop goes into the compost pile to fertilize the garden. FWIW I am in between chicken flocks at the moment, we had bantys but the foxes ate them all. Now that the fox population has been reduced (by live trapping and relocation) we are going to be starting over again with a different breed. I do miss the farm fresh eggs and knowing what went into producing them.

Aaron:)


Well, what exactly went into it?

Is it possible to plant a small area with some kind of easy-to-grow plants that the chickens can feed on without relying heavily on outside sources of feed ? Maybe two or three similar areas can be used, and then the chickens can be rotated on different days to each one so that they don't strip it bare so fast... ?

Well, what exactly went into it?

Is it possible to plant a small area with some kind of easy-to-grow plants that the chickens can feed on without relying heavily on outside sources of feed ? Maybe two or three similar areas can be used, and then the chickens can be rotated on different days to each one so that they don't strip it bare so fast... ?

I have a memory from my childhood of a hen following me around while I flipped over rocks. She would eat up all the bugs that lived under the rocks.

good times!

wrong again.

There is nothing wrong with that burger. The meat was recalled because they processed downer cows which is not allowed by law. I would personally eat every drop of that burger without fear of anything being wrong with it.

There are USDA inspectors at every plant. I guess you didnt read that from your ag education.....a bumper sticker.

You are nothing but lies my friend. "And they weren't caught by government inspectors because inspection is almost totally in the hands of the meat producers now"

You might as well said the average bicycle contains 9 wheels.



That crap might fly in a hemp circle somewhere but I just cant let you spread that crap where I can read it.

The head of the USDA said that they missed this situation because they were not inspecting the animals prior to them entering the slaughterhouse. They made random inspections, but possibly the producer worked around the inspection schedule. You are correct that there are inspectors at every plant. But sometimes I guess they're just not inspecting, they're doing something else. Obviously this situation was going on for long enough for the Humane Society to detect it when the USDA failed to do so.

You're welcome to eat this burger, but most was already eaten long ago.

The head of the USDA said that they missed this situation because they were not inspecting the animals prior to them entering the slaughterhouse. They made random inspections, but possibly the producer worked around the inspection schedule. You are correct that there are inspectors at every plant. But sometimes I guess they're just not inspecting, they're doing something else. Obviously this situation was going on for long enough for the Humane Society to detect it when the USDA failed to do so.

You're welcome to eat this burger, but most was already eaten long ago.

If you have now changed your assertion the USDA does not inspect plants to the fact that the USDA does not have 1 inspector per 1 plant worker than you are correct.

Of course not everything that happens in a processing plant is being watched and it would be impossible to do so.

I used to have a pet cow that loved to drink liters of old flat mountain dew.

There was an article (http://wral.com/news/national_world/national/story/2467733/)on the news today about the lack of proper oversight of the meat packing industry. They are basically responsible for their own inspections, with unscheduled inspections to be performed as needed by the USDA. The USDA is supposed to provide both finished product and veterinary inspections, however due to open positions approaching the 20% range in some areas of the country, inspections are few and far between. It is the standard case of the fox guarding the hen house. We have a reasonably decent inspection system in place in this country, but it has not kept up with the increase in the size of the operations, and I have little faith in the goverment to fix things and keep our best interests at heart.

Aaron:)

If you have now changed your assertion the USDA does not inspect plants to the fact that the USDA does not have 1 inspector per 1 plant worker than you are correct.

Of course not everything that happens in a processing plant is being watched and it would be impossible to do so.

If I implied that the USDA inspects no meat plants, that was an error and I apologize. I think I said that they do an inadequate job, and that they often rely on self-inspections by the meat industry. I stand by that statement.

Personally, I think the best bet is to do your own inspections when possible, by buying meat from local farms that you can ride out to and visit. Obviously this isn't always possible, so we rely on the USDA to inspect meat for us. But they have been falling short lately, as demonstrated by the many recalls and outbreaks of foodborne illnesses and deaths.

The volume of meat (especially poultry and pork) consumed in the US has increased enormously in the last several years. Do you honestly think the USDA is keeping up with this increase?

I have learned a lot from this thread; very interesting. I have considered trying a no-meat diet, but that would leave me eating nothing but wheat and dairy products all the time, because I rarely eat fruits or vegetables. I don't eat nearly as much meat as most people I know, and I rarely eat meat that isn't turkey, chicken, or eggs. I like fish but can't eat it because of a strange allergic reaction. But what I eat most are things like bread, cheese, cereal, peanut butter, etc. It can't be very good for me but I just don't like many other kinds of food. I can stand corn or green beans occasionally, but if I eat them very often I get tired of it very quickly, and I really don't like any fruit much at all. Ironically, I also hate steak, roast, pork chops, fried chicken, etc. Basically any meat that is still close to its original form makes me gag if I try to eat it.

I'd totally change my diet if I were you. If all you eat are highly processed carbs, you're going to be unhealthy. Even eating large slabs of beef at every meal is better than what you're eating now. And, for God's sake, eat some fruit & veggies; they're not just good for your body, they're good for your mental health, too.

wrong again.

There is nothing wrong with that burger. The meat was recalled because they processed downer cows which is not allowed by law. I would personally eat every drop of that burger without fear of anything being wrong with it.


You don't think there's anything wrong with processing downer cows and selling their meat to people who have no way of knowing that it came from sick animals? You're not at least a little concerned about people eating diseased beef, and then, after a few years, wondering why they can't walk in a straight line or form comprehensible sentences? Has it occurred to you that there may be good public health reasons, rather than the subversive efforts of pierced hippies, that it's illegal for people to process and sell meat from downer cows to the public?

And BTW, just because a person lives in a city and writes for or reads the NYT, doesn't mean they're all uninformed liberal idiots who don't know what they're talking about. I've lived in big cities, and I've lived in the rural South, and I can tell you from personal experience that, on the whole, people in cities are better informed, mostly because they can, and often do, read.

If we're talking about food from a moral and environmental POV, we should be talking about where it comes from, not what we're eating. Vegetable or meat, if you buy corporate/industrial farming output, you are contributing to all the nastiness that people usually dump only on industrial meat about. Industrial veg farming has it's own drawbacks--GMO foods, use and overuse of pesticides and herbicides, water issues, and all the oil that goes into producing and transportation. Monsanto and ADM ring a bell? It used to be that Brazillian rainforests were being cut for grazing land to support fast food burger in the US; now they're slash-and-burning rainforest to plant soy... soy being imported into the US to cover increased demand.

Buy as local as possible. Meat, veggies, everything in between. And eat seasonally--eat what's in season in your area.

Assuming that you're buying all your food locally, then feel free to make an emotional or spiritual personal decision to eat meat or no. When you get into environmental or moral issues at a macro level regarding your personal choice to eat no meat, then arguments start to fall apart because modern vegetable agriculture can be just as damaging to The Environment as meat.

If we're talking about food from a moral and environmental POV, we should be talking about where it comes from, not what we're eating. Vegetable or meat, if you buy corporate/industrial farming output, you are contributing to all the nastiness that people usually dump only on industrial meat about. Industrial veg farming has it's own drawbacks--GMO foods, use and overuse of pesticides and herbicides, water issues, and all the oil that goes into producing and transportation. Monsanto and ADM ring a bell? It used to be that Brazillian rainforests were being cut for grazing land to support fast food burger in the US; now they're slash-and-burning rainforest to plant soy... soy being imported into the US to cover increased demand.

Buy as local as possible. Meat, veggies, everything in between. And eat seasonally--eat what's in season in your area.

Assuming that you're buying all your food locally, then feel free to make an emotional or spiritual personal decision to eat meat or no. When you get into environmental or moral issues at a macro level regarding your personal choice to eat no meat, then arguments start to fall apart because modern vegetable agriculture can be just as damaging to The Environment as meat.


Good post. :)

Along with the locavore movement, there's also the slow foods movement, which is making great strides in Europe right now. Good farming practices yield good food, so there will always be strong consumer demand for local and organic food.

You don't think there's anything wrong with processing downer cows and selling their meat to people who have no way of knowing that it came from sick animals? You're not at least a little concerned about people eating diseased beef, and then, after a few years, wondering why they can't walk in a straight line or form comprehensible sentences? Has it occurred to you that there may be good public health reasons, rather than the subversive efforts of pierced hippies, that it's illegal for people to process and sell meat from downer cows to the public?

And BTW, just because a person lives in a city and writes for or reads the NYT, doesn't mean they're all uninformed liberal idiots who don't know what they're talking about. I've lived in big cities, and I've lived in the rural South, and I can tell you from personal experience that, on the whole, people in cities are better informed, mostly because they can, and often do, read.

Well, scoff at the NYT as they do, at least it does usually point out several sides of complicated issues. One problem with the agricultural "experts" is that they're bought and paid for by big agriculture. The land grant universities are to a large extent like private research arms of Monsanto and ADM. The ordinary farmers get a lot of info from ag agents of the universities, and directly from the big seed and chemical companies. They never hear the other sides of the issues, in many cases. But maybe that's one thing the internet will change? Any farmer in Nebraska can now read the NY Times, free, online every day.

I really wish I could go for less meat in my diet. However, each vegetarian meal I eat leaves me horribly hungry after just a few short hours. All my vegetarian meals disappear so quickly. Even the high fiber stuff doesn't last - unless I get at least some meat, I get hungry. Why is this?

I really wish I could go for less meat in my diet. However, each vegetarian meal I eat leaves me horribly hungry after just a few short hours. All my vegetarian meals disappear so quickly. Even the high fiber stuff doesn't last - unless I get at least some meat, I get hungry. Why is this?

Usually it's an association thing. If one consumes meat during a meal, digestion requirements are different than with a meatless meal. And there is almost always a heavy feeling. Sometimes the heavy feeling is an association to being full. This is usually not the case. One can still be full and not have that heavy feeling. Hence the old joke about chinese food and still being hungry afterwords.

Another point is that sometimes when the body requires more hydration, it can be mistaken for hunger. A good rule of thumb is when you're in between meals and you feel hungry, drink a couple glasses of water first. This may alleviate the feeling of hunger.

Thanks, jcwitte. Interesting article. :)

Here's a permalink (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html?ex=1359349200&en=539828db5dbf94de&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink) to the article, in case somebody's trying to find it a couple weeks from now.

If anybody wants more information on the subject, Michael Pollan (another Times writer) is the one to go to. He wrote a fantastic book called The Omnivore's Dilemna that describes factory farming and it's alternatives in detail. Pollan also wrote recent NYT articles called "Our Decrepit Food Factories (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/magazine/16wwln-lede-t.html?ex=1355634000&en=056e67d2c403f312&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink)" and "Unhappy Meals" (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html) . His new book, In Defense of Food, probably has more material on this topic. rhm (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=6070061&postcount=56) is reading it so maybe he'll tell us more.

I am most of the way through the Omnivore's dilemma - not a quick read. Oftentimes when we go out to dinner, I will pick a non-meat dish. My fiancee is still much more of a meat eater. There is a really good vegetarian restaurant near us, and I keep suggesting that we go together, and she keeps dragging her feet.

I really wish I could go for less meat in my diet. However, each vegetarian meal I eat leaves me horribly hungry after just a few short hours. All my vegetarian meals disappear so quickly. Even the high fiber stuff doesn't last - unless I get at least some meat, I get hungry. Why is this?

It depends a lot on exactly what it is that you do eat. The meals that I eat have a balance of proteins, fiber, some fat, and carbs, and I really don't have this problem.

Suppose you had your own bit of land, and you had a chicken coop - would it be so bad on the environment to eat the eggs from your own chickens?
Keeping backyard chickens around here is a popular hobby. Apparently the zoning in Portland allows for a small number.

Keeping backyard chickens around here is a popular hobby. Apparently the zoning in Portland allows for a small number.

Not allowed by zoning around here and it is a small town. One of the reasons I have held onto my acreage. But even that is getting to be a fight. Golf course across the road keeps trying to get MY property rezoned to suit their uses. Tried that with the guy down the road and he retaliated by bringing in a couple of truck loads of hogs. Golf Course Community took it to court, judge ruled against them and also pointed out that they were pretty lucky that he only brought in a couple of hundred hogs....he has a permit for over 1,000:D

Aaron:)

Not allowed by zoning around here and it is a small town. One of the reasons I have held onto my acreage. But even that is getting to be a fight. Golf course across the road keeps trying to get MY property rezoned to suit their uses. Tried that with the guy down the road and he retaliated by bringing in a couple of truck loads of hogs. Golf Course Community took it to court, judge ruled against them and also pointed out that they were pretty lucky that he only brought in a couple of hundred hogs....he has a permit for over 1,000:D

Aaron:)
You're going to love this, Aaron... Go to this page and play the video at the bottom of the page (http://bikeportland.org/2008/03/03/spend-the-morning-with-sam-adams/). Yes, that's right - our leading mayoral candidate keeps chickens. :)

I haven't eaten meat since last October or so. On the way in town i pass a very small farm consisting of 4 cows, a calf, 7 chickens and a few goats. Since it is about half way in town I often stop to take a break and talk to the animals. I struck up a conversation with the owner and she offered to let me have a couple eggs every week, free of charge. Nice lady, she is the land owner and allows the cows to graze on the grass free of charge as it saves her from mowing it.

I wonder why people won't actually eat a black bean burger instead of the fatty, unhealthy, unattractive, slaughtered rotting flesh alternative?

I haven't eaten meat since last October or so. On the way in town i pass a very small farm consisting of 4 cows, a calf, 7 chickens and a few goats. Since it is about half way in town I often stop to take a break and talk to the animals. I struck up a conversation with the owner and she offered to let me have a couple eggs every week, free of charge. Nice lady, she is the land owner and allows the cows to graze on the grass free of charge as it saves her from mowing it.

I wonder why people won't actually eat a black bean burger instead of the fatty, unhealthy, unattractive, slaughtered rotting flesh alternative?

Because of attitudes like this?;) FWIW some people REQUIRE meat in their diets to live healthy. Someone pointed out a while back that we are all different. We didn't all come from vegetable eating human stock. Some like the Inuits subsist on a diet that is all most exclusively meat. Do we consume too much meat in the US? I think so, the answer IMHO is moderation.

Aaron:)

I haven't eaten meat since last October or so. On the way in town i pass a very small farm consisting of 4 cows, a calf, 7 chickens and a few goats. Since it is about half way in town I often stop to take a break and talk to the animals. I struck up a conversation with the owner and she offered to let me have a couple eggs every week, free of charge. Nice lady, she is the land owner and allows the cows to graze on the grass free of charge as it saves her from mowing it.

I wonder why people won't actually eat a black bean burger instead of the fatty, unhealthy, unattractive, slaughtered rotting flesh alternative?

My contention is that in the not too distant future, we will be in a world where food will be so expensive that few will be able to afford to eat meat.

Experts: Global Food Shortages Could ‘Continue for Decades' (http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article3782.html)

For the first time, we are seeing the emergence of a global agricultural market driven by the growing demand for grains and a scarcity of supply. Wheat inventories, for example, have reached a 30-year low. In one year inventories in the European Union have plummeted from 14 million to one million tons. The fact is that arable land cannot be increased at will. Over the past three decades, the amount of arable land worldwide has stagnated at about 1.5 billion hectares (3.7 billion acres).

While new agricultural lands are being added in Russia and South America , more and more land is lost to residential and industrial development in Asia and Europe . In China , eight million hectares (20 million acres) of land under cultivation have vanished within a decade. For comparison, just under 12 million hectares (30 million acres) of land are currently used for agriculture in Germany . These spatial limitations would be tolerable if the world's population wasn't growing at such a breathtaking pace.

How long will the agricultural boom last? Michael Schmitz, an agricultural economist and professor, used databases to forecast how far trends would last when global conditions change like they have recently. The professor says that the current shortages and price hikes are not a phenomenon that will end in a few months -- or even in a few years. Schmitz predicts: "This could continue for two or three decades." (Spiegel Online)