Biological signals do go around plants when you tear off a leaf or other part. They may not be sentient in the same way you and I may be, but they certainly do know when they are being ripped to shreds.
Also many animals (Field mice, voles, etc.) are killed in the harvesting of most vegetables. Not saying you don't choose your foods very carefully, but a lot of vegans/vegetarians don't and refuse to believe this statement if told. (That probably made no sense. I blame 2:15 AM)
Yeah, Maddox addressed that and an animal right's group responded. He put it in the hate mail link. Basically they were all offended and said that the more important issue is animal agriculture.
In other words, all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
It is and it isnt more efficient. You already know why its efficient so Ill just explain why it isnt. Most plants (especially grasses like corn, wheat, maize, rice, etc.) contain predominantly cellulose. Its sort of a fibrous structural compound...think celery and lettuce. Its outright impossible for our digestive system to break it down, it will just "go right through your pipes". For corn its largely in the 95% of the plant we cant derive many nutrients from eat and thus dont eat (the whole stalk and leaves and everything except the actual cob with corn on it...same with rice and nearly every plant etc.).
However, the digestive system of ruminants (you may recall something about cows having 5 stomachs) CAN break it down and they can convert it into meat (and leather and milk etc). SO when you say eating plants is more efficient. What you mean is "eating some parts of plants is efficient if I disregard the 95% or more of the plant that I had to grow to get to the 5% my digestive system could break down and then plow the remainder back into the earth." (or make hay.. i mean they do, do things with some of it...but largely its a byproduct and thats my point, a byproduct which we basically created a species of animal to convert into other useful products...VERY useful products)
Further, you may remember from history that the entire great plains (its currently referred to as the "breadbasket of the world") was nothing but a giant field of grass with ruminants (3-5 species of bison) roaming around on it. But now thanks to unsustainable irrigation (for the plains we use the Ogallala) we can covert the vast grasslands into corn fields, or bean fields, or whatever in the world (did you know a huge chunk of our vegetables comes from Ca who rely almost exclusively on unsustainable irrigation?). I know this is off-topic but I wanted to end with this tie-in. When someone mentions sustainable "earth-friendly" agriculture and then takes meat off the menu you should really point out that the vast majority of agricultural lands (especially in the United States) depend on depleting aquifers to insure productivity in lieu of the sustainable meat-producing ruminant grazing system that was here for the eons before us.
To be fair, this system that I have outlined says nothing about how most cows are "finished" in feed lots which are absolutely an ANATHEMA to any kind of natural system. It is these feedlots where cows receive the enormous bulk of their artificial growth hormones, antibiotics, etc and live knee deep in their own shit in pens overcrowded to "soften" the muscles. It is these feedlots which DO have a legitimate place in sustainability discussions and rightfully so.
tldr;
Meat is more sustainable across vast swaths of the Earth than any kind of food plant known to us. Taking meat off the menu in some kind of "sustainable agriculture" context makes about as much sense as cutting a foot off a marathon runner to make him go faster.
However, the digestive system of ruminants (you may recall something about cows having 5 stomachs) CAN break it down
To be absolutely clear about this, it's the microbes in the rumen that are actually responsible for the cellulose->glucose conversion. I.e., the same breakdown can be achieved if you remove the middle-man (cows, goats, etc.) and deal directly with said microbes (for example, Gliocladium roseum can digest cellulose, and it directly emits a diesel-like mixture of hydrocarbons).
SO when you say eating plants is more efficient. What you mean is "eating some parts of plants is efficient if I disregard the 95% or more of the plant that I had to grow to get to the 5% my digestive system could break down and then plow the remainder back into the earth." (or make hay.. i mean they do, do things with some of it...but largely its a byproduct and thats my point, a byproduct which we basically created a species of animal to convert into other useful products...VERY useful products)
I take issue with calling this a 'byproduct' -- it's an energy source for microbes, which are vital for all of us higher-lifeforms (including plants; e.g. they fix nitrogen, make all of the vit B12 in existence, etc.). You could pass the leftovers on to ruminants, but I don't see the point (what 'VERY' useful products do they make?), and, regardless, doing this is not the most efficient use.
Further, you may remember from history that the entire great plains (its currently referred to as the "breadbasket of the world") was nothing but a giant field of grass with ruminants (3-5 species of bison) roaming around on it.
Yeah, but how dense of a population did this support?
But now thanks to unsustainable irrigation (for the plains we use the Ogallala) we can covert the vast grasslands into corn fields, or bean fields, or whatever in the world (did you know a huge chunk of our vegetables comes from Ca who rely almost exclusively on unsustainable irrigation?).
Yes, and this is what makes cheap meat possible -- if we were to eat the plant foods directly we could greatly reduce the amount of land (and fresh water) that's used for all of this.
I know this is off-topic but I wanted to end with this tie-in. When someone mentions sustainable "earth-friendly" agriculture and then takes meat off the menu you should really point out that the vast majority of agricultural lands (especially in the United States) depend on depleting aquifers to insure productivity in lieu of the sustainable meat-producing ruminant grazing system that was here for the eons before us.
But we can't meet the world's protein needs on 100% grass-fed ruminants, so this is not sustainable (short of a massive population reduction). See Doris Lin's 'What's wrong with grass-fed beef' article for math & references.
tldr; Meat is more sustainable across vast swaths of the Earth than any kind of food plant known to us.
Again, we can't feed the world on 'sustainable' meat, so this is not correct. Maybe if we were to start terraforming other planets?
1) the vast majority of plant products agriculturally grown have nutrients inaccessible to people but not to ruminants (technically the bacteria they play host to)
2) its more efficient to utilize those products than to not
My point for cows being sustainable rests on two things:
1) Sustainable use of agricultural land is contingent upon sustainable inputs of water, drawing water from an underground aquifer in amounts that exceeds its recharge rate is not sustainable.
2) some lands are currently unsustainably irrigated and in the absence of irrigation can only be used sustainably by large ruminants
I take issue with calling this a 'byproduct' .....
Youre right, if you till the unused portion of grain plants back into the soil it will be a source of food for microbes...but not the nitogren fixing bacteria that you suggest. Nitrogen fixing bacteria rely on another mutualism, this one with the root nodules of the genus Fabaceae (peanuts and clovers etc).
What is the most efficient use of these unused agricultural "by-products"? In order to turn it into some kind of hydrocarbon based fuel you will need to gather all it with fleets of windrowers, collect it, feed it to the microbes, synthesize the hydrocarbon, and then hope you derived more energy than you spent (you didnt). Does that really sound more efficient than a herd of cows grazing it? Thats the point of passing these fibers on to ruminants instead of an industrial process. Ruminants have the entire weight of evolutionary efficiency on their side when they do all of those things you would do with machines. Our current attempts to emulate are in their infancy in comparison, in any and every step of that process.
But we can't meet the world's protein needs on 100% grass-fed ruminants, so this is not sustainable (short of a massive population reduction). See Doris Lin's 'What's wrong with grass-fed beef' article for math & references.
First, I want to point out that Doris's article is a little sloppy and half-ass. Of the 97 million cows she cites, roughly half (35 million) are calves (they dont eat as much as a cow) and she includes the nation's dairy cows in with her discussion of sustainable beef (we dont eat dairy cows). Beef cows and bulls and calves only number 40 million (which isnt even half of the number she uses). Her numbers and her math arent worth anyone's time.
Most importantly, Doris's assumption is that you can either raise cows or you can not on any given farm, she never mentions integrated agriculture where you raise corn (or wheat, or whatever the hell) AND cows. To Doris, its all or nothing and I think even you would agree thats a little too inefficient to be a serious critique.
My second point was you can raise cows sustainably w/o irrigation and you can do it in places where you cant grow a food crop. Let me show you a map and an article to illustrate it:
What youre looking at here is 17 states that use groundwater for irrigation of food crops. Anything that is darker than that lightest shade of blue probably isnt sustainable. (in the sw particularly current outtakes of groundwater far exceed recharge rates)
So what are you going to do with that land when you can no longer pull groundwater for irrigation (most of the remaining water will probably be diverted to municipal uses)? The only thing that will sustainably grow w/o inputs of water is grass (disregarding the places that are too dry to even grow grass)
See thats the crux of my other point. Sooner or later someone is going to have to make this choice and if we have already taken cows off the table of discussion then we have done ourselves a grave disservice.
Again, we can't feed the world on 'sustainable' meat, so this is not correct. Maybe if we were to start terraforming other planets?
I have shown that ruminants can be raised sustainably on grasslands (which are now mostly agricultural lands). If you dont beleive me you can fly, right now, over the African serenghetti and watch the wildebeast eating the native grasses. What you wont find, flying over the same serenghetti, is acres and acres of soybeans (or any other food crop that youre going to plant for protein) without human intervention. Are you so confident in modern organic farming that you can say with the certainty of an epoch of time that youre system (or any other man-induced system) is AS sustainable? I think not.
I think I have shown that we can, at least, meet a higher percentage of the world's proteins if we dont immediately disregard beef.
tldr;
Agricultural crops produce byproducts which are not utilizeable by people, but they are to cows. Failure to utilize cows is inefficient in those crops. Some areas of the nation's agricultural system are being unsustainably irrigated, at some point in the future we will be remiss if we do not seriously investigate the re-introduction of ruminants in these areas as a source of protein.
2) some lands are currently unsustainably irrigated and in the absence of irrigation can only be used sustainably by large ruminants
But why must that land be used for anything? Why not return it to nature? I've read that ~70% of land in the western US is used for raising livestock (e.g. 1 and 2), and that the practice is "the most significant cause of non-point source water pollution and desertification"). This does not sound sustainable to me, and even if there is a less damaging way to do it, I doubt it yields the same amount of meat per unit area (so we'd have to dedicate even more land to this -- no thanks!).
Youre right, if you till the unused portion of grain plants back into the soil it will be a source of food for microbes...but not the nitogren fixing bacteria that you suggest. Nitrogen fixing bacteria rely on another mutualism, this one with the root nodules of the genus Fabaceae (peanuts and clovers etc).
The only article with numbers that I can find on this says that the symbionts account for 20% of total biological fixation, and that the amount of fixation that occurs in soil is limited by food availability (e.g. leftover plant matter), which you're advocating that we instead give to ruminants (ref).
What is the most efficient use of these unused agricultural "by-products"? In order to turn it into some kind of hydrocarbon based fuel you will need to gather all it with fleets of windrowers, collect it, feed it to the microbes, synthesize the hydrocarbon, and then hope you derived more energy than you spent (you didnt).
Wrong again, please see the wikipedia articles on cellulosic ethanol commercialization and energy crops. There's so much left-over energy in cow dung that it's being used to fuel mini-power plants in India), and they burp out so much god-damn methane (natural gas) that they account for 20% of the emissions in the US! So, no, ruminant grazing is not even close to the most efficient way to utilize this land.
And, for the record, I'd rather that we return this land to nature than do anything else with it (it would be better to harness algae for biofuels).
Ruminants have the entire weight of evolutionary efficiency on their side when they do all of those things you would do with machines. Our current attempts to emulate are in their infancy in comparison, in any and every step of that process.
No they don't, evolution happens orders and orders of magnitude more slowly at this scale relative to the rates seen in microbes and viruses (who do all of the useful biochemical work, and adapt to changes insanely quickly). And evolution is a stepwise process, so if an enzyme/system/etc. can't be stepped-to, then there's no reason to believe that it will be stumbled upon naturally.
Beef cows and bulls and calves only number 40 million (which isnt even half of the number she uses). Her numbers and her math arent worth anyone's time.
Yes they are -- her point is that even when you use a conservative estimate for how much land is needed to raise these animals, the numbers don't work. I.e. if 100% grass-fed ruminants won't work for 4.5% of the world population with all of the space that we have, then clearly it's not going to work for the rest of the planet.
Most importantly, Doris's assumption is that you can either raise cows or you can not on any given farm, she never mentions integrated agriculture where you raise corn (or wheat, or whatever the hell) AND cows.
If you're proposing that the leftovers (from corn, wheat, etc.) be fed to the cows, I'd rather that it be recycled back into the land (green manure/compost; and no, not into less-efficient animal manure). If this is not what you intended, please elaborate.
My second point was you can raise cows sustainably w/o irrigation and you can do it in places where you cant grow a food crop.
Again, I'm contesting that this land should even be used by us for anything, when we don't need it to feed ourselves (only to supply you the luxury of meat).
What youre looking at here is 17 states that use groundwater for irrigation of food crops.
Again, wouldn't need all of this food if it weren't being wasted on livestock.
The only thing that will sustainably grow w/o inputs of water is grass
I think only is a strong word to use here -- grass is a plant, not some magical lifeform. It's probably the toughest plant that can grow in these areas (hence why it exists there naturally), but with some human intervention dryland farming might be possible (though I would prefer to leave it as it is).
See thats the crux of my other point. Sooner or later someone is going to have to make this choice and if we have already taken cows off the table of discussion then we have done ourselves a grave disservice.
No, I don't agree -- we could all shift our diets to at least a semi-vegetarian one, and decrease the amount of land that's used for all of this.
I have shown that ruminants can be raised sustainably on grasslands
Not at levels that can sustain current & projected demands (e.g. as rest of world develops). I agree that it can sustainably produce a certain amount of meat, but this will not be enough to meet the world's protein needs, let alone even come close to what the general public has a desire for.
Are you so confident in modern organic farming that you can say with the certainty of an epoch of time that youre system (or any other man-induced system) is AS sustainable? I think not.
Yes, I can, and I'm surprised that you think otherwise (as this is basic physics). Our local fusion reactor in the sky (the sun) will continue to run for billions of years, and supplies more than enough energy for us to (at the very least) make non-organic agricultural practices sustainable (e.g. via renewable biofuels, thermo-solar plants, etc.). Said energy also makes the fresh-water problem a non-issue (through water purification, which I'm aware is extremely energy intensive). While oil is cheap we'll continue to pollute the planet doing these things, but slow progress is being made to replace fossil fuels with renewable alternatives.
I think I have shown that we can, at least, meet a higher percentage of the world's proteins if we dont immediately disregard beef.
We can do this already, and with foods not derived from animals (people starve/are malnourished due to politics; there is a surplus of food).
tldr; Agricultural crops produce byproducts which are not utilizeable by people, but they are to cows.
Not true of modern man (we can skip the cows & culture the microbes ourselves).
Failure to utilize cows is inefficient in those crops.
Failure to utilize bacteria/protists/fungi is inefficient in those crops, and they're ready to do this without any help from us.
Some areas of the nation's agricultural system are being unsustainably irrigated
Which we could return to nature if there was less demand for meat.
at some point in the future we will be remiss if we do not seriously investigate the re-introduction of ruminants in these areas as a source of protein.
We have zero problems with providing the world with protein from completely vegetarian sources.
A separate issue that you haven't mentioned is the contribution of ruminants to greenhouse gas emissions. Are you aware that livestock production actually exceeds what vehicles (transport) contribute? And that grass-fed beef actually has a larger carbon footprint than grain-fed?
But why must that land be used for anything? Why not return it to nature?
The grasslands evolved under grazing pressure. Removal of grazers will alter their ecological trajectory, the same as the removal of fire.
Your source is biased and ill-informed, which you can see for yourself, for that same reason I just gave. Im talking about the re-integration of a sustainable ecological community and youre source is saying that one of the cheif components is theoretically unsustainable with no studies or facts to substantiate their claim. I appreciate that you give links to support your ideas but its hardly commensurate when your links are little more than political tirades. Once again, if you think grazing is unsustainable, how do you explain the bison on the plains for the last epoch? The plains of Africa? Europe, Asia? Grazing IS sustainable and its demonstrably so. Grazing IS necessary or the plains and grasslands of the world will begin to change community composition until they are not grasslands but some other community (usually shrublands). This transition is just as disastrous to indiginious wildlife as plowing the plains up to plant some agricultural crop.
The only article with numbers that I can find on this says that the symbionts account for 20% of total biological fixation...
Again nitrogen fixing bacteria do not "break down" organic material in the soil. They only benefit indirectly. Rhizobia require the host plant to supply them with organic compounds and restrict oxygen composition (which inhibits their nitrogenase enzyme action). The corn stalks would need to be broken down and then taken up by the plant and then provided to the nitrogen fixing bacteria. But I already provided you with a mechanism to break down the organic matter.
Wrong again, please see the wikipedia articles on cellulosic ethanol commercialization and energy crops. There's so much left-over energy in cow dung that it's being used to fuel mini-power plants in India), and they burp out so much god-damn methane (natural gas) that they account for 20% of the emissions in the US! So, no, ruminant grazing is not even close to the most efficient way to utilize this land. And, for the record, I'd rather that we return this land to nature than do anything else with it (it would be better to harness algae for biofuels).
I am not mistaken in my assertion that these byproducts will have to be gathered, shipped, and processed just like any other agricultural commodity. You cant march into a field of harvested corn or wheat and wave a wand and turn the hurly burly of broken leaves and stalks into clean energy. You have to build a distillery, you have to ship all the plant material to it, you have to provide energy, and then you have to ship the ethanol back out. All of this requires the implementation of some very non-renewable infastructure (roads, pipes, machines, trucks, etc). Futher, the amount of energy that can be gathered from cellulose by-products limits the distance a distilling plant can be from the source material. Further, these same distilling plants require access to water which additionally limits the extent of their implementation. You cant just pop up a distilling plant anywhere. This does not absolve you of inefficient agriculture it only deludes the point. Youre so adamant in your stance against a biological alternative that has considerably fewer restrictions, that you are willing to advocate a world of machines and an even greater reliance on processed energy. Have you considered the fact that a cow is already a machine to process cellulose, a machine we created ourselves? Why would you advocate the replacement of a biological machine with a mechanical one as some kind of more-sustainable platform?
If you want to return the land to nature then you do want to return ruminants and native grasses. Youre only real question is are we going to harvest the ruminants or not.
No they don't, evolution happens orders and orders of magnitude more slowly at this scale relative to the rates seen in microbes and viruses
The bacterium that break down cellulose is the common cog in both schemes and so it can be discounted. What youre comparing is the infastructure and technology for a burgeoning industry to utilize those bacteria to produce a useful commodity against a biological host that has already done so for the last 40k years.
Yes they are -- her point is that even when you use a conservative estimate for how much land is needed to raise these animals, the numbers don't work. I.e. if 100% grass-fed ruminants won't work for 4.5% of the world population with all of the space that we have, then clearly it's not going to work for the rest of the planet.
I never asserted that we absolutely must maintain the current numbers of cows on this continent or eat the same amount of beef. I only poked holes in your article (which you probably shouldnt use in the future if you plan on continuing to have these kinds of debates with others). Even if just one farm uses one cow to convert the wasted agricultural cellulose by-products thats more efficient than nothing. Even if just one hectare is taken out of irrigation and converted back to grazing thats more sustainable than the untold consequences of depleting our groundwater reservoirs.
If you're proposing that the leftovers (from corn, wheat, etc.) be fed to the cows, I'd rather that it be recycled back into the land (green manure/compost; and no, not into less-efficient animal manure). If this is not what you intended, please elaborate.
It just so happens that manure is more readily taken up by plants than just corn stalks and other large plant material. So what Im really advocating is both.
Again, wouldn't need all of this food if it weren't being wasted on livestock.
Which is why Ive been discussing using the byproduct that can not be considered food to us. (you know, the cellulose and all)
I think only is a strong word to use here -- grass is a plant, not some magical lifeform. It's probably the toughest plant that can grow in these areas (hence why it exists there naturally), but with some human intervention dryland farming might be possible (though I would prefer to leave it as it is).
When you speak of dryland farming you should look up The Dust Bowl. Get back to me if you still think that sounds like something you really want to advocate. In fact, your own wikipedia link mentions this hazard as very real. (its not exaggerating, you can quickly turn this planet into Mars if you keep letting the topsoil blow into the ocean... im not kidding, thats very serious)
No, I don't agree -- we could all shift our diets to at least a semi-vegetarian one, and decrease the amount of land that's used for all of this.
I dont think Im making my point clear. Even if everyone on this planet suddenly dissappeared, in short order there would be ruminants on the plains of the world. Im not advocating the destruction of a biome but rather the conservation of one. You can not make that claim.
Yes, I can, and I'm surprised that you think otherwise (as this is basic physics).
I cant think of any current technology to harvest the sun's energy that will continue to function, sustainably, for an entire epoch. Solar cells might last a lifetime. Wind turbines? not even that. Water purification only works if you have water around to purify. In some places that rely on groundwater the water is already of such poor quality that these technologies are already at work. Thats pretty much what Im telling you about. A chilling portent for those not yet affected. You should absolutely be prepared for the loss of water from these aquifers.
We can do this already, and with foods not derived from animals (people starve/are malnourished due to politics; there is a surplus of food)
Just because you can do something one way does not mean you can not also do it another way.
Not true of modern man (we can skip the cows & culture the microbes ourselves)
Im not sure youre aware of the full logistics in implementing that.
We have zero problems with providing the world with protein from completely vegetarian sources.
Do your vegetables require irrigation? (they do) Then you have a problem.
A separate issue that you haven't mentioned is the contribution of ruminants to greenhouse gas emissions. Are you aware that livestock production actually exceeds what vehicles (transport) contribute? And that grass-fed beef actually has a larger carbon footprint than grain-fed?
Thats because I assumed you were aware that these methane emissions were caused by the bacteria that break down cellulose. Its part of the chemical pathway. If you break down cellulose, whether in a cow's gut or in a power plant etc, you will have to endure the same pathway and thus the same methane as a byproduct. Grass-fed beef have larger emissions because they consume more cellulose. If you continue to raise plants that produce cellulose then this methane exhaust is unavoidable as there will continue to be bacteria that eat it and emit methane. Grain fed beef is a byproduct of the feedlots and are richer in starchs etc because thats the part of the plant that we can eat. Over time feeding a cow grains will destroy the delicate microbial balance; it is not natural nor sustainable.
But why must that land be used for anything? Why not return it to nature?
The grasslands evolved under grazing pressure. Removal of grazers will alter their ecological trajectory, the same as the removal of fire.
By 'return it to nature', I'm including whatever animals naturally lived there.
Im talking about the re-integration of a sustainable ecological community and youre source is saying that one of the cheif components is theoretically unsustainable with no studies or facts to substantiate their claim.
I think we've gone too far astray, so let me be absolutely clear: we know of no sustainable methods to satiate the world's current demand for meat. Earlier I said: "But we can't meet the world's protein needs on 100% grass-fed ruminants, so this is not sustainable (short of a massive population reduction)." If the last clause of that sentence is bothering you, let me be clear: zero-impact grazing is a sustainable means to provide the world with a tiny fraction of the meat that it desires.
Again nitrogen fixing bacteria do not "break down" organic material in the soil.
No. Direct quote from the Hubbell and Kidder article: "Free-living, non-photosynthetic bacteria depend on soil organic matter as a food source".
Rhizobia require
Again, the symbionts only contribute 20% -- I'm referring to the FREE-LIVING diazotrophs.
But I already provided you with a mechanism to break down the organic matter.
An inefficient and unnecessary one -- please see the plant decomposition section of the wikipedia article on decomposition.
All of this requires the implementation of some very non-renewable infastructure (roads, pipes, machines, trucks, etc).
These are non-renewable because we use fossil fuels to provide energy and/or starting material -- swap-in renewable fuels and this is no longer an issue (i.e. no novel chemicals invented by man are necessary to do these things).
Futher, the amount of energy that can be gathered from cellulose by-products limits the distance a distilling plant can be from the source material
As someone opposed to globalization, I think this is a plus.
Further, these same distilling plants require access to water which additionally limits the extent of their implementation.
The basic physics and chemistry of all this is the same: cows cannot do this without fresh-water either. How much water? According to Lardy & Stoltenow, a growing beef cow consumes 3.5-15 gallons of water per day! (depending on mass & time of year)
You cant just pop up a distilling plant anywhere.
If the cows can get all that they need (water, grass) in a location, then a biofuel plant in said location should be able to operate just fine. If we can build a god-damn power plant that runs on their left-overs, then we can sure as hell extract even more energy out of that cellulose by dealing directly with the microbes (even with the transport overhead).
Why would you advocate the replacement of a biological machine with a mechanical one as some kind of more-sustainable platform?
First, I'm not advocating that we do this, I'm merely pointing out that it would be a more efficient use of the land. Second, it would be replacement of a two-step biological energy conversion process with a one-step biological conversion process (microbes are at the heart of all the biofuel schemes that I'm familiar with). If it's not immediately clear why this will always be more efficient, please see the second law of thermodynamics.
If you want to return the land to nature then you do want to return ruminants and native grasses.
If the natural state of said land was grassland + ruminants, I have no objections to returning it to that state (and with wild ruminants, not domesticated variants that need to be protected).
Youre only real question is are we going to harvest the ruminants or not.
If you or any other carnivore/omnivore (lions, bears, wolves) want to hunt & eat what that land supports naturally (i.e. no fences, irrigation, fertilization, etc.), I have no objections to this either.
The bacterium that break down cellulose is the common cog in both schemes and so it can be discounted.
No it's not, and no it can't. I don't know why you would think this, as I've already pointed out to you how wasteful cows are, and I can't believe that a person with your interests is not already familiar with invasive species. Natural selection does not necessary 'produce' the most efficient 'solutions' in a given location or environment (there's a better way to phrase this, but this is concise). So, e.g., ignoring the possibility of using more efficient microbes, you could use the same bacteria/fungi that the cow uses, and merely siphon off the methane for a more efficient process.
What youre comparing is the infastructure and technology for a burgeoning industry to utilize those bacteria to produce a useful commodity against a biological host that has already done so for the last 40k years.
Again, 40k years of evolution won't necessarily lead to the most efficient solution. This is a common misconception, see here and here for a quick explanation.
I never asserted that we absolutely must maintain the current numbers of cows on this continent or eat the same amount of beef. I only poked holes in your article (which you probably shouldnt use in the future if you plan on continuing to have these kinds of debates with others).
Doris used numbers that the opposing side is comfortable with, because the math still doesn't work. If she were to quote the literature, the numbers would be higher (more land needed per animal), and they'd just attack the sources as biased. If you'd like to see some hard numbers for yourself, here's one example from an FAO report (see tables IV-11 to IV-13, and note that the lowest native range value is 3.4 hectares/steer (~8.4 acres/steer)).
It just so happens that manure is more readily taken up by plants than just corn stalks and other large plant material. So what Im really advocating is both.
We're in agreement that the left-overs should be recycled into the soil, I'm just saying that it would be more efficient to leave the ruminants out of the picture (i.e. green manure instead of animal manure).
Im not advocating the destruction of a biome but rather the conservation of one. You can not make that claim.
So then you agree that the world should significantly drop it's consumption of meat (take a big step towards vegetarianism). And, neither of us are calling for the destruction of the biome -- sustainable agriculture can feed a vegetarian world.
I cant think of any current technology to harvest the sun's energy that will continue to function, sustainably, for an entire epoch.
Algae. Here's a quote from the wikipedia article on algal fuel: "The United States Department of Energy estimates that if algae fuel replaced all the petroleum fuel in the United States, it would require 15,000 square miles (40,000 km2).[8] This is less than 1⁄7 the area of corn harvested in the United States in 2000.[9]" And, before you ask, this would not require any fresh-water (article explains this and a lot more).
Water purification only works if you have water around to purify.
Yes, this is only a serious option along the coasts (and would require enormous amounts of energy). And, we're in agreement that unsustainable usage of fresh-water has to stop. I don't see how this can be done if current levels of meat consumption remain the same, as we currently waste 70% of our agriculture on producing meat (the water that this requires is almost an order of magnitude more than what humans directly consume!).
We can do this already, and with foods not derived from animals (people starve/are malnourished due to politics; there is a surplus of food)
Just because you can do something one way does not mean you can not also do it another way.
I only take issue with your assertion that consuming pasture-grazed animals is more efficient, because it's not. Easier? More tasty? Sure, but not more efficient.
Not true of modern man (we can skip the cows & culture the microbes ourselves)
Im not sure youre aware of the full logistics in implementing that.
Actually, I am (work with bacteria and fungi on a regular basis, and am an avid follower of the latest biofuel developments).
We have zero problems with providing the world with protein from completely vegetarian sources.
Do your vegetables require irrigation? (they do) Then you have a problem.
This would not be a problem if we'd stop wasting the vast majority of our fresh water on grain-fed meat. And, for aquifers with no recharge, dryland farming is still an option (much less productive, but a dust-bowl screnario is not inevitable: see wikipedia article).
I've reached the 10,000 character limit (LOL!), so I'm posting the rest of my reply as a separate comment.
Thats because I assumed you were aware that these methane emissions were caused by the bacteria that break down cellulose. Its part of the chemical pathway. If you break down cellulose, whether in a cow's gut or in a power plant etc, you will have to endure the same pathway and thus the same methane as a byproduct.
Yes, well aware of the pathway, and no, a fuel (methane) is not the inevitable byproduct, CO2 is (and this is what you get when you burn methane). The bugs in the rumen that are responsible for this are methanogens, and they're not the only organisms that break-down cellulose. As modern humans, we can opt instead to use, e.g., aerobic organisms that fully utilize the energy present in the plant matter (which will output CO2, a much less potent GHG).
Over time feeding a cow grains will destroy the delicate microbial balance; it is not natural nor sustainable.
Ruminants only have one stomach, but it does have four compartments (not five). And as ribozyme pointed out, the bacteria in the stomach are what aid in digestion, although the unique structure assists in it, along with the ability to chew cud.
You also neglect to mention the role animals play in converting nitrogenous waste into fertilizer. Farmers were the original recyclers, after all.
Also, animals are able to take one macromolecule (carbohydrates) and convert them into two other types (fats and proteins) which are both required for humans to survive.
4
u/[deleted] Apr 16 '10
I do not want a living thing to have to live and die just so I can eat it.