Vegetarian or Not? Poll & Forum Discussion

[lisab]

Are you sure? In the Netherlands the meat cows are all kept indoors, only (some of) the milk cows are free to graze in the grass. You can expect a meat cow to have 2,5 m² of living space.

A particular race is popular that carries a mutation in the myostatin gene, causing muscle overgrowth. The calf is so big when it is about to be born that in most cases it won't fit through the birth canal, so a C-section needs to be performed. Adult cows will need to go through multiple C-sections throughout their lives. The race is called "fat-butt cow", unfortunately I don't know the proper English name. *edit* Belgian blue is the proper name* I've never seen one walking about in the field.

I've never heard of indoor cows. I live in the US west, and one thing that we have a lot of out here: room. Lots and lots of room. It's quite typical here to drive by a cow pasture (100 acres is common) and see maybe 20 or 30 cows, grazing on grass that grows up to their bellies.

I didn't know cows had C-sections either, wow!

 

[Monique]

I'm surprised, but also not. On the one hand, you might be unaware of the indoor cows? I sure don't know where they keep them in the Netherlands and there over a million cows that they are hiding! On the other hand, the United States has enough free land to keep the cattle outside.

In 2007 there were 184 mega-stables in the Netherlands. A mega-stable is defined as housing either over:
7500 meat pigs
1200 breading pigs
120.000 egg chickens
220.000 meat chicks
250 milk cows
2500 meat calves
source:http://www2.alterra.wur.nl/Webdocs/PDFFiles/Alterrarapporten/AlterraRapport1581.pdf"

They are controversial, they have even started making multi-storied buildings.

 

[lisab]

I'm surprised, but also not. On the one hand, you might be unaware of the indoor cows? I sure don't know where they keep them in the Netherlands and there over a million cows that they are hiding! On the other hand, the United States has enough free land to keep the cattle outside.

In 2007 there were 180 mega-stables in the Netherlands. A mega-stable is defined as housing either:
7500 meat pigs
1200 breading pigs
120.000 egg chickens
220.000 meat chicks
250 milk cows
2500 meat calfs
source:http://www2.alterra.wur.nl/Webdocs/PDFFiles/Alterrarapporten/AlterraRapport1581.pdf"

They are controversial, they have even started making multi-storied buildings.

We do have indoor chickens and pigs. I try to buy my meat "free range", because I think animals should have access to fresh air. But I must admit, it could be simply a marketing tactic - just because the label says "free range" and "organic" I can't be assured that the animals are treated well.

 

[Evo]

They are controversial, they have even started making multi-storied buildings.

I love it, cow highrises!

 

[DanP]

I think that keeping the cages clean requires a significant amount of water.

Ok, but what's the issue ? That water is recycled almost instantly into water circuit.
I can understand that some regions are lacking water, and would be sensible to build the farms in regions with sufficient water. But that's all. And that's more of a governmental issue, because they have to balance the environmental costs with the advantages of big business created in those regions.

 

[Monique]

Ok, but what's the issue ? That water is recycled almost instantly into water circuit.
I can understand that some regions are lacking water, and would be sensible to build the farms in regions with sufficient water. But that's all. And that's more of a governmental issue, because they have to balance the environmental costs with the advantages of big business created in those regions.

You should discuss that with Jamma and I think (s)he already answered that.

 

[DanP]

You should discuss that with Jamma and I think (s)he already answered that.

Ok, so no issues :P

 

[Monique]

I think it is something that you should take note of, but there are probably more pressing issues with cattle farms than water consumption.

 

[Centaur]

I'm not sure it is meat we get in England, ever since the local butcher shops closed down we buy this pink stuff from supermarkets, it is tasteless and needs tenderising with a big hammer before it is edible.

It sounds like those processed meat that goes through some sort of chemicals to remove all the Ecoli and other "dirty" stuff. I don't know what it is called, but I saw it in Food Inc.

 

[cesiumfrog]

"It takes on average nearly 5,000 litres of water to produce just one quarter-pound beef burger - 1,000 times as much as for the same weight of wheat.

Are you talking about live cattle? You realize that they urinate and respirate and give most of that water back, right?

I thought that the figures sounded way too high, so I did some research.
[...]cow drinks ~ 12.5 gallons of water a day[...]
Our quarter pound hamburger would have used 5.3 gallons of water over it's lifetime to get to your table.
If it really takes 5,000 litres of water to produce a quarter pound of wheat, we need to stop growing wheat.
(Someone check my math, I just now poured my first cup of coffee, and I rounded numbers)

To pick on your reading comprehension first, (in comparison to the 20L you estimated) Jamma was saying wheat takes 5L.

Obviously it should inevitably use less resources to grow plants for us to eat, than to grow plants to feed animals for us to eat. It's good to see that a quarter (to a third) of PF is attempting to decrease their meat intake to some degree.

But yeah, urination/respiration are missing the point. Yes, water exists basically in a closed cycle, that isn't the problem. The problem is that agriculture competes to take water flow from limited sources of fresh water (e.g., pumping from rivers). It doesn't matter whether the cow actually drank the water, or it was used to water the plants the cow ate, or the farm lost it to evaporation, it only matters the real-world total that could have otherwise been put to some competing purpose.. A warning from the first google hit:

March 1, 2001 -- To date, probably the most reliable and widely-accepted water estimate to produce a pound of beef is the figure of 2,500 gallons/pound. Newsweek once put it another way: "the water that goes into a 1,000 pound steer would float a destroyer."

Not surprisingly, the beef industry promotes a study that determined, using highly suspect calculations, that only 441 gallons of water are required to produce a pound of beef.

(The cattlemen's study applied liberal deductions from water actually used, reasoning that water was evaporated at points during the process, or was "returned" to the water table after being used to grow plant feed, or was returned to the water table via urea and excrement from cows. Thus, study authors reasoned these waters were not "lost" but "recycled" and therefore could be subtracted from gross amount of water actually used in beef production. Of course, evaporation and cow dung don't go very far in replenishing water pumped from acquifers which took thousands of years to fill. It's interesting to consider that if the same fuzzy math were applied to calculating how much water it takes to grow vegetables, potatoes would probably only require about 2 gallons of water per pound.)

 

[Centaur]

i'm an omnivore. and i think veganism is pretty stupid. at the very least, everyone should eat some fish/seafood and dairy products. a great deal of the benefits from vegetarian-type diets come from the potassium in fruits and veggies. but without animal products, you're going to come up deficient in essential w-3 fatty acids (no, ALA is not sufficient), B12, and likely some minerals.

That ALA is not sufficient still needs more research. And there are people who lived with a vegan diet throughout their entire lives and they are perfectly healthy, ie some rural Indians (from India).

 

[Jamma]

I won't even stop to read this twice unless 'some ppl', whoever they are, will present extensive compelling evidence.

Jesus Christ, you seem to constantly think that I am trying to personally attack you because you eat meat. I'm not, I was quoting from a book that I had just read, and have tried to make the point several times that I found the statistic quite startling, so thanks for evo and cesiumfrog for trying to find out whether it is true.

The above I read in the same book a couple of lines below; admittedly, I should have mentioned that.

In regards to evo's calculation; well I suppose you need to think about the water required to give birth to the cow; are there separate cows who are needed to give birth to the new cows, or is that already included in the 20 month year old cows who get slaughtered, i.e. do the cows who get slaughtered for meat have baby cows before they are slaughtered?

I suppose there are probably lots of other little bits and pieces missing, but I can't see how they would possibly sum up to the 5000L (or even 2500L) figure.

 

[Evo]

Jesus Christ, you seem to constantly think that I am trying to personally attack you because you eat meat. I'm not, I was quoting from a book that I had just read, and have tried to make the point several times that I found the statistic quite startling, so thanks for evo and cesiumfrog for trying to find out whether it is true.

The above I read in the same book a couple of lines below; admittedly, I should have mentioned that.

In regards to evo's calculation; well I suppose you need to think about the water required to give birth to the cow; are there separate cows who are needed to give birth to the new cows, or is that already included in the 20 month year old cows who get slaughtered, i.e. do the cows who get slaughtered for meat have baby cows before they are slaughtered?

I suppose there are probably lots of other little bits and pieces missing, but I can't see how they would possibly sum up to the 5000L (or even 2500L) figure.

Pay no attention to Dan, he likes to yank people's chains. but he can be nice, when he wants.

It would be interesting to see how they came up with that amount of water. Perhaps the cows they used lived indoors. :p

Here in the us the cattle graze and don't require much extra feed. The fields are mowed in the fall and the grass is rolled into bails of hay for feed over the winter. The water they drink is mostly from ponds. I'm not a big red meat eater, I mostly eat pork or chicken. If fish wasn't so darned expensive, I'd live off of fish/shellfish.

 

[Proton Soup]

That ALA is not sufficient still needs more research. And there are people who lived with a vegan diet throughout their entire lives and they are perfectly healthy, ie some rural Indians (from India).

conversion does occur, to EPA, and even to DHA, but it is low. much lower in men than women. and vegans can get their DHA from an algal source, but it is expensive, and most people will not be educated enough to buy it, and most will have their purchasing decisions limited by income. which leads me back to my primary gripe with veganism in general. it's one thing to say that it is technically possible to eat vegan. it is quite another to have the education, disposable income, and leisure time to make it possible. and even when you do, you're always on the edge of insufficiency. or... you can eat fish and meat and not be teetering on the edge all the time.

i simply don't believe this about Indians. they tend to be lacto-vegetarians. veganism is more of a modern western cult. and also, deficiency as a general problem is pretty common in India. it's always fun to see some dietary study where they gave men vitamins and minerals to cure reproductive problems, only to find out the study was conducted in India.

 

[Proton Soup]

Here in the us the cattle graze and don't require much extra feed. The fields are mowed in the fall and the grass is rolled into bails of hay for feed over the winter. The water they drink is mostly from ponds. I'm not a big red meat eater, I mostly eat pork or chicken. If fish wasn't so darned expensive, I'd live off of fish/shellfish.

i was thinking that most of our cattle were grain and soybean-fed, but the process seems to be more complicated than that. pure grass fed are supposed to have a better lipid profile, and make up something of a specialty beef market.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle_feeding#United_States

 

[Centaur]

i simply don't believe this about Indians. they tend to be lacto-vegetarians. veganism is more of a modern western cult. and also, deficiency as a general problem is pretty common in India. it's always fun to see some dietary study where they gave men vitamins and minerals to cure reproductive problems, only to find out the study was conducted in India.

Yeah most of the Indians are lacto-vegetarians, which is their source of B12, but not DHA. However, most holy men in India follow strict Vegan diets and some even become Fruitarians. There are also rural communities in India that live in places where they can't grow cattle and they have been shown to have deficiencies of B12, but they don't show any of the symptoms.

The latest data on the dietary intakes of vegans was just published last month.[1] The diets of about 100 vegans were recorded for a week and were found deficient in calcium, iodine and vitamin B12. Using the same standards, though, the standard American diet are deficient in 7 nutrients! The diet of your average American is not only also deficient in calcium and iodine, it's deficient in vitamin C, vitamin E, fiber, folate, and magnesium as well.[2]

Not only does the American public have over twice as many nutritional deficiencies in their diets, vegans were shown to have higher intakes of 16 out of the 19 nutrients studied, includeing calcium. The vegans were getting more than enough protein on average and three times more vitamin C, three times more vitamin E, three times more fiber. Vegans got twice the folate, twice the magnesium, twice the copper, twice the manganese.

And of course the vegans had twice the fruit and vegetable intake and half the saturated fat intake, meeting the new 2003 World Health Organization guidelines for fat intake and weight control.[3] Almost 2/3 of Americans are overweight.[4] In contrast, only 11% of the vegans were overweight. Almost one in three Americans are obese.[4] Zero of the 98 vegans in this study were obese.

So when a meateater asks you "Where you get your B12?" You can counter with "Where do you get your vitamin C, vitamin E, fiber, folate, and magnesium? And while you're at it, you can ask them how they keep their sodium, saturated fat, total fat and cholesterol intake under control (not to mention their weight).[5]

Taken from: http://www.veganforum.com/forums/sh...ies-more-common-in-meat-eaters-than-in-vegans where you can also find the references and more discussion about it (but it may be somewhat biased, as it is a vegan forum)

This is a tough and at the same time interesting topic when it comes to vitamin B12 benefits. One would think that vegetarians are at an advantage when it comes to B12 over vegans. This may not be quite so. On the one hand we are taught that all animal foods are reliable sources of vitamin B12, but on the other hand research tends to overlook that even people who consume animal foods, can still be deficient in this vitamin. Here is why:

The metabolism and absorption of B12 is actually quite a complex process. One must have proper secretions of hydrochloric acid in the stomach, and production of pepsin and intrinsic factor to fully digest and use B12. For some people who eat animal products, any of these three not working properly can be a limiting factor in their ability to absorb the B12.

This is why vegetarians who eat dairy or egg products cannot automatically assume that they are safe where B12 is concerned, as studies prove that B12 is easier to absorb from supplements or fortified foods, when it is not bound to a protein, like in most animal product sources. As we age too, our stomach lining gets worse and worse at producing the pepsin and hydrochloric acid. This is especially critical thus for those over the age of 50, where even animal product eaters are recommended to consume a B12 supplement.

So, since all vegans either take a supplement of B12 or consume fortified food products with it, they may actually have an easier time absorbing this crucial vitamin.

One more note on vitamin B12, the supplement form should be of the methylcobalamin form, not cyanocobalamin form, for best absorption and use in the body.

Taken from http://evolvingwellness.com/posts/743/the-benefits-of-being-vegan-over-vegetarian/

So even if you get your vit B12 from milk or meat, it doesn't mean you will be able to absorb it.

Some interesting information about vegetarian/vegan substitutes.
http://evolvingwellness.com/posts/916/how-to-handle-vegan-and-vegetarian-substitutions-for-common-food-items/

 

[Proton Soup]

Yeah most of the Indians are lacto-vegetarians, which is their source of B12, but not DHA. However, most holy men in India follow strict Vegan diets and some even become Fruitarians. There are also rural communities in India that live in places where they can't grow cattle and they have been shown to have deficiencies of B12, but they don't show any of the symptoms.

are these the same holy men that end up as non-productive members of society living off of alms? there's also at least one conman over there who is a "breatharian".

Taken from: http://www.veganforum.com/forums/sh...ies-more-common-in-meat-eaters-than-in-vegans where you can also find the references and more discussion about it (but it may be somewhat biased, as it is a vegan forum)

Taken from http://evolvingwellness.com/posts/743/the-benefits-of-being-vegan-over-vegetarian/

So even if you get your vit B12 from milk or meat, it doesn't mean you will be able to absorb it.

Some interesting information about vegetarian/vegan substitutes.
http://evolvingwellness.com/posts/916/how-to-handle-vegan-and-vegetarian-substitutions-for-common-food-items/

well, I'm not sure i'd be getting info from vegan advocacy sites. for a decent article on B12, try this:

http://www.aafp.org/afp/2003/0301/p979.html

while it is true that some people have trouble absorbing B12, this is a pathological condition. reduction in stomach acid will leave cobalamin bound to protein, so this is something you should address if you are either taking some kind of acid reducer (i have never seen this mentioned on the warnings, and only one old paper on it), or are elderly. the elderly are especially susceptible, and some nations have considered direct supplementation in food, the way we do for folic acid (which is one reason your first snippet is wrong - even though the typical american diet is too high in grain and low in veg/fruit, gov't mandates to put it in processed grain foods circumvents this). they also make a fairly lame argument. yes, it is true that a lot of people eat a bad omnivore diet that is too high in processed, non-whole grains, and too low in fruits and vegetables. but that does not mean that eating vegan is on the same level of stupid.


http://www.aafp.org/afp/2003/0301/p993.html

I eat meat and dairy products, so why do I have low vitamin B12?

Vegetarians who do not eat meat or dairy products are at risk for low vitamin B12, usually about two years after they become vegetarians. However, most people who have low vitamin B12 are not strict vegetarians. Most people with low vitamin B12 levels have trouble absorbing vitamin B12 from their stomach or small intestines.

as you see here, there is a bit of a time delay on the B12 deficiency. this is because B12 is stored in the liver. you've got enough there to keep you going for a few years, and then things can get really bad. and something else that I'm not going to look up (not sure it's mentioned above) but you can look it up for yourself. most doctors are NOT going to check you for cobalamin levels. and if they do, you may still be insufficient and they will not recognize it. the only thing that may tip them off that something is seriously wrong is megaloblastic anemia, one of the "classic" symptoms of B12 deficiency. or severe neurological impairment. the problem with this is that all that folate the gov't dumps into the food supply... well, it masks the anemia, even when B12 is truly low. and this is not a well-known problem.

as for the methylcobalamin, i take it myself, but i suspect there is something pathological. for most people, 1000-2000 mcg of oral cyanocobalamin is sufficient.

 

[cesiumfrog]

If fish wasn't so darned expensive, I'd live off of fish/shellfish.

It's probably worth pointing out (since one of the big reasons put for easing off meat is environmental) that overfishing has become a really staggering global problem (over about the last century). As if the oceans didn't face enough other problems (pollution, introduced species, warming, acidification, noise, ..). Looking at presentations by marine biologists (e.g., on TED) they always seem the most depressed (kind of like paleoceanoclimatologists always the most desperate, or like how nuclear physicists are the most relaxed about nuclear stuff.. it's interesting the ways various expert fields attitudes tend to stand out).

I've heard even fish are sometimes now being farmed in ways such that large areas of farmland are needed to grow what feeds (.. the chicken that feeds..) them.

 

[Monique]

I've heard even fish are sometimes now being farmed in ways such that large areas of farmland are needed to grow what feeds (.. the chicken that feeds..) them.

Example of the marine animals actually taking up the farmland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrimp_farm

 

[Proton Soup]

It's probably worth pointing out (since one of the big reasons put for easing off meat is environmental) that overfishing has become a really staggering global problem (over about the last century). As if the oceans didn't face enough other problems (pollution, introduced species, warming, acidification, noise, ..). Looking at presentations by marine biologists (e.g., on TED) they always seem the most depressed (kind of like paleoceanoclimatologists always the most desperate, or like how nuclear physicists are the most relaxed about nuclear stuff.. it's interesting the ways various expert fields attitudes tend to stand out).

I've heard even fish are sometimes now being farmed in ways such that large areas of farmland are needed to grow what feeds (.. the chicken that feeds..) them.

sure, catfish feed. probably tilapia, too. and don't forget stuff like biodiesel. this puts additional pressure on soy pricing, and farmers' decisions to even farm fish in a particular season. and a lot of that soy gets grown down in south america on cleared land that was once jungle.

human population growth is the biggest part of the equation. if you can bring that to a steady state, you can alleviate quite a lot of problems.

 

[Danger]

Here in the us the cattle graze and don't require much extra feed. The fields are mowed in the fall and the grass is rolled into bails of hay for feed over the winter.

Hmm... there's a geographic difference that I wasn't aware of before. Here in Alberta, the cattle are kept to graze in pastures. Simultaneously, the feed/bedding is grown in hay fields which they aren't allowed to access. (Maybe it has something to do with our shorter growing season.)

 

[Antiphon]

If God hadn't meant for Man to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat.

That's faith. If you prefer science, predators usually evolve to be smarter than prey. Prey survive by tactics of evasion and safety through numbers by keeping up high reproductive rates. Predators must rely on strength and superior intelligence if they don't have some major edge like venom or attack from the air.

Man is on top of the food chain because he evolved to eat everything and kill off all competition including his own species.

Foregoing the eating of meat is turning your back on the hard-won victories of countless ancestors stretching back into the beginning of biological time. It is turning your back on what makes us the humans we are- the instincts to kill and win.

Be a winner, not a loser. Grill a burger and enjoy every delicious bite. You ancestors deserve recognition, not rejection.

 

[Danger]

If God hadn't meant for Man to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat... ...You ancestors deserve recognition, not rejection.

I could not agree more, other than the fact than I'm an Atheist. I have often told people who demeaned my carnivore status that my ancestors fought for millions of years to attain the top of the food chain. I'm not about to disrespect them by eating plants.
As for your first sentence, it is not something that I could ever say but wish that I could. I put it in the same category as those who say that if god meant people to fly they would have wings. The proper response from non-Atheist pilots is that if he meant us to drive we would have 4 wheels and a carbeurator.

 

[Jamma]

If God hadn't meant for Man to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat.

That's faith. If you prefer science, predators usually evolve to be smarter than prey. Prey survive by tactics of evasion and safety through numbers by keeping up high reproductive rates. Predators must rely on strength and superior intelligence if they don't have some major edge like venom or attack from the air.

Man is on top of the food chain because he evolved to eat everything and kill off all competition including his own species.

Foregoing the eating of meat is turning your back on the hard-won victories of countless ancestors stretching back into the beginning of biological time. It is turning your back on what makes us the humans we are- the instincts to kill and win.

Be a winner, not a loser. Grill a burger and enjoy every delicious bite. You ancestors deserve recognition, not rejection.

Our ancestors also wiped their arse with their hands, shat outdoors, lived in caves...
By your above logic, you should not turn your back on your ancestors positions on these things either.

 

[runner]

Grill a burger and enjoy every delicious bite. You ancestors deserve recognition, not rejection.

So will your cardiologist and internal medicine specialist... in time...just sayin!

 

[rolerbe]

human population growth is the biggest part of the equation. if you can bring that to a steady state, you can alleviate quite a lot of problems.

If I recall correctly (don't have a reference to cite at the moment, maybe later), population projections show us topping out at a little over 13B. I.e maybe only one more doubling to go!