Who would take care of the animals in a vegan world?

[MotoH]

I don't think I have had a meal without meat for well, ever. Well, during lent you eat the fish on friday and that supposedly isn't meat but I am a little skeptical about that!

It is somewhat like the wild hogs in Georgia, if we all of the sudden just let cattle go free range because we aren't eating them anymore they would breed and breed until they ate their whole food supply and died of starvation. They would become a pest. I am all for shooting wild hogs, but I don't want to have to take down a wild cow!

 

[Evo]

I've got to ask the question. Could we feed the world's almost 7 billion people without meat, seafood, fowl, eggs and all dairy products? Not to mention farms for insects, worms, caterpillars, etc... that are consumed in some countries. I know some people that won't eat honey because it comes from bees.

 

[hamster143]

The point is that you need artificial supplements in order for it to be balanced. That means a vegan diet, by itself, is unhealthy. The supplements are necessary. Now, if you're worried about the animals and the planet and whatever have you, why is it better to have factories producing artificially manufactured vitamin supplements when an animal product is sufficient to fulfill that requirement?

That is not quite true. Followers of unbalanced vegan diets can be lacking some nutrients, and meat eaters can be lacking them too. To balance a vegetarian diet, you need to consume some types of food that can be considered exotic by meat eaters (e.g. tofu and avocados).

IIRC the only nutrient that is _really_ missing in a 100% vegan diet is vitamin B12. Daily recommended dose of B12 for an adult is measured in micrograms per day. 20 kg/day of B12 would be enough to prevent nutritional deficiencies in 6 billion people. Do you think that a factory that produces 20 kg/day is somehow worse for animals and the environment than commercial meat industry that produces one million tons of meat per day?

Also, do you think that farm animals don't get any supplements? Unlike us, farm animals have extremely limited menus and they have to be heavily supplemented to achieve optimal meat yields. Think of an element, chances are, there's a commercially produced animal feed supplement that contains that element.

http://www.google.com/search?q=cobalt+supplement+for+cattle
http://www.google.com/search?q=selenium+supplement+for+cattle
http://www.google.com/search?q=magnesium+supplement+for+cattle
http://www.google.com/search?q=fluoride+supplement+for+cattle

Could we feed the world's almost 7 billion people without meat, seafood, fowl, eggs and all dairy products?

Without a doubt. Meat is extremely inefficient. It takes 15 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of beef. It's been estimated that, simply by rerouting all grains used in the U.S. as cattle feed toward human consumption, we could feed 800 million people.

 

[Evo]

Without a doubt. Meat is extremely inefficient. It takes 15 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of beef. It's been estimated that, simply by rerouting all grains used in the U.S. as cattle feed toward human consumption, we could feed 800 million people.

Beef is only a small portion of what I mentioned. How would you feed Japan without fish?

Were talking beef, pork, chickens, ducks, turkey, pheasants, geese, hundreds of different seafoods. Not to mention eggs, cheese, milk, and other dairy products that are staples in many diets.

 

[MotoH]

You can't feed everyone a peanut butter sandwich for every meal. There is just no way that the whole world could live on just vegetables with this many people! A small group of people would probably be able to do it if they were living in a large enough area but there is just not enough vegetation in order to fulfill the demand for food.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Without a doubt. Meat is extremely inefficient. It takes 15 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of beef. It's been estimated that, simply by rerouting all grains used in the U.S. as cattle feed toward human consumption, we could feed 800 million people.

Cattle are mostly grass fed and the majority of grain that goes into their diets is not fit for human consumption.

 

[ideasrule]

Beef is only a small portion of what I mentioned. How would you feed Japan without fish?

Japan isn't agriculturally self-sufficient. It already imports most of its food, and has no problem doing so because of its large economy.

 

[Evo]

Japan isn't agriculturally self-sufficient. It already imports most of its food, and has no problem doing so because of its large economy.

What do they import? Meat, fowl, dairy?

 

[Huckleberry]

The B12 doesn't originate from animal products. It comes from bacteria that animals eat when they eat plants. Humans could get B12 from eating plants, but with pesticides and food washing we remove the bacteria. So the B12 deficiency in vegan diets is a result of modern culture, not a naturally unsustainable diet. Ofcourse, vegans would have to discontinue the use of pesticides and food washing, which causes other problems in a modern society.

Are there any other requirements of a vegan diet and way of life that would require large changes to modern culture?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The B12 doesn't originate from animal products. It comes from bacteria that animals eat when they eat plants. Humans could get B12 from eating plants, but with pesticides and food washing we remove the bacteria. So the B12 deficiency in vegan diets is a result of modern culture, not a naturally unsustainable diet. Ofcourse, vegans would have to discontinue the use of pesticides and food washing, which causes other problems in a modern society.

I believe that there are also some vegetable foods that are decent sources of B-12 (seaweed and plankton) only they are not very prevalent in most people's diets.

Are there any other requirements of a vegan diet and way of life that would require large changes to modern culture?

Many areas are not very suitable for large scale farming. People in these areas would need to have the ability to import foods, keep their population down, migrate to more fertile locations, or a mixture of all of the above.

Edit: accepting the use of GM foods could also go a long way.

 

[DaveC426913]

There is just no way that the whole world could live on just vegetables with this many people!

Eliminating meat does not leave "just" vegetables.

 

[MotoH]

What else is left after you cut out anything related to an animal?

 

[rootX]

Re: Who would take care of the animals in a vegan world?

Me! It would be my dream world because meat would be free :)On side note, Switzerland was passing law to provide lawyers to the animals

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8554012.stm

 

[hamster143]

Cattle are mostly grass fed and the majority of grain that goes into their diets is not fit for human consumption.

The point is that they consume the amount of grain (primarily, corn) that could've satisfied caloric requirements of 800 million people, IN ADDITION to grass. BTW, the use of land as pasture to grow grass is still inefficient. We could use that land to grow vegetables and feed even more people. And corn is quite fit for human consumption. If we intended to feed it to humans, maybe we would've grown different varieties or used somewhat lower plant density, but that does not change the arithmetics substantially.

Ultimately, it's simple conservation of energy. Plants collect sunlight and turn it into chemical energy. We could either eat plants directly, or we could pass that energy through an intermediate step (feed it to animals, and then eat those animals). We know that the intermediate step is very inefficient: <10% with cattle, 20%, tops, with rabbits.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

What do they import? Meat, fowl, dairy?

I don't know what the situation is now, but the last year I was there, they had a bad crop and had to import rice.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The point is that they consume the amount of grain (primarily, corn) that could've satisfied caloric requirements of 800 million people, IN ADDITION to grass. BTW, the use of land as pasture to grow grass is still inefficient. We could use that land to grow vegetables and feed even more people. And corn is quite fit for human consumption. If we intended to feed it to humans, maybe we would've grown different varieties or used somewhat lower plant density, but that does not change the arithmetics substantially.

Ultimately, it's simple conservation of energy. Plants collect sunlight and turn it into chemical energy. We could either eat plants directly, or we could pass that energy through an intermediate step (feed it to animals, and then eat those animals). We know that the intermediate step is very inefficient: <10% with cattle, 20%, tops, with rabbits.

http://jas.fass.org/cgi/content/abstract/74/6/1406

Not all grains are of a quality usable by humans and not all land can be used for producing vegetable foods for humans. Distilleries even sell their byproduct grains for feed. As well, cattle can consume a larger portion of the plant than a human.

Much of the corn produced by the US is exported as feed (we apparently have much more than we need).
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/corn/trade.htm

 

[M Grandin]

To answer OP question you must know more exactly how that letting domestic animals free should be performed. Some domestic animals are too much changed and manipulated by man to be able feeding and defending themselves in the wild. But a lot of them would survive, although most of them (due to carnivores, diseases, etc) should
not survive in the long run. Some species should also be taken care of by man without being exploited. People have dogs, cats, horses, goats and so on as pets - and having
cows or buffalos keeping their properties clean from excessive vegetation could be a sufficient reason for having them. A lot of people also like having animals like cows around - I know myself the feeling of having cattle nearby: You feel lucky. I have also read somewhere, that original reason for man keeping animals was not as food - but just as company. So animals have much, much more value to man than just as meat - at least to most of us. Look at India, where cows are welcome just as friends and worshipped like gods,

As all of us know, still today herds of horses, buffalos, camels, elephants may live free in the wild without involvement by man. In essence the animals are like humans: They may survive both in urban area and in the wild. If not being shot.

 

[Monique]

Monique had posted an excellent study showing that artificial nutrients did not perform nearly as well as the natural vitamins and nutrients found in natural foods. I'll try to find it later.

I am not aware that I posted such a paper, I did post the following one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...el.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum". It states:

"It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the lifecycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes."

The only vitamin that vegans cannot get from plant products is vitamin B12, so they must rely on microbial produced vitamin B12 (incidentally, vitamin B12 present in meat is also produced by microbes).

The point is that you need artificial supplements in order for it to be balanced. That means a vegan diet, by itself, is unhealthy. The supplements are necessary. Now, if you're worried about the animals and the planet and whatever have you, why is it better to have factories producing artificially manufactured vitamin supplements when an animal product is sufficient to fulfill that requirement?

I fully do not agree. First, meat farms heavily supplement their animals, so the argument is circular. Second, since when is a supplement unhealthy? If the vitamin B12 comes in a bottle, does that make it unhealthy? If you were to ferment substrates yourself and use that as a source of vitamin B12 would it all of a sudden be healthy?

You can't feed everyone a peanut butter sandwich for every meal. There is just no way that the whole world could live on just vegetables with this many people! A small group of people would probably be able to do it if they were living in a large enough area but there is just not enough vegetation in order to fulfill the demand for food.

Do you have any idea how much vegetation you need to feed an animal in order to create meat? A lot of energy is lost in that process. The idea that a population can not be sustained on a meatless diet is flawed in itself. You just need to look at India, 40% of the population adheres a vegetarian diet, amounting to 399 million people.

 

[Evo]

I am not aware that I posted such a paper,

It had nothing to do with vegetarianism, it was about the efficacy of supplements. I even thanked you for posting it, it was excellent. I'm still trying to remember what the topic was.

 

[Monique]

You make me curious. Google to the rescue: could it be this thread that you're thinking about? https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=350467

 

[Evo]

You make me curious. Google to the rescue: could it be this thread that you're thinking about? https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=350467

That's it!