Low Carb Dieting will Destroy the Planet

[Skrat]

...according to the link below.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17379

I imagine a few folks will have a comment on this...

Skrat

[synn]

LOL

That is too funny.

I have 2 points to make...

I don't know how many of you all eat 100 grams of protein or more a day, but I know that I don't....and can't. So that argument is faulty.

As for the use of land for crops...1) crops already produce more than is sold, so using it for feed seems like a good thing, 2) if low-carbers are not eating things like corn, than that reduction can be also used for feed, 3) we eat soybeans and lots of them...so why is soy in the list of "bad" foods?

Anyways....their arguments are not valid. The article is obviously written with a slant. Why don't they complain about the millions of acres used for golf courses. They cause a lot of damage to the enviornment....or how about all the plastic bags used for groceries and trash....or the styrene used to place foods on and in.

*shakes head*

agendas, agendas, agendas

Get to the real problems....please.

[Quinadal]

LOL

That is too funny.

I have 2 points to make...

I don't know how many of you all eat 100 grams of protein or more a day, but I know that I don't....and can't. So that argument is faulty.

Ummm, I eat 150-200g protein a day....

[Kristine]

IMHO, if there's not enough land to sustain a population of LCers, then the problem is overpopulation. Low carbers are eating what humans are supposed to eat. Are we supposed to subsist on HFCS just to make environmentalists happy? I think not.

[Lisa N]

We've had this discussion before, although last time it did have a different focus: http://forum.lowcarber.org/showpost.php?p=1343358&postcount=75

The article above assumes that everyone who takes up low carb as their WOE increases their protein consumption. That wasn't the case with me. I eat about the same amount of protein now that I always have. What I have increased dramatically is the amount of calories coming from fat while decreasing dramatically the amount of calories coming from carbs. Come to think of it, I don't eat all that many eggs, either.
According to the article above, the average protein intake for humans worldwide is 28 grams per day. While this might be enough to sustain the lean body mass of my 50 pound 8 year old daughter, it's not enough to sustain a full grown adult and to hold that up as a standard (or even something that should be considered "normal") is irresponsible. Yes, some people do increase their protein intake when they begin low carbing, but many of those folks were protein deficient to start with.
Slanted? Well...when you work for an organization that supports agriculture (primarily grain agriculature: http://www.landinstitute.org/vnews/display.v/ART/2000/08/10/37a747b43 ), it would be hard not to be a bit biased in favor of those you support.

[Grimalkin]

IMHO, if there's not enough land to sustain a population of LCers, then the problem is overpopulation. Low carbers are eating what humans are supposed to eat. Are we supposed to subsist on HFCS just to make environmentalists happy? I think not.

I agree, and I am an ardent environmentalist. The problem is overpopulation coupled with high resource consumption. Most endangered species (both plant and animal) got thay way from habitat loss, regardless of whether that land was cleared for grazing or agriculture or home building. Planting more grains in place of cattle isn't going to bring back dwindling not-so-renewable natural resources.

[synn]

Ummm, I eat 150-200g protein a day....


All from beef?

I guess I should have made myself more clear. The article suggested that all low-carbers eat 100 g of beef protien a day.

I know that I don't. I eat fish, chicken, and beef. I drink protien suppliments to keep my protien up above 100 g. I just know that I could not eat 100 g of protien from beef everyday.

But this is just my opinion.

[NickFender]

You all ought to read this thing more carefully before you start taking shots at it

According to the article above, the average protein intake for humans worldwide is 28 grams per day....and to hold that up as a standard ....is irresponsible.

Actually, the article says worldwide consumption of ANIMAL PROTEIN is 28 grams per day. Presumably, total protein intake is somewhat higher.

The article suggested that all low-carbers eat 100 g of beef protien a day.... I know that I don't. I eat fish, chicken, and beef....

Again, the article does NOT say that a low-carb diet requires 100 grams of protein from beef, it says it requires 100 grams of animal protein and specifically mentions increases required in meat, dairy, poultry and seafood production to meet such demand.

[Lisa N]

Presumably, total protein intake is somewhat higher.

Presumably, but the article doesn't say that:
As it is, humans worldwide average only 28 grams per day.
Their quote implies animal protein, but doesn't specifically state animal protein when it comes to that 28 grams. I would certainly hope that protein intake overall was higher, but it honestly wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't considering how much of the population is even currently living at starvation levels of food intake; protein, carbs or otherwise.
There are also very few plant proteins that are complete proteins or that provide adequate essential amino acids, so unless that 28 grams is animal protein, it's likely not of the greatest nutritional quality. Regardless of whether that 28 grams is plant or animal protein, it's not nearly enough to sustain a full grown adult or a growing child.

[NickFender]

Presumably, but the article doesn't say that:

Their quote implies animal protein, but doesn't specifically state animal protein when it comes to that 28 grams.

Granted, it could have been edited to be a bit clearer, but careful reading shows that the writer is referring to 28 grams of animal protein. Here is the entire paragraph:

"If all of those people went on an Atkins-style diet, their requirement for animal protein would rise to about 100 grams. A billion dieters each eating an extra 44 grams could not easily be satisfied by giving them a bigger share of current animal protein production. As it is, humans worldwide average only 28 grams per day."

....Regardless of whether that 28 grams is plant or animal protein, it's not nearly enough to sustain a full grown adult or a growing child.

Nowhere in this article are they advocating a diet based on 28 grams of protein. Your assertion that it does so is a red herring that begs the real question. That is, what are the probable ecological implications that would result from a massive, global shift toward a low-carb diet by 1 billion overweight dieters (however unlikely such a shift may be)?

[Lisa N]

Granted, it could have been edited to be a bit clearer, but careful reading shows that the writer is referring to 28 grams of animal protein.

Or...that's what they want you to think (slanted writing). If it's not slanted writing, it would have gotten me a less than stellar grade in writing class. :rolleyes: I haven't had time to check their resources but I have to admit to being a bit suspicious of their figures.

Nowhere in this article are they advocating a diet based on 28 grams of protein.

Not blatantly, but what I infer from that, especially when they also state that an average Western diet (where they pointedly mention we have the greatest problem with obesity) is that we are eating double what the average person on the planet does and this is somehow excess; even more so if we, heaven forbid, increase that amount of protein to actually sustain our lean body mass or even increase it.

what are the probable ecological implications that would result from a massive, global shift toward a low-carb diet by 1 billion overweight dieters (however unlikely such a shift may be)?

Well..first of all we have to assume that 1 billion dieters are overweight. A fair assumption since they are trying to lose weight, eating disorders aside. Second...those 1 billion dieters are, I also presume, included in those protein consumption figures worldwide. One does have to ask the question of how they got to be overweight consuming between 28 and 56 grams of protein per person per day; obviously it wasn't their protein consumption that got them there. Third...it's quite unlikely that all 1 billion dieters are going to shift to a low carb lifestyle, also presuming that they have to buy or catch/kill their protein and in some economies that would be cost prohibitive, not to mention that low carb isn't for all dieters and I don't recall seeing any movements recently to impose low carb on all persons wishing to lose weight...it is still a free choice last time I checked.
Some other good points have been made in the other thread going on this subject regarding the fact that not all available land is suitable for grain raising. New Zeeland, for example. And that there is currently much land not being used for either cattle or agriculture that would easily sustain cattle, but not agriculture.
IMHO, I consider the above article to be something akin to scare tactics or at the very least alarmist: "If everyone who wants to lose weight switches to low carb instead of the food pyramid, the world will starve!".

[NickFender]

Lisa -- Your allegiance to low-carb is apparently affecting your ability to make a well-reasoned argument. The article in question is certainly driven by extremely biased ideology, but your response is no better. Apparently you are refusing to allow the distinction between animal protein and other sources of protein. As a reult you're making leaps of logic that don't make any sense.

Here's an example"

...they also state that an average Western diet...is that we are eating double what the average person on the planet does

But the article does not say that, does it? Rather it says that we eat twice as much animal protein. There's a difference, isn't there?

Here's another example of misrepresentation:


One does have to ask the question of how they got to be overweight consuming between 28 and 56 grams of protein per person per day; obviously it wasn't their protein consumption that got them there.

Again, the article doesn't say that these billion overweight people eat only 56 grams of protein per day; It says they average 56 grams of animal protein. That's an important distinction, isn't it?

Here's another overstatement:

I don't recall seeing any movements recently to impose low carb on all persons wishing to lose weight...it is still a free choice last time I checked.

Where in this article is it stated or implied that there is some effort afoot to impose low-carb on anyone, or take away freedom to choose one's diet? Since it doesn't say that at all is it safe to assume that you are engaging in the same "scare tactics" you attribute to the writer of the article?

[Lisa N]

http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/AC911E/ac911e05.htm

At least this gives sources for the statistical information (the above article does not).

Based on their statistics, currently animal protein consumption makes up roughly 21% of daily caloric intake on a worldwide average with developing countires (poor populations) consuming the least and industrialized countries (relatively richer populations) consuming the most. Consumption of animal proteins seems to be directly related to income, although not completely so.
They have some interesting views on what could/should be done to keep up with the increase in demand for animal proteins as the population continues to increase along with average incomes to afford that animal protein.
So...based on all this is everyone ready to become vegetarian yet?

[NickFender]

So...based on all this is everyone ready to become vegetarian yet?

This kind of gross exaggeration is misleading and serves only to inflame. While the original article is admitedly biased, it at least offers a semi-detailed hypothesis. And the UN report that you linked to primarily provides data and is remarkably free of strenuous judgement. In completely different styles they are raising issues that ought to be considered carefully.

But, based on your willingness to engage only in exaggeration, misrepresentation, and hyperbole, it would seem that you are incapable of acknowledging even the potential validity of any analysis that supposes to cast your beloved low-carb "WOL" in an unfavorable light.

I'd let this go but for two reasons. First, and most important, the issues raised in the original article are important. And, if one seeks to spread the beneficial health effects of a low-carb diet beyond a limited population of obese dieters and enlightened individuals, it behooves us to address some of these issues intelligently. My second, admitedly petty, reason for pursuing this is that you, Lisa, are a frequent critic of the exaggeration and misrepresentation that accompanies so much media coverage of low-carb diets, and it strikes me as rank hypocricy when you engage in the same practice.

[Lisa N]

So...based on all this is everyone ready to become vegetarian yet?

Ummm...I was joking, ya know. :rolleyes: Guess I should have followed it with a couple of LOL faces like this: :lol: :lol:

and it was preceeded by this statement:
They have some interesting views on what could/should be done to keep up with the increase in demand for animal proteins as the population continues to increase along with average incomes to afford that animal protein.

The biggest problem I have with the original argument above is not that it raises some important issues about the growing world population and food supply, but that their argument is based on a "what if" that is very unlikely to ever occur, that is "what if all 1 billion dieters in the world turned low carb?"
A more important consideration, IMO, is "what if the world population continues to increase at the current rate unabated?" The world is currently overpopulated and underfed as it is on a whole and the situation is likely to get worse before it gets better. Low carb dieting is just a drop in the bucket compared to that but perhaps a convenient scapegoat?

[NickFender]

The biggest problem I have with the original argument above is not that it raises some important issues about the growing world population and food supply, but that their argument is based on a "what if" that is very unlikely to ever occur, that is "what if all 1 billion dieters in the world turned low carb?"

Again, I'd say you need to read the article more carefully. If you do, you will see the following...

It's unlikely that all 1 billion of the world's overweight people will have the desire or the means to make the move to expensive animal-based food. Nevertheless, the kind of ecological damage we have described will occur in direct proportion to the number of people who do adopt the diet.

A more important consideration, IMO, is "what if the world population continues to increase at the current rate unabated?" The world is currently overpopulated and underfed as it is on a whole and the situation is likely to get worse before it gets better. Low carb dieting is just a drop in the bucket compared to that but perhaps a convenient scapegoat?

Therin lies the issue... low-carb is a drop in the bucket today, but what policies and practices should be considered in order to enable a larger portion of the world's ever-growing population to adopt a diet that may offer tremendous health benefits? Based purely on ideology, the publisher of this article would very likely prefer that the low-carb not become widely adopted. But the world will benefit more if those who aren't driven by ideology but rather by a genuine interest in improving the human condition are willing to address the potential ecological problems in a productive rather than a purely defensive manner.

Sorry for not catching your humor; I just don't think global hunger and widespread ecolological destruction are laughing matters.

[Karen L]

Where is it ever written that humans have to eat animal protein? Protein can come from a number of different sources. That being veg. sources. Anyone ever read the 'PH Miracle'? :read2:

[Quinadal]

All from beef?

I guess I should have made myself more clear. The article suggested that all low-carbers eat 100 g of beef protien a day.

I know that I don't. I eat fish, chicken, and beef. I drink protien suppliments to keep my protien up above 100 g. I just know that I could not eat 100 g of protien from beef everyday.

But this is just my opinion.
Mostly. I can easily eat a 10 oz steak every night. I HAVE eaten a 16 oz prime rib with no problem. And I LOVE beef jerky, although I can't eat much of it because I have arthritis in my jaw.
The rest of it is from chicken and a lot of pork. I eat 3 eggs at a time, usually with bacon or sausage.

[Lisa N]

Where is it ever written that humans have to eat animal protein? Protein can come from a number of different sources. That being veg. sources.

Yes, you can get protein from vegetable sources but if you're going to do that then you need to take care to combine the right vegetable and grain sources (generally, grains + legumes = complete protein) to get complete proteins, unless your plant source is primarily soy. Most plant proteins (again, soy excluded) are incomplete, meaning that they are missing one or more of the essential amino acids that our bodies need. Since different plant sources contain different essential amino acids, you can get a complete protein by combining the right plant sources, but you do have to know what you are doing. Getting adequate protein this way also means that your carb intake will be higher (sometimes higher than what an individual's carb tolerance is) and is also difficult for those that have sensitivities to grains.
It would be a workable plan, though, for those who are not concerned with their daily carb intake or have a higher carb tolerance, don't have sensitivities to grains and have only grains and legumes to work with.

[Hellistile]

"The vegetarian will be dismayed to learn that while soya bean is rich in complete protein, and grains and nuts also combine to provide complete proteins, none contains the fats that are essential for proper brain development."

The above excerpt is taken from the following article by Barry Groves (author of the book Eat Fat, Get Thin). Everyone interested in this subject should read it because it explains everything there is to know about vegetarianism, usable, arable land and everything else related to the subject.

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/vegetarian.html#link0

It is not as grim as everyone thinks.

[idontno]

nick im sorry im ridding with lisa on this one.... i raise beef in texas ....

[Petey]

I dont know about you guys.but, i'm eating the same amount of meats as before which is balanced between chicken,pork,& beef. It's the veggies that i'm eating more of on this diet.:cool:

[Petey]

:cry: according to the witch-hunters we should all go back to being obese diebetics

[Birdy...]

Let me say one thing...

As a farmer, ruminants, Cattle and sheep being the two most of the population knows are usually fed the grain parts that people can't eat.

Not the "prime" grains that are consumed by humans. So the next time you hear someone saying that livestock eat up our precious grains...Clue them in that they eat what we can't and have the ability to eat substandard grains and convert it into energy and produce their own vitamins from these less than "choice" grain products.

Birdy...

[WeeOne]

Well, this article just made me giggle, it kind of reminded me of the 6 Degrees of Separation game, it just kept going and going!

It is a real interesting analogy, but I remember years ago, when people stopped eating so much fresh meat, eggs and cheese and carbs were NOT the enemy, processed foods with lower fat and less calorie consumption was the only way that we knew of to lose weight, we were hearing the same type of scenarios, just with different foods.

I'm not an environmentalist, not that I don't care about the environment, I just don't study much, but I would be curious at just how much methane gas from cow's depletes the ozone layer. Anyone know??? Just curious.

Wee

[NickFender]

...I would be curious at just how much methane gas from cow's depletes the ozone layer. Anyone know??? Just curious.

Wee

from the EPA web site (http://www.epa.gov/rlep/sustain.htm)...

Globally, ruminant livestock produce about 80 million tons of methane annually, accounting for about 22% of global methane emissions from human-related activities. An adult cow may be a very small source by itself, emitting only 80-120 kgs of methane, but with about 100 million cattle in the U.S. and 1.2 billion large ruminants in the world, ruminants are one of the largest methane sources. In the U.S., cattle emit about 6 million metric tons of methane per year into the atmosphere, which is equivalent to about 36 million metric tons of carbon.

And from another EPA web page (http://www.epa.gov/ghginfo/topics/topic1.htm)...

Methane and Climate Change
Methane (CH4) is a hydrocarbon and a principal component of natural gas. Methane is also a "greenhouse gas," meaning that its presence in the atmosphere affects the earth's temperature and climate system. Like carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrous oxide (N2O), methane is a radiatively and chemically active "trace gas." Methane is considered a trace gas because it is a minor atmospheric constituent (1.72 parts per million by volume, ppmv, in 1990) compared to other gases such as nitrogen and oxygen (78 percent and 21 percent by volume, respectively). Methane's radiative activity refers to properties that cause it to trap infrared radiation (IR), or heat, enhancing the greenhouse effect.

Methane's chemically active properties have indirect impacts on global warming as the gas enters into chemical reactions in the atmosphere that not only affect the period of time methane stays in the atmosphere (i.e., its lifetime), but that also play a role in determining the atmospheric concentrations of tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapor, both of which are also greenhouse gases. These indirect and direct effects make methane a large contributor, second only to carbon dioxide, to potential future warming of the earth. Global warming potentials provide a measure of the relative impacts of the emissions of each greenhouse gas.

Global Warming Potentials
The concept of global warming potential (GWP) has been developed to compare the ability of each greenhouse gas to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. This measurement of GWP relies on carbon dioxide as the reference gas. Thus, the GWP of a greenhouse gas is the ratio of global warming (both direct and indirect), also known as radiative forcing, from one unit mass of a greenhouse gas to one unit mass of carbon dioxide over a period of time.

Methane, which has a GWP of 21, raises particular concerns about global warming because over a 100-year period it is 21 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide.

[Bloveld]

I eat a lot less in general while on LC simply because my blood sugar doesnt fluctuate as it would when eating processed carbs. So if this is a normal reaction then less resources would be used to feed us.
Just think of the massive areas given over to produce grains that would be freed up. Then there is the land and energy used up to process and transport the grains. Also supermarkets would be 1/3 of the size. I know I walk past most of the aisles nowdays.
Steve

[LCAndy]

I dont eat more then 100 grams i eat more like 50 grams a day it makes no sence how the world could be destroyed by eating a little bit more meat and less wheat????????

[Nancy LC]

Maybe the real problem is that there are just too many people to feed in the world.

[conbom]

In my opinion the real problem is found in the power mongering among the governments, and I am not just talking about the governments of developed countries. How often has food been sent to third world countries and been left to rot on the docks? How about attitudes in some parts of the world that don't allow for productive farming? There are so many aspects to the whole issue that you can not point to one thing and say that it is the problem.

One of the things that people don't really take into consideration in the way we eat is the nutritional make up of the food we put into our mouths. When BIG INDUSTRY takes out all of the living elements of food-stripping it of vitamins and minerals-in order to create a longer shelf life and a greater profit our bodies become hungry for those nutrients we aren't getting and we find ourselves seeking out more food in hopes of filling that need. More doritos, anyone?

Another big issue, particularly in America, is what we drink. Sugared soda adds calories and soda with aspertame tricks our brains into thinking that we are supplying sugar to our system and when it doesn't show up we find ourselves craving sweets. Juices out of moderation are a problem, too. Our bodies need water but most everyone I talk to thinks that as long as they are getting liquids they are OK.

There are problems all around but when you consider that you could take every person in the world-man, woman & child-and give them 2000 sq ft of space-enough for a nice size house- you would only fill Texas! And it would have the population density of Paris. Anyway the problems lie in sensible land usage and governments willing to feed their people!

One thing I would like to see is for some inventive person(s) to come up with a method of harnessing bovine methane and powering generators with it! Considering how different things are now from 100 years ago just think how different things will be in 100 from now.

Speaking of 100 years ago one of the things left out of the obesity picture is energy expenditure, ie sitting around e-mailing people rather than walking or riding over to talk to them! Plus no more scrub boards, kneading bread, beating carpets...and that's just in the home! Look at how industry has changed!
The whole issue is multi-faceted. As I said before we can't pin the world's woes on just one thing, esp. not LCing.

Sorry to jump around so much but ,as you can see, there are MANY different aspects to the whole food/population/diet issue. Just think, in the 1770's Thomas Malthus was saying that the world was overpopulated!

[conbom]

While the inventive people are at it maybe they could come up with a use for the cow poop! I just read a story of an older man reminiscing about when he and his siblings would go out and collect cow pies for heating the house. Surely we could figure something out!

[NickFender]

While the inventive people are at it maybe they could come up with a use for the cow poop! I just read a story of an older man reminiscing about when he and his siblings would go out and collect cow pies for heating the house. Surely we could figure something out!

Actually, there are a lot of efforts underway right now in the field of Anaerobic Digestion, which is a process that can be used to extract biogas from cow manure (and other organic waste). It's a very promising field, but has a way to go before it is truly viable.

The problem with methane gas from cows doesn't stem only from the manure, however. It's the belching and farting that is the real problem. If we could just teach cows better manners, perhaps we would be better off.

[Ruralgurl]

Conbom, I like your reply and your thoughts on this discussion, I agree with you. I also have to side with LisaN as well gee sorry Nick! Are you brought up in the city by any chance?
Because I am not as articulate as others I will rely on cut and paste to add a point of view.
According to David Suzuki in this 1999 article the population of the world will not double in the next fifty years and that death rate is actually on the rise in many countries.
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/About_us/Dr_David_Suzuki/Article_Archives/weekly10209901.asp

This article is interesting.
The impact of argriculture on the planet. This article is not necssecarily pro or con.
http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWSScience0110/26_suzuki-can.html

I am considered a hobby farmer here in B.C. on the outskirts of Vancouver. On my six acres it would be quite feesible to raise cattle (have you seen the mini's), poultry, and still have a considerable garden to feed and supply many people, in a natural way as well. One of the big problems is the destruction of the family farm across North America and the love of the almighty dollar! Maybe we need a little better land management and a few less of these huge corporations treating us all like their herd of sheep.
Just an observation but if I take a few chickens and pen them up in a relatively small area and feed them grain and water. They will soon pack on the fat, quadruple in population, become sick and diseased (without constant medication) and beat the *%*# out of each other.
Take another group let them roam the property, they will set up a pecking order and get along, rely on grass and bugs, even mice and toads for nourishment, muscle up enough they can fly up into trees to avoid predation for the most part and stay particularily healthy. They will create a natural balance between living and dying and it has been quite interesting to see!

So that is my two cents.
Have you ever noticed that little tiny chickadees and mice are the ones that really only want to eat the seeds and grains!

[NickFender]

I also have to side with LisaN as well gee sorry Nick! Are you brought up in the city by any chance?

Actually, I live in a rural area. My neighbors raise horses (POA and Appaloosa) plus they run about a dozen ill-tempered Angus steers in one of their bigger pastures. About three miles down the road is a medium-sized dairy operation where they are going to experiment with anaerobic digestion.

I'm not anti-livestock at all. I just think we all would be better off if we had open minds about dealing with the associated issues rather than sticking our heads in the sand and saying that there are no problems related to the production of animal protein.

As far as population growth goes, the most recent UN forecast (http://www.un.org/esa/population/unpop.htm) that I've seen is for growth from 6.3 billion today to 8.9 billion in 2050, even with a significant global decline in fertility rates. That's a lot of people.

[conbom]

Ruralgirl--Can we come and live with you? You have just what we want only on a slightly smaller scale. I've seen those small cows in Mother Earth news and they had an article a awhile back about some rare breed chickens and... and...I want solar power and I want...(actually can you use solar power there or are you too far north and/or too overcast?) There was a 40 acre organic farm on the west side of our state for sale but we are kinda tied here because my in-laws need us. I've tried to talk them into moving with us but they are old and stuck in their ways! Ah, well...we'll finally get to move just as our youngest (she's 5) moves out!

Nick-I am glad to hear that something is being tried in the realm of recycling cow poop. As far as the gas is concerned, surely there is some Rube Goldburg inventtion that could be set up to catch these emissions! I sorta picture a large inverted funnel placed over the herd to catch the gases... :lol:

Actually the greatest advancement would developing a way to turn our own effluence into energy! Just imagine, rather than a composting toilet one that would take the gases created to power our lives! Well? 200 years ago who would have thought we would have the technology we have today? It would almost be the equivilant of perpetual motion. An endless cycle...It's getting late...I must be dreaming...maybe......someday.....Nite, nite y'all....zzzz....zzzz

[NickFender]

As far as the gas is concerned, surely there is some Rube Goldburg inventtion that could be set up to catch these emissions! I sorta picture a large inverted funnel placed over the herd to catch the gases... :lol:

ha..ha..ha... maybe we could attach a small pilot light to each cow's rump and -- poof! -- burn off the gasses as they are emitted :lol:

[IdahoSpud]

I'd say monoculture agriculture already *has* destroyed the planet. It wasn't cows that were responsible for the dust bowl, nor the destruction of rainforest. Its farmers - you know, the 'stewards of the land'. LOL

[idontno]

oh my now its cows thats going distroy the world. boy i bet you were ready for y2. maybe you should get a hobbie or say maybe a life. next time you set down to eat you can think about the farmer or rancher who sweated his _ss off so you could eat. i raise beef and i eat the beef i raise. i dont know how many people last year ate what i raised but it was alot.
as for cow pattys destroying the world. maybe you should join up with peta i wonder how many people they fed this year. hey cant wait to tell my cows about this one they ll get a kick out of it.
got to go think ill have a rib eye for lunch.
hell cows wont even eat tofu. da

[idontno]

hey guess i could give the girls some gas-x.....da

[sixpence]

In the U.S., cattle emit about 6 million metric tons of methane per year into the atmosphere, which is equivalent to about 36 million metric tons of carbon. Now that is what I call a lot of farts!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[IdahoSpud]

Maybe they ought to flare it off, like they do at the oil refineries, lol.

[daffodyl]

Fact of the matter is, that it would be for more caring for the planet, to stop plowing up marginal and hilly land, and just raise animals on it. Ruminants dont have to be grain fed at all. In fact, they are designed to eat the whole plant, instead of the grains, as they are when raised in feed-lots. Furthermore, since the important Omega-3 oils are found primarily in the leaves, and the Omega-6's in the seed-heads, when ruminants are allowed to forage naturally, their meat, when eaten by humans, provides a far healthier protein than their grain-fed counterparts.

Wow, that was a long sentence. Am I making any sense to anyone here? LOL

[LilaCotton]

Here's something to think about: What happened to our own bodies when we lowered the carbohydrate intake? What are the grains going into the cattle but carbohydrates? I know I've read plenty of posts here on this board about people who're just amazed that with low-carbing, they no longer have the gas problems they did while on a higher carbohydrate diet. It's said those carbs lay in the digestive tract and ferment, causing the gas. Suppose the same might hold true for cattle? It would be an interesting thing to try. No, cattle don't need to be grain-fed. They can make quite nice meat on only grass, then if a person wants the meat a little fatter, a little grain can be added to their daily diet during the last month before butchering. That's how we raised all our beef when I was a kid.

Along with this topic, I read an interesting article in yesterday's paper. A researcher at the University of Illinois is turning pig manure into crude oil. He said it most likely will never work for auto fuel, but the possibility of it one day being able to producing plastics, inks, heating fuel and power is there. I find that extremely interesting.