People Still Don't Get the Link between Meat Consumption and Climate Change

[Fast Walker 52]

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/people-still-don-t-get-the-link-between-meat-consumption-and-climate-change/

I think a really important point is that people don't have to give up eating meat, just cut down on their consumption! Restaurants are a huge part of the problem IMO, so many restaurants have totally meat-oriented menus. It's really annoying.

[Gregorian]

1. People Still Don't Get the Link between Population and Climate Change

[FLPanhandle]

24. Ding, ding, ding. We have the winner!

Meat, greenhouse gases, etc are only symptoms of the underlying problem of having way too many people on the planet.

I don't see anyone advocating population control or reduction measures though.

For millennia humans ate meat and it was no problem. It's only a problem now because there are just way too damn many of us.

[Gregorian]

49. The scientists can't get on tv! They simply cannot get out the word.

Oh, they're advocating for population stabilization. In one of Dr. Paul Ehrlich's international conferences, I have heard them speak out in great frustration over their ignored pleas to get on air. The media do not want this to be aired.

What we know now is that we're out of time for engineering solutions, and population stabilization. We need to work on those simultaneously, or we'll get nowhere. But the only way out of this situation now is "an immediate and deep reduction in energy demand". That's a quote by Kevin Anderson, a high level climate scientist.

Thanks for an unexpected, positive reply. It's also great to know there are others who are aware of the actual problem. It's numbers, and what those numbers of people are doing. Two factors. We only control one, while the other continues to grow.

[villager]

54. Well, for millennia, that meat wasn't raised as an "industrial product," nor as much of it consumed

Nor was it the same meat, shipped everywhere, so everyone could have the same burgers, fried chicken, etc...

[FLPanhandle]

60. If you have a human population of less than one billion, that doesn't matter

Each of those people could eat industrial farm produced meat three times a day and it would have a negligible impact on the environment.

Again, it all goes back to having too many people on the planet.

[villager]

65. Sure, let's ignore everything else until a 70% die-off! Steaks and SUVs all around!

Your friendly neighborhood GOP in action!

[FLPanhandle]

67. Strawman

It's not a simpleton either or. If that is the extent of your debate, good bye and good luck.

[villager]

75. Actually, the extent of yours seems to be: "What can I say to get myself off the hook?"

In other words, sure it's population.

And consumption.

And a whole planet wanting to live like upper middle-class Americans.

That doesn't absolve you from any personal responsibility, compadre.

But, if that's the extent of your debate, good bye and good luck.

[anigbrowl]

87. Hrmmm

Surely you are aware that China had a rather draconian 'one child' policy in place for the last few decades and has essentially been running the world's largest population-control experiment (without much success, in terms of getting people to like the idea). Most western nations already keep their populations under control through contraception and populations are already stable or in gentle decline once you subtract growth from immigration.

[RadiationTherapy]

57. How much of what they consume is irrelevant? The nature of economic exploitation

is irrelevant? The expenditures of resources on war and terror are irrelevant? It makes no difference how people live, only how many people live? That sounds impossible-ish.

[villager]

76. Many here are desperate to absolve themselves of any personal responsibility.

It's a funny kind of progressivism, I guess.

[mike_c]

58. yup, this is the real problem....

Garrett Hardin was right all along.

[Person 2713]

2. Restaurant offerings are part of the problem considering how many people eat out in the USA

[AxionExcel]

3. People still don't get the link between chemical GMO industrial agriculture and climate change

[Fast Walker 52]

6. I'm not familiar with that myself

What is the link?

[AxionExcel]

11. The link is at least two-fold

"The links between industrial agriculture and climate change are twofold. On the one hand, industrially produced food systems are energy-intensive and fossil-fuel based, and thus contribute significantly to climate change. On the other hand, the crops grown in the genetically homogeneous monocultures that are typical of chemical farming are not resilient to the climate extremes that are becoming more frequent and more violent..."

http://www.ecoliteracy.org/article/industrial-agriculture-agroecology-and-climate-change

[yewberry]

16. Just a reminder

Remember that large amounts of monoculture (particularly corn & say) are grown as fodder. Less demand for fodder means less acreage devoted to industrial monoculture.

[Fast Walker 52]

22. ok, thanks-- I'll check it out

[HassleCat]

53. GMOs may help with climate change

It's possible GMO agriculture may use less fossil fuel, contribute fewer greenhouse gasses, etc. than other methods of raising crops. I don't know. I'm sure you will get widely varying opinions on this.

[Major Nikon]

72. "chemical free food"

[Humanist_Activist]

86. You really are a one trick pony and yor posts make no sense. N/t

[tabasco]

4. Domestic livestock agriculture is killing the biosphere.

Good post.

[TexasProgresive]

5. It doesn't wash with me

unless they are talking about the fossil carbon foot print for raising, shipping and processing meat as opposed to that of plants grown for human consumption. The methane and CO2 from livestock production is part of a natural cycle. The feed they eat drew carbon out of the air. When plants decay, are burned or consumed that carbon is released back into the air. It is all part of a natural cycle. Get rid of ranches and it will still happen. Trees are thought of as a carbon sink but that carbon is only sequestered until the wood rots or is burned. The carbon goes back into the air.

There are arguments to be made that a plant based diet makes economic sense and ethical reasons for the same, but it doesn't wash with causing climate change. The only way to break that natural cycle is to eliminate life on earth. That would save us from climate change-oh wait we would not be here.

[Fast Walker 52]

9. The process is natural but the extent is not

We breed and grow massive numbers of animals for meat that would not normally exist.

[TexasProgresive]

10. Is there more vegetation tonnage on the earth or less?

There were lots of wild animals and lots of vegetation on the earth before we humans came along and the system was balanced. Increased atmospheric carbon has nothing to do with plant and animals it's all to do with fossil fuel burning.

[NickB79]

12. Considering how much land we've converted to fields, fueled with synthetic fertilizer

I'd say the amount of biomass on the planet is substantially higher today than in millenia past. You are incorrect when you state "Increased atmospheric carbon has nothing to do with plant and animals it's all to do with fossil fuel burning." The use of fossil fuels to farm grains to then raise livestock at densities far above what natural systems could maintain means the livestock themselves become a huge new source of carbon emissions.

One example: we currently have 90 million head of cattle in the US today, with another 15 million in Canada and 8 million in Mexico. Before Europeans arrived, the closest comparable species was the bison, and they peaked out at 25 million head. We have almost 5 times as many cattle today as we used to have bison due to modern agriculture.

We're currently farming almost HALF the land mass of the entire planet (which is amazing considering how much land is unfarmable because of mountain ranges, deserts, ice caps, etc), and using so much nitrogen fertilizer that we're fundamentally shifted the nitrogen cycle globally: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1209_051209_crops_map.html

A fellow DUer here has put considerable effort into studying what agriculture has done to the sheer biomass of just animal life on the planet, and it's a bit shocking if it's anywhere near accurate: http://www.democraticunderground.com/112783229

[TexasProgresive]

14. My premise is that it doesn't matter over the long run

how biomass becomes atmospheric carbon. So what if there were on 25 million bison the grass they didn't eat decayed and became CO2 and methane. Now as to the corelation between modern farming and climate change there is a huge fossil fuel carbon foot print from fuel to run equipment, nitrogen fertilizers which are made from natural gas, shipping, processing and distribution of food stuff.

If it is possible that there is a greater biomass (all living organisms) on earth, which was pretty much a closed system until the industrial revolution, it has to come from the artificial increase of carbon into the biosphere.

Your chart only shows vertebrates which are a piddling amount of the total biomass on earth. Insect far out weigh vertebrates and microbes as well. So I have to discount that chart as being too limited.

[Fast Walker 52]

21. the main problem is the methane produced by the massive numbers of livestock

and on the bright side, decreasing methane is a more rapid way to mitigate GHG effects.

I did hear just yesterday that humans had surpassed termites as the largest life mass from a single species, on the earth.

[clarice]

7. It's those darned cow-farts...and they don't eat meat. nt

[LiberalElite]

15. but the catch is - they're raised for people who do

so there are lots and lots of cows farting. (I don't eat meat)

[Fast Walker 52]

18. exactly.

[clarice]

34. Also for milk? nt

[CreekDog]

66. it also just takes a lot more energy to create meat than non-meat

[Major Nikon]

8. People Still Don't Get the Link between Having Babies and Climate Change

[NickB79]

13. Nailed it. nt

[Fast Walker 52]

19. there are lots of things that can be addressed, but eating less meat is a simple and easy way to

lessen GHG production.

[FLPanhandle]

25. +1

The underlying problem is too many humans.

[Agschmid]

33. Yup.

I won't be having any.

[yewberry]

17. Depressing thread.

Just another exercise in deflection and "it's not stuff that I do that's the problem, it's those other people/ things."

[milestogo]

20. Most people refuse to make a personal sacrifice for the planet.

Giving up meat is a healthy, ethical choice.

[eShirl]

23. doing smaller portions of meat is easier than giving it up completely

and leaves more room on the plate for other foods like vegetables, fruit, beans, grains, seeds & nuts.

[FLPanhandle]

26. The biggest thing people can do to save the planet is to not have children

Giving up children is the ethical choice.

[hereforthevoting]

27. This is actually what caused my stint in vegetarianism, which kicked my arse

Of course I was what I call a "Snickers Vegetarian".

Now I pay more for local grass fed. Would cut down further but my s/o is carnivore. Interesting to note the higher rate of meat intake globally. Can't be good.

[2naSalit]

28. Some information (visual) to help

make the point...

I know it's a little old but it is still absolutely relevant since meat consumption is still way too high.




ETA: The link (for more info) to those who made the video...

http://cironline.org/reports/hidden-costs-hamburgers-3701

[FLPanhandle]

29. Here is a better visual of the real problem

[2naSalit]

30. Good one!

I think there is plenty of info out there, having people hear/read/see it and comprehend it is part of the problem, the biggest is that too many think they NEED to reproduce and that they have a right to have babies and as many as they want without looking at the big picture. Another deterrent is making people feel that the issues we need to make a change in are too big for them to deal with so just continue as sheeple on the road to extinction. All these big problems start with each individual first, and they can only end when each individual starts to do something individually.

[Marengo]

35. Are you arguing people don't have a right to reproduce?

"the biggest is that too many think they NEED to reproduce and that they have a right to have babies and as many as they want"

This statement as written seem to be suggesting people actually don't have a right to reproduce?

[2naSalit]

36. They may have a right to

reproduce, my argument is in how this is interpreted and how people give little thought to the impact of having unlimited amounts of children will have on all our loves at this point (approaching 8 billion)... and those who insist on having children through ... let's call it enhanced means ... is just insane as I see it.

Much of the "I have a right to bear children" stance is one of those issues where low info folks seem to have the most impact, much like the "i have a right to carry and assault weapon at all times" crowd in that they only feel compelled to observe/carry out their personal desires without thinking out what comes after.

I just don't buy into the "go forth and multiply in mass quantities" dogma and I think that it is an issue that needs some attention along with other critical issues regarding our survival as a species.

It may be a "right" but it requires more forethought than it receives by most.

[Fast Walker 52]

40. there are also horrible religious moements who think they need to over-produce babies

in order to expand their faith.

[2naSalit]

41. And there's that too! ....nt

[GliderGuider]

44. "The right of the people to keep and bear children shall not be infringed."

From my point of view, children can easily be viewed as assault weapons in the fight against nature. I really like the analogy, and I think many of the arguments for both rights are very similar in tone.

[Marengo]

74. You regard children as weapons?

[GliderGuider]

80. In a sardonic sense, yes.

Last edited Sat Apr 16, 2016, 09:38 AM - Edit history (1)

Weapons of mass destruction, even. After all, people and their actions are what is destroying the planetary biosphere.
Children aren't just weapons of course, even when they are used in armies. But they are certainly destructive agents, especially as they age and buy SUVs and houses.

I don't have any of the pernicious little things, so I have avoided the biologically and culturally programmed sentimentality about them.

I'm half kidding here, but only half. In my assessment the planet has about 1000 times too many people, and children are the source of our population overload. We currently add about 140 million new ones to the world each year, and that's just too many.

[Marengo]

89. Interesting and thought provoking response.

[Marengo]

45. Understood, and I would suggest an edit to that post...

The way it's phrased seems to suggest you are arguing people in general don't have a right to reproduce at all.

[2naSalit]

47. there are underlying

points such as their "right" to bear and raise children in unlimited quantities does actually infringe on my rights as a nonreproducing human (on purpose btw) to a healthy and safe biosphere to live in. If the air is fouled and the water unusable and no place to grow my food (I like to produce a major % of my own vegetables) then where do my rights come into play compared to the "special" people who continue to over populate our finite planet?

I hope that the paradox becomes evident here.

I don't care if anyone thinks I don't agree they have a right to reproduce at will... especially if it compels them to think about it for a minute.

[Marengo]

48. People who reproduce are deliberately and consciously infringing on you rights?

"points such as their "right" to bear and raise children in unlimited quantities does actually infringe on my rights as a nonreproducing human (on purpose btw)"

On purpose? Can you explain this?

[2naSalit]

61. How about

carelessly/mindlessly = without consideration of the impacts to the environment and all resources.

carelessly/mindlessly = without concern beyond their personal wants.

Rights come with responsibilities, if you cannot shoulder the former, you have no legitimate claim to the latter.

[Marengo]

73. Careless is quite a bit different from "on purpose"

Careless, as in your choice of words?

[2naSalit]

78. Mix it up however you want.

I said what I said and i meant what I said, interpret as you choose. Just remember that your interpretation may not have anything in common with my intent when I said it.

[fullautohotdog]

79. Ask the "quiver-full" folks... n/t

[PasadenaTrudy]

50. I've never heard of it being a "right"

just a choice. Don't know, I'm pretty anti-natal. If you want to do the planet a favor, don't breed.

[2naSalit]

62. I've heard it being touted

as a right, which I reject. I agree with your sentiment. I decided to not breed, I didn't think I had the right to foist this ugly stage in the age of mankind on anyone else... a life with little hope of a fulfilling and worthwhile future and little to no resources for survival, just seemed wrong on so many levels.

[PasadenaTrudy]

85. Exactly

And we get called selfish for not having kids...yeah, right.

[ronnie624]

38. 'Rights' are determined by our collective priorities.

Overpopulation will ultimately bring about the collapse of our civilization. If we decide that our future security is more important to us than selfish desires and whims, we will no longer have the 'right' to reproduce without thought of the consequences.

[Marengo]

43. The post I responded to seemed to be suggesting the right didn't exist in the present...

At least in the way the statement was phrased.

[ronnie624]

64. The legal right exists,

but for those who are aware, there are some very obvious ethical questions.

[PasadenaTrudy]

51. +1 n/t

[danimich1]

31. Most people don't want to know

and that's why there are so many ill-informed replies to this post.

[GliderGuider]

32. Meat, energy, people

Most people don't unpack the impact produced by our population and our activity levels (I=PAT), relative to the amount of human impact that Earth systems can sustain over the long haul.

For example, as I say in a sustainability analysis written in 2013, I think the absolute maximum sustainable human impact is equivalent to about 50 million hunter-foragers, with each of them using about 125 watts of non-food energy. If we use our energy consumption as the proxy for our activity levels (since all activity requires energy) this gives us a maximum sustainable global power consumption of about 6 Gigawatts.

Current human power consumption is about 18 Terawatts, or 3000 times greater than my estimated maximum sustainable level.

We have a variety of options in order to meet the proposed 6 GW global sustainability limit:

1. We might reduce our numbers while leaving average per-capita energy consumption the same as it is today (the iso-energetic option);

2. We might reduce our overall energy consumption while leaving population levels the same (the iso-numeric option); or

3. We might arrive at some combination of population level and per-capita energy consumption that multiplies out to the required 6 GW.

Here are the endpoints of the sustainability equation under these assumptions:

1. The iso-energetic limit requires a global population of ~2.5 million people using the same average 2.4 kilowatts of primary energy that we do today.

2. The iso-numeric limit requires a global population of ~7 billion people using an average of less than one watt of power each.

Of course neither of these options is achievable.

A more probable outcome is that our population and energy use might both fall over time until they stabilize at some mid-point that can be supported by the remaining biosphere. An example might be the one I used to start the analysis - a global population of 50 million or less, living at the average hunter-forager level of energy consumption of 125 watts per capita.

Much of the outcome depends on just how much we have already damaged and destabilized the biosphere by our predation and pollution, and how much more damage we will inflict before the situation stabilizes. Given the effects we are already seeing and the inordinate resistance to the concept of de-growth among all societies, I do not expect we can avoid outright extinction sometime over the next couple of hundred years.

Frankly, to me meat consumption seems to be just one relatively minor component of a much larger complex problem set. Perhaps there are ways of leveraging meat production to enhance rather than degrade the ecology - e.g. the work of Allan Savory? Not that I'm totally sold on Savory's analysis, but it holds at least as much promise as trying to browbeat people into giving up hamburgers.

[2naSalit]

37. +1 ....nt

[Fast Walker 52]

39. I don't know about your numbers-- it's a tricky calculation-- but I agree with your basic conclusion

that our current population is unsustainable at Western levels of energy usage.

At least given our current level of technology and keeping some semblance of the ecosystem we know.

Other variables are new breakthrough technologies that could vastly change the energy equation and/or affect GHG levels in the climate.

[GliderGuider]

42. My numbers are based on a series of assumptions

• That "sustainable" means something like: "The maximum amount of activity our species as a whole can maintain indefinitely without damaging the biosphere's ability to sustain all the life forms that share it."
  
• That virtually all human activity damages the biosphere to some degree, either directly or indirectly.
  
• The more human activity there is, the more damage we do.
  [li[Small amounts of damage done slowly can be repaired more easily by the Earth system than large, rapid damage.
  
• That our primary energy use is a reasonable proxy for the amount of human activity, because all activity requires energy.
  
• That total primary energy use is therefore a reasonable proxy for the damage human activity inflicts on the biosphere.
  
  
• My final assumption, and probably the most controversial one in my argument, is that the last time Homo sapiens could have been considered sustainable by my definition was somewhere around 2000 BCE, when the world population was between 25 and 75 million, and civilization and agriculture were both in their infancy.

I present my support for that last assumption in the analysis I did in 2013. I actually say that I think the number is a lot lower than that (~7 million), but that may be a bridge too far for this discussion.

[DookDook]

46. I cut down on my meat consumption to help the planet.

It all started so simply. My wife was talking to me one day about portion sizes and how as Americans we eat crazy large portions. She had read somewhere online that if you change your thinking and instead of making meat the main attraction of your meal you should treat it like an ingredient. I was fine with that idea, after all I was trying to incorporate Michael Pollan's advice that said, "Eat food, not too much, mostly plants." So I was fine if she wanted to cut down the portions a bit.

Then next thing I know she says, "Hey, I read somewhere that it's a great idea to act like a vegetarian before six o'clock." So then we started having meatless lunches. It was great, I found myself full but not feeling heavy and lethargic for the rest of the afternoon. And then I stopped eating pork. It was because of a facebook post about a baby pig named 'Crispy Bacon' who was the runt of a liter and he was given a special prosthetic attachment so that he would be more mobile, he was born with a problem with his back legs so he couldn't get around. And I thought to myself, that's it, I'm done eating pork. The rest of the red meat family quickly followed and my wife and I were down to poultry. But after Thanksgiving of 2015 we just haven't really bought any poultry for our own consumption. (We have pets and we make our own chicken treats for our ferrets) I think the pets also played a large part in our change to a more plant based diet.

I don't miss it one bit. In fact I find that my diet is so much more varied now than it was when I did eat meat. I love food and I'm finding so many new food combinations and different styles of food because I'm no longer afraid of trying new vegetables.

We're currently enjoying 'Chickpea Sloppy Joes,' the recipe is from the blog Yup It's Vegan if anyone is interested.
http://yupitsvegan.com/2015/07/02/vegan-chickpea-sloppy-joes/

[Fast Walker 52]

56. that's awesome!

I've been a vegetarian for over 20 years. It's really not hard to be a vegetarian if you can cook, the main problem I find is restaurants that are still so meat-oriented. Indian and Italian places usually have the best options, though those can get tiring after a while.

[HassleCat]

52. Carnivores are patriotic!

The demand for meat at every meal is kind of a "thing" with the patriotic types. I guess they think soy burgers are communist.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

55. our whole system of food production simply sucks

fun fact?

4 million farms in us

if 2 thousand each year convert to a more sustainable system of production ...

it will take only 2000 years to convert them all

we do not have 2000 years

[Aerows]

59. Not all of us can eat VTP or tofu

and some of us need meat to keep our protein levels up.

And some of us ride bikes, run/walk and rollerblade places.

I am pretty much a meat and vegetables eater, with very little refined sugar and wheat/pastry/grain products.

That's *why* I can run, ride a bike and rollerblade places.

If you drink soft drinks while discussing this matter, you are also part of the problem. I drink unsweetened iced tea.

Guess what kind of shape I am in?

[lame54]

63. People don't get the link between vegetarianism and...

"Get me some real fucking food."

[yewberry]

68. Nice attitude.

I fully expect I'd look at your plate and have some thoughts of my own that I'm too polite to share, but you nice folks here never seem to have any problem commenting on my food choices.

[So Far From Heaven]

69. People don't get that THEY are the reason for climate change.

Everything you purchase has a carbon price tag attached. Vegetarians cause as much if not more pollution in the long term as anyone else. Take responsibility as a citizen of the United States for creating 35 percent of all the carbon pollution worldwide.

Like your new electronic gizmo? You cost the planet carbon to get it. In fact, you polluted the air more than you realize because your new gizmo is made in a real polluting country and then shipped here. Is it worth it?

Drive to work? Are you willing to pay 5 bucks a gallon or more for your fuel to counter the pollution you create? You demand cheap energy, and you get it. Don't blame the oil and gas companies for 'foisting' carbon based fuels at you. You want the energy. Our lifestyle requires the energy. Now pay the price.

"Somebody else" isn't the problem, we all are.

Us scientists have been telling you this for almost 40 years and you still don't get it.

[bhikkhu]

70. Read the article. No cause and effect explanation whatsoever

How can we "get it" if its not even there?

[Fast Walker 52]

81. they didn't explain the connection but they did link to this piece

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-008-9534-6

Climate change mitigation policies tend to focus on the energy sector, while the livestock sector receives surprisingly little attention, despite the fact that it accounts for 18% of the greenhouse gas emissions and for 80% of total anthropogenic land use. From a dietary perspective, new insights in the adverse health effects of beef and pork have lead to a revision of meat consumption recommendations. Here, we explored the potential impact of dietary changes on achieving ambitious climate stabilization levels. By using an integrated assessment model, we found a global food transition to less meat, or even a complete switch to plant-based protein food to have a dramatic effect on land use. Up to 2,700 Mha of pasture and 100 Mha of cropland could be abandoned, resulting in a large carbon uptake from regrowing vegetation. Additionally, methane and nitrous oxide emission would be reduced substantially. A global transition to a low meat-diet as recommended for health reasons would reduce the mitigation costs to achieve a 450 ppm CO2-eq. stabilisation target by about 50% in 2050 compared to the reference case. Dietary changes could therefore not only create substantial benefits for human health and global land use, but can also play an important role in future climate change mitigation policies.


There have been several such studies.

[bhikkhu]

82. In much of the west, pasture is fairly natural

and cow pasture was formerly deer pasture, or grazing land for other animals. In many areas it is still both. Regardless of what animal grazes, the land is about the same - generally "marginal" soils unsuited to farming due to soil quality or water availability issues. Grazing itself has been shown to improve soil quality, vegetation density and carbon-holding capacity, as long as it is managed well.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2461421?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents, etc.

I'm in favor of less meat consumption for various reasons, but I still don't agree with the argument being made here. Is it one of those things we are just supposed to "know", or to imagine we know, without evidence?

[Fast Walker 52]

83. the problem is massive factory animal farming, not just some cows grazing on natural land

And there are a lot of different problems with animal agriculture on a large scale

http://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/

[2naSalit]

88. Not really...

If you read the abstract whose link you posted which I pasted in below, does not back up your argument and all the studies cited at that site are from the 1970s and 1980s and all of the studies were conducted in a greenhouse or controlled environment and the only reference to a natural environment mentions the Serengeti and no place else. And there was no consensus on any of the results. There were no studies using actual cattle grazing, and especially in the west.

Abstract
The potential benefits of herbivory to plants have been debated over the last decade. Several investigators claim that removal of or damage to the productive, absorptive, or reproductive tissue of plants by herbivores benefits some plant species by increasing their net primary productivity, seed production, or longevity, and that these changes increase plant fitness and result in the evolution of herbivore-plant mutualisms. Although more than 40 papers have been cited as presenting experimental evidence in support of these benefits and mutualisms, strong evidence is lacking. Increased plant biomass as a result of tissue removal has been found only under growth-chamber conditions and in cultivated crops. Although herbivores may benefit certain plants by reducing competition or removing senescent tissue, no convincing evidence supports the theory that herbivory benefits grazed plants.

The truth is, there is very little forage for cows in the west, period. The soil profile is very thin in most areas grazed out here which means damage can take decades to centuries to revive if they ever do. Cattle trash riparian zones (stream banks, flood plains) and the depth of the soil profile is key to revival. And the cattle take food that wildlife depend on which can cast large areas into negative trophic cascades and bring on a total collapse. And I'm taking fish, birds, ungulates and predators are all adversely affected just by cows and the ignorance - sometimes by choice - of humans. cattle have no place in the west, period. All of our wildlife problems spin around the axle of the cattle industry in the west.

It's a simple concept easily described by asking two simple questions: In grasslands east of the Rocky Mountains there is a question of How many cow/calf pairs can you feed one this one acre of grass?

From the Rocky Mountains and west of them the question is: How many acres will it take to feed one cow/calf pair?

It's not like there's really a thriving cattle industry out here


https://www.westernwatersheds.org/public-lands-ranching/

&feature=youtu.be

Looking for the juried research but it'll take me a little time to find the online links to the studies I have in mind... studies from the last ten years.

[athena]

71. I switched to an almost-completely plant-based diet three years ago

after watching

My husband switched as well. We make an occasional exception for cheese but are otherwise plant-based. The best part of it is being able to have a huge meal without feeling guilty.

[GliderGuider]

84. Conversely, I switched to an almost-completely meat-based diet three years ago

after I realized my vegetarianism was ruining my health. Fortunately, I identified the source of my problems (a combination of metabolic syndrome, gluten intolerance and a lactose allergy) before they became too severe to fix.

Of course, my change didn't bring me the status-raising pats on the back or the self-congratulatory inner peace that yours will. All I got out of it was better health - along with plenty of practice at not reacting to the moral outrage of others.

Life is complicated. I hope your change works out for you over the long run. Seriously.

[ohnoyoudidnt]

77. Restaurants create their menu based on consumer demand.

Or they don't last very long. Encouraging people to change their consumotion will get better results That trying to encourage restaurants to change their menu. When people change their choices, restaurants will follow.