Obesity Linked To Global Warming

[Bravus]

Fair call, though different words merit that remedy in different places. I'll go and edit my post, which might take a bit of the punch out of og's but let's avoid offense.

[bonnie]

But the cows are raised to be eaten. Maybe you guys are being facetious - I know Carol is. But the reality is that if people stopped eating meat farmers would stop growing it. Imagine all the land used for beef production turned to crop production... that alone would have a massive greenhouse gas impact... and, since crop production is more efficient, would also feed a lot more people.

You know, I think I'm talking myself into vegetarianism...

If people stopped eating meat what would we do with the cows??

PETA would be a tad upset shooting all the cows,they are far to big for pets,they require up to a bale of hay a day to maintain. That would be maintaining without being used for food consumption. You can't let them roam free,keeping them confined is a lot of work that would not accomplish anything.

Cows would still require crop production. Not that much less than being fed out for beef

[Bravus]

That's a one-generation-of-cows problem. They could even all be eaten as Carol suggested. But once no-one was eating them no-one would be breeding them. Someone as keen on the economy as you should understand that intuitively.

[carolaa]

But the cows are raised to be eaten. Maybe you guys are being facetious - I know Carol is. But the reality is that if people stopped eating meat farmers would stop growing it. Imagine all the land used for beef production turned to crop production... that alone would have a massive greenhouse gas impact... and, since crop production is more efficient, would also feed a lot more people.

You know, I think I'm talking myself into vegetarianism...

(Phooey, I missed the joke!)

That's a nice idea, but the farmers I have talked to assure me that a lot of the land that is use for pasture is not good for farming. Mostly nothing but rock just under the surface. Don't know if that's true everywhere, but particularly in the western part of the Midwest as well as parts of the West that I'm more familiar with (Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska, Dakotas, etc.).

[GreatLakesGramma]

So long as people still drink milk, cattle will still be raised on dairy farms. And not all cattle born on dairy farms can be used for milk production. The bull calves are usually sold for beef, and provide a very important part of the farm's income. And once the cows get too old to give as much milk, they are also sold for beef. Sick cows are also sold to the slaughterhouse rather than allowed to die a natural death, so long as the veterinarian inspects and passes them. If no one ate beef, either the price of milk would have to increase by quite a bit, or else dairy farms would go under. The bull calves and old or sick cows could still be made into dog and cat food, but that doesn't pay as well. Usually only animals that can't be used for human consumption are made into pet food.

Other products are made from cattle as well. Even if a cow dies before being slaughtered, it is sent to the rendering plant, where everything that can be used is salvaged. I believe the non-edible parts of slaughterhouse victims are also sent there. Bone meal and blood meal for gardening, glue, and of course, leather, are examples of items that come from cattle carcasses.

There is a lot more involved in the issue of cattle farming than just beef.

[bonnie]

That's a one-generation-of-cows problem. They could even all be eaten as Carol suggested. But once no-one was eating them no-one would be breeding them. Someone as keen on the economy as you should understand that intuitively.

I am assuming from your response this is not a serious thread.

As someone that has raised and shipped beef I do understand what you are saying is either naive or meant to be funny. I know what having to care for cattle,and esepcially in the wintertime is like. The work involved. It can be a very long time before ready for market.

Not sure how many would be that foolish for a dying industry.

But of course not everyone will quit eating meat. Prices could go artifically high for a short time,but the output would not be worth it.

During this time of everyone trying to eat up all the beef they need to be cared for. This takes shelter,hay and grain,vet bills unless you shoot them or let them die slowly if something is wrong. Hate to tell you but no one has to breed the cows or facilitate that in anyway. 50 % that is born are males and they will take care of that nicely on their own. You will have thousands upon thousands of cows that will have to be cared for in this generation. You will need to keep more than a few to ensure they do not become extinct . That if course requires a pretty big investment.

Then what do we do with the sheep?

That is another 10 years of eating,and not letting them reproduce . Rams make lousy pets ,but they need to be preserved. Really tough to limit numbers with sheep. Depending on breed 4 is not that uncommon. Three is common place. That will probably keep pace with the meat eating humas.

[Bravus]

Very, very simple question. If no-one ate beef, would there be more or fewer cattle in the world in 20 years time?

[carolaa]

Thought this was interesting:

"Energy Lobbyists Tried to Debunk Global Warming Despite Own Scientists’ Findings

"In environmental news, the New York Times is reporting an influential energy industry coalition went ahead with an aggressive lobbying campaign to refute the idea that greenhouse gas emissions cause global warming in direct contradiction to the conclusion of its own scientists. In an internal 1995 report, scientists at the so-called Global Climate Coalition write the link between carbon dioxide emissions and global warming is 'well established and cannot be denied.' Financed by large corporations and trade groups representing oil, coal and auto interests, the 'coalition' spent millions of dollars trying to refute that very idea over the next several years."

(From today's Democracy Now! headlines)

[bonnie]

Thought this was interesting:

"Energy Lobbyists Tried to Debunk Global Warming Despite Own Scientists’ Findings

"In environmental news, the New York Times is reporting an influential energy industry coalition went ahead with an aggressive lobbying campaign to refute the idea that greenhouse gas emissions cause global warming in direct contradiction to the conclusion of its own scientists. In an internal 1995 report, scientists at the so-called Global Climate Coalition write the link between carbon dioxide emissions and global warming is 'well established and cannot be denied.' Financed by large corporations and trade groups representing oil, coal and auto interests, the 'coalition' spent millions of dollars trying to refute that very idea over the next several years."

(From today's Democracy Now! headlines)

Isn't this where Al Gore was the honored guest and refused to attend if the expert in this field I believe refuted what he said. Seems the guy had already made the flight and then was told Al Gore would not allow him to refute

[Tallmark]

The airlines are going to be requiring the fatties to buy 2 tickets for when they take up 2 seats. Someone argued that if they do, then they should get 2 meals, 2 snacks, 2 bags of peanuts, etc.

[Woody]

Ahhh. That will really help.

[carolaa]

Originally Posted By: carolaa

Thought this was interesting:

"Energy Lobbyists Tried to Debunk Global Warming Despite Own Scientists’ Findings

"In environmental news, the New York Times is reporting an influential energy industry coalition went ahead with an aggressive lobbying campaign to refute the idea that greenhouse gas emissions cause global warming in direct contradiction to the conclusion of its own scientists. In an internal 1995 report, scientists at the so-called Global Climate Coalition write the link between carbon dioxide emissions and global warming is 'well established and cannot be denied.' Financed by large corporations and trade groups representing oil, coal and auto interests, the 'coalition' spent millions of dollars trying to refute that very idea over the next several years."

(From today's Democracy Now! headlines)

Isn't this where Al Gore was the honored guest and refused to attend if the expert in this field I believe refuted what he said. Seems the guy had already made the flight and then was told Al Gore would not allow him to refute

No, Redwood, this is where the energy industry's own scientists reported that the link between carbon dioxide emissions and global warming cannot be denied.

[carolaa]

Ahhh. That will really help.

Don't worry, the airlines will be doing away with all of that soon, so it will be a moot point.

[Gerr]

But the cows are raised to be eaten. Maybe you guys are being facetious - I know Carol is. But the reality is that if people stopped eating meat farmers would stop growing it. Imagine all the land used for beef production turned to crop production... that alone would have a massive greenhouse gas impact... and, since crop production is more efficient, would also feed a lot more people.

You know, I think I'm talking myself into vegetarianism...

Half serious, half facetious.

[Gerr]

Very, very simple question. If no-one ate beef, would there be more or fewer cattle in the world in 20 years time?

In India, they would have more for sure!!!

[Cosmin M.]

I have a few words for those fat humans..

Get off your lazy butt and do some jogging.

[GreatLakesGramma]

Don't be judgmental Cosmin. Not everybody is fat because they're lazy. My sister's husband has had weight issues ever since he injured his knee in a work injury and can barely walk. He's even had a meniscus transplant, but it didn't help.

In fact, I gained 20 pounds after I injured the lateral collateral ligament in my left knee and had to stop both walking and strength training for 2 years.

[olger]

I have a few words for those fat humans..

Get off your lazy butt and do some jogging.

Amen. And eat less than your body needs - thus forcing your body to go to the overstocked "warehouse" for energy.

[olger]

Fewer, Sir. Definitely.

og

[Bravus]

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

Very, very simple question. If no-one ate beef, would there be more or fewer cattle in the world in 20 years time?

In India, they would have more for sure!!!

It isn't only a question of raising grain and hay to feed beef headed for market.

Then you have to find replacements for all types of industry resulting from the raising of beef.

Some related industries that vegetarians make use of.....

bone china

leather sporting goods

bonemeal biscuits

luggage

boots and shoes

paints

candles

pet foods

cosmetics

crayons

photographic film

plastics

deodorants

shampoo/cream rinses

detergents

soaps

shaving cream

doggie chews

textiles

fabric softeners

floor wax

toothpaste

glue

upholstery

insecticides

violin strings

[Bravus]

Olger still has the correct answer

[Gerr]

Hey, Professor,

You think I'm wrong?

[olger]

Olger still has the correct answer

og

[Bravus]

Gerry C, across the whole world, the numbers would decrease. Since few people in India eat beef anyway, there might be some small increase in the numbers there, but the net numbers worldwide - which is what is important for climate change, the topic of the thread - would definitely decrease.