I can vouch for this.  When I went vegan it took me 1-2 months.  I guess your digestive tract just needs a little time to adjust.  I was afraid it was gonna be for life :-).

Kristen,

Emissions from so-called "sustainably raised" or "organic" meat and dairy is still a climate disaster.  The Foodwatch Institute in Germany, formed by former executive director of Greenpeace Thilo Bode, compared a) conventional omnivore diet, b) organic omnivore diet, c) conventional meat-free diet; d) organic meat-free diet; e) conventional vegan and f) organic vegan.  Shifting from a to b (conventional omni to organic omni) reduced emissions  8%. Shifting from Organic omni (b) to conventional vegan (e) reduced emissions 86%.  And shifting from conventional omni (a) to organic vegan reduced emission 94%. 

You can read more here :  http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,574754,00.html

Neither organic nor conventional methods for raising beef are what I am talking about here.

The central idea of carbon farming is to move the animals frequently—as once happened with wild herds chased by predators—so grasses are not gnawed beyond the point of natural recovery and plant cover remains to fertilize the land and sequester carbon. The sequestration process works like this: The grasses, forbs and herbs in a field take in carbon from the atmosphere; the animals fertilize and trample them into the soil, where the carbon is absorbed, feeding the roots of the plants; new plants sprout, and the process is repeated over and over again, absorbing more and more carbon. Carbon farming is sometimes called "beyond organic."

A conventionally or organically farmed field (hay, alfalfa, corn, soy, anything plowed) is a major source of greenhouse gases, but a permanent pasture is a pump that pushes carbon back into the soil where it increases fertility and builds topsoil.

According to a recent Scientific American article “Future Farming: A Return to Roots?” production of high-input, annual crops release carbon at a rate of about 1,000 pounds per acre, while perennial grasslands can store carbon at roughly the same rate. Therefore, converting half the U.S. corn and soy acreage to pasture might cut carbon emissions by as much as 144 trillion pounds—and that’s not even counting the reduced use of fossil fuels for vehicles, machinery, fertilizers and pesticides that would also result.

Don't forget we had hundreds of millions of grazers roaming every continent besides Europe until relatively recently. The grassland/savannah ecosystem with holistically managed grazers on it is as valuable to the planet as is any forest for offsetting carbon.

i don't support abortion, but i don't expect you to share my values. does the notion of freedom really elude you?

you want to have a moral debate over the killing of animals for food, while ignoring the same species currently demands support for the murdering of children for convenience? and you call me a nazi? you don't want to eat meat, fine. i will continue to do so whether i buy it at the store or harvest it from nature.

Eating meat is Killing. Killing is murder, crime, un humane works, unethical works. Eeating meat promotes crimes in the society too. Meat is related to Global warming, Please understand this!

there's a big difference between abortion and animal slaughter and one has nothing to do with  the other.  abortion aborts the unborn.  in slaughter we intentionally enslave and force constant artificial impregnation and other abominations on animals only to bring them into the world for them to be killed.  we don't eat babies 3 times a day.

if '2 wrongs make a right' is your rationalization that's pretty juvenile. 

and yes, you are a michael vick, or a nazi, with your fork, or gun.

As per Great teacher BUDDHA

THE IRONY OF SAMSARA

Imagine this scene: a layman sits in front of his house, eating a fish from the pond behind the house, holding his son in his lap. The dog is eating the fishbones and the man kicks the dog. Not an extraordinary scene one would think, but ven. Shariputra commented:

"He eats his father's flesh and kicks his mother away,
        The enemy he killed he dandles on his lap,
        The wife is gnawing at her husband's bones,
        Samsara can be such a farce."

What had happened?. The man's father died and was reborn as a fish in the pool, the layman caught his father, the fish, killed it, and was now eating it. The layman's mother was very attached to the house so she was reborn as the man's dog. The man's enemy had been killed for raping the man's wife; and because the enemy was so attached to her, he was reborn as her son. While he ate his father's meat, the dog - his mother - ate the fish bones, and so was beaten by her son. His own little son, his enemy, was sitting on his knee.

Ven. Sariputta is one of Buddha's Great Great Disciple.

Buddha Forbidding meat-eating!

In the Lankavatara Sutra Buddha Gautama gave us some reasons for forbidding meat-eating.

1)Those animals have been our parents.
2)All kinds of animal meats mix together even with dogs.
3)The impure smells of animals are not good for eating.
4)Dogs usually bark at meat-eater.
5)Meat-eaters have no mercy.
6)Meat-eaters do not have a good reputation.
7)All incantations cannot function out.
8)It causes many animals to be killed.
9)God and good ghosts do not like meat-eaters.
10)Bad smells come from their mouths.
11)Meat-eaters have bad dreams.
12)Tigers follow their bad smell and kill them.
13)Meat-eaters have no limitation of gluttony.
14)Meat-eating cuts the renunciation of the practitioner.
15)Meat-eaters may sometimes eat one's own children of past lives.

we don't live in a market sytem. that is an illusion. we live in a government subsidized system. there is a reason small family farms cannot compete, that is the agenda. support your constitution. support freedom.

I generally agree with you. We subsidize the wrong crops and the wrong farming methods so that Agribusiness can get a free ride selling us junk food. However, we do have a market system too, as evidenced by the exponential growth of the organic food movement, farm markets and organic farms, which is driven by consumer demand.

Likewise, the exponential growth of pasture-raised animal foods is similarly driven by consumer demand.

Hopefully, consumer demand and activism will change farm policy so that we can begin subsidizing organic methods, food crops (as opposed to commodities), and other eco-restoring methods of growing food, like permaculture, holistic managment and managed intensive rotational grazing.

Since the Weston A Price site is nothing but quackery (Wholistic Dentistry, spare me) I think I'll pass.

Yep.  Meat junkies, reaching for any straw to get their fix.  Disgusting.

Um... as much as I admire vegetarianism and veganism (I aspire to reach this state, myself), and despite how passionate you are about the cause and how much you want people to change... negative criticism and disdain is NOT going to advance your cause. 

Considering that our eating habits are backed up by millennia of evolution, reinforced by the bombardment of meat-happy agri-business/media in our daily lives and rectified by the fact that there is a historically nutritional basis for the consumption of meat... plant based consumption is a VERY hard sell for the general public. 

Regardless of a dire need for change... it's not going to happen by force, coercion or in this case ridicule. So do yourself, the planet and those of us addicted to meat a favor and refrain from that tone and terms like meat junkie and disgusting. The only thing it satisfies is your ego... and only momentarily.

Care to make a difference in the world? (I'm assuming so since you're visiting change.org) Try a technique that has worked. I grew up eating and loving meat.... it was sound reason and compassion that motivated "me" to change. Take a queue from the pb&j campaign and actively educate people about the benefits of meatless consumption instead of wasting bandwidth with your derision.

Doesn't matter.  there is no luxury of time left to do anything.  how much change do you think humans will implement within the 5 or so year window of opportunity that the climatologists project we have to avert unprecedented catastrophes?  Even if the pro-meat theory of revamping the animal agriculture system to be sustainable and green were correct, the system that is in place will fight tooth and nail against it.  Look how hard and long it took to get meager legislation such as Prop 2 passed ... and that won't go into effect until 2015 ... be interesting to see how the farming industry slips and slides to get out of complying for as long as they can.

And as long as humans think that the highest level of consciousness that we can aspire to is define "humane" as successfully delivering a captive bolt through the skull of some poor animal, or gassing chickens ... then there will be retribution.

I find this whole debate laughable.  There is no sense of urgency, or will, or time.

So I'll vent and be derisive if I want to.  Pussyfooting around and coddling people is not going to get us anywhere either.

In that case I yield - as it's just as futile responding to trolls.

May I suggest you find a bucket and take it outside. Proceed to fill it with sand (or any sort of earth you can dig up.) Bend over... then stuff your head inside. Remain there until the world becomes inhabitable or until you decide to do something more constructive than gloat about your superiority or have a tantrum about something you have little control over.

"... there is something in us, something called empathy, that we continue to deny our hearts to feel.  As long as people insist on selfishly operating from a ... supremacist... paradigm, I'm afraid that we are doomed." - kharma moving quickly

Indeed.

you want me to have empathy for your convictionless vacillation from "aspiring" vegan, to gorging yourself on a "steak" ... a juvenile, and self-servingly convenient euphemism you invoke whenever you need to detach yourself from the the fact it was an animal -- when there is a holocaust of animals being slaughtered on killing floors as we speak?

Yep.  Ve-vangelist hate junkies, reaching for any straw to get their ego fix.  Disgusting.

Gosh, ad hominem attacks really win people over every time. Veganism has made you a bastion of peace and enlightenment, I see. Vent away, smugness looks sooo good on you, and does your cause sooo much good.

And besides, we all love it when someone greedily hijacks the attention from a reasonable disagreement by dropping their own personal hate-bomb.

I am certain it will be the "high levels of consciousness" you demonstrate--like cynicism, derision, apocalyptic thinking, and utter lack of compassion for humanity--that will really kill us all--not meat, or cars or children.

what is humanity to you Dawn?  humans center of the universe?  might is right?  your kid will say "I want to go into the noble profession of butcher when I grow up" and you'll say go for it?

smugness?  you talk about animals as if they are its and objects, and you call me smug?

take a look in the mirror at how sound of mind you are:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQb2m6VJ-eo

"I am certain it will be the "high levels of consciousness" you demonstrate--like cynicism, derision, apocalyptic thinking, and utter lack of compassion for humanity--that will really kill us all--not meat, or cars or children." - Dawn Gifford.

Absolutely. It's the same shallowness and superiority complex that is the seed of most human atrocities in history. 

Kharma moving quickly's love and affection for animal life is totally eclipsed by his/her disgust of omnivorous humans - completely stripping him/her of any moral high ground which he/she claims to posses. Tragic. 

"It's the same shallowness and superiority complex that is the seed of most human atrocities in history."

No.  The seed of most human atrocities began with our domestication and enslavement of animals.  Read Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and The Holocaust, by Charles Patterson.

http://www.eternaltreblinka.com/foreword.html

I'm not going to read your book. I might have if you had been nice.

Now you're kind of right about what you've said about the seed. What I'm saying is this. Humans eat animals, among other reasons, because they believe themselves to be superior to them. I think you would agree with that. 

Well humans have pretended to be superior to other humans as well. Along with your "enslavement of animals" that pretentiousnesslead to the Nazi holocaust, the oppression of first nations in America, enslavement and segregation of blacks, so on...

That pretentiousness is the seed I'm talking about... the seed you are demonstrating right now. 

That's all I have to say. I'm sure you'll have more bile to contribute... every trolls does. If you need to have the final word... by all means.

Furthermore I would encourage everyone else not to entertain the belligerent musings of this person or any other troll. I apologize for going as far as I did. I would even suggest the admin consider removing the entire sub-thread.

I think it shouldn't be removed Jeremy.  Its the exact thing we all need to be aware of and mindfull of, myself very much included.  Its humanity's downfall in a neatly packaged group of several messages.  A person preaches empathy even as he doesn't give it out.  Another points out this paradox to him, but in such a way that he perhaps displays his own lack of empathy.  We're left with a bloodied battlefield (metaphorically in this case, unfortunately not in other cases).  Amends, a recognition of what has occurred, and a resolve to do better is the only way forward.

Tell me, what is it that I don't have empathy for?  Your human weakness to defer your palate over the life of an innocent creature?  Oh I'm so sorry ... yes go ahead, I understand ... it just all tastes so good ... never mind the dark side of how it's obtained.  Give me a break.  Show some character.

Pretentious?  You're saying I pretend to be superior?  Is a non-violent society superior to a violent one"?   Do we not give lip-service to the notion of love and peace and wish this for our progeny?  Is animal slaughter not a violent act?  Do you not support that violence?  Are we so morally relativistic now that you expect me to say that I respect your position?   No, I am not pretentious ... and I won't be nice .. I don't PRETEND to not see the suffering that we cause.

Go ahead, remove my posts I don't care.

But read the book.  Please.

Bye!

Eric -- quintessential question that never gets acknowledged or answered -- WHAT ABOUT THE ANIMALS?  Empathy for human beings first and as long as it takes, and the animals will just have to wait?

Yes, why not have empathy for human weakness?  Now that you don't eat meat, have you no further human weakness in your character?  Were you not once a meat eater yourself?  I know I was.  To point your finger at them as if they are such awful people even though you once partook yourself... Is this not like a former mass murderer bursting into a jail cell filled with hundreds of convicted murderers and running around looking everyone in the eye while pointing and screaming "murderers! murderers! murderers!!!".  Were you such an awful person when you ate meat?  I was not an awful person when I did.  Though awful things may have been my direct doing, I was not an awful person.  I was simply a person who had not made the connection that an animal was a being that feels pain and fear and love for its children and deserves to be treated with respect and not be killed for pleasure.  There are centuries of culture behind meat eating and our entire family and social lives we have been told its a wonderful thing.  This is not something so easy to overcome!  If you asked me how animals were treated when I ate meat i'd have probably said "yeah, probably not so good"... I was aware of factory farms, yet I still ate meat.  Was I bad then?  No, just hadn't REALLY made the connection even though I may have thought I did.  When it finally clicked for me and I became a vegan, was I now a better person?  No, I just HAD made the connection.  Its the action that's bad, not the person.  And when you attack people as if they are awful, yet they know in their hearts they are not awful (and they AREN'T) you will pretty much always be met with defensiveness and you will be dismissed as an ass.  And the animals that might have been saved had you been more empathetic yourself will remain as they were. 

Perhaps some people will never make the connection that it is wrong to treat animals this way.  But i'm not convinced pointing fingers at people is going to help those that would.  And perhaps you and I will one day decide that we were wrong all along and its actually fine to eat an animal.  I don't believe that will happen, but I remain open to it because an open mind is the most important thing a person can have.  How else could we ever know the truth?  How else will ever know if what we believe is actually a lie?

As Byron Katie says, "I love being wrong.  As soon as I realize it, I get to be right again!"

Best to you.

Well said, Eric. Thank you for articulating what I failed miserably to express.

Hate the sin, love the sinner.

And of course we must have compassion for you and I here as well kmq.  With all of the massive amounts of abuse, killing and torture of billions of innocent beings that goes on, its so easy to blame those whom we see as perpetrating it and so its understandible why you did in this thread and why I have done it before.  We see the mass torture and believe the meat eaters are the cause of it.  But we need to seperate the torture from the meat eater because they are not related (see last post for why).  Believing they are related will be our downfall and will cause the torture to remain in perpetuity.  We must take our fervent compassion for those abused animals and transmute it into further compassion for those meat eaters who were led to believe it was perfectly ok to do and no harm was done or who won't think about it at all. And that can be a difficult thing to do, especially if we feel people aren't really listening and don't care... and meanwhile the abuse continues.  But if we do the opposite... Take the passionate hate that wells up in us from seeing torture that we believe others are perpetrating, and blame and point and dismiss... we'll just be a bunch of unhappy, angry people adding one more never ending war to the world. And we've got plenty of those already.

Basically, things are what they are.  We can get angry about it, say "it shouldn't be" and then become even more frustrated when it continues to be.  Or we can accept what is and decide what it is we CAN do about it.  And in so doing we can accept that whatever small amount we are able to do is enough.  It has to be.

Thanks Jeremy.  I love how you were able to express my 20 pages in a single sentence :-).

so I guess we should have empathy for all the serial rapists, murderers, pedophiles ... especially when they've done their thing on someone we love.  the real "truth" of how we feel, not the intellectualization, is when we are affected personally.  some sadist abducts your dog and blow-torches it ... or your rescued pet pig and makes barbecue out of it.  your cat's fur is a little piece on some hat made in China.  tell me how much empathy you have then.  i'm all for empathy, until another life is interfered with or destroyed. 

listen -- these people know full well what goes on with the animals they eat.  they just conveniently just shoo it away because they don't want to change.  put the blinders on ... play peek-a-boo.

As far as having an open mind ... you dangerously skirt moral relativism ... would you ever have an open mind (or empathy for that matter) about genocide?  is animal slaughter any less?

I'm not pointing fingers at anyone.  I'm just sick  of the coddling of human weakness  and angry at the evil and suffering it causes.  if it was just a person's problem and nothing else was hurt that would be fine.

Again, what about the animals?

Yes, I do have compassion for all those people (on my good days of course :-).  Serial rapists, murderers, pedophiles, pet barbequers etc.  I realize this crosses the line for many.  Remember though, that having compassion for them is not saying you condone what they have done.  Its recognizing that a person's actions stem from what they are believing in that moment.  And that until they fully question what we believe, they are at the mercy of it.  I am sure that all those people have a horrific tale or perhaps hundreds of such tales in their history that made them believe certain things which led them to do certain awful things.  That is not to say that they shouldn't be put in jail and serve the proper sentence for what they have done.  I believe they should.  But I also believe they should be given the chance to be rehabilitated in an environment where they might have a chance to deal with their horrific history examine their beliefs and rehabilitate themselves. Because somewhere, perhaps deep inside them, there is a core innocent being that is capable of being rehabilitated and we all deserve that chance.

And yes, what about the animals?  Will they be helped by our getting angry and seeing what i'm talking about as "coddling human weakness", or will they be helped by accepting their situation and seeing others for what they are.... People who have been innocently led to believe certain things.  In either case, we still have "what about the animals".  But in the second scenerio, you get to be happy, the people that talk to you might actually listen, and perhaps there will be less animals to be asking "what" about.

i admire your composure on the issue Eric.  but interestingly you throw a caveat in of "on my good days of course".  But I do not think your approach or my approach is going to do a damn of good.  Some of the greatest minds in history have asked people to think out of the box about animal use.  Great minds today are screaming from the rooftops in their "nice" way (mincing words) and still those in power are not listening and their is no urgency.  Continuing population growth is just more bad news for the animals -- 60 billion a year (not including marine) worldwide and the abomination will only amplify.  Look at China ... I heard they are stockpiling pork in the event of any calamity/famine.

So my social mask is off, I don't think it matters anymore.  No,  I won't say "I respect your opinion" when I don't feel it.  Let the chips fall where they may.  And who knows, maybe if some of us tell it like it is, maybe some people will grow up and listen.

But, there is no luxury of time to get through to the numbers we need to.

Yeah man I hear you.  I don't actually know the answer here, i'm just posing the questions.  Maybe you're right and maybe being angry and aggressive wakes people up.  Maybe more people than compassion does.  And its not something you can fake anyway.  If you're not actually feeling compassion, its gonna be obvious and won't work anyway.  I'm not suggesting you be compassionate just as a means to an end.  Its something you feel and believe and i'm suggesting you do it for your own peace of mind.  And I say "on my good days" because of course I get angry sometimes.  I find when i'm like that I piss people off and i'm pissed off and no one's listening to me anyway so we're left with a bunch of pissed off people not communicating.  But i'm sure some people respond to aggressive angry talk.  You just might blow through our good name and piss off eveyone else in the process of finding them.

Anyway, if you DO find yourself coming at people with compassion, I don't think you have to say "I respect your opinion".  You could say, "you certainly have the right to eat as you choose, and I respect that right".  Because they do and maybe you should. You may think its the absolute worst thing in the world to do, but the laws of the goverment and culture certainly give them the right.  And you respect that right because I don't think you're looking for fascism.

Someone being anrgy and aggressive is not what inspired me to be a vegan.  And I've met lots of vegans during the past year and heard all of their "my vegan moment" stories, and not a single one involved "an angry person convinced me" story.  Was there such a person or story involved in how you became vegan?

See, I think the only way anything will ever change is to win hearts and minds as they say.  For example, if Obama and congress went vegan all of the sudden and somehow outlawed all meat production, should we be psyched?  I wouldn't be.  What would happen?  I'm guessing there'd be a massive uproar, everyone would go nuts screaming "where's the protein!! we're the top of the food chain!!", there'd be all kinds of importing of meat from other countries and lots of underground operations where things were even worse.  Ultimately would some animals be saved?  I don't know.  Maybe less would be killed, maybe more, who knows.  What I do know is that people would be pissed off, defensive and the minute they could elect someone else they would and they'd have those laws repealed and there would be more meat production than ever and measures in place to make sure it stayed that way.  But what if Obama went vegan all of the sudden and all he did was say "yes, I have chosen to become a vegan because I have come to see its an ethical choice to make.  I respect your rights as citizens to do what you believe is the right choice for you."  Well, plenty of people would probably make fun of it, but a whole WORLD of people would now know that there even was the word "vegan" at all!  And millions would give it a fresh look and respect.  And perhaps the snowball would start to roll.

So using an Obama analogy is talking on a very large scale. If we take it down to the scale of regular joes like you and me, its the same deal.  If we're real aggressive and go and join the ALF and blow up a slaughterhouse and free the animals, we've saved a thousand animals, but we've pissed off hundreds of thousands of people, made national headlines, made people think we're terrorist nuts and given vegan a bad name.  They'll rebuild the slaughterhouse anyway because the demand hasn't changed.  Its the same with a less extreme scenerio like this thread where people started getting angry at each other, and it ends up being that people are just calling each other names and not even listening to each other.

I'm not laying these scenerios out to convince you to become compassionate.  Again, you can't fake it and that would asking you to use it as a means to an end.  If you're pissed be pissed.  But for the sake of those animals, i'm asking that you at least ask yourself these questions.  And if you agree that I might have a point, why not look and see if you can't find compassion in your heart for meat eaters (after all you once were one yourself and probably have many meat eating family and friends).  Start with finding compassion for yourself, and move it out to your family and then friends, and then see if you can't get everyone in there eventually.  The bonus here is that in being compassionate to everyone, we've just made the world a better place not only for animals but for people and ourselves as well.

Don't take my word.  If it feels like being pissed and aggressive is all you've got in there, then by all means.  But at least take a moment to ask yourself these questions.  Because like you say, there is no luxury of time here.

Gina, if you read all of the sentence you quoted, you'll see I was referring to what defines the word vegan.  When I refer to myself as a vegan, I am referring to my refraining from buying animal products due to ethical concerns.  When I refer to myself as an environmentalist (which I also refer to myself as) I could point to how not eating animals is one method by which I contribute to saving the environment.  Sorry if that was confusing to you.  Hope that clears it up.

As for the death is part of life argument, no vegan in their right mind argues against that fact.  What we are saying is that there are certain forms of life that do not feel pain, fear and love for their children...There are certain forms of life that are not sentient due to the fact that they have no nervous system... We believe that as humans we can survive quite well by only eating and destroying only those forms of life.  And in doing so we awaken and allow the compassion in ourselves.  When we deny this compassion, it becomes no surprise to me that there is so much violence in the world.  Though being vegan is by no means a sign that one is a greatly compassionate person (as is be evidenced on many discussion threads where vegans display the same insensitivities and violence in their words that other people display).  But still, taking that step to do what you can to limit the suffering of others is an act of love even if it doesn't yet extend to all areas of one's life.

dogs and cats aren't really built well for being eaten - not a terrible lot of meat. Besides, I hear they taste bad.

While your info is true of factory farming, grazers properly managed on grassland can sequester as much carbon, methane and nitrogen as agriculture releases. Animals also eat biomass in areas where agriculture is simply not possible, providing food to people in icy, desert-like or mountainous regions worldwide.

Returning animals to pasture using specialized permaculture methods like managed intensive rotational grazing (not just letting them roam willy-nilly), especially on lands where agriculture is impossible or unwise (like in flood plains), can actually offset the greenhouse gas pollution created by other forms of agriculture and stop flooding and soil erosion. It can also restore the health of grass and rangelands worldwide.

And if you eat meat, dairy or eggs, using these methods not only restores grassland ecosystems, and mitigates climate change, but it also provides healthier, more humanely-produced food.

As I said before.... I'm not suggesting everyone completely stop eating meat. I would also disapprove of any mandate to do so. That's just cruel. 

However, I'm not entirely convinced that your pasture method - as ecologically friendly and ethical as it is and considering naturally existing pastures available today - yields as much meat as our dreaded industrial-ag. There just wont be enough to quench current levels of consumption.

Advocating for consuming less meat can create a market environment that would nurture lower-yielding, planet/animal happy farming techniques such as the one you've suggested.

Advocating the consumption of plant-based meals, ultimately doesn't do any significant harm... it's an incredibly healthy lifestyle... done correctly. We may discover... over time... that we just don't need meat. You don't force healthy habits... you suggest them. They're not things you HAVE to do... but rather states that are preferable to attain. Teach people that plant based meals are better... in almost every way... and it'll happen naturally, without resistance. It may take generations... but that's ok.

-----

As for raising animals in areas "where agriculture is simply not possible" - yup... that's a great place to put the fewer numbers of cattle we're raising using your pasture method and reducing meat consumption. Again, I'm not suggesting a new canon forbidding animal-based meals and products... in a life or death situation, even at the societal level... the consumption of meat is required. Such is life. Progress is a vector... not an end point. I'm a little more optimistic about the future of international trade, transportation technologies and the overall social evolution of the human species... ie: leaning towards a more globally cooperative system... (but that's a whole other argument meant for a completely different blog) ...which would find ways to provide large varieties of food - plant based food - to every pocket of society, negating regional deficiencies (such as icy, or drought stricken land) of food production.

What I describe is an ideal world... and as the great sages of human history have said... we must be the change we wish to see in the world. I don't think we'll get there tomorrow... I don't expect to be there in 100 years. But moving in that direction is positive... standing still is... standing still. That's ok. Individually, we move at our own paces... and that needs to be respected... but whether we like it or not... plant based meals are better and smarter people than me see that as the future. 

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."  ~Albert Einstein

Functioning grasslands provide equal or greater benefit to planetary health as forests; we need them. But this ecosystem only functions within the grass/grazer/predator relationship. By taking animals like bison, elk, wolves, boars, and wild fowl off rangelands and savannahs, we have severely decreased the quality and environmental services from these lands. We can restore this relationship via managed intensive rotational grazing using domesticated species. Many ag and soil scientists see this method as being able to produce a 1 for 1 swap with feedlots/grain fields.

However, meat won't be subsidized and therefore cheap anymore. This will reduce demand naturally, which we agree is a good thing.

However, even if we didn't eat the meat, we still need to restore grazers/predators to grasslands in some way. Rapid carbon sequestration to solve climate change is dependent on the health of grassland ecosystems. Whereas all forms of plow agriculture release greenhouse gasses, carbon farming can restore grasslands, thereby sequestering tons of carbon, while also producing food. A win-win.

You might want to check out these resources:

Resources and studies:

“Future Farming: A Return to Roots?”

“The Amazing Benefits of Grassfed Meat” – Mother Earth News

“Can Cattle Save Us From Global Warming?” – OnTheCommons.org

The Carbon Coaltion

Managing Wholes

The Stockman Grass Farmer

Carbon Farmers of America

Rewilding the West: Restoration in a Prairie Landscape

Against the Grain: How Agriculture Has Hijacked Civilization

Grassfed Beef Can Solve Global Warming

Before I do read them... I just want to point out that I think where we differ is methodology. You're advocating a supply side change... whereas I'm advocating a demand side change. Both are better for the environment. Both are better for the animals. Both are better for our health.

EDIT: I was about to write about how I think supply side changes are a bit compulsory. I deleted it what I wrote. Now that i think about it more... we probably need both. Diversity of tactics... right?

The corn and soy we grow to feed livestock is absolutely inedible to humans. We can't just quit feeding it to the animals and give the crop to people. The corn and soy we grow is made for processing into biofuel or high fructose corn-syrup or "isolated protein extract"--all highly industrial uses. We have a surplus of it (thanks to backward farm subsidies!) so we feed it to cattle, despite the fact that it makes them so sick that they would die in 6 months if we didn't kill them first.

Now growing this inedible crap is a self perpetuating cycle. Ironically, you can see feedlots right next to corn fields! What a waste of resources. I can't think of anything more environmentally and economically dumb. And harmful to human health too. Did you know that a farmer makes less than $20 on an acre of commodity corn? That is substantially less than it costs to produce!! But tear out that corn and put those cows on restored grasslands, and you have a system that can sustain itself without the fossil fuel, fertilizer, antibiotics and hormones, that sequesters carbon at an inch of soil per year (!!), and that actually pays the farmer what her work is worth.

Humans need a varied diet, we can't just grow rice, wheat or edible corn and soybeans and expect people to thrive. Could you live on these crops? I'm allergic to all grains and soy, so I would die if that were the basis of my diet.

Similarly, we cannot expect the people who grow coffee, bananas and chocolate for us, using their precious agricultural land, to thrive.

Hunger has little to do with how much food we can produce, and a lot to do with what we are choosing to produce and how it gets distributed. The U.S. currently produces 3900 calories per person per day--twice what we need. Much of it is wasted. U.S. policy and entities like the IMF and World Bank support ag policies based on exported commodities, not on food for humans to be healthy eating. People around the world are starving as they grow coffee and bananas for Western markets. But this is another topic.

For some giving up meat is the most environmental and moral choice. For me, it is giving up coffee, bananas, palm oil, and chocolate.

Yes.

But I'm not suggesting we feed people inedible corn and soy... but farms change their crop all the time. I'm also not suggesting we rip up the inedible corn and soy plants RIGHT NOW. Infact I imagine that would be aweful, ecologically... think of all the waste. This is a process that could happen slowly over time... as preferences turn to plants... market powers will demand a change.

You're right about having diverse diets... all the more reason not to replace everything with natural, grassy pastures and cows! There are legions of edible plants to form diverse farms. These can also take the place of those miles and miles of corn and soy land. Throw in a cow or two if you like... but again... this means the decreasing consumption of meat.

I don't think we actually disagree on much, Dawn. I just think you have an affinity for cows. They do have cute eyes!

As for giving up coffee, bananas, palm oil and chocolate... what a shame. They're SO delicious! Even though the transport of these products from their origin to your super market contribute to global climate change... that contribution is negligible compared to industrial meat production and all of its inedible corn and soy inputs. I used to really admire the locavore tendency... but have learned since then that the advantages of trade are just too numerous. Trade is not going away... we need only improve it.

Cosmopolitanism improves our health, nurtures innovation and increases cultural tolerance. Also, eating/shopping "local" too closely resembles competitive Mercantalism... which was SSOOOO 19th century. Oh, and it didn't work. We're stronger as a species working cooperatively with global partners than we are going back to our roots and roughin' it. Though... don't assume I'm against that... it's a very charming lifestyle that I'm considering myself. You can live on a farm, make your own butter... AND sip a mocha cappuccino from a cup made in vietnam (FAIR trade, of course!) at the same time.

It's not getting food from FAR AWAY that's at issue... it's GETTING food from far away. What we need are more sustainable and faster forms of transportation. That is not out of our reach. Oil tankers and large cargo ships have slowed down recently to compensate for the increase price of oil. So much so that now they move slower than the fastest sailing ships of the 1800s! Imagine if we had spent the last 200 years increasing the efficiencies of sail power instead of adopting steam and oil powered ships. There are some VERY fast sale boats these days... the technology is scalable... and that's just one example.

ugh... sorry for the tangent.

Oh... and about your second to last paragraph about hunger and the distribution of food, IMF, World Bank, etc...

I completely agree... that's part of what I was trying to point out with my post. Essentially, people are starving while global effort is used to feed Western over-consumption... be it meat, or bananas. I'm just suggesting that my idea... (though yours would help too) would help solve that problem.

We'll have to disagree on the benefits of locavorism. Suffice it to say the best reasons for locavorism have little to do with food miles.

My beef (pun intended :) with import/export commodities has little to do with food miles. As a farmer, my interest is in food security, local self-reliance and soil health.

As I said, people starve while Agribusinesses world wide shut out small farmers, ravage the soil, exploit their workers, and use ridiculous amounts of petrochemicals and toxic poisons--all to feed Americans the sweets and fats we demand.

Americans are eating our way through ecosystems worldwide. Land that would provide food and livelihood for millions is aggregated into coffee, palm oil, banana and sugar plantations.

Our demand for these types of crops and the political clout we wield in international trade creates a system wherein we disenfranchise and nutritionally threaten millions while we ravage their precious topsoil and water, and toxify their land and air for export foods with little nutritional value.

Here, we do the same thing to our own people, soil and water with corn, soy and canola. We have farmers ravaging the land to make ends meet, farms consolidating under agribusiness pushing out family farms, hiring illegal workers... it's the same here as there.

We have no food security. The entire state of Iowa, the breadbasket of the country, imports 95% of its food! In a post-fossil fuel era, this is a disaster. Furthermore if supply chains should be disrupted for any reason: natural disaster, terrorism, etc. we're screwed!

Relocalizing food systems is key to environmental and economic sustainability in the future.

That is not to say there should be no international trade at all. But for me, giving up unnecessary import crops whose industrial cultivation is displacing rainforests and peasants, and ravaging soil and water (not to mention generating tons of greenhouse gases) is the moral thing to do and a form of activism.

For me, boycotting "plantation" crops is significantly more important environmentally and socially than giving up the locally-raised, grassfed beef that supports a small rancher, healthier rangeland ecosystems, my local economy, and my good health.

Yup... again, we agree in many ways. I don't like the corporatization of food any more than you do. I recognize the usurpation of land, labor and capital that western nations are guilty of... but those aren't inherent in trade.

Fair trade and ecologically friendly trade... is possible. In fact we have many current examples of it. Moving beyond food, small and local business leaders are just as capable of treating labor unfairly. I've seen it myself... being on the receiving end. Blueberry raking in Maine is NOT fun nor is the compensation just. In fact, larger employers are more capable of providing increased benefits due to their size and purchasing power. We put pressure on them to do so in our own country... we need only put pressure on them to do it elsewhere. That same pressure for fair labor practices which have lead to the incredibly popular fair trade movement can also be used to demand safe and sustainable agriculture. 

Regarding food security... that is a genuine concern, but no reason to boycott foreign foods. The drought of a "plantation" far away may leave people in your state starved... but so would a drought in your state if it relied on only itself for food. As an independent farmer, blight could kill your entire crop... leaving you and your family without food and a means to support itself. But imagine if you were a farmer as part of a large human/earth-friendly conglomerate... blight may kill your crops, but you'd still get a wage and food would be imported to your community to compensate... to be repaid on the next bountiful year. I just came up with that off the top of my head...I'm sure there are holes, but imagine what smarter people who actually work with food could think up over time.

The point is, eating local and boycotting foreign food is a form of protectionism... and it will definitely ensure that potential trade partners will put up those same protections... encouraging their people to eat local and reducing the imports of YOUR exports. This merely cuts beneficial ties with other human beings which could otherwise be extremely helpful. And it wont just stick to food.

By all means... eat local food. Gorge yourself on grassfed beef from your backyard... but eat foreign food too. Farmers in Brazil are just as concerned with their food security as you are with yours. I imagine you sell your beef... well they'd buy it (in the right geo-political environment). Like never before... relationships can form thousands of miles apart... relationships that will ensure the food security and livelihoods of all involved. 

We're all in this together.

"we'll just end up with small farms all over the place doing their own thing"

You mean like we did for centuries? That sounds fantastic. You seem to be implying that small farmers are stupid, or at the very least more likely to use environmentally unsound farming methods.  The vast majority of the time, the opposite is the case.

I have to agree with Kristen. The idea of local food systems supplied by small farmers may be a return to roots, but combined with today's environmental best practices (such as permaculture, etc.), we have the ability to feed a growing omnivorous population with a minimum--even net positive--impact.

Now, I'm not saying international trade shouldn't happen, and shouldn't supplement our diet judiciously. However, a little protectionism would do the environment and local food security a world of good.

If we demanded that all of America's cocoa beans were fairly traded and sustainably grown, they wouldn't be any more. There's a reason there are plantations.

But I agree with you that both demand and supply side strategies are necessary. It is consumer demand for grassfed beef that is driving animals back to the land where they can be part of the natural carbon sequestration cycle they evolutionarily belong to.

The ultimate question is scalability. Not everything big and growing bigger is better. Efficiency is antithetical to sustainability.

Shade-grown coffee scaled up to meet the full weight of American demand = plantations, pollution and peasants

Grass-fed beef scaled up to meet the full weight of American demand = carbon sequestration, better jobs, more wildlife habitat and flood control.

This is why my dollar vote is for local grass-fed meat and eggs. I think eating exotic foods should be as infrequent as perhaps you feel eating meat should be.

You wrote, "and it will definitely ensure that potential trade partners will put up those same protections... encouraging their people to eat local and reducing the imports of YOUR exports. This merely cuts beneficial ties with other human beings which could otherwise be extremely helpful. And it wont just stick to food."

What you see as a problem, I see as a positive end goal. When it comes to food, we need to protect local self-reliance, food security, right-livelihood, environmental sustainability which can only be done through more protectionist policies. And if other places do the same -- hallelujah, we've finally brought down Big Ag and probably Big Pharma too.

But we trade many many more things than food, and have many reasons to talk to each other. I'm not saying all international trade even in food, be stopped, but it should not be at the expense of small farmers, the environment or local economies and their food security. If this were our measure for import crops, the market for them would be greatly reduced.

Also, I'm not saying we shouldn't eat less meat. Meatless Monday and other environmental campaigns are having their impact on reducing demand for industrial meat--which is good. But on Tuesday, I want a locally raised, grass fed steak.

I was really afraid someone was going to jump on that... I almost posted again to clarify... but didn't want to spam any more than I have.

Someone's read the Art of War and has attacked me where I'm weakest...

What I'm saying is that everyone is different... and odds are... with two options here... either be conscious of the importance of "eco-habits" or not... 50% of the farmers aren't going to not. The percentage could be WAY off because of how general this is... but ultimately there's a good chance it could be bad... I would predict greater considering a local farm movement would require more people... people from the general public... the general public which is - at the moment - not very preoccupied with actively protecting the environment in their daily lives. 

I did not suggest that the blueberry farmers I worked for or the hicks in my model were models for all or even a majority of farmers... but merely pointed out that they... and more... exist and more of them = bad.

It's just highlighting how, in this case, diversity is a problem... because there are farmers who care about the environment (A), and there are farmers who don't (B)... who are pleased to go on as things are. Increase A and B indiscriminately.. and you have more (A) AND more (B). Go figure. More (B) is bad, not matter how much (A) you have.

A larger corporate structure (again... emphasizing that it doesn't have to be evil... not all are... perhaps this one's headed by an (A) farmer) has the ability to enforce uniform, environmental policies.

Geesh. Have some faith. I've spoken out in defense of the environment, labor, animals in general as well as human health and from one comment - that you had to stretch - you assume that I'm the kind of person to make gross stereotypes about people based on their occupation?

---

" "we'll just end up with small farms all over the place doing their own thing"

You mean like we did for centuries? ..."

-Kristen Ridley

---

... and in a world with billions more people than we've ever had in the past, competing for rapidly exhausting resources? No... that doesn't sound fantastic... that's hell.

As for Dawn's comment... we probably don't need to go back in forth... I agree with virtually everything you're saying... I think we're just defending our own interests... which aren't mutually exclusive.

Not mutually exclusive. Good point. Thanks for the discussion.

I agree that human overpopulation is the root cause of pretty much every environmental problem in the world, but I think your focus is misplaced. US may have the 3rd largest population in the country, but it is a distant third, and we are a physically big country.  If you look at rates of population *growth*, however, you'll see the US is very low, about 130th. Real population explosion happens primarily in developing countries, where culturally they are used to having many, many kids because so many of them die. As conditions improve, the death rate goes down, but the birth rate holds steady, and the population explodes. As countries get wealthier, they tend to self-regulate the number of kids they have, which is why 2 or 3 kids is the norm in developed countries, and several such as Germany and Japan are actually shrinking.

In vitro is actually fairly uncommon and usually results in just one kid. In vitro doesn't contribute to the population problem in any meaningful way.

I'm not sure there is an easy answer to the population problem, but advocating for access to family planning - birth control and safe abortions - in poor and developing nations would probably be a very good start.

LOL, the US has the 3rd largest poulation in the WORLD, not the country... oops.

I agree with you, Kristen, that the population problem also exists in developing countries, and that birth control would be a good start.

I was part of a program (20 years ago) that sent birth control to women in countries overseas as an alternative to the non-profits that send food to these countries to feed the starving children. Some of these familes has 7 or 8 children and could not afford to feed even one.

Granted, many of the pregnancies were caused by rape, and could have been avoided if the women used the birth control regularly, so that is the route we chose. Trying to feed starving families after the fact was not always a good solution, as the mothers starved trying to keep their children fed, which left many without parents. Using birth contol stopped the problem before it got out of control. It's a good plan, but most people would rather "feed the world" than ever think of stopping women from having children that they cannot care for.

My focus has always been to nip the problem BEFORE it becomes one. Birth control and safe abortions is the way to go. I totally agree with you and have been trying to teach this way of thinking for decades. It's been successful in many places, but we have a long way to go.

As for in vitro...it usually does result in one child. My problem with this is the people who will go above and beyond to "have a child" when there are millions of adoptable children that need families already. It's just a little selfish, especially when they already have children or end up with more than one- up to eight! It goes against nature and common sense. Why reward these people with reality shows?

Population in a controlled way is the best solution, yet there are no regulations. People will not talk about it. Too controversial. I teach. I love children. But...they all grow up and need places to live and work. There's just not enough room for everyone to keep having kids at an uncontrolled rate.

The more people...the more animals that have to die to feed them. It's selfish and wrong.

How about this...

If you want to raise more than one child...you have to raise them as vegans?

Sounds like a win-win to me!

I did a grand, fun debunking of this ridiculous notion on this thread, which you are welcome to go read, but for now I'll just link you to this thorough overview as to why humans are without a doubt natural omnivores, written by a vegetarian no less!

I thought the fact that humans have *really* strong stomach acid (2-3pH) was taught in elementary school... isn't that common knowledge? Do people really not know this?