It is suggested that if everyone became vegetarian 10 times more people in the world could be fed...?!
because if you got rid of cattle and used the land they were on to grow crops you would be providing more food, but in practise fewer extra people would be fed in this way!?
What are some reasons for this!?Www@FoodAQ@Com
What are some reasons for this!?Www@FoodAQ@Com
Answers:
Fewer extra people would actually be fed because even now there isn't a shortage of food in the world!. The problem is the distribution!. "Rich" countries, like here in the U!.S!., have a disproportionate amount of food and way more than is needed!. The amount of food thrown in the garbage alone could feed most of the world!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
I don't understand where the idea that in practice fewer people would be fed by getting rid of cattle is coming from!. It's not just the land that the cattle are grown on!. It's all the land that is used to grow their feed which is trucked to them!.
Over 50% of the commercial corn crop goes to animal feed (25% to ethanol, and the rest to export, alcohol and other with less than 10% for food direct to human with less than 2/10th of 1% being sweet corn we eat from the cob)!. 85% of the soy is processed into animal fodder!. Most of the arable land in the world is devoted to growing animal feed including hay, oats, alfalfa and such as it takes up to 16 pounds of feed to convert 1 pound of flesh!.
A meat diet versus a soy diet!?
http://www!.grist!.org/advice/ask/2005/10/!.!.!.
====
Meat production took more land (6 to 17 times as much), water (4!.4 to 26 times), fossil fuels (6 to 20 times), and biocides (a lumped-together category of pesticides and chemicals used in processing -- 6 times as much)!.
====
All that land could be used to grow other crops or put back to what it had been such as rainforest (the lungs of our planet) to provide habitat for wildlife and important things such as natural pollinators!.
95% of food animals are grown in confined animal feeding operation CAFO conditions:
http://en!.wikipedia!.org/wiki/Factory_far!.!.!.
==
EDIT TO ADD this news snippet:
====
Going veggie can slash your carbon footprint: study
Tue Aug 26, 11:19 AM ET
http://news!.sg!.msn!.com/lifestyle/article!.!.!.
BERLIN (AFP) - Giving up meat could drastically reduce your carbon footprint, with meat-eaters' diets responsible for almost twice the emissions of those of vegetarians, a German study said on Tuesday!.
A diet with meat is responsible for producing in a year the same amount of greenhouse gases as driving a mid-sized car 4,758 kilometres (2,956 miles), the Institute for Ecological Economy Research (IOeW) said!.
But the food a vegetarian consumes in 12 months is responsible for generating the same emissions as driving 2,427 kilometres, the IOeW said in a study commissioned by independent consumer protection group Foodwatch!.
!.!.!.
Going vegan -- giving up meat and dairy products -- would cut the emissions released in making what you eat more than seven-fold, to the equivalent of driving 629 kilometres, it said!.
And if it is all organic, your food footprint is almost a 17th of that of a meat-eater -- the equivalent of driving 281 kilometres!.
====
But here are some sites that explain world hunger, which is mostly political, very well:
http://www!.globalissues!.org/article/7/ca!.!.!.
http://www!.foodfirst!.org/pubs/backgrdrs/!.!.!.
http://www!.celsias!.com/article/the-rise-!.!.!.
The thing is, when people start eating more meat then people compete with other people and animals for those grains and all food prices go up which makes the poverty even worse (as it is in Haiti and Egypt):
http://www!.goveg!.com/worldhunger!.asp
People can't feed themselves unless they have a job and/or land:
http://www!.nytimes!.com/2007/04/22/magazi!.!.!.
====
To speak of the farm bill’s influence on the American food system does not begin to describe its full impact — on the environment, on global poverty, even on immigration!. By making it possible for American farmers to sell their crops abroad for considerably less than it costs to grow them, the farm bill helps determine the price of corn in Mexico and the price of cotton in Nigeria and therefore whether farmers in those places will survive or be forced off the land, to migrate to the cities — or to the United States!. The flow of immigrants north from Mexico since Nafta is inextricably linked to the flow of American corn in the opposite direction, a flood of subsidized grain that the Mexican government estimates has thrown two million Mexican farmers and other agricultural workers off the land since the mid-90s!. (More recently, the ethanol boom has led to a spike in corn prices that has left that country reeling from soaring tortilla prices; linking its corn economy to ours has been an unalloyed disaster for Mexico’s eaters as well as its farmers!.) You can’t fully comprehend the pressures driving immigration without comprehending what U!.S!. agricultural policy is doing to rural agriculture in Mexico!.
====Www@FoodAQ@Com
Over 50% of the commercial corn crop goes to animal feed (25% to ethanol, and the rest to export, alcohol and other with less than 10% for food direct to human with less than 2/10th of 1% being sweet corn we eat from the cob)!. 85% of the soy is processed into animal fodder!. Most of the arable land in the world is devoted to growing animal feed including hay, oats, alfalfa and such as it takes up to 16 pounds of feed to convert 1 pound of flesh!.
A meat diet versus a soy diet!?
http://www!.grist!.org/advice/ask/2005/10/!.!.!.
====
Meat production took more land (6 to 17 times as much), water (4!.4 to 26 times), fossil fuels (6 to 20 times), and biocides (a lumped-together category of pesticides and chemicals used in processing -- 6 times as much)!.
====
All that land could be used to grow other crops or put back to what it had been such as rainforest (the lungs of our planet) to provide habitat for wildlife and important things such as natural pollinators!.
95% of food animals are grown in confined animal feeding operation CAFO conditions:
http://en!.wikipedia!.org/wiki/Factory_far!.!.!.
==
EDIT TO ADD this news snippet:
====
Going veggie can slash your carbon footprint: study
Tue Aug 26, 11:19 AM ET
http://news!.sg!.msn!.com/lifestyle/article!.!.!.
BERLIN (AFP) - Giving up meat could drastically reduce your carbon footprint, with meat-eaters' diets responsible for almost twice the emissions of those of vegetarians, a German study said on Tuesday!.
A diet with meat is responsible for producing in a year the same amount of greenhouse gases as driving a mid-sized car 4,758 kilometres (2,956 miles), the Institute for Ecological Economy Research (IOeW) said!.
But the food a vegetarian consumes in 12 months is responsible for generating the same emissions as driving 2,427 kilometres, the IOeW said in a study commissioned by independent consumer protection group Foodwatch!.
!.!.!.
Going vegan -- giving up meat and dairy products -- would cut the emissions released in making what you eat more than seven-fold, to the equivalent of driving 629 kilometres, it said!.
And if it is all organic, your food footprint is almost a 17th of that of a meat-eater -- the equivalent of driving 281 kilometres!.
====
But here are some sites that explain world hunger, which is mostly political, very well:
http://www!.globalissues!.org/article/7/ca!.!.!.
http://www!.foodfirst!.org/pubs/backgrdrs/!.!.!.
http://www!.celsias!.com/article/the-rise-!.!.!.
The thing is, when people start eating more meat then people compete with other people and animals for those grains and all food prices go up which makes the poverty even worse (as it is in Haiti and Egypt):
http://www!.goveg!.com/worldhunger!.asp
People can't feed themselves unless they have a job and/or land:
http://www!.nytimes!.com/2007/04/22/magazi!.!.!.
====
To speak of the farm bill’s influence on the American food system does not begin to describe its full impact — on the environment, on global poverty, even on immigration!. By making it possible for American farmers to sell their crops abroad for considerably less than it costs to grow them, the farm bill helps determine the price of corn in Mexico and the price of cotton in Nigeria and therefore whether farmers in those places will survive or be forced off the land, to migrate to the cities — or to the United States!. The flow of immigrants north from Mexico since Nafta is inextricably linked to the flow of American corn in the opposite direction, a flood of subsidized grain that the Mexican government estimates has thrown two million Mexican farmers and other agricultural workers off the land since the mid-90s!. (More recently, the ethanol boom has led to a spike in corn prices that has left that country reeling from soaring tortilla prices; linking its corn economy to ours has been an unalloyed disaster for Mexico’s eaters as well as its farmers!.) You can’t fully comprehend the pressures driving immigration without comprehending what U!.S!. agricultural policy is doing to rural agriculture in Mexico!.
====Www@FoodAQ@Com
The question implies that either only a 10th of the world is getting fed or we could increase the world population by x10 and still feed them all!.
Either assumption is obviously incorrect!.
If only 10% of the world was being fed then the other 90% would quickly die!. Its not happening as the world population is increasing!.
If we increase the population x10 then where would they all live!? On land that is used to grow crops!.
The question mentions cattle, but these are not the only meat source!. Sheep tend to be farmed on moorland!. This because the soil is usually unsuitable for growing any crops or that it is inaccessible to farm machinery!.
Pigs in some communities eat the scraps from meals, root in the mud and generally forage for their food!. This is in effect, free meat!. Not having a pig wouldn't free up any land!.
Game is the same!. Birds living wild will not allow extra crops!. In fact flocks of birds can devastate fields of wheat etc
The world structure has evolved for a reason!. Simply changing every ones eating habits overnight would have many unforeseen actionsWww@FoodAQ@Com
Either assumption is obviously incorrect!.
If only 10% of the world was being fed then the other 90% would quickly die!. Its not happening as the world population is increasing!.
If we increase the population x10 then where would they all live!? On land that is used to grow crops!.
The question mentions cattle, but these are not the only meat source!. Sheep tend to be farmed on moorland!. This because the soil is usually unsuitable for growing any crops or that it is inaccessible to farm machinery!.
Pigs in some communities eat the scraps from meals, root in the mud and generally forage for their food!. This is in effect, free meat!. Not having a pig wouldn't free up any land!.
Game is the same!. Birds living wild will not allow extra crops!. In fact flocks of birds can devastate fields of wheat etc
The world structure has evolved for a reason!. Simply changing every ones eating habits overnight would have many unforeseen actionsWww@FoodAQ@Com
It is suggested but not necessarily true!. You still have to deal with transportation, storage and other logistical problems that go hand in hand when dealing with highly perishable items such as vegetables and fruits!.
The world has sufficient food!. The "enemy" has always been distribution and waste!. It is costly to transport and evenly distribute food all over the world and we waste too much ot if!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
The world has sufficient food!. The "enemy" has always been distribution and waste!. It is costly to transport and evenly distribute food all over the world and we waste too much ot if!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
The only reason i can think of is that it takes more crops to feed someone than meat!. Meat is very filling because fat contains lots of calories!. Fruit and corn and whatnot while you can get more of it, takes more to fill up on calories, so you would eat more!. That is the only thing!.
And btw, you dont have to eat meat!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
And btw, you dont have to eat meat!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
in scotland there are plenty of cows who are fed nothing but the grass in the fields!.!.!.therfore it costs virtually nothing to feed them!.!.!.!.!.you can have upwards of 50 cows on an acre of grass!.!.!.!.
Now which would feed more people and 50 cows on an acre of land!.!.!.or an acre of land filled with wheat!?!?!? you do the mathWww@FoodAQ@Com
Now which would feed more people and 50 cows on an acre of land!.!.!.or an acre of land filled with wheat!?!?!? you do the mathWww@FoodAQ@Com
I would suggest that a few cows or sheep in a grassy field would feed more people than if that same field was used on which to grow crops - birds, vermin and failure rarely affect the growth of animals, and they don't need all sorts of chemicals to fertilise them and keep down pests!.!.!.!.!.!.Www@FoodAQ@Com
I'm not a vegetarian and I know thos one!.
It takes about 8 pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef
The rain forests are being distroyed to produce meat!.
Cow farts lead to global worming Www@FoodAQ@Com
It takes about 8 pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef
The rain forests are being distroyed to produce meat!.
Cow farts lead to global worming Www@FoodAQ@Com
Aint my problem!!!
Sick of caring, only to be racially victimized at work by their ethnic counterparts who made it to Britain!. Www@FoodAQ@Com
Sick of caring, only to be racially victimized at work by their ethnic counterparts who made it to Britain!. Www@FoodAQ@Com