Why does everyone here automatically dismiss the idea of going Vegan?

[festeringZit]

well i purposely stayed away from that one. it was just a badly failed troll effort


of course NOT killing an animal to eat is less harmful to that animal than killing it.


that being said people will search for whatever theory necessary to feel their right without using common sense

I'm guessing that your post is much closer to a troll-job than a peer-reviewed paper from the
Dept. of Animal Sciences at Oregon State University, that was published in the Journal of Agricultural and
Environmental Ethics - which was the main source for my argumentation.


THE LEAST HARM PRINCIPLE MAY REQUIRE THAT HUMANS CONSUME A DIET CONTAINING LARGE HERBIVORES, NOT A VEGAN DIET.
S.L. Davis[SUP]1[/SUP]
Department of Animal Sciences
Oregon State University
112 Withycombe Hall
Corvallis, OR 97331-6702
U.S.A.


ABSTRACT
Based on his theory of animal rights, Regan concludes that humans are morally obligated to consume a vegetarian or vegan diet.� When it was pointed out to him that even a vegan diet results in the loss of many animals of the field, he said that while that may be true, we are still obligated to consume a vegetarian / vegan diet because in total it would cause the least harm to animals (Least Harm Principle, or LHP) as compared to current agriculture.� But is that conclusion valid?� Is it possible that some other agricultural production alternatives may result in least harm to animals?� In this paper, I examine this question and find that the LHP may actually be better served using food production systems that include both plant-based agriculture and a forage-ruminant-based agriculture as compared to a strict plant-based (vegan) system.� Perhaps we are morally obligated to consume a diet containing both plants and ruminant (particularly cattle) animal products.

http://fewd.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/inst_ethik_wiss_dialog/Davis__S._2003_The_least_Harm_-_Anti_Veg_in_J._Agric._Ethics.pdf

 

[festeringZit]

[ From the source above, published in the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics ]

HOW MANY ANIMALS OF THE FIELD WOULD DIE IF A VEGAN DIET WERE ADOPTED?

Animals living in and around agricultural fields are killed during field activities and the greater the number of field activities, the greater the number of field animals that die.� A partial list of animals of the field in the USA include opossum, rock dove, house sparrow, European starling, black rat, Norway rat, house mouse, Chukar, gray partridge, ring-necked pheasant, wild turkey, cottontail rabbit, gray-tailed vole, and numerous species of amphibians (Edge, 2000).� In addition, Edge (2000) says, "production of most crops requires multiple field operations that may include plowing, disking, harrowing, planting, cultivating, applying herbicides and pesticides as well as harvesting."� These practices have negative effects on the populations of the animals living in the fields.� For example, just one operation, the "mowing of alfalfa caused a 50% decline in gray-tailed vole population" (Edge, 2000).� Although these examples represent crop production systems in the USA, the concept is also valid for intensive crop production in any country.� Other studies have also examined the effect of agricultural tillage practices on field animal populations (Johnson et al., 1991; Pollard and Helton, 1970; Tew, Macdonald and Rands, 1992).�

Although accurate estimates of the total number of animals killed by different agronomic practices from plowing to harvesting are not available, some studies show that the numbers are quite large.� Kerasote (1993) describes it as follows:� "When I inquired about the lives lost on a mechanized farm, I realized what costs we pay at the supermarket.� One Oregon farmer told me that half of the cottontail rabbits went into his combine when he cut a wheat field, that virtually all of the small mammals, ground birds, and reptiles were killed when he harvested his crops.� Because most of these animals have been seen as expendable, or not seen at all, few scientific studies have been done measuring agriculture's effects on their populations."� In a study that has been done to examine the effect of harvesting grain crops, Tew and Macdonald (1993) reported that mouse population density dropped from 25/ha preharvest to less than 5/ha postharvest.� This decrease was attributed to both migration out of the field and to mortality. ��They estimated the mortality rate to be 52%.� In another study Nass et al. (1971) reported that the mortality rate of Polynesian rats was 77% during the harvest of sugar cane in Hawaii.� These are the estimated mortality rates for only a single species, and for only a single operation (i.e. harvesting).� Therefore, an estimate somewhere between 52 and 77% (say 60%) for animals of all kinds killed during the production year would be reasonable.� Using the population density shown in Tew and Macdonald�s (1993) paper (25/ha) times a 60% mortality rate of 15 animals/ha each year.

If that is true, how many animals would die annually in the production of a vegan diet?� There are 120 million ha of cropland harvested in the USA (USDA, 2000) each year.� If all of that land was used to produce crops to support a vegan diet, and if 15 animals of the field are killed per ha per year, then 15 x 120 million = 1800 million or 1.8 billion animals would be killed annually to produce a vegan diet for the USA.�

 

[rolltide]

you can post all the Oregon State studies you want about the industrialization of a vegan diet. I'm talking about a personal footprint, you're comparing a complete overhaul. If 1/3 of my diet is grown from my own yard that has nothing to do with your big bad study. The whole premise of what you are regurgitating is that the acreage needed to supply a vegan diet is taken away from animals. that's ridiculous premise which is why most of the stuff in that article is from like 1993

there are a ton (like a shit ton) of studies that will calculate how many animals are saved per year by not killing and eating them...and a bunch of studies about the decreased CO2 by having less animals in the food system. I don't need to pass them off to "prove" my side as what I do is a personal choice. I'm not trying to save the cows or pigs or environment but i will also call out morons on both sides.

less demand means less supply...Economics 101. if i can lessen the amount of factory farming going on I will do it. the amount of discarded meat each year is complete insanity.

btw, the overall number of animals being killed for food is decreasing, not increasing. so if your little oregon state study had any merit it would already be able to measure these disastrous effects outlined in their conclusions

Updated June 25, 2015
	Year	Cattle	Chickens	Ducks	Hogs	Sheep & Lambs	Turkeys	Total
		(thousands of animals)	(billions of animals)
	1950	17,901	N/A	N/A	69,543	12,852	N/A	0.1
	1955	25,723	N/A	N/A	74,216	16,215	N/A	0.1
	1960	25,224	1,644,026	10,086	79,036	15,899	70,702	1.8
	1965	32,398	2,192,378	10,455	73,852	13,008	92,720	2.4
	1970	35,416	2,946,294	11,833	87,012	21,354	105,549	3.2
	1975	41,464	3,097,430	11,458	69,824	15,892	119,445	3.4
	1980	34,116	4,132,177	16,875	97,174	11,322	159,071	4.5
	1985	36,593	4,617,280	21,608	84,938	6,300	175,181	4.9
	1990	33,439	6,022,450	20,913	85,432	11,403	271,199	6.4
	1995	35,817	7,530,847	19,528	96,536	4,631	281,032	8
	2000	36,416	8,426,141	24,494	98,106	3,527	268,069	8.9
	2001	35,530	8,566,382	26,260	98,082	3,290	269,302	9
	2002	35,888	8,716,099	23,998	100,378	3,351	271,244	9.2
	2003	35,647	8,684,434	24,301	101,043	3,042	267,781	9.1
	2004	32,880	8,895,748	25,967	103,573	2,906	254,308	9.3
	2005	32,539	9,000,473	27,890	103,690	2,763	248,094	9.4
	2006	33,849	8,968,666	28,025	104,842	2,766	254,716	9.4
	2007	34,264	9,035,620	27,311	109,172	2,694	264,926	9.5
	2008	34,365	9,075,261	24,149	116,452	2,556	271,245	9.5
	2009	33,338	8,658,860	22,767	113,618	2,516	245,768	9.1
	2010	34,249	8,790,478	23,627	110,260	2,458	242,619	9.2
	2011	34,087	8,683,067	24,472	110,860	2,164	246,844	9.1
	2012	32,951	8,576,194	24,183	113,163	2,183	250,192	9
	2013	32,459	8,648,756	24,575	112,126	2,314	239,385	9.1
	2014	30,170	8,666,662	26,368	106,876	2,309	236,617	9.1
	2015	28,752	8,822,695	27,749	115,425	2,224	232,398	9.2
	2015*	14,198	4,367,977	13,855	56,573	1100	113,961	4.6
	2016*	14,809	4,436,543	13,538	57,370	1113	118,568	4.6
	% Change	4.3%	1.6%	-2.3%	1.4%	1.2%	4.0%	1.6%
	* Year to date through Apr.

<tbody>
</tbody>

Published by Google Sheets–Report Abuse–Updated automatically every 5 minutes

 

[festeringZit]

Fair enough. I don't have any problem with vegans, or whatever the fuck people want to eat. I do have a problem with people who claim some moral superiority, because they
think that eating animals is murder - not even considering the amount of animals that are killed to support that vegan diet.

you can post all the Oregon State studies you want about the industrialization of a vegan diet. I'm talking about a personal footprint, you're comparing a complete overhaul. If 1/3 of my diet is grown from my own yard that has nothing to do with your big bad study. The whole premise of what you are regurgitating is that the acreage needed to supply a vegan diet is taken away from animals. that's ridiculous premise which is why most of the stuff in that article is from like 1993

there are a ton (like a shit ton) of studies that will calculate how many animals are saved per year by not killing and eating them...and a bunch of studies about the decreased CO2 by having less animals in the food system. I don't need to pass them off to "prove" my side as what I do is a personal choice. I'm not trying to save the cows or pigs or environment but i will also call out morons on both sides.

less demand means less supply...Economics 101. if i can lessen the amount of factory farming going on I will do it. the amount of discarded meat each year is complete insanity.

btw, the overall number of animals being killed for food is decreasing, not increasing. so if your little oregon state study had any merit it would already be able to measure these disastrous effects outlined in their conclusions

Updated June 25, 2015
	Year	Cattle	Chickens	Ducks	Hogs	Sheep & Lambs	Turkeys	Total
		(thousands of animals)	(billions of animals)
	1950	17,901	N/A	N/A	69,543	12,852	N/A	0.1
	1955	25,723	N/A	N/A	74,216	16,215	N/A	0.1
	1960	25,224	1,644,026	10,086	79,036	15,899	70,702	1.8
	1965	32,398	2,192,378	10,455	73,852	13,008	92,720	2.4
	1970	35,416	2,946,294	11,833	87,012	21,354	105,549	3.2
	1975	41,464	3,097,430	11,458	69,824	15,892	119,445	3.4
	1980	34,116	4,132,177	16,875	97,174	11,322	159,071	4.5
	1985	36,593	4,617,280	21,608	84,938	6,300	175,181	4.9
	1990	33,439	6,022,450	20,913	85,432	11,403	271,199	6.4
	1995	35,817	7,530,847	19,528	96,536	4,631	281,032	8
	2000	36,416	8,426,141	24,494	98,106	3,527	268,069	8.9
	2001	35,530	8,566,382	26,260	98,082	3,290	269,302	9
	2002	35,888	8,716,099	23,998	100,378	3,351	271,244	9.2
	2003	35,647	8,684,434	24,301	101,043	3,042	267,781	9.1
	2004	32,880	8,895,748	25,967	103,573	2,906	254,308	9.3
	2005	32,539	9,000,473	27,890	103,690	2,763	248,094	9.4
	2006	33,849	8,968,666	28,025	104,842	2,766	254,716	9.4
	2007	34,264	9,035,620	27,311	109,172	2,694	264,926	9.5
	2008	34,365	9,075,261	24,149	116,452	2,556	271,245	9.5
	2009	33,338	8,658,860	22,767	113,618	2,516	245,768	9.1
	2010	34,249	8,790,478	23,627	110,260	2,458	242,619	9.2
	2011	34,087	8,683,067	24,472	110,860	2,164	246,844	9.1
	2012	32,951	8,576,194	24,183	113,163	2,183	250,192	9
	2013	32,459	8,648,756	24,575	112,126	2,314	239,385	9.1
	2014	30,170	8,666,662	26,368	106,876	2,309	236,617	9.1
	2015	28,752	8,822,695	27,749	115,425	2,224	232,398	9.2
	2015*	14,198	4,367,977	13,855	56,573	1100	113,961	4.6
	2016*	14,809	4,436,543	13,538	57,370	1113	118,568	4.6
	% Change	4.3%	1.6%	-2.3%	1.4%	1.2%	4.0%	1.6%
	* Year to date through Apr.

<tbody>
</tbody>

Published by Google Sheets–Report Abuse–Updated automatically every 5 minutes

 

[seldomseen]

That's a pretty interesting chart. Any thoughts on what caused meat consumption to go down so much from 2014?

 

[Willie99]

That's a pretty interesting chart. Any thoughts on what caused meat consumption to go down so much from 2014?

maybe it was my heart attack

 

[Willie99]

RT is obviously pretty cool.

But some vegans remind me of atheists, they want to impose their religious beliefs or value systems on you, but they kick and scream if they think somebody is doing such to them

 

[rolltide]

RT is obviously pretty cool.

But some vegans remind me of atheists, they want to impose their religious beliefs or value systems on you, but they kick and scream if they think somebody is doing such to them

some? ha ha...almost all


like i said a bunch of pages ago. i didn't eat meat for 10 years, then ate it for 15, and now back to not eating it. i don't really care how it impacts the world and I'm glad to see people moving toward less of a factory farming meat diet. For most of those 15 years the majority of meat i ate came from local growers. I got my beef and pork from East End Co-Op (who source entirely from a few local farms) or directly from a farmer in Somerset that doesn't use hormones or steroids and has his animals eating grass that isn't full of RoundUp, chemicals, and pesticides. I didn't do a whole lot of chicken as it is very difficult to find locally sourced fowl other than eggs, of course....plus, never really cared for the taste (or lack thereof) like i did pig and cow.


But there is definitely some cost to this. You must buy in bulk so need a decent freezer (which then takes up space) but the actual price of the meat isn't too much higher than what you get at the store and the quality is immeasurably better. I really don't understand how anyone buys packaged ground beef or ham from the store anymore...or chicken, or eggs for that matter. It's too easy, too sensible, and too tasty to source the majority of your own meat. If you have the money, space, and regional farms available to take the step away from store-bought meats I strongly encourage you to do that. If you're living in a 1BR apartment with no money because you bet Pitt hoops games all year then stick to store-bought and fast food.


I have always tried to do as little of store-bought everything as possible. I grow a good bit of my food in what used to be a back yard (now it's one massive garden) but certainly eat out quite a bit where i stick to largely the places I know the owner and his sourcing methods. I don't make my own soy milk or peanut butter so there are some things i certainly rely on Giant Eagle for ---- even within those choices you can find much better options than others. That's why vegans buying store bought fake bacon/sourcream/cheese/sausage are, for the most part, complete imbeciles. Get a good instapot, put a little work into it, have good food storage options and stop paying Tofutti and daiya for chemical altered version of cream cheese.


speaking of which take a look at the ingredients on this vegan cream cheese:
Filtered water, coconut oil, tapioca starch, non-GMO expeller pressed canola and/or non-GMO expeller pressed safflower oil, potato starch, pea protein isolate, sea salt, chives, vegetable glycerin, xanthan gum, lactic acid (vegan source), agave syrup, natural vegan flavors, white onions, titanium dioxide (naturally occurring mineral), vegan enzyme, cultured sugar


yummy! (not)


and, btw, nobody is going to convince me that i am having a bigger negative impact on the killing of animals doing what i do than if i simply ate meat. I'm a pretty A-B kind of guy. I can leave point A and arrive at point B with a fair bit of confidence. On this I am sure...i don't need to jump to C, D, E, and F to then arrive back at B.

 

[HarryCaray]

quick statement...

i usually hit up twitter and type in "vegan" to find some interesting new dishes around Pittsburgh to check out once/week or every other week. The new generation (20 something) of folks not eating meat are among the most pretentious whiny cvnts I have come across. Their superiority complex is overwhelming and half of them go about it completely the wrong way, ingesting a ton of chemical-filled additives to taste like meat while declaring how "food conscious" and "food aware" they are. Anyone who uses those terms to describe themselves should look into suicide

for those that don't know there is not a single wheat gluten, bean, or potato-based concoction in the world that will taste like a beef burger...well, apparently until now with the invention of The Impossible Burger. Never had one but some chemist found a protein in plants that supposedly tastes like animal blood...it is called Heme. Well if you have some great inner desire to eat bacon or burgers then just eat the fn bacon and burgers!

perfect example of an idiot vegan that should just eject over the side of the next bridge she crosses .... http://www.thecomfortingvegan.com/2017/03/vegan-pierogi-casserole_62.html

she goes out and buys the grossest shit on the planet.....we're talking garbage packaged frozen pierogies, fakin bacon, fake sour cream, fake cream cheese, fake parmesan, fake mayo, and vegan milk (whatever the fuck that is? i put a little soy milk in my coffee if that's what the moron means?).

Then she stirs it all in a bowl and bakes it and believes she's done something great for herself by mixing up a few pounds of chemicals created to taste like the much healthier meat and dairy option. I'd rather bite into the side of a live pig than eat the junk she's mixing into a bowl and blogging the world about...

fn moron

Hahahahaha rolltide on fire this morning. Hilarious.