Meat-Eating vs. Bestiality

[kiwimac]

So you agree that slaughtering an animal is not treating him/her humanely like you believe humans should be treated.

You do realise that was NOT what was written, don't you?

 

[Nous]

So you agree that slaughtering an animal is not treating him/her humanely like you believe humans should be treated.

You do realise that was NOT what was written, don't you?

Father Heathen quoted my question in #297.

 

[dave_]

This somehow reminds me of my topic ; Interspecies Marriage

 

[Curious George]

What argument of mine are you referring to? Quote it.

And I take it that you are still unable to provide any evidence by which to conclude that humans have the biological adaptations that characterize omnivores. Your claim is just an article of faith. Correct?

You haven't shown anything I've said is a falsehood, have you? If you have, please give the post number.

So you do not disagree that we are omnivores-if the word is to be used, that eating meat has played an important role in human evolution, that animal products are rich in necessary nutrients that are not common in plants, and humans have eaten meat for a very long time?

 

[Penumbra]

Bolding is mine:

The most systematic research trial supporting Savory’s claims, the Charter Grazing Trials, was undertaken in Rhodesia (Zimbabwe today) between 1969 and 1975. Given the ecological vagaries of deserts worldwide, one could certainly question whether Savory’s research on a 6,200-acre spot of semiarid African land holds any relevance for the rest of the world’s 12 billion acres of desert. Extrapolation seems even more dubious when you consider that a comprehensive review of Savory’s trial and other similar trials, published in 2002, found that Savory’s signature high-stocking density and rapid-fire rotation plan did not lead to a perfectly choreographed symbiosis between grass and beast.

Instead, there were problems during the Charter Grazing Trials, ones not mentioned in Savory’s dramatic talk. Cattle that grazed according to Savory’s method needed expensive supplemental feed, became stressed and fatigued, and lost enough weight to compromise the profitability of their meat. And even though Savory’s Grazing Trials took place during a period of freakishly high rainfall, with rates exceeding the average by 24 percent overall, the authors contend that Savory’s method “failed to produce the marked improvement in grass cover claimed from its application.” The authors of the overview concluded exactly what mainstream ecologists have been concluding for 40 years: “No grazing system has yet shown the capacity to overcome the long-term effects of overstocking and/or drought on vegetation productivity.”

The extension of Savory’s grazing techniques to other regions of Africa and North America has produced even less encouraging results. Summarizing other African research on holistically managed grazing, the same report that evaluated the Charter Grazing Trials found “no clear cut advantage for any particular form of management,” holistic or otherwise. It noted that “more often than not” intensive systems marked by the constant rotation of densely packed herds of cattle led to a decline in animal productivity while doing nothing to notably improve botanical growth.

A 2000 evaluation of Savory’s methods in North America (mostly on prairie rangelands in Wyoming, Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico) contradicted Savory’s conclusions as well. Whereas Savory asserts that the concentrated pounding of cow hooves will increase the soil’s ability to absorb water, North American studies, according to the authors, “have been quite consistent in showing that hoof action from having a large number of animals on a small area for short time periods reduced rather than increased filtration.” Likewise, whereas Savory insists that his methods will revive grasses, “the most complete study in North America” on the impact of holistic management on prairie grass found “a definite decline” of plant growth on mixed prairie and rough fescue areas. It’s no wonder that one ecologist--who was otherwise sympathetic toward Savory--flatly stated after the TED talk, “Savory’s method won’t scale.”

Even if Savory’s plan could scale, foodies would still have to curb their carnivorous cravings. The entire premise of any scheme of rotational grazing, as Savory repeatedly notes, is the careful integration of plants and animals to achieve a “natural” balance. As Dr. Sylvia Fallon of the Natural Resources Defense Council has shown, symbiosis between grazing herds and grasses has historically worked best to sequester carbon when the animals lived the entirety of their lives within the ecosystem, their carcasses rotted and returned their accumulated nutrients into the soil, and human intervention was minimal to none. It is unclear, given that Savory has identified this type of arrangement as his ecological model, how marketing cattle for food would be consistent with these requirements. Cows live up to 20 years of age, but in most grass-fed systems, they are removed when they reach slaughter weight at 15 months. Cheating the nutrient cycle at the heart of land regeneration by removing the manure-makers and grass hedgers when only 10 percent of their ecological “value” has been exploited undermines the entire idea of efficiency that Savory spent his TED talk promoting.​

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/...benefits_of_holistic_grazing_have.single.html

Continue reading. Links to the peer-reviewed studies are in the Slate article.

So you are unable to present any actual evidence showing that raising and using animals for human consumption is ever better for the environment, better for the animals, or better for the climate than raising plant foods for human consumption?

I provided you with numerous sources, and explanations in my own words. You responded with a single article (which I've actually read before btw; that specific article, among others) with large excerpts from it and little of your own writing or your own thoughts.

Savory is indeed controversial. Vegetarians/vegans oppose him, and so do large grain-feeding businesses that want to fund studies on grain fed cows. Savory's methods require good land management in a culture where we give farmers very little money, and some fail while others succeed. Some people further expand on his model, using animals both on grasslands and to replace machinery, like the orchard example I've referenced.

I recommend getting your food from sources that you specifically research, that you understand, regardless of whether they are plants or animals. Check to see if they're succeeding in environmental sustainability. I remember that when I was a vegetarian, I was complacent. I figured that since I wasn't eating meat, I was doing decently okay. But more research showed me I wasn't, and I had to keep improving my diet for both health and sustainability.

Vegetarian and vegan critics of Savory and omnivorism in general usually recommend eating large amounts of grain as the calorie base in substitute of animal products. Increasing evidence in modern times finds that to be unhealthy, that the plant toxins in grains have caused large amount of the health issues associated with humans since the dawn of agriculture, and especially in the past 30-50 years. In my personal life, through my various experiments with years of vegetarianism, veganism, and omnivorism, I've found that to be the case as well.

Lets make more personal posts, something more than just simple excerpts. Explain to me what you eat, if you would. Do you eat grains, and if so, where does it all come from? Do they mechanically plant and harvest it? Are small animals harmed in the harvesting of it? Any idea how many? What sorts of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides are used? Do you buy genetically modified varieties, or no? Where is it shipped from? Do you know if those farms add soil or detract from it? You ask me for evidence about livestock and the environment, and I've presented a lot, so I'm asking you for the evidence that your solution is best, that arranging nature to the method that serves your dietary needs is good for the soil, the water, the animals, and your health.

It's a pretty large amount of information to digest. I still work to continually improve my diet, further changing sources and looking into alternatives. So I claim no perfection in my diet. But I continue to work to improve it, and I'm interested in yours if you want to share it.

And I'd still like a response to my orchard post as well, if you would. Nobody has to do that of course, but no arguments have been presented against it, and you and others have avoided it. So it remains unanswered, with no defense given against it by people that claim to oppose farms like it. Your response to this last post was just an excerpt from an article about Savory's methods, rather than addressing the bulk of my points, including my permaculture orchard example. The ball's still in your court.

 

[Penumbra]

For novelty, here's a pic of my grocery shopping today. So I can have some transparency with the people that I've debated in this thread.

I thought to take a pic before putting it away, to provide some context about how I'd advocate including meat in a diet. This is about half the food I'll eat this week.

All of it is organic except for the wine. The plant products are kale, broccoli, salad greens, fresh garlic, almonds, blueberries, Italian herbs, powdered garlic, basmati rice, tofu, extra virgin olive oil, avocado oil, rigatoni pasta, marinara sauce, and 80% dark chocolate. The animal products are two 6oz grass fed top sirloin steaks, six pastured chicken eggs, and some whipped cream.

During the summer I'd go to more local sources at farmers market to supplement this. Unfortunately, this is January, so we don't get a lot of local output.

Later in the week I'll shop once more at a closer place after work for a small amount of food, and will usually buy a lot more organic salad greens, some fruit, and pastured chicken.

I already have green tea, mint tea, soy sauce, and wild-caught Alaskan salmon and flounder that I'll add to these groceries for my weekly meals. Alaska is among the best-regulated fisheries in the world, so their fish are considered sustainable. In the summer I'd buy some local mussels. The seafood requires virtually no land use.

Plus, I'll eat lunch with co-workers a few times this week, which will generally be some combination of sushi, Chipotle Mexican Grill, and vegetarian Thai red curry.

Examples of home-cooked meals this week:
-Vegetarian stir fry with tofu, broccoli, kale, basmati rice, soy sauce, coconut oil, and fresh garlic.
-Rigatoni with marinara sauce, fresh garlic, olive oil, and Italian herbs.
-Pastured chicken drizzled with olive oil, with Italian herbs, black peppercorn, and a side salad of greens with olive oil and white wine vinegar.
-Medium-rare pan-seared top sirloin steak in avocado oil, paired with a glass of red wine and a side salad of greens with olive oil and white wine vinegar.
-Alaskan salmon or flounder with a side of salad greens with olive oil and white wine vinegar and an over-easy egg.
-Desserts are mint tea and dark chocolate, or mint tea and whipped cream, cinnamon, and blueberries.

Prior to my switch from vegetarianism to conscious omnivorous, my diet would have been largely similar except that the grass-fed beef, pastured chicken, and Alaskan fish would have been replaced by larger amounts of grain, potatoes, and other carbs. The grain would kill about 100 mice per hectare, according to the most cited estimate, plus snakes and countless bugs, and would contribute to the fish deadzone in the Gulf of Mexico. Evidence suggests its not good for health either, since it promotes chronic inflammation. I would have had zero sources of dietary DHA or EPA omega 3 fatty acid, despite the fact that evidence suggests that these things are anti-inflammatory and play a large role in the evolution and maintenance of our brain.

 

[Father Heathen]

So you agree that slaughtering an animal is not treating him/her humanely like you believe humans should be treated.

We've already established that a human and chicken aren't on the same level, thus aren't held to the same standards. Work on your reading comprehension, son.

 

[Father Heathen]

For novelty, here's a pic of my grocery shopping today.

Heh, that must've been good wine.

 

[Chakra]

So you do not disagree that we are omnivores-if the word is to be used, that eating meat has played an important role in human evolution, that animal products are rich in necessary nutrients that are not common in plants, and humans have eaten meat for a very long time?

Yes, we are behavioral omnivores. We have been so in the past, but you do realize that we didn't ate a lot of meat right? Our main diet was composed of starches and carbs-filled vegetables, not meat. Please do tell us about the important role that meat had in evolution, especially when our brains use up 60% of the glucose in our body (which won't be found in meat).

Also, do tell us about these nutrients that are not found in plants.

 

[Chakra]

Bolding is mine:

The most systematic research trial supporting Savory’s claims, the Charter Grazing Trials, was undertaken in Rhodesia (Zimbabwe today) between 1969 and 1975. Given the ecological vagaries of deserts worldwide, one could certainly question whether Savory’s research on a 6,200-acre spot of semiarid African land holds any relevance for the rest of the world’s 12 billion acres of desert. Extrapolation seems even more dubious when you consider that a comprehensive review of Savory’s trial and other similar trials, published in 2002, found that Savory’s signature high-stocking density and rapid-fire rotation plan did not lead to a perfectly choreographed symbiosis between grass and beast.

Instead, there were problems during the Charter Grazing Trials, ones not mentioned in Savory’s dramatic talk. Cattle that grazed according to Savory’s method needed expensive supplemental feed, became stressed and fatigued, and lost enough weight to compromise the profitability of their meat. And even though Savory’s Grazing Trials took place during a period of freakishly high rainfall, with rates exceeding the average by 24 percent overall, the authors contend that Savory’s method “failed to produce the marked improvement in grass cover claimed from its application.” The authors of the overview concluded exactly what mainstream ecologists have been concluding for 40 years: “No grazing system has yet shown the capacity to overcome the long-term effects of overstocking and/or drought on vegetation productivity.”

The extension of Savory’s grazing techniques to other regions of Africa and North America has produced even less encouraging results. Summarizing other African research on holistically managed grazing, the same report that evaluated the Charter Grazing Trials found “no clear cut advantage for any particular form of management,” holistic or otherwise. It noted that “more often than not” intensive systems marked by the constant rotation of densely packed herds of cattle led to a decline in animal productivity while doing nothing to notably improve botanical growth.

A 2000 evaluation of Savory’s methods in North America (mostly on prairie rangelands in Wyoming, Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico) contradicted Savory’s conclusions as well. Whereas Savory asserts that the concentrated pounding of cow hooves will increase the soil’s ability to absorb water, North American studies, according to the authors, “have been quite consistent in showing that hoof action from having a large number of animals on a small area for short time periods reduced rather than increased filtration.” Likewise, whereas Savory insists that his methods will revive grasses, “the most complete study in North America” on the impact of holistic management on prairie grass found “a definite decline” of plant growth on mixed prairie and rough fescue areas. It’s no wonder that one ecologist--who was otherwise sympathetic toward Savory--flatly stated after the TED talk, “Savory’s method won’t scale.”

Even if Savory’s plan could scale, foodies would still have to curb their carnivorous cravings. The entire premise of any scheme of rotational grazing, as Savory repeatedly notes, is the careful integration of plants and animals to achieve a “natural” balance. As Dr. Sylvia Fallon of the Natural Resources Defense Council has shown, symbiosis between grazing herds and grasses has historically worked best to sequester carbon when the animals lived the entirety of their lives within the ecosystem, their carcasses rotted and returned their accumulated nutrients into the soil, and human intervention was minimal to none. It is unclear, given that Savory has identified this type of arrangement as his ecological model, how marketing cattle for food would be consistent with these requirements. Cows live up to 20 years of age, but in most grass-fed systems, they are removed when they reach slaughter weight at 15 months. Cheating the nutrient cycle at the heart of land regeneration by removing the manure-makers and grass hedgers when only 10 percent of their ecological “value” has been exploited undermines the entire idea of efficiency that Savory spent his TED talk promoting.​

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/...benefits_of_holistic_grazing_have.single.html

Continue reading. Links to the peer-reviewed studies are in the Slate article.

So you are unable to present any actual evidence showing that raising and using animals for human consumption is ever better for the environment, better for the animals, or better for the climate than raising plant foods for human consumption?

Please also check these videos out.

All based on non-vegan sources and studies and directly talks about the Ted Talk Penumbra mentioned.

 

[Curious George]

Yes, we are behavioral omnivores. We have been so in the past, but you do realize that we didn't ate a lot of meat right? Our main diet was composed of starches and carbs-filled vegetables, not meat. Please do tell us about the important role that meat had in evolution, especially when our brains use up 60% of the glucose in our body (which won't be found in meat).

Also, do tell us about these nutrients that are not found in plants.

I absolutely realize that our current consumption of meat is off the charts stupid, if that is at what you are driving. I also realize that starches played a pivotal role in evolution.

I never said - not found in plants. I said not commonly found in plants. There is a difference.

Our bodies can absolutely make glucose from animals though.

 

[Penumbra]

Bolding is mine:

The most systematic research trial supporting Savory’s claims, the Charter Grazing Trials, was undertaken in Rhodesia (Zimbabwe today) between 1969 and 1975. Given the ecological vagaries of deserts worldwide, one could certainly question whether Savory’s research on a 6,200-acre spot of semiarid African land holds any relevance for the rest of the world’s 12 billion acres of desert. Extrapolation seems even more dubious when you consider that a comprehensive review of Savory’s trial and other similar trials, published in 2002, found that Savory’s signature high-stocking density and rapid-fire rotation plan did not lead to a perfectly choreographed symbiosis between grass and beast.

Instead, there were problems during the Charter Grazing Trials, ones not mentioned in Savory’s dramatic talk. Cattle that grazed according to Savory’s method needed expensive supplemental feed, became stressed and fatigued, and lost enough weight to compromise the profitability of their meat. And even though Savory’s Grazing Trials took place during a period of freakishly high rainfall, with rates exceeding the average by 24 percent overall, the authors contend that Savory’s method “failed to produce the marked improvement in grass cover claimed from its application.” The authors of the overview concluded exactly what mainstream ecologists have been concluding for 40 years: “No grazing system has yet shown the capacity to overcome the long-term effects of overstocking and/or drought on vegetation productivity.”

The extension of Savory’s grazing techniques to other regions of Africa and North America has produced even less encouraging results. Summarizing other African research on holistically managed grazing, the same report that evaluated the Charter Grazing Trials found “no clear cut advantage for any particular form of management,” holistic or otherwise. It noted that “more often than not” intensive systems marked by the constant rotation of densely packed herds of cattle led to a decline in animal productivity while doing nothing to notably improve botanical growth.

A 2000 evaluation of Savory’s methods in North America (mostly on prairie rangelands in Wyoming, Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico) contradicted Savory’s conclusions as well. Whereas Savory asserts that the concentrated pounding of cow hooves will increase the soil’s ability to absorb water, North American studies, according to the authors, “have been quite consistent in showing that hoof action from having a large number of animals on a small area for short time periods reduced rather than increased filtration.” Likewise, whereas Savory insists that his methods will revive grasses, “the most complete study in North America” on the impact of holistic management on prairie grass found “a definite decline” of plant growth on mixed prairie and rough fescue areas. It’s no wonder that one ecologist--who was otherwise sympathetic toward Savory--flatly stated after the TED talk, “Savory’s method won’t scale.”

Even if Savory’s plan could scale, foodies would still have to curb their carnivorous cravings. The entire premise of any scheme of rotational grazing, as Savory repeatedly notes, is the careful integration of plants and animals to achieve a “natural” balance. As Dr. Sylvia Fallon of the Natural Resources Defense Council has shown, symbiosis between grazing herds and grasses has historically worked best to sequester carbon when the animals lived the entirety of their lives within the ecosystem, their carcasses rotted and returned their accumulated nutrients into the soil, and human intervention was minimal to none. It is unclear, given that Savory has identified this type of arrangement as his ecological model, how marketing cattle for food would be consistent with these requirements. Cows live up to 20 years of age, but in most grass-fed systems, they are removed when they reach slaughter weight at 15 months. Cheating the nutrient cycle at the heart of land regeneration by removing the manure-makers and grass hedgers when only 10 percent of their ecological “value” has been exploited undermines the entire idea of efficiency that Savory spent his TED talk promoting.​

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/...benefits_of_holistic_grazing_have.single.html

Continue reading. Links to the peer-reviewed studies are in the Slate article.

So you are unable to present any actual evidence showing that raising and using animals for human consumption is ever better for the environment, better for the animals, or better for the climate than raising plant foods for human consumption?

So this is interesting.

Last time I saw that article, back when it was written a couple years ago, I didn't bother to click through and read the published study that the article talks about. This time, I did. And I'm glad I did.

It's immediately apparent that the (vegan) author of the article is adding a huge amount of his own bias and interpretation as he presents and filters the study to the readers of the article. If you actually read the article, Savory's method did noticeably better than the controls.

Here are the particulars:

1)The article claims that a 2002 study, "found that Savory’s signature high-stocking density and rapid-fire rotation plan did not lead to a perfectly choreographed symbiosis between grass and beast."

What the study actually showed is that Savory's method produced 29-40% more pounds of beef than the control lands while retaining the same level of vegetation quality on the land. Savory's methods also produced 6-26% more income.

Even more importantly, the control land had to burn vegetation in order to clear it away, which is exactly what Savory said his method could avoid doing. Savory's lands required no burning in the study at all; the cows were rotated properly and so it was unnecessary to do any burning. In Savory's model, he produced more beef per acre while the control groups were inefficient and had to restort to burning grasses to make way for the next season of growing.

2)The article exaggerates and makes up issues. The article says, "Instead, there were problems during the Charter Grazing Trials, ones not mentioned in Savory’s dramatic talk. Cattle that grazed according to Savory’s method needed expensive supplemental feed, became stressed and fatigued, and lost enough weight to compromise the profitability of their meat."

Savory's cows were 6-12% lighter than control cows on average. The study specifically said that in the beginning, the cows were stressed, but then adapted to it and it wasn't an issue after that. That makes sense, because in nature, ruminants are stressed by predators, which is why they stay in herds. This method mimics nature by keeping them herded and moving, rather than letting them leisurely eat grass. So at the beginning they had cows that weren't used to it, were stressed when they were suddenly treated more like wild ruminants, and then later there was adaptation to it. The study showed a clear difference between stress and weight of adapted cows vs new cows.

And Savory had 50% more cows per acre but produced like 40% more beef; the lighter cows compromised his profitability but he still had more of them on the same amount of land, leading to higher overall profits per acre.

For supplementation, the author claims Savory's cows needed expensive supplmental feed. The actual study just says "supplemental feed costs were higher". It doesn't say that he alone supplemented while the controls did not. And the end result was that he made significantly more beef and money per acre, with no burning required.

3)The article incorrectly attributes Savory's success to higher rainfall. The article says, "And even though Savory’s Grazing Trials took place during a period of freakishly high rainfall..."

This is purposely misleading. High rainfall occurred during the study as a whole, which included the control lands as well as Savory's lands, rather than just Savory's lands. So under these conditions where both Savory's land and the control lands happened to have higher than average rainfall over the period of the study, Savory outperformed compared to the controls.

4)The author of the article decided to omit the part in the study that showed that Savory's method had 40% fewer calf deaths than the control method. Savory kept his young cows alive far better. But saying that would have hurt the article author's point, especially about the stressed and fatigued cows, so he skipped that item. Maybe Savory was willing to use a bit more supplmental feed to reduce calf losses? Seems reasonable. And this is counter-evidence that his cows were fatigued and stressed, since even though his cows were a bit lighter, far fewer of them died compared to controls.

5) The article says, "The extension of Savory’s grazing techniques to other regions of Africa and North America has produced even less encouraging results."

Not quite. Those studies weren't extensions of Savory's techniques. They were merely rotational grazing techniques; not Savory's specific method of planning. Savory often specifically contrasts his method with simple rotational grazing. A difference he has used as an example is that he plans months ahead to ensure that nursing mothers have additional food during that time period. Turns out he had 40% fewer calf deaths than controls, so it seems like what he does works. This study merely showed that people using rotational grazing- but not Savory's method- didn't do so well. Savory, on the other hand, clearly did very well in the study.

As anyone can see, this is an example of biased reporting by a vegan author for a good study on Savory's technique. Reading functionally what happened between Savory's method and the controls in the published study itself was clearly in Savory's favor. He produced more beef on the same amount of land than the control group without any negative impact on the land, made more money per acre than the controls, had far fewer calf deaths, and didn't have to resort to burning any vegetation like the controls did. If I was a rancher and I read this study, I'd clearly be interested in Savory's method.

 

[Penumbra]

Please also check these videos out.

All based on non-vegan sources and studies and directly talks about the Ted Talk Penumbra mentioned.

Thanks for the videos. I watched them.

Point 1) The video guy says that there are no peer reviewed studies showing Savory's method is superior.

In my last post, I went through and showed the findings of the study that was discussed in an article ironically linked to by someone arguing against Savory here. In that study, it was shown that Savory produced more beef per acre, made more money per acre, had far fewer calf losses, and didn't have to resort to burning any vegetation, compared to the controls. That's a pretty good outcome.

Then, the video guy goes on to critique non-Savory rotational grazing methods and attributes those to Savory himself, which is a false comparison. Those techniques are not using his specific management techniques, so the critique on Savory is unjustified.

Point 2) The video guy says Savory's claim of reversing desertification is untrue.

He was kind of all over the place here with no singular point but more like a series of speculations. He also cherry-picked from the published study that, when read in full, showed the specific advantages of Savory's method. There's really not much to counter here because the video guy's coherence wasn't very good here; he moved very quickly and didn't stay on any given point long enough to flesh it out.

Point 3) The video guy says Savory's claim of reversing climate change is untrue.

He says, for example, that Savory's method cannot sequester enough carbon. The problem is, Savory also said that stopping using fossil fuels is needed too; he didn't claim that agriculture does it alone. Savory describes the problem in two parts: a) reduce carbon emissions and b) sequester more carbon in healthy deep soil.

The video guy also talks about the problems of methane. The problems with that are that a) tens of millions of ruminants wandered North America before European colonization, so as long as the numbers are managed well, humans don't have to add more methane than the original system and b) methane stays in the atmosphere for only 1/10th as long as carbon, and is removed by natural processes. Carbon, in contrast, stays in the atmosphere for about a century. If we got our carbon dioxide under control and only had to worry about methane, that would be an immense step forward.

Point 4) The guy uses New Zealand as an example of how plants flourish without mammals. New Zealand had no mammals until colonists brought them there, and functioned well anyway.

He makes a few mistakes here.

The first mistake is that most of New Zealand is not a dry place, and has plenty of forests. Savory's point about ruminants playing a key role in semi-dry grasslands has nothing to do with wetter forests. So the video guy makes a false comparison there.

Then the video guy specifically talks about the dry parts of New Zealand. He says, for example, that the desert should have spread to other parts of New Zealand according to Savory's logic because there are no mammals. That's completely false though; Savory has never claimed that desertification can spread from dry areas to wet areas. In fact, Savory has specifically said that in those more humid areas, virtually nothing can cause desertification, and that desertification is only a problem in the drier areas. So the video guy misunderstands Savory's point here.

In addition, New Zealand did not have land mammals, but it did have 12 foot tall birds that roamed around eating shrubs and fertilizing and playing a somewhat similar role to those mammals.

And lastly, the grasslands of New Zealand in the semi dry areas are mainly tussocks, which grow generally in areas of poor soil quality. If anything, that supports Savory's claim, because in the areas of New Zealand that are fairly dry and have grasslands, those grasslands are mostly stuck with plants that grow in areas of poor soil quality. New Zealand's grasslands aren't that productive, which may indeed have been because they didn't have the ruminants.

Point 5) The video guy argues against the economics of Savory's method.

He ironically cherry picks a study about higher supplemental feed costs and lower cow weight, but of course doesn't mention that that very same study showed that Savory did indeed make more money per acre and produce more beef per acre and have far fewer calf deaths.

So those videos didn't do a great job of critiquing Savory's methods. In the video guy's best moments, he merely highlighted how complicated the issue is. At his worst moments, he cherry picked from studies, cherry picked Savory's claims, misunderstood Savory's point about desertification, and used New Zealand as an example that actually kind of backfires and supports Savory's claim.

 

[psychoslice]

Its really a silly question, would you want sex with your salad, Ha of course not.

 

[Nous]

So you do not disagree that we are omnivores-if the word is to be used, that eating meat has played an important role in human evolution, that animal products are rich in necessary nutrients that are not common in plants, and humans have eaten meat for a very long time?

Why don't you try responding to something I've actually said, for a change?

We agree that you have not been able to identify a single biological trait that humans have that characterize omnivores. I also don't recall that you have substantiated any "important role in human evolution" that "eating meat has played".

 

[Nous]

You ask me for evidence about livestock and the environment, and I've presented a lot

Here is what I requested, which you even quoted:

Provide the evidence that raising grass-fed cows is better for the environment, for the cows and for the climate than raising plants for human consumption.

And you have not cited a speck of evidence that raising grass-fed cows is better for the environment, better for the cows or better for the climate than raising plants for human consumption. Correct?

In Savory's TED talk that you linked to, he makes the claim that his special method of cattle farming cures the problem of desertification, the evidence from the peer-reviewed literature contradicts him. Right?

 

[Nous]

We've already established that a human and chicken aren't on the same level

What are the levels? Who established any levels?

I was merely pointing out that many people have claimed that they want animals to be treated "humanely," and that factory farm animals are treated "humanely," but then you guys don't want humans to be treated humanely, not even your own children. It seems meat-eaters don't make much sense.

 

[Nous]

Please also check these videos out.

All based on non-vegan sources and studies and directly talks about the Ted Talk Penumbra mentioned.

Thank you, Chakra. I didn't realize there was so much evidence in the scientific literature refuting Savory's goofy claims.

 

[Nous]

If you actually read the article, Savory's method did noticeably better than the controls.

Savory's method did noticeably better at what? The whole purpose of his cattle farming scheme was to cure the problem of desertification. No study found any evidence of increased vegetation. And certainly no study has shown that his scheme of raising cattle if better for the environment, for the animals or for the climate than raising plants for human consumption. Right?

 

[Robert.Evans]

I'm a meat eater myself. Just a preemptive clarification in case someone thinks about accusing me of repeating vegetarian propaganda (whatever that is).

So, I have been thinking about why I and many others who have no religion oppose bestiality, and one of the most common reasons given is that one can't have the consent of animals to acts of bestiality. However, we also don't have the consent of animals to use them for labor or in industrial farming. We don't have their consent to slaughter them either.

With the above in mind, what makes meat-eating acceptable and bestiality unacceptable?

Sounds like hypocrisy, does it not?