From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: Pollution and Cows
Organization: WP Group
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 18:54:45 GMT

From article <1k2mqtINNfog@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, by alexpace@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Alex L. Pace):
> In article <C1FCAC.Du9@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>>> And acid rain, oh i'd like to see you link that to 
>>> cattle, blame industry for that one, just look at where most of 
>>> the acid rain is coming from...the industrialized northeast!  
>>
>>A study conducted by the Netherlands government demonstrated that
>>ammonia from produced by the livestock industry was the single 
>>largest source of acid deposits on Duct soil.  
> 
> Is ammonia an acid?

Do your homework, Alex.  I'm sure you can find plenty of texts in 
your school library that will explain the mechanisms underlying 
phenomena like acid rain, desertification, etc.  One source that 
comes to mind is an issue of the Encyclopedia Britannica 
yearbook, published several years ago, that explained, in simple 
terms, the relationship between ammonia and precipitation of 
nitric acid from the atmosphere.  

Incidently, I'm sure that the standard EB text article on "methane"
would explain that this gas is produced by anaerobic decay of
plant material, rather than aerobic decay.

>>> As far as 
>>> petrochemicals are concerned, you surely realize that driving 
>>> tractors around a field to first plow it, then plant seed, then 
>>> harvest it, not to mention the cropduster that flys overhead 
>>> spraying pesticide and nitrate fertilizer...dont you see 
>>> petrochemicals at work here as well?   Note that cattle are often 
>>> rounded up either on horseback or with a single jeep that gets 
>>> much better gas mileage than a tractor, combine, or airplane.  
>>
>>Don't forget the herbicides and fertilizer and tractor gas that
>>are required to produce cattle feed.
> 
> Thats exactly the point! most of the petrol is used in producing grain.  It
> doenst significantly increase the total amount if you use that grain for
> producing cows.

Think about it, Alex.  If a country needs to produce three times 
as much grain to feed cattle and humans (rather than humans 
alone), then it's obvious that three times as much gas and 
fertilizer and herbicide will also be required.  Perhaps even 
more, since higher levels of productivity may be difficult to 
achieve without using more intensive methods.  

>>> Also cattle dont have to be replanted each year, free grazing 
>>> ones dont require their food be replanted every year, not to 
>>> mention the fact that they release their own natural fertilizer, 
>>> but it seems that Russ already knows all about bullshit.  
>>
>>Again, 70% of the grain produced in the US in 1990 was consumed
>>by cattle.  Did this grain require replanting, Alex?
> 
> It seems that you are taking the position that grain is bad for the
> environment (ie methane release, petrol use, and ammonia) and that
> livestock is bad because it perpetrates grain production.  Doesnt it occur
> to you that if people dont eat livestock then they'll have to eat grain and
> this grain must be produced anyway?  

As I explained previously, it takes roughly 200kilos of grain to 
support a vegan for a year.  It takes far more grain to support
"carnivores" like yourself.

> I dont see where you get any net
> environmental gain because the beef if fairly benign and the grain will
> still be produced?  

What makes you think that the grain would still be produced?

> Isnt it clear that it doesnt matter if a person farts
> or a cow fart that the methane is still there?  

This doesn't make much sense, Alex.  Would the methane still
be there if the cow were non-existent and the human didn't fart
at all?   On the other hand, what if there were 100 cows and
100 humans and all of them were farting up a veritable storm.  
Would there be more methane?  Or, would the amount of methane 
remain constant?

As I pointed out previously, you appear to be rationalizing
your responses in order to justify the practice of livestock
farming.

> Russ, Your technique of flames for sake of flames themselves tends to cloud
> the otherwise clear issue.

I'm not sure how you're defining the word, "flame", Alex.  I haven't
intended to insult you, and I've tried to resist the urge to label
you with the same kind of names that you've applied to me.
-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals