halli620’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Outlawing "preventative" antibiotic use will also make the unhealthy grain diets fed to cattle unsustainable, and switching back to grass diets will make the meat healthier as well! A corn-based diet is not natural for cattle, and they need the antibiotics to sustain it without getting sick. (Therefore, we need a new Farm Bill as well, removing the subsidies from feed-grade corn, which cause such surpluses that it makes it cheap to feed the cattle with.) Moreover, meat from corn-fed is not even as healthy for us as grass-fed beef. Not only that, but the corn-fed diets actually heighten the risk of dangerous E-coli, such as the outbreak from the spinach not that long ago! The corn-based diets (made possible by the "preventative" antibiotics) change the acidity of the cows' stomachs, making them more likely to harbor dangerous strains of E-coli. The bacteria ends up in the feces (which of course is not treated properly and is instead pumped into lagoons of s***), and all it takes is a rainstorm for these lagoons to overflow and contaminate nearby farms, such as the spinach farm. In conclusion, outlawing "preventative" antibiotic use would go a long way not only in keeping our antibiotics working, but also in necessitating a switch back to grass-fed diets, which yield healther meat; and in keeping the cows' stomach acids at an optimal level for avoiding the harboring of the most dangerous strains of bacteria such as E-coli.On Big meat tries to spin new antibiotics report [UPDATED] posted 2 weeks, 1 day ago 2 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  BrianS: First off, my post stated that in some areas of the country, diets with some meat raised on land fit for growing grasses but not food crops are more sustainable in a local economy than those with no meat. CLWeber's post deals with CAFOs vs. grass fed. On that, I note, as other posters have, that CLWeber's numbers do not appear to take into consideration the amounts of CO2 emitted in the transport of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers to the grain farmers, or in the transport of the grain to the CAFOs, which, as other comments explain, will generally overtake any alleged decrease in CO2 production. There are also the additional problems of nutrients in waste from CAFOs, which in self-contained farms are returned to the soil, but in CAFOs are collected in huge, putrid pools; and of antibiotic resistence, an entirely different but intricately connected issue.

  For an article on the study showing that small amounts of meat and dairy raised on grassland not fit for growing human food crops is more efficient and can feed more people than a purely vegetarian diet in areas such as New York: http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Oct07/diets.ag.footprint.sl.html

  On Debunking the meat/climate change myth posted 3 months ago 92 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  BrianS: First off, my post stated that in some areas of the country, diets with some meat raised on land fit for growing grasses but not food crops are more sustainable in a local economy than those with no meat. CLWeber's post deals with CAFOs vs. grass fed. On that, I note, as other posters have, that CLWeber's numbers do not appear to take into consideration the amounts of CO2 emitted in the transport of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers to the grain farmers, or in the transport of the grain to the CAFOs, which, as other comments explain, will generally overtake any alleged decrease in CO2 production. There are also the additional problems of nutrients in waste from CAFOs, which in self-contained farms are returned to the soil, but in CAFOs are collected in huge, putrid pools; and of antibiotic resistence, an entirely different but intricately connected issue.

  For an article on the study showing that small amounts of meat and dairy raised on grassland not fit for growing human food crops is more efficient and can feed more people than a purely vegetarian diet in areas such as New York: http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Oct07/diets.ag.footprint.sl.html

  On Debunking the meat/climate change myth posted 3 months ago 92 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  How on earth could it be a good idea to let small businesses keep the fee and other businesses keep part of the fee? It's already hard enough to get stores to listen to you that you don't want a bag, and that will just make it harder. I know they won't be getting the free advertising that comes with printed bags, but most small businesses like convenience stores don't have that anyway and just use generic bags, and I feel like being able to keep the fee will make them push the bags on customers even harder!

  On Controversy heats up over Seattle's proposed disposable bag fee posted 3 months ago 3 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Veritone, I don't know what part of the world/country you're in, but in some areas, in order to eat truly locally and sustainably, a diet with some meat and dairy products is more sustainable than one without. For example, in a number of areas in the northeast, there is a significant amount of land that is not fit for growing food fit for human consumption that can, instead, sustain grasses that can feed cattle. Studies at Cornell University have shown that in such areas, a wholly local vegetarian diet would not be sustainable, and would require food to be transported in from elsewhere (leading to emissions from transport, etc.), while feeding livestock on the land that can sustain grasses but not foodcrops creates a smaller ecological footprint. Note, also, that meat produced from grass-fed livestock in a sustainable fashion like this is not only much healthier than corn-fed beef, but I believe has been shown in some studies to even be healther than meat-free diets (though I admit I don't have time to look for these studies right now).

  I agree that with sustainable methods, meat production would be cut, and that with increased prices, people would eat less meat; I don't see this as a bad thing. I hope that laws forbidding "preventative" antibiotic use that are in the works are quickly and efficiently adopted and implemented, because in addition to addressing the problem of antibiotic resistence, this will lead to the closing of unsanitary CAFOs and to the decline of unnatural diets of corn that "require" antibiotics to keep the animals alive. While I certainly agree that CAFOs are not sustainable, safe, or acceptable, and that there are areas where food crops can sustain the local population, meat and dairy products should not automatically be seen as the enemy.

  On Debunking the meat/climate change myth posted 3 months ago 92 Responses