Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

India Tells West To Stop Eating Beef
Telegraph(UK) ^ | November 20th, 2009

Posted on 11/20/2009 10:40:20 AM PST by Steelfish

India Tells West To Stop Eating Beef

India has urged the West to give up eating beef to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for global warming.

Dean Nelson in New Delhi 20 Nov 2009

According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, livestock is responsible for 18 per cent of the the Earth's greenhouse gas emissions. Photo: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images

The environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, said if the world abandoned beef consumption, emissions would be dramatically reduced and global warming would slow down. "The solution to cut emissions is to stop eating beef. It leads to emission of methane which is 23 times more potent than carbon dioxide," he said.

"The best thing for us, India, is we are not a beef-eating nation. The United States, the world's largest emitter along with China, is also the world's greatest beef-eating nation and consumes 25 per cent more than Europe.

His comments follow a call last month by Lord Stern, the author of a British Government study on climate change, for people to give up eating meay to reduce emissions. "Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases," said Lord Stern. "It puts enormous pressure on the world's resources. A vegetarian diet is better." Hindus are forbidden to eat beef and India has more vegetarians than any other country in the world. More than 30 per cent of its 1.1 billion people do not eat meat at all.

(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Health/Medicine
KEYWORDS: beef
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101 next last
To: Finny

As I said about quality, the significance of that varies by the nature of your customer.

Animal feed grains do indeed require protein supplementation for healthy feeding to all livestock. Thats why protein components that are often not human-edible are mixed in. And so are human edible ones too. But that does mean that protein content is indeed a desirable feature of feed grains.

If a piece of land is not as suitable for, say, wheat, and is best used for soybeans of lesser quality according to market conditions, it does not mean that the land cannot be farmed for lower yields of wheat or for another crop entirely. If a piece of land cannot be farmed or profitably used in agriculture for anything but animal feed (which seems very unlikely to me), and if there is some limitation on animal feeds that reduce the market for them, then there would indeed be some environmental benefit to letting it lie fallow or revert to wilderness, though this benefit is probably bought at a foolish price.

And then there are the inputs that go into growing this stuff in the first place - fertilizer, water, fuel, equipment and labor - that is less available for growing human-edible crops, all of which are more limited than viable agricultural land.

I am absolutely not for banning or limiting beef consumption; beef is a good thing indeed. I am also absolutely not for government controls on these things either.

But facts are facts, and if one is to argue with the other side it is best to be scrupulously accurate. We will always win with the facts.


81 posted on 11/20/2009 1:35:02 PM PST by buwaya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

I say that 2/3 of Indians should be sterizized to cut down on the enormous carbon footprint their massive population causes.


82 posted on 11/20/2009 1:47:04 PM PST by RJS1950 (The democrats are the "enemies foreign and domestic" cited in the federal oath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RJS1950

sterizized = sterilized but most get the meaning anyway,I’m sure.


83 posted on 11/20/2009 1:51:49 PM PST by RJS1950 (The democrats are the "enemies foreign and domestic" cited in the federal oath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: RJS1950

Regardless of meaning, that is an unworthy comment.


84 posted on 11/20/2009 2:10:10 PM PST by buwaya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: RJS1950

Funny, I advocate that for the West since one of us emits about 500 times the carbon emitted by the average Indian.

We’re on the same page. Good. Now the culling can begin.

You first, squire.


85 posted on 11/20/2009 2:12:13 PM PST by swarthyguy (THERE WILL BE A BLOODBATH - Matthew Hoh/MSNBC on what happens when US leaves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: buwaya
If a piece of land cannot be farmed or profitably used in agriculture for anything but animal feed (which seems very unlikely to me)...

I see you live in California, so you are around a lot of agriculture -- most of the state is devoted to it.

Vast tracts of agricultural land in this beautiful state are not agriculturally viable for anything but grazing or growing of livestock feed. I'm related to about five generations of folks who've lived it.

86 posted on 11/20/2009 2:24:05 PM PST by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: buwaya
And addendum to my post 86 ... the various ag operations I'm speaking of are used for both farming and cattle ranching (no dairy, though). You have no doubt eaten veggies grown on property my ancestors pioneered and which members of my family still farm! :^)

The point it that yes, there is quite a lot of ag land whose most efficient use is in livestock or growing of livestock feed; whole areas in the area where I grew up that ARE cultivated are used to grow exclusively livestock feed because anything else wouldn't be profitable.

87 posted on 11/20/2009 2:35:02 PM PST by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Dallas59

Damn, that looks like the way to cook a bird!!!!

The Mother in Law just uses sausage to baste hers. We love it that way, great skin, also nice treats before dinner.


88 posted on 11/20/2009 2:42:09 PM PST by Springman (Rest In Peace YaYa123)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: buwaya
Also ... protein is a must in grains meant for human consumption; those that don't meet the standards set by buyers go to feed grain. You might be interested to learn (I was!) that there are only two small regions in California where farmers have been able to grow wheat good enough to meet the standards of use in baked products -- not FDA standards, but standards set by the companies that buy the grain from the farmers. All other wheat grown in California goes to feed -- a CA wheat farmer told me this.

This farmer (a fourth generation dryfarmer of feed crops) who lived in one of those two small regions was so proud when he devised a way to dryfarm high-quality organic wheat (it was "organic" by accident, not design, but he pragmatically figured that it might be more attractive to buyers if they knew it was organic). Yet he ended up having to sell most of it as feed grain anyway because buyers were so skeptical of the inferior quality of California-grown wheat with regard to use in baked goods.

89 posted on 11/20/2009 2:53:39 PM PST by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Finny

Interesting point on California wheat -

There was in fact a great deal more wheat grown in California @100+ years ago than today; it was used as a return bulk cargo to Europe (old sailing ships apparently could take cargos direct around the Horn just as cheaply as across the Atlantic and over the railroads). This was sold mostly in Germany for flour, Germany being short of grains at the time.

The point being that this stuff is perfectly edible.


90 posted on 11/20/2009 3:02:36 PM PST by buwaya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

I don’t get it.
Dead cows don’t fart!


91 posted on 11/20/2009 3:07:03 PM PST by right way right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Trod Upon

Indian actually has a one-child policies- except Muslims are exempt and have as many kids as they want. It’s a kind of suicide since Islam considers Hindus to be pagan and will wipe them out as soon as they have enough strength.

Overpopulation is mostly a lie anyway.


92 posted on 11/20/2009 3:07:45 PM PST by Flying Circus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: buwaya
Perfectly edible, yes. So are fish heads and dandelions. What's your point? If it's to theorize about making a living in agriculture or to pursue the best use of an agricultural resource, you're speaking from an ivory tower.

You want to deal in fact? Here's one: in spite of what anti-meat people will tell you, a LOT of land in agriculture is infinitely better suited to support livestock than it is to support the cultivation, growing, and harvesting of crops for human consumption -- in other words, use of that land to grow crops for human consumption is a woefully inefficient use of resources compared to what it could (and does) produce in/for livestock.

It may "seem unlikely" to you, but that doesn't make it any less true. Livestock ruminants including beef and sheep (as opposed to other livestock animals, such as pigs and chickens) create the opportunity for the amazingly efficient use of agricultural resources, and convert grass and inferior grain into a vastly larger and superior range of end products, from dairy and medicines to meat, clothing, and chemicals; claims that livestock ag is wasteful of water or an otherwise inefficient use of natural resources is pure politically-correct hooey.

93 posted on 11/20/2009 3:37:12 PM PST by Finny ("Raise hell. Vote smart." -- Ted Nugent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
Can't hear you...chewing....


94 posted on 11/20/2009 3:54:23 PM PST by paulycy (Demand Constitutionality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
Dear India -

Don't you have hundreds of thousands of destitute, sick, malnoursihed people to take care of? Why don't you be about that instead of lecturing us about meat consumption, mmm-kay?

Love, Thinking Americans.

95 posted on 11/20/2009 3:55:41 PM PST by opus86
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Finny

A. I agree (and always have) that this is all politically correct hooey, for lots of reasons -

The notion that there are limited resources available to produce food and that food shortages are the result of resource shortages,

that forcing people in America to reduce consumption will somehow make food appear elsewhere,

that directing consumption patterns will obtain the desired results instead of some awful unintended consequence, etc.

B. The resource argument that much land is better used to raise animals, is perfectly true. There is a great deal of land available for such a purpose, much of which is massively underutilized. Land is not an issue, except perhaps in the case of a few crowded third-world countries where asset misallocation is probably the result of governments interfering with markets. There ARE cases in some countries of, for instance, potentially fine rice-land being used as pasture, merely because the local price of beef or animal feed is extremely high as a result of import restrictions, or of political/social troubles like insecure land titles.

C. On the narrow point regarding non-land resource substitution, the argument holds. Water, fertilizers, etc. are used to raise animals instead of plant foods for direct human consumption, and the US, for instance could live on a vegetarian diet with fewer resources overall used for agriculture.

The proper answer to that is - so what ? If the US uses fewer of these resources it does not mean that these are available for the use of hungry people elsewhere. Its even less feasible to ship these off to Malawi than it is to ship grain there. Its exactly the same fallacy as when our mothers told us to eat our dinners because the kids in Africa were starving. What we did with our dinners had no possible relevance to people starving in Africa. That we spend x resources on raising beef to eat does not affect starving Africans either.

As for the global climate impact - well, we all know its a bunch of hooey. The latest email releases seem dispositive on this matter.


96 posted on 11/20/2009 5:05:50 PM PST by buwaya
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish; AdmSmith; Berosus; bigheadfred; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; ...
...to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for global warming
In a related story, everyone in the United States who eat beef told India to get rid of its unchecked rogue population of cattle wandering the streets and alleys before lecturing anyone else regarding views based on junk science.
97 posted on 11/21/2009 11:54:09 AM PST by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/__Since Jan 3, 2004__Profile updated Monday, January 12, 2009)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buwaya

You’re welcome to your opinion.


98 posted on 11/23/2009 10:32:11 AM PST by RJS1950 (The democrats are the "enemies foreign and domestic" cited in the federal oath)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2
Holy Cow, next the Islamists will cut off liquor and wine and the greenies cut off beer (too much CO2).

I might be able to live without beef, but do without BEER???

NO WAY!!! That's where I draw the line!!!

99 posted on 11/23/2009 10:36:13 AM PST by airborne (As long as Muslims are a "protected species", all Americans are an "endangered species".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

The zero will hold his first state dinner for the Indian PM. The way things have been going so far I wouldn’t be surprised if Wagyu beef shows up on the menu.


100 posted on 11/23/2009 11:19:53 AM PST by xp38 (Confound their politics, Frustrate their knavish tricks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson