In June 2006 there were 6,525,000,000 people on the Earth, each consuming an
average of 2800 calories per day. That's a total of around 18 trillion
calories per day, all of which have to come from somewhere; meat, dairy
products, legumes, leafy vegetables, cereals, beets.ultimately though, from
the soil, the rain and the sun.

Usually the soil has to be fertilised in some way, from dung, rocks or
fossil fuels. Usually the water has to be moved from other places to make up
for irregular rainfall. Sometimes the sun is not strong enough and the crops
or animal feed has to come from somewhere with warmer weather, or be grown
under artificial conditions. Almost always, the food has to be transported
from one place to another.

In a world with a growing population, whose average calorie consumption is
rising, and whose demand for more exotic food is being accelerated by
advertising and globalisation, there is one other, almost invisible factor
that may be making a huge difference on our global footprint : the amount of
food which comes from animals.

So, just for a few minutes, I would like you to suspend any cultural,
religious or habitual feelings you have about diet, and just assume that
everyone on this planet suddenly became vegan. That is, nothing they
consumed derived from animals.

According to the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation the typical
industrialised consumer derives 28% of all of their calories from animals;
largely meat and dairy products. For developing countries this goes down to
8%, so let's strike an average of 15% for the world as a whole.

As part of a detailed and objective analysis in 2000, Vaclev Smil discovered
that the use of the world's grain harvest alone for animal fodder had gone
up from just 20% in 1950 to 45% in the late 1990s, including 60% of all
grain produced in the USA.

Smil also found that, if we take 1kg of vegetable matter to equal 1kg of
gross energy consumed, then converting the 1kg consumed product into milk
would require 4-5kg vegetable matter; pork, 5-7kg vegetable matter; chicken
7-10kg vegetable matter; and beef, 20-25kg vegetable matter.

We can see straight away that a move away from beef to chicken would provide
an approximate 65% saving in the amount of vegetable matter required to
produce the final food product, and even more if a switch was made away from
meat entirely to dairy; effectively a lacto-vegetarian diet. At only 1kg
vegetable matter to 1kg gross energy, there is a huge additional benefit,
environmentally, in switching to a completely animal free diet.

In fact, with beef accounting for 25% of the global meat total; pork, 39%;
and poultry, 29%; we can take an average of 11.2kg of vegetable matter
required for just 1kg of food energy for the whole world.

Based on the UN FAO figures above, this means that the global average of 15%
calories from animals requires twice as much vegetable matter as the 85% of
non-animal calories consumed worldwide. Therefore, if we all went vegan we
would need only one third of the cropland we use now.

This is a remarkable figure and one that is scarcely believable; but look at
the figures, and that's what comes out. And what also comes out is this:

Currently 80m tonnes of nitrogen fertiliser is produced worldwide every
year. Because nitrogen fertiliser production generates nitrous oxide, which
has a global warming potential 300 times that of carbon dioxide, the
emissions from nitrogen fertiliser comes out at a massive 1376m tonnes CO2
equivalent. In other words, reducing the amount of nitrogen fertiliser by
two thirds would offset over 3% of the carbon dioxide produced by humans
every year.

The amount of carbon dioxide generated by food transportation in the UK in
2002 was 19 million tonnes , which does not include the distance travelled
by animal feed. Calculating the amount of CO2 generated by animal feed
transportation is tremendously difficult owing to the complexity of the
supply chain; however, given the global nature of the animal feed market,
the raw materials are unlikely to have been produced any more locally than
the average UK apple, quite the converse, in fact. Therefore, we can safely
say that if we include animal feed, the true emissions from UK food is
closer to 60m tonnes CO2. Globally, the industrialised world therefore
produces around 600m tonnes CO2 from food transportation, and the whole of
the world a very approximate 1500 million tonnes. The global reduction in
carbon dioxide would therefore be around 1000m tonnes, or 4% of all carbon
dioxide emissions.

Deforestation is an unfortunate side-effect of cropland growth, especially
when the forest being destroyed is amongst the world's richest and most
vital habitats, which absorbs around 8% of the world's CO2 each year. Every
year around 20,000 square miles (out of 7 million) of the Amazon is lost
through deforestation, with over half of that caused by cattle ranching or
soya production. Even though the 0.3% loss annually seems very small, the
combination of cumulative loss (17% in the last few decades) and the huge
amount of carbon returned to the air through burning and decomposition, is
potentially catastrophic for the global environment. A one third reduction
in Amazon deforestation resulting from global veganism would be a major
saving grace for this irreplaceable resource.

And these are just three examples from many others, including all of the
other forests destroyed for cropland; the 19% of global methane produced by
farmed ruminant animals; and the run off from slurry, pesticides and
fertiliser poisoning oceans and rivers worldwide.

But, even so - setting aside the cultural, religious and habitual arguments
for or against it - there are bound to be objections to the hypothesis of
global veganism. Some of the more likely ones are answered he


Humans need protein and meat-based nutrients to survive.

There are plenty of vegetable-based alternatives; beans, pulses and nuts of
all types, which will suffice. More specifically to veganism, vitamin B12
and other key nutrients can be synthesised, which would be a small price to
pay for the environmental benefits.


Soya is destroying the Amazon.

As shown earlier there is really no need for any forest destruction given
the two thirds reduction in land requirement. In fact veganism may even
allow the Amazon to one day return to its natural state.


There is plenty of fish in the sea; why can't we use this?

Unfortunately this is patently untrue. At West African rates of consumption,
wild fish stocks can be maintained, but at the current global rate of fish
consumption, which includes vast amounts of fish meal used for farmed fish,
many of the most valuable ocean fisheries have already collapsed. An
increase in consumption would destroy many of the key food chains that life
depends on, forever.


There will be millions of starving people if they are not allowed to eat
animals.

The average calorie consumption worldwide is 2800 per day - enough to
sustain an average human. In the industrialised world this goes up to over
3300 calories. With a 30% obesity level in the USA there is no question that
food inequality is rife, and even if we do have to selectively increase
calorie consumption to stave off famine in the worst hit areas, why should
this not be offset from the richest countries? Only politics stands in the
way.


Realistically, global veganism is not going to happen; but realisation that
our obsession with animal based protein and fat is causing global
environmental damage on an epic scale, and that by reducing this consumption
we could help reduce the greenhouse effect, must be food for thought. Even
if not everyone can stomach the outcome.


Keith Farnish
http://www.theearthblog.org
http://www.reduce3.com

"Earth Blog" > spewed...
>
> But, even so - setting aside the cultural, religious and
> habitual arguments for or against it - there are bound to be
> objections to the hypothesis of global veganism.


For one, your typical ly that implies ALL meat animals are fed
from crop production. Free-range or wild animals need NONE of
the inputs that ANY of your crops require. Plus, many animals
can be fed off the WASTE of your crop production. How much of
any crop plant do YOU eat? 5%? 10%? Half? Take corn for
instance. You eat none of the cob, the stalk, the husk, or the
silk. Yet many food animals CAN eat these and provide healthy,
nutricious foods from YOUR wasted plant portions. Why do you
always ignore these little facts? Oh, yeah, because it confuses
your brainwashing, right?

Firstly, apologies for cross-posting; there have been comments in lots of
newsgroups so to cover everything I'll just write one reply.

Thanks for any nice comments, constructive comments and interesting
comments - I'm glad people have taken the time to read the article. I only
write a piece every couple of weeks and as well as posting on my Earth Blog
I post to a few relevant newsgroups to capture a slightly different
audience. In this case it was appropriate to post on a vegetarian and a
vegan newsgroup, but next time it may be something else.

I am a genuine person, my name is below, and I don't use any other aliases
apart from the obvious "nospam" one, so that I can find responses to my
posts easily. I spend most of my spare time writing and researching, when
I'm not at work or with my family - so not surprisingly I don't have much
time to post on newsgroups. Please don't call me a fake, Alan, there is even
a photo of me on my blogs!

Vaclev Smil's research took into account the amount of a crop animals eat
including the waste products they consume, which it why the figures I quote
are more conservative than you see on many veg*an sites. I never ignore
facts; only hearsay and political babble.

In terms of nutrition, I accept in my piece that some extra nutrients may be
required (in the answer to question 1), but I am a vegetarian who is edging
towards veganism for lots of different reasons, and consider myself to be
very fit. I am friends with a number of vegans, some of whom lived in a
protest camp over a cold winter and suffered no ill-effects from their diet
(www.savepriorypark.org).

Some people on newsgroups and on Digg have assumed that I am making a moral
point about whether it is wrong to kill animals; but nowhere in my article
do I even allude to this.

Hope this has cleared some things up.

Keith Farnish
http://www.theearthblog.org
http://www.reduce3.com

new group posters taking up billions of bytes of bandwidth going on
about nothing every day.....



Earth Blog wrote:
> In June 2006 there were 6,525,000,000 people on the Earth, each consuming an
> average of 2800 calories per day. That's a total of around 18 trillion
> calories per day, all of which have to come from somewhere; meat, dairy
> products, legumes, leafy vegetables, cereals, beets.ultimately though, from
> the soil, the rain and the sun.
>
> Usually the soil has to be fertilised in some way, from dung, rocks or
> fossil fuels. Usually the water has to be moved from other places to make up
> for irregular rainfall. Sometimes the sun is not strong enough and the crops
> or animal feed has to come from somewhere with warmer weather, or be grown
> under artificial conditions. Almost always, the food has to be transported
> from one place to another.
>
> In a world with a growing population, whose average calorie consumption is
> rising, and whose demand for more exotic food is being accelerated by
> advertising and globalisation, there is one other, almost invisible factor
> that may be making a huge difference on our global footprint : the amount of
> food which comes from animals.
>
> So, just for a few minutes, I would like you to suspend any cultural,
> religious or habitual feelings you have about diet, and just assume that
> everyone on this planet suddenly became vegan. That is, nothing they
> consumed derived from animals.
>
> According to the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation the typical
> industrialised consumer derives 28% of all of their calories from animals;
> largely meat and dairy products. For developing countries this goes down to
> 8%, so let's strike an average of 15% for the world as a whole.
>
> As part of a detailed and objective analysis in 2000, Vaclev Smil discovered
> that the use of the world's grain harvest alone for animal fodder had gone
> up from just 20% in 1950 to 45% in the late 1990s, including 60% of all
> grain produced in the USA.
>
> Smil also found that, if we take 1kg of vegetable matter to equal 1kg of
> gross energy consumed, then converting the 1kg consumed product into milk
> would require 4-5kg vegetable matter; pork, 5-7kg vegetable matter; chicken
> 7-10kg vegetable matter; and beef, 20-25kg vegetable matter.
>
> We can see straight away that a move away from beef to chicken would provide
> an approximate 65% saving in the amount of vegetable matter required to
> produce the final food product, and even more if a switch was made away from
> meat entirely to dairy; effectively a lacto-vegetarian diet. At only 1kg
> vegetable matter to 1kg gross energy, there is a huge additional benefit,
> environmentally, in switching to a completely animal free diet.
>
> In fact, with beef accounting for 25% of the global meat total; pork, 39%;
> and poultry, 29%; we can take an average of 11.2kg of vegetable matter
> required for just 1kg of food energy for the whole world.
>
> Based on the UN FAO figures above, this means that the global average of 15%
> calories from animals requires twice as much vegetable matter as the 85% of
> non-animal calories consumed worldwide. Therefore, if we all went vegan we
> would need only one third of the cropland we use now.
>
> This is a remarkable figure and one that is scarcely believable; but look at
> the figures, and that's what comes out. And what also comes out is this:
>
> Currently 80m tonnes of nitrogen fertiliser is produced worldwide every
> year. Because nitrogen fertiliser production generates nitrous oxide, which
> has a global warming potential 300 times that of carbon dioxide, the
> emissions from nitrogen fertiliser comes out at a massive 1376m tonnes CO2
> equivalent. In other words, reducing the amount of nitrogen fertiliser by
> two thirds would offset over 3% of the carbon dioxide produced by humans
> every year.
>
> The amount of carbon dioxide generated by food transportation in the UK in
> 2002 was 19 million tonnes , which does not include the distance travelled
> by animal feed. Calculating the amount of CO2 generated by animal feed
> transportation is tremendously difficult owing to the complexity of the
> supply chain; however, given the global nature of the animal feed market,
> the raw materials are unlikely to have been produced any more locally than
> the average UK apple, quite the converse, in fact. Therefore, we can safely
> say that if we include animal feed, the true emissions from UK food is
> closer to 60m tonnes CO2. Globally, the industrialised world therefore
> produces around 600m tonnes CO2 from food transportation, and the whole of
> the world a very approximate 1500 million tonnes. The global reduction in
> carbon dioxide would therefore be around 1000m tonnes, or 4% of all carbon
> dioxide emissions.
>
> Deforestation is an unfortunate side-effect of cropland growth, especially
> when the forest being destroyed is amongst the world's richest and most
> vital habitats, which absorbs around 8% of the world's CO2 each year. Every
> year around 20,000 square miles (out of 7 million) of the Amazon is lost
> through deforestation, with over half of that caused by cattle ranching or
> soya production. Even though the 0.3% loss annually seems very small, the
> combination of cumulative loss (17% in the last few decades) and the huge
> amount of carbon returned to the air through burning and decomposition, is
> potentially catastrophic for the global environment. A one third reduction
> in Amazon deforestation resulting from global veganism would be a major
> saving grace for this irreplaceable resource.
>
> And these are just three examples from many others, including all of the
> other forests destroyed for cropland; the 19% of global methane produced by
> farmed ruminant animals; and the run off from slurry, pesticides and
> fertiliser poisoning oceans and rivers worldwide.
>
> But, even so - setting aside the cultural, religious and habitual arguments
> for or against it - there are bound to be objections to the hypothesis of
> global veganism. Some of the more likely ones are answered he
>
>
> Humans need protein and meat-based nutrients to survive.
>
> There are plenty of vegetable-based alternatives; beans, pulses and nuts of
> all types, which will suffice. More specifically to veganism, vitamin B12
> and other key nutrients can be synthesised, which would be a small price to
> pay for the environmental benefits.
>
>
> Soya is destroying the Amazon.
>
> As shown earlier there is really no need for any forest destruction given
> the two thirds reduction in land requirement. In fact veganism may even
> allow the Amazon to one day return to its natural state.
>
>
> There is plenty of fish in the sea; why can't we use this?
>
> Unfortunately this is patently untrue. At West African rates of consumption,
> wild fish stocks can be maintained, but at the current global rate of fish
> consumption, which includes vast amounts of fish meal used for farmed fish,
> many of the most valuable ocean fisheries have already collapsed. An
> increase in consumption would destroy many of the key food chains that life
> depends on, forever.
>
>
> There will be millions of starving people if they are not allowed to eat
> animals.
>
> The average calorie consumption worldwide is 2800 per day - enough to
> sustain an average human. In the industrialised world this goes up to over
> 3300 calories. With a 30% obesity level in the USA there is no question that
> food inequality is rife, and even if we do have to selectively increase
> calorie consumption to stave off famine in the worst hit areas, why should
> this not be offset from the richest countries? Only politics stands in the
> way.
>
>
> Realistically, global veganism is not going to happen; but realisation that
> our obsession with animal based protein and fat is causing global
> environmental damage on an epic scale, and that by reducing this consumption
> we could help reduce the greenhouse effect, must be food for thought. Even
> if not everyone can stomach the outcome.
>
>
> Keith Farnish
> http://www.theearthblog.org
> http://www.reduce3.com

I'm so sorry you don't like others on your turf. Maybe that's the real
problem with the world - everyone wants everything for themselves.

Keith
www.theearthblog.org
www.reduce3.com


"quidam" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> new group posters taking up billions of bytes of bandwidth going on
> about nothing every day.....
>
>
>
> Earth Blog wrote:
>> In June 2006 there were 6,525,000,000 people on the Earth, each consuming
>> an
>> average of 2800 calories per day. That's a total of around 18 trillion
>> calories per day, all of which have to come from somewhere; meat, dairy
>> products, legumes, leafy vegetables, cereals, beets.ultimately though,
>> from
>> the soil, the rain and the sun.
>>
>> Usually the soil has to be fertilised in some way, from dung, rocks or
>> fossil fuels. Usually the water has to be moved from other places to make
>> up
>> for irregular rainfall. Sometimes the sun is not strong enough and the
>> crops
>> or animal feed has to come from somewhere with warmer weather, or be
>> grown
>> under artificial conditions. Almost always, the food has to be
>> transported
>> from one place to another.
>>
>> In a world with a growing population, whose average calorie consumption
>> is
>> rising, and whose demand for more exotic food is being accelerated by
>> advertising and globalisation, there is one other, almost invisible
>> factor
>> that may be making a huge difference on our global footprint : the amount
>> of
>> food which comes from animals.
>>
>> So, just for a few minutes, I would like you to suspend any cultural,
>> religious or habitual feelings you have about diet, and just assume that
>> everyone on this planet suddenly became vegan. That is, nothing they
>> consumed derived from animals.
>>
>> According to the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation the typical
>> industrialised consumer derives 28% of all of their calories from
>> animals;
>> largely meat and dairy products. For developing countries this goes down
>> to
>> 8%, so let's strike an average of 15% for the world as a whole.
>>
>> As part of a detailed and objective analysis in 2000, Vaclev Smil
>> discovered
>> that the use of the world's grain harvest alone for animal fodder had
>> gone
>> up from just 20% in 1950 to 45% in the late 1990s, including 60% of all
>> grain produced in the USA.
>>
>> Smil also found that, if we take 1kg of vegetable matter to equal 1kg of
>> gross energy consumed, then converting the 1kg consumed product into milk
>> would require 4-5kg vegetable matter; pork, 5-7kg vegetable matter;
>> chicken
>> 7-10kg vegetable matter; and beef, 20-25kg vegetable matter.
>>
>> We can see straight away that a move away from beef to chicken would
>> provide
>> an approximate 65% saving in the amount of vegetable matter required to
>> produce the final food product, and even more if a switch was made away
>> from
>> meat entirely to dairy; effectively a lacto-vegetarian diet. At only 1kg
>> vegetable matter to 1kg gross energy, there is a huge additional benefit,
>> environmentally, in switching to a completely animal free diet.
>>
>> In fact, with beef accounting for 25% of the global meat total; pork,
>> 39%;
>> and poultry, 29%; we can take an average of 11.2kg of vegetable matter
>> required for just 1kg of food energy for the whole world.
>>
>> Based on the UN FAO figures above, this means that the global average of
>> 15%
>> calories from animals requires twice as much vegetable matter as the 85%
>> of
>> non-animal calories consumed worldwide. Therefore, if we all went vegan
>> we
>> would need only one third of the cropland we use now.
>>
>> This is a remarkable figure and one that is scarcely believable; but look
>> at
>> the figures, and that's what comes out. And what also comes out is this:
>>
>> Currently 80m tonnes of nitrogen fertiliser is produced worldwide every
>> year. Because nitrogen fertiliser production generates nitrous oxide,
>> which
>> has a global warming potential 300 times that of carbon dioxide, the
>> emissions from nitrogen fertiliser comes out at a massive 1376m tonnes
>> CO2
>> equivalent. In other words, reducing the amount of nitrogen fertiliser by
>> two thirds would offset over 3% of the carbon dioxide produced by humans
>> every year.
>>
>> The amount of carbon dioxide generated by food transportation in the UK
>> in
>> 2002 was 19 million tonnes , which does not include the distance
>> travelled
>> by animal feed. Calculating the amount of CO2 generated by animal feed
>> transportation is tremendously difficult owing to the complexity of the
>> supply chain; however, given the global nature of the animal feed market,
>> the raw materials are unlikely to have been produced any more locally
>> than
>> the average UK apple, quite the converse, in fact. Therefore, we can
>> safely
>> say that if we include animal feed, the true emissions from UK food is
>> closer to 60m tonnes CO2. Globally, the industrialised world therefore
>> produces around 600m tonnes CO2 from food transportation, and the whole
>> of
>> the world a very approximate 1500 million tonnes. The global reduction in
>> carbon dioxide would therefore be around 1000m tonnes, or 4% of all
>> carbon
>> dioxide emissions.
>>
>> Deforestation is an unfortunate side-effect of cropland growth,
>> especially
>> when the forest being destroyed is amongst the world's richest and most
>> vital habitats, which absorbs around 8% of the world's CO2 each year.
>> Every
>> year around 20,000 square miles (out of 7 million) of the Amazon is lost
>> through deforestation, with over half of that caused by cattle ranching
>> or
>> soya production. Even though the 0.3% loss annually seems very small, the
>> combination of cumulative loss (17% in the last few decades) and the huge
>> amount of carbon returned to the air through burning and decomposition,
>> is
>> potentially catastrophic for the global environment. A one third
>> reduction
>> in Amazon deforestation resulting from global veganism would be a major
>> saving grace for this irreplaceable resource.
>>
>> And these are just three examples from many others, including all of the
>> other forests destroyed for cropland; the 19% of global methane produced
>> by
>> farmed ruminant animals; and the run off from slurry, pesticides and
>> fertiliser poisoning oceans and rivers worldwide.
>>
>> But, even so - setting aside the cultural, religious and habitual
>> arguments
>> for or against it - there are bound to be objections to the hypothesis of
>> global veganism. Some of the more likely ones are answered he
>>
>>
>> Humans need protein and meat-based nutrients to survive.
>>
>> There are plenty of vegetable-based alternatives; beans, pulses and nuts
>> of
>> all types, which will suffice. More specifically to veganism, vitamin B12
>> and other key nutrients can be synthesised, which would be a small price
>> to
>> pay for the environmental benefits.
>>
>>
>> Soya is destroying the Amazon.
>>
>> As shown earlier there is really no need for any forest destruction given
>> the two thirds reduction in land requirement. In fact veganism may even
>> allow the Amazon to one day return to its natural state.
>>
>>
>> There is plenty of fish in the sea; why can't we use this?
>>
>> Unfortunately this is patently untrue. At West African rates of
>> consumption,
>> wild fish stocks can be maintained, but at the current global rate of
>> fish
>> consumption, which includes vast amounts of fish meal used for farmed
>> fish,
>> many of the most valuable ocean fisheries have already collapsed. An
>> increase in consumption would destroy many of the key food chains that
>> life
>> depends on, forever.
>>
>>
>> There will be millions of starving people if they are not allowed to eat
>> animals.
>>
>> The average calorie consumption worldwide is 2800 per day - enough to
>> sustain an average human. In the industrialised world this goes up to
>> over
>> 3300 calories. With a 30% obesity level in the USA there is no question
>> that
>> food inequality is rife, and even if we do have to selectively increase
>> calorie consumption to stave off famine in the worst hit areas, why
>> should
>> this not be offset from the richest countries? Only politics stands in
>> the
>> way.
>>
>>
>> Realistically, global veganism is not going to happen; but realisation
>> that
>> our obsession with animal based protein and fat is causing global
>> environmental damage on an epic scale, and that by reducing this
>> consumption
>> we could help reduce the greenhouse effect, must be food for thought.
>> Even
>> if not everyone can stomach the outcome.
>>
>>
>> Keith Farnish
>> http://www.theearthblog.org
>> http://www.reduce3.com
>
>