The Rocky Mountain Collegian

So, the original article linked eating less or no animals to direct environmental benefits, but this response article ignores those statistics (the writer says that "90% of land used for animal agriculture can't be used for other purposes" and that cattle "consume a diet of mostly hay" but offers no evidence or statistics to these claims). Instead of debunking or countering the facts of the original article, the writer says meat and animal by-products are good for the economy - but economics aren't what the original article was about. It's the same rhetoric that anti-environmentalists use to stop actual scientific evidence - who cares if something's bad for the environment, it's good for the economy (war, automotive industry, etc.) The Collegian should require response articles that offer honest facts rather than empty, fact-free rebuttals.

This was a knee-jerk, emotional response to a responsible article. Alex Stephens didn't say anything negative about small cattle ranchers, or large-scale meat production, for that matter. His article merely outlined the environmental problems associated with America's unhealthy dependence on meat. A transition away from large meat consumption would not necessarily be bad for the economy- this article makes it seem as though Stephens was calling for the slaughter of all cows tomorrow! This response article did not address the original article at all. Vegetarian diets can be completely healthy and vitamin-rich. To say that meat is "an essential part of humans' diets" is ridiculous. One can get the same kinds of complete proteins by eating combinations of beans and rice, and other combinations of food. Also, last time I checked, Coca Cola was not producing staggering amounts of methane. Although Coke is dangerous to individual health, it is not dangerous to public health in the same way that beef production is. No one was attacking your family business-- re-read the original article, and try to understand it from the perspective of the entire human race, and not only as a cattle rancher in good'ol northern Colorado. Beef production and consumption is dangerous to the environment--That's all Alex Stephens was saying.

Voters should have to demonstrate competence and literacy before being allowed to vote, but those requirements have been found unconstitutional. Sorry Nick, you're just a gnat in a sea of liberal arrogance.

This response is clearly just an emotional retaliation to what she felt was an article condemning her lifestyle. However, the majority of anti-American beef studies and subsequent publications that I've read recently do not denounce individual ranchers, rather they criticize the American government's means of subsidization. Corn in this country is kept at an artificially extremely low price and is subsidized for big-time ranchers who feed this low quality corn to their cattle. This cattle is then quickly raised and slaughtered to provide for America's incessant need for beef. Haven't you ever wondered why you can get a double cheeseburger for less than a dollar? This, in addition to other factors, is contributing the increasing rates of obesity.

In concern to the ranchers, however... The large scale cattle farmers who choose to use low quality corn are able to do so because they receive a much higher rate of government subsidies than do the farmers who choose to raise cows organically (these cows have far less body fat ratios...which translates into less fat in the ground beef, than do the low-quality corn fed cows) So, it's really a catch-22. Even though many cattle ranchers (or low-quality corn farmers) would rather raise healthier corn and cows, they cannot do so financially.

Now, I'm not a farmer, nor a biological researcher, however from what I've read, i believe the beef industry in this country needs massive reform.

Some interesting information:

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20090831,00.html

Really?! Really, Ms. Rossi?! Do you actually believe what you are saying? I have come to the conclusion that either a) you are grossly misinformed, or b) you are knowingly misleading readers. I could criticize every sentence of your article, but I will just stick to the main points.

You write that "Meat is an essential part of humans' diets." I am a vegetarian and have not eaten meat in years (although I will admit it can be quite tasty). If beef was essential to the human diet I would have died long ago. The truth is that beef is not essential, and one can live a very healthy life easily without consuming any animals or animal products. You go on to write "If we switch to a vegetative diet, as your article suggests, we would need to consume more food in a wider variety to acquire the same nutritional balance meat provides. How can you say that beef, is 'more dangerous to public health than Coke?'" which seems to imply that eating a plant-based diet with a wide variety of foods is harmful. I really don't know how to respond to that, other than to say that as a FSHN major I can tell you the exact opposite is true.

The rest of your article extols the virtues of cattle raising. You claim that "Half of our state is mountainous rangeland that would have little use other than for cattle to graze." Now I am no animal sciences major like you, but I have driven in the mountains and I have never seen cows grazing on the slopes. But, hey, I suppose any thing is possible.

From your article it would seem that cattle simply roam around pastures consuming a diet of grass, but in fact most of the meat found in supermarkets and restaurants are raised in confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) with thousands of cattle on a small portion of land, tromping around on a layer of their own fecal matter, and feeding on a diet of mostly government-subsidized corn. Cows are ruminants and their bodies are not designed for corn, which is why they are fed copious amounts of antibiotics to keep them from getting sick and dying. It's not pretty, but this is why you can get beef at the grocery store for so cheap.

I recently attended a lecture by CSU's very own Jessica Davis. For your edification I will include some facts you may not be privy to:

23 gallons are required to produce one pound of lettuce. 49 gallons of water are required to produce one pound of apples. 5,214 gallons of water are required to produce one pound of beef.

2 calories are expended per calorie of protein produced from soybeans. 3 calories are expended per calorie of protein produced from corn or wheat. 40 calories are expended per calorie of protein produced from beef.

It takes about one pound of grain to produce one pound of fish. It takes an average of 14 pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef.

Seems like such a waste, doesn't it?

I will agree with you on one point, however, when you say that the beef industry keeps you warm. Several studies have shown that raising beef contributes far more greenhouse gasses than cars ever will.

Now I am not trying to convert anyone to vegetarianism. I ate meat for most of my life. It is ubiquitous, delicious, and relatively cheap. But facts are facts. Go on eating if you wish, but do not delude yourself into thinking that you are doing earth or society the a favor.

This is a dangerous message; I hope many readers who weren't taken in by this. What we eat is the most important impact most people have on a global scale. Evidence continually mounts showing how harmful meat is.

"I do think that there are some baseline things that we should all agree on, the most important being that eating meat matters. It's the number one cause of global warming. The U.N. and Pew Commissions have said that it is among the top two or three causes of every significant environmental problem, locally and globally: air pollution, water pollution." - www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=114298495

As to the point that grazing land isn't otherwise useful... if grass grows on it, crops can be grown on it. Even if nothing else could be done with this land, grazing makes it worse. Along with the global warming that cows are accelerating, their grazing is leading to an influx of soil erosion and desertification.

We need to find other sources of flavor in our foods if our species is going to survive, especially considering that there will be 9 billion people by 2050, many of them demanding the American diet. The stats on this page are astounding: michaelbluejay.com/veg/environment.html

To all those who buy into the AGW crap:

Did you know that Mr. Al Gore is not a vegetarian? He enjoys meat and has no intentions of removing it from his diet. He admits that meat production is the leading cause to global warming, but it doesn't keep him from eating meat.

Wouldn't you think the leader in this movement would at least takes some steps toward helping with the problem? Or, does he realize that its all a bunch of bull and he has pulled off a huge scam?

"Practice what you preach." "We shall judge them by the fruits they bear."

Wake up people and try and get your hands on the treaty that is going to dissolve our sovereignty in the name of "global warming". Its not too late, but time is slipping away while we are here arguing about what the cause to gw is...

Not convinced. I smell bias and methane. I wish I could check your sources, but seeing as you did not provide any, my beliefs 'bout the beef industry and my vegetarian lifestyle go unchallenged.

Response to Thomas:

If Al Gore is not the leader of the movement, then who is? If it were not for "an inconvenient lie" would the

entire world believe that CO2 was causing global warming?

When I first became aware of the 'global warming' movement, I took it hook, line, and sinker and went so far as to convince myself and those close to me that we were causing global warming. I am no stranger to reading scientific literature and I work in research at the university, so understand I have intimate relations with this topic. Yes, I thought I was 'up to speed' on the latest and most scientific information on the topic. Beyond the basics of radiated heat trapping, I was persuaded by the ratio of C13 isotopes to C14 isotopes in the atmosphere; thinking that this ratio was correlated to the warming of this planet. However, the deeper my research went I started to see flaws. Bias in any type of research will skew data and generate misleading results. I took my investigations further.

What these papers and so many other amateur scientists (IPCC) ignore is the most powerful energy force in our solar system - The Sun! If you examine the data presented by NASA, you will find that there are many (if not all) planets in our solar system experiencing the same effects that we are. Imagine that, the giver of life, the sun actually has a dominating influence over weather and temperature. Not only on our planet, but on our entire solar system! HMMMMM...

After becoming convinced that the sun is the primary driver to the heating and cooling of our planet, I was further convinced that Al was a scam artist when I started seeing the carbon tax legislation develop. Do you understand that he owns a large carbon offset company and holds shares in three others? What the hell does a carbon offset company do anyway? Using basic science, I have pointed out in previous posts - as temperatures increase, metabolism increases and therefore the planet will experience more CO2. Al's CO2 curve actually follows his temperature curve.

Discovering the cause of global warming will lead us to the understanding that we cannot do anything about it. Your problem is that you try to link pollution to CO2. If you have followed some of my previous posts, you know that I care greatly for this planet. I am the kind of person that will pick up an old beer can or plastic bottle I find in the woods and bring it back to be recycled. We are certainly doing some very destructive things to our planet in the name of the dollar.

Step back from the hysteria and examine this from all view points before jumping to conclusions. See who is benefiting from this and ask yourself what the motives are. This planet has been here for 4.5 billion years and to think that we are somehow bringing about it's demise because we drive SUVs and eat steak is asinine.

I have examined the best arguments from both sides and I have made my conclusions. Yes, we need to stop raping this planet, but that doesn't come from paying taxes to an unaccountable dictatorship.

Do you, Thomas, know what the Copenhagen Treaty is? Have you looked through that treaty to understand that it not only dissolves the sovereignty of our nation, but we are going to be paying carbon taxes on nearly EVERYTHING.