Wrote this ethics essay on factory farming, looking for feedback.

Antotoro wrote:
I was looking for some opinions and potential feedback. I am also interested in some sources related to public polling and national policies regarding factory farming if anyone can link me to some.

The famous primatologist and animal activist Dr. Jane Goodall once said, "Thousands of people who say they love animals sit down once or twice a day to enjoy the flesh of creatures who have been utterly deprived of everything that could make their lives worth living and who endured the awful suffering and the terror of the abattoirs"(Farm Sanctuary). Although her main line of work was not associated with the agriculture industry, her statement is well founded, as factory farming has been brought to the attention of the public more and more. In the past century, the world's population grew four-fold, while new innovations and research have made mass scale farming cheaper. Those were two of the main factors that paved the way for the agriculture industry to become the largest industry in the world. The agriculture industry is the second greatest cause of global carbon emissions contributing to almost a third of the global emissions, only behind the use of energy for electricity, transport and other modern technology (Ritchie Food). Among the many smaller industries within the agricultural sector, the use of factory farming is the largest producer of greenhouse gasses, notably methane and nitrous oxide (Ritchie How Much). Recently, more and more people have been spreading awareness about the cruelty towards animals in factory farming systems, but the environmental impacts of the systems are also very significant in the argument against factory farming. No matter how you look at it, it is undeniable that climate change has already happened and that its continued change is inevitable. Regardless of the ethical ideology you follow, whether it is utilitarianism or deontology, climate change impacts the world as a whole, only impacting various people in various ways at various magnitudes. Overall, despite the potential impact on the farming industry and the cost of animal products, the practices of factory farming should be abolished or dealt with as soon as possible.



First introduced in the 1930s, factory farming is commonly used by farmers who seek to achieve the greatest profits for both their land usage (When Did). Alongside the overall cruelty to farm animals, factory farming often uses processes or practices that release far more greenhouse gasses than other farming practices, either traditional or more modern. Firstly, some farm animals such as cattle and sheep are known as ruminant animals, animals who have different digestive systems that allow them to digest foods that are inedible to other animals. As a by-product of this unique type of digestion, lots of methane is produced and released into the atmosphere. On top of that, according to NASA, methane is 30 times more potent in insulating the heat in the atmosphere, making its impact far greater than some may expect from it being such a small percentage of the atmosphere's greenhouse gasses (Gray). In terms of potential plans of methane removal from the atmosphere, methane's scarcity in the atmosphere as compared to carbon dioxide and other gasses makes removal more difficult. In turn, scientists have focused more on using the process of oxidation to turn the methane into carbon dioxide, which will then further contribute to the overall problem of carbon dioxide emissions and increase the heating caused by the greenhouse effect (Bond).

Outside of the farms, the production of crops to feed the animals in factory farms requires about 40 times more water than the water needed if farmers used grazing to feed their animals (Compassion). On top of that, fertilizers were most likely also used to aid the production of crops fed to farm animals, which release nitrous oxide, another greenhouse gas more potent than even methane, into the atmosphere (Robert). Additionally, manure from farm animals also releases methane and nitrous oxide into the atmosphere, only adding to the large amount of greenhouse gasses that factory farming is emitting.

Outside of its impacts on climate change, factory farming also creates a variety of other issues, such as unemployment, lower quality meat, contamination of natural systems, and even a potential of causing starvation. From the aspect of unemployment, newer technologies and techniques used in factory farming bring in some automation to the farming, causing not only workers at factory farms but also other farmers who use traditional methods of farming to lose their jobs. Automation and poor livestock conditions also cause meat to be lower quality and possibly contain diseases or make humans more resistant to antibiotics. Either from direct contact between workers and farm animals or from disease passed through the animals' meat, the CDC states that "Scientists estimate that more than 6 out of every 10 known infectious diseases in people can be spread from animals, and 3 out of every 4 new or emerging infectious diseases in people come from animals"(Zoonotic). On the other hand, pesticides and fertilizers may contaminate the local environment, while the farming itself also drains the land of its nutrients, often inhibiting future farming at the same location. Lastly, if the world's population continues to grow, there is a risk of factory farming accentuating the hunger issue, as farming meat is overall less efficient when compared to farming fruits and vegetables.



On the contrary, some may support the usage of factory farming for its many benefits as well. The first of the benefits is the cheaper cost to produce meats, leading to greater profits. The compact size of factory farming practices allows for farmers to produce lots of produce, leading to more profits, while still saving money on land costs. Although this may benefit workers in the industry, farmers who are aware of the consequences of climate change would most likely still stray away from factory farming unless they were very selfish or in desperate situations. Some farmers around the world are indeed quite selfish or in desperate situations, leading to the factory farms we see today. In countries such as Brazil and Indonesia, though, farmers gain cheap land in forests and use a practice called slash-and-burn to clear the land for farming both animals and the produce to feed to the animals, notably cattle. This method of clearing forests is cheap for farmers, but especially harmful to the environment due to the large amount of carbon dioxide released by the burning of trees and other plants. At the same time, competition between farmers can cause the price of meat to decrease, making the price cheaper to consumers as well, but as said, the meat of factory farms is lower quality than those of traditional farming. More specifically, products from factory farms often contain "harmful bacteria, pesticide residue, antibiotics and artificial hormones, all of which can be harmful to consumers,"(Food) while pasture raised products have less calories and total fat, "higher levels of vitamins and a healthier balance of omega-3 and omega-6 fats"(Raising).



As climate change continues, considerations over the reduction or elimination of factory farming must be made, even if some groups may suffer from the economic or political changes. Obviously, one easy solution is using the utilitarian approach: totally boycotting the meat industry as a whole. The problem with this approach is that boycotting a trillion dollar industry is unrealistic without total government control of the economy. Even then, almost all of the current infrastructure of the world's meat industry consists of factory farming and the farms that feed its animals. In order for the world to shift to a diet with little to no meat, trillions of dollars will likely need to be invested into creating new infrastructure to make up for the loss of production through the shutting down of factory farms. Still, the utilitarian viewpoint does point out the urgency of the large amount of greenhouse gasses generated from the meat industry, as climate change has reached the point where scientists have discussed the boundaries that cannot be crossed to ensure human survival.

Instead of following the utilitarian approach, one's ideals may stray closer to a deontological approach, seeing the protection of the environment and the humane treatment of animals in agriculture as the obligatory duty. Supporters of this deontological approach may still encourage the total boycott of the meat industry, although some may still look to retain the more ethical traditional methods of animal agriculture. With recent discoveries in the cultivation of animal cells, some may also reject traditional farming practices and support a full reliance on cultivated meats.

Regardless of the ideology, the most extreme approach of each ideology will have something along the lines of total independence from farming or even eating meat. Many people may oppose this more radical change, some viewing meat as an important aspect of their religion, while others may cling onto the meat-containing foods that they enjoy. Either way, it is practically impossible for the farming of livestock to be totally eradicated, as those who seek economic opportunity, even if they must go through illegal means, will find a way to supply any product that is in demand. Thus, there must be ways for countries to deal with the environmental consequences of the meat industry without abolishing it as a whole. One way to do so with the methane produced by ruminant animals was stated by Ermias Kebreab in his TED Talk about his research on feeding different foods as supplements to cattle. In his talk, he states that feeding as little as 60 to 80 grams of seaweed "reduces emissions by over 80 percent"(Kebreab). Kebreab then explains that "Some seaweeds contain ingredients that directly inhibit microbes in the cow's gut from forming methane without interfering with food digestion"(Kebreab).



Other solutions aside from avoiding the production or consumption of animal meat include offsetting emissions to become closer to carbon neutral, adding an extra price tag onto carbon emissions, and the adoption of sustainable practices. Like many corporations who made declarations about becoming carbon neutral within a time span, factory farms can try to become carbon neutral or help the climate crisis by planting new trees to replace trees that were originally cut down for farming. On the political side, policies can be made to make products or services, in this case, meat, more expensive based on the environmental impact of the practices behind the product. Overall, sustainable practices such as using green energy for transportation and electricity, using environmentally safe fertilizers and pesticides, and selling locally all can help convert society into one that will survive climate change.

Sources

Antotoro wrote:
I was looking for some opinions and potential feedback.

Antotoro wrote:
No matter how you look at it, it is undeniable that climate change has already happened.

Antotoro wrote:
factory farming should be abolished or dealt with as soon as possible.

Antotoro wrote:
which will then further contribute to the overall problem of carbon dioxide emissions and increase the heating caused by the greenhouse effect

Antotoro wrote:
factory farming also creates a variety of other issues, such as unemployment

Antotoro wrote:
lower quality meat,

Antotoro wrote:
and even a potential of causing starvation.

Antotoro wrote:
competition between farmers can cause the price of meat to decrease, making the price cheaper to consumers as well

Antotoro wrote:
In order for the world to shift to a diet with little to no meat, trillions of dollars will likely need to be invested into creating new infrastructure to make up for the loss of production through the shutting down of factory farms

HarveyH55 wrote:
Humans are omnivores. It's not an either/or issue. Humans need both meat and plants. It's possible to survive meat free for long periods of time, but it's not ideal. Vegans are gassy too... It's part of digesting large quantities of plants. Which is sort of why humans eat meat... Our digestive systems aren't gear toward consuming large quantities of plants. Cows, and similar herbivores are though. They do all the work, basically all they do in life, processing vegetation. The flesh provides most every nutritional need. Vegans need to consume large quantities, and vast variety, just to come close. They still rely on supplements, which probably are all from plants... They do have the option of processed, factory packaged vegan meals, with everything added for descent nutrition. Much less bulk, than natural foods. But, all those additives can't be good. The chemicals added, are purely to enhance profits. Still all the perceived problem of the meat industry. Least with a ribeye steak, you know what it's suppose to look like, taste like. There are vegan versions of meat, but never want to try any of them. Just too many steps in the process, which is more opportunities for contamination.

Even the IPCC admits that the most common, plentiful 'greenhouse' gas is water vapor. Cumulatively, it's more potent than all other 'greenhouse' gasses combine. They compare using the same volume, not proportions in the atmosphere to dodge the issue. Nearly 80% of the planet surface is water. No chance in controlling water vapor from forming. Controlling the less common gasses, pointless.

Antotoro wrote:
I was looking for some opinions and potential feedback. I am also interested in some sources related to public polling and national policies regarding factory farming if anyone can link me to some.

The famous primatologist and animal activist Dr. Jane Goodall once said, "Thousands of people who say they love animals sit down once or twice a day to enjoy the flesh of creatures who have been utterly deprived of everything that could make their lives worth living and who endured the awful suffering and the terror of the abattoirs"(Farm Sanctuary). Although her main line of work was not associated with the agriculture industry, her statement is well founded, as factory farming has been brought to the attention of the public more and more. In the past century, the world's population grew four-fold, while new innovations and research have made mass scale farming cheaper. Those were two of the main factors that paved the way for the agriculture industry to become the largest industry in the world. The agriculture industry is the second greatest cause of global carbon emissions contributing to almost a third of the global emissions, only behind the use of energy for electricity, transport and other modern technology (Ritchie Food). Among the many smaller industries within the agricultural sector, the use of factory farming is the largest producer of greenhouse gasses, notably methane and nitrous oxide (Ritchie How Much). Recently, more and more people have been spreading awareness about the cruelty towards animals in factory farming systems, but the environmental impacts of the systems are also very significant in the argument against factory farming. No matter how you look at it, it is undeniable that climate change has already happened and that its continued change is inevitable. Regardless of the ethical ideology you follow, whether it is utilitarianism or deontology, climate change impacts the world as a whole, only impacting various people in various ways at various magnitudes. Overall, despite the potential impact on the farming industry and the cost of animal products, the practices of factory farming should be abolished or dealt with as soon as possible.



First introduced in the 1930s, factory farming is commonly used by farmers who seek to achieve the greatest profits for both their land usage (When Did). Alongside the overall cruelty to farm animals, factory farming often uses processes or practices that release far more greenhouse gasses than other farming practices, either traditional or more modern. Firstly, some farm animals such as cattle and sheep are known as ruminant animals, animals who have different digestive systems that allow them to digest foods that are inedible to other animals. As a by-product of this unique type of digestion, lots of methane is produced and released into the atmosphere. On top of that, according to NASA, methane is 30 times more potent in insulating the heat in the atmosphere, making its impact far greater than some may expect from it being such a small percentage of the atmosphere's greenhouse gasses (Gray). In terms of potential plans of methane removal from the atmosphere, methane's scarcity in the atmosphere as compared to carbon dioxide and other gasses makes removal more difficult. In turn, scientists have focused more on using the process of oxidation to turn the methane into carbon dioxide, which will then further contribute to the overall problem of carbon dioxide emissions and increase the heating caused by the greenhouse effect (Bond).

Outside of the farms, the production of crops to feed the animals in factory farms requires about 40 times more water than the water needed if farmers used grazing to feed their animals (Compassion). On top of that, fertilizers were most likely also used to aid the production of crops fed to farm animals, which release nitrous oxide, another greenhouse gas more potent than even methane, into the atmosphere (Robert). Additionally, manure from farm animals also releases methane and nitrous oxide into the atmosphere, only adding to the large amount of greenhouse gasses that factory farming is emitting.

Outside of its impacts on climate change, factory farming also creates a variety of other issues, such as unemployment, lower quality meat, contamination of natural systems, and even a potential of causing starvation. From the aspect of unemployment, newer technologies and techniques used in factory farming bring in some automation to the farming, causing not only workers at factory farms but also other farmers who use traditional methods of farming to lose their jobs. Automation and poor livestock conditions also cause meat to be lower quality and possibly contain diseases or make humans more resistant to antibiotics. Either from direct contact between workers and farm animals or from disease passed through the animals' meat, the CDC states that "Scientists estimate that more than 6 out of every 10 known infectious diseases in people can be spread from animals, and 3 out of every 4 new or emerging infectious diseases in people come from animals"(Zoonotic). On the other hand, pesticides and fertilizers may contaminate the local environment, while the farming itself also drains the land of its nutrients, often inhibiting future farming at the same location. Lastly, if the world's population continues to grow, there is a risk of factory farming accentuating the hunger issue, as farming meat is overall less efficient when compared to farming fruits and vegetables.



On the contrary, some may support the usage of factory farming for its many benefits as well. The first of the benefits is the cheaper cost to produce meats, leading to greater profits. The compact size of factory farming practices allows for farmers to produce lots of produce, leading to more profits, while still saving money on land costs. Although this may benefit workers in the industry, farmers who are aware of the consequences of climate change would most likely still stray away from factory farming unless they were very selfish or in desperate situations. Some farmers around the world are indeed quite selfish or in desperate situations, leading to the factory farms we see today. In countries such as Brazil and Indonesia, though, farmers gain cheap land in forests and use a practice called slash-and-burn to clear the land for farming both animals and the produce to feed to the animals, notably cattle. This method of clearing forests is cheap for farmers, but especially harmful to the environment due to the large amount of carbon dioxide released by the burning of trees and other plants. At the same time, competition between farmers can cause the price of meat to decrease, making the price cheaper to consumers as well, but as said, the meat of factory farms is lower quality than those of traditional farming. More specifically, products from factory farms often contain "harmful bacteria, pesticide residue, antibiotics and artificial hormones, all of which can be harmful to consumers,"(Food) while pasture raised products have less calories and total fat, "higher levels of vitamins and a healthier balance of omega-3 and omega-6 fats"(Raising).



As climate change continues, considerations over the reduction or elimination of factory farming must be made, even if some groups may suffer from the economic or political changes. Obviously, one easy solution is using the utilitarian approach: totally boycotting the meat industry as a whole. The problem with this approach is that boycotting a trillion dollar industry is unrealistic without total government control of the economy. Even then, almost all of the current infrastructure of the world's meat industry consists of factory farming and the farms that feed its animals. In order for the world to shift to a diet with little to no meat, trillions of dollars will likely need to be invested into creating new infrastructure to make up for the loss of production through the shutting down of factory farms. Still, the utilitarian viewpoint does point out the urgency of the large amount of greenhouse gasses generated from the meat industry, as climate change has reached the point where scientists have discussed the boundaries that cannot be crossed to ensure human survival.

Instead of following the utilitarian approach, one's ideals may stray closer to a deontological approach, seeing the protection of the environment and the humane treatment of animals in agriculture as the obligatory duty. Supporters of this deontological approach may still encourage the total boycott of the meat industry, although some may still look to retain the more ethical traditional methods of animal agriculture. With recent discoveries in the cultivation of animal cells, some may also reject traditional farming practices and support a full reliance on cultivated meats.

Regardless of the ideology, the most extreme approach of each ideology will have something along the lines of total independence from farming or even eating meat. Many people may oppose this more radical change, some viewing meat as an important aspect of their religion, while others may cling onto the meat-containing foods that they enjoy. Either way, it is practically impossible for the farming of livestock to be totally eradicated, as those who seek economic opportunity, even if they must go through illegal means, will find a way to supply any product that is in demand. Thus, there must be ways for countries to deal with the environmental consequences of the meat industry without abolishing it as a whole. One way to do so with the methane produced by ruminant animals was stated by Ermias Kebreab in his TED Talk about his research on feeding different foods as supplements to cattle. In his talk, he states that feeding as little as 60 to 80 grams of seaweed "reduces emissions by over 80 percent"(Kebreab). Kebreab then explains that "Some seaweeds contain ingredients that directly inhibit microbes in the cow's gut from forming methane without interfering with food digestion"(Kebreab).



Other solutions aside from avoiding the production or consumption of animal meat include offsetting emissions to become closer to carbon neutral, adding an extra price tag onto carbon emissions, and the adoption of sustainable practices. Like many corporations who made declarations about becoming carbon neutral within a time span, factory farms can try to become carbon neutral or help the climate crisis by planting new trees to replace trees that were originally cut down for farming. On the political side, policies can be made to make products or services, in this case, meat, more expensive based on the environmental impact of the practices behind the product. Overall, sustainable practices such as using green energy for transportation and electricity, using environmentally safe fertilizers and pesticides, and selling locally all can help convert society into one that will survive climate change.

Sources

Antotoro wrote:
I was looking for some opinions and potential feedback. I am also interested in some sources related to public polling and national policies regarding factory farming if anyone can link me to some.

The famous primatologist and animal activist Dr. Jane Goodall once said, "Thousands of people who say they love animals sit down once or twice a day to enjoy the flesh of creatures who have been utterly deprived of everything that could make their lives worth living and who endured the awful suffering and the terror of the abattoirs"(Farm Sanctuary). Although her main line of work was not associated with the agriculture industry, her statement is well founded, as factory farming has been brought to the attention of the public more and more. In the past century, the world's population grew four-fold, while new innovations and research have made mass scale farming cheaper. Those were two of the main factors that paved the way for the agriculture industry to become the largest industry in the world. The agriculture industry is the second greatest cause of global carbon emissions contributing to almost a third of the global emissions, only behind the use of energy for electricity, transport and other modern technology (Ritchie Food). Among the many smaller industries within the agricultural sector, the use of factory farming is the largest producer of greenhouse gasses, notably methane and nitrous oxide (Ritchie How Much). Recently, more and more people have been spreading awareness about the cruelty towards animals in factory farming systems, but the environmental impacts of the systems are also very significant in the argument against factory farming. No matter how you look at it, it is undeniable that climate change has already happened and that its continued change is inevitable. Regardless of the ethical ideology you follow, whether it is utilitarianism or deontology, climate change impacts the world as a whole, only impacting various people in various ways at various magnitudes. Overall, despite the potential impact on the farming industry and the cost of animal products, the practices of factory farming should be abolished or dealt with as soon as possible.



First introduced in the 1930s, factory farming is commonly used by farmers who seek to achieve the greatest profits for both their land usage (When Did). Alongside the overall cruelty to farm animals, factory farming often uses processes or practices that release far more greenhouse gasses than other farming practices, either traditional or more modern. Firstly, some farm animals such as cattle and sheep are known as ruminant animals, animals who have different digestive systems that allow them to digest foods that are inedible to other animals. As a by-product of this unique type of digestion, lots of methane is produced and released into the atmosphere. On top of that, according to NASA, methane is 30 times more potent in insulating the heat in the atmosphere, making its impact far greater than some may expect from it being such a small percentage of the atmosphere's greenhouse gasses (Gray). In terms of potential plans of methane removal from the atmosphere, methane's scarcity in the atmosphere as compared to carbon dioxide and other gasses makes removal more difficult. In turn, scientists have focused more on using the process of oxidation to turn the methane into carbon dioxide, which will then further contribute to the overall problem of carbon dioxide emissions and increase the heating caused by the greenhouse effect (Bond).

Outside of the farms, the production of crops to feed the animals in factory farms requires about 40 times more water than the water needed if farmers used grazing to feed their animals (Compassion). On top of that, fertilizers were most likely also used to aid the production of crops fed to farm animals, which release nitrous oxide, another greenhouse gas more potent than even methane, into the atmosphere (Robert). Additionally, manure from farm animals also releases methane and nitrous oxide into the atmosphere, only adding to the large amount of greenhouse gasses that factory farming is emitting.

Outside of its impacts on climate change, factory farming also creates a variety of other issues, such as unemployment, lower quality meat, contamination of natural systems, and even a potential of causing starvation. From the aspect of unemployment, newer technologies and techniques used in factory farming bring in some automation to the farming, causing not only workers at factory farms but also other farmers who use traditional methods of farming to lose their jobs. Automation and poor livestock conditions also cause meat to be lower quality and possibly contain diseases or make humans more resistant to antibiotics. Either from direct contact between workers and farm animals or from disease passed through the animals' meat, the CDC states that "Scientists estimate that more than 6 out of every 10 known infectious diseases in people can be spread from animals, and 3 out of every 4 new or emerging infectious diseases in people come from animals"(Zoonotic). On the other hand, pesticides and fertilizers may contaminate the local environment, while the farming itself also drains the land of its nutrients, often inhibiting future farming at the same location. Lastly, if the world's population continues to grow, there is a risk of factory farming accentuating the hunger issue, as farming meat is overall less efficient when compared to farming fruits and vegetables.



On the contrary, some may support the usage of factory farming for its many benefits as well. The first of the benefits is the cheaper cost to produce meats, leading to greater profits. The compact size of factory farming practices allows for farmers to produce lots of produce, leading to more profits, while still saving money on land costs. Although this may benefit workers in the industry, farmers who are aware of the consequences of climate change would most likely still stray away from factory farming unless they were very selfish or in desperate situations. Some farmers around the world are indeed quite selfish or in desperate situations, leading to the factory farms we see today. In countries such as Brazil and Indonesia, though, farmers gain cheap land in forests and use a practice called slash-and-burn to clear the land for farming both animals and the produce to feed to the animals, notably cattle. This method of clearing forests is cheap for farmers, but especially harmful to the environment due to the large amount of carbon dioxide released by the burning of trees and other plants. At the same time, competition between farmers can cause the price of meat to decrease, making the price cheaper to consumers as well, but as said, the meat of factory farms is lower quality than those of traditional farming. More specifically, products from factory farms often contain "harmful bacteria, pesticide residue, antibiotics and artificial hormones, all of which can be harmful to consumers,"(Food) while pasture raised products have less calories and total fat, "higher levels of vitamins and a healthier balance of omega-3 and omega-6 fats"(Raising).



As climate change continues, considerations over the reduction or elimination of factory farming must be made, even if some groups may suffer from the economic or political changes. Obviously, one easy solution is using the utilitarian approach: totally boycotting the meat industry as a whole. The problem with this approach is that boycotting a trillion dollar industry is unrealistic without total government control of the economy. Even then, almost all of the current infrastructure of the world's meat industry consists of factory farming and the farms that feed its animals. In order for the world to shift to a diet with little to no meat, trillions of dollars will likely need to be invested into creating new infrastructure to make up for the loss of production through the shutting down of factory farms. Still, the utilitarian viewpoint does point out the urgency of the large amount of greenhouse gasses generated from the meat industry, as climate change has reached the point where scientists have discussed the boundaries that cannot be crossed to ensure human survival.

Instead of following the utilitarian approach, one's ideals may stray closer to a deontological approach, seeing the protection of the environment and the humane treatment of animals in agriculture as the obligatory duty. Supporters of this deontological approach may still encourage the total boycott of the meat industry, although some may still look to retain the more ethical traditional methods of animal agriculture. With recent discoveries in the cultivation of animal cells, some may also reject traditional farming practices and support a full reliance on cultivated meats.

Regardless of the ideology, the most extreme approach of each ideology will have something along the lines of total independence from farming or even eating meat. Many people may oppose this more radical change, some viewing meat as an important aspect of their religion, while others may cling onto the meat-containing foods that they enjoy. Either way, it is practically impossible for the farming of livestock to be totally eradicated, as those who seek economic opportunity, even if they must go through illegal means, will find a way to supply any product that is in demand. Thus, there must be ways for countries to deal with the environmental consequences of the meat industry without abolishing it as a whole. One way to do so with the methane produced by ruminant animals was stated by Ermias Kebreab in his TED Talk about his research on feeding different foods as supplements to cattle. In his talk, he states that feeding as little as 60 to 80 grams of seaweed "reduces emissions by over 80 percent"(Kebreab). Kebreab then explains that "Some seaweeds contain ingredients that directly inhibit microbes in the cow's gut from forming methane without interfering with food digestion"(Kebreab).



Other solutions aside from avoiding the production or consumption of animal meat include offsetting emissions to become closer to carbon neutral, adding an extra price tag onto carbon emissions, and the adoption of sustainable practices. Like many corporations who made declarations about becoming carbon neutral within a time span, factory farms can try to become carbon neutral or help the climate crisis by planting new trees to replace trees that were originally cut down for farming. On the political side, policies can be made to make products or services, in this case, meat, more expensive based on the environmental impact of the practices behind the product. Overall, sustainable practices such as using green energy for transportation and electricity, using environmentally safe fertilizers and pesticides, and selling locally all can help convert society into one that will survive climate change.

Sources

Antotoro wrote:
I was looking for some opinions and potential feedback. I am also interested in some sources related to public polling and national policies regarding factory farming if anyone can link me to some.

James_ wrote:

Antotoro wrote:
I was looking for some opinions and potential feedback. I am also interested in some sources related to public polling and national policies regarding factory farming if anyone can link me to some.

You'd force people to become vegetarians? Why don't you just suggest people make fewer babies to decrease the world population?

https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/ockhamsrazor/there-are-not-enough-resources-to-support-the-worlds-population/5511900

HarveyH55 wrote:
Humans are omnivores. It's not an either/or issue. Humans need both meat and plants. It's possible to survive meat free for long periods of time, but it's not ideal. Vegans are gassy too... It's part of digesting large quantities of plants. Which is sort of why humans eat meat... Our digestive systems aren't gear toward consuming large quantities of plants. Cows, and similar herbivores are though. They do all the work, basically all they do in life, processing vegetation. The flesh provides most every nutritional need. Vegans need to consume large quantities, and vast variety, just to come close. They still rely on supplements, which probably are all from plants... They do have the option of processed, factory packaged vegan meals, with everything added for descent nutrition. Much less bulk, than natural foods. But, all those additives can't be good. The chemicals added, are purely to enhance profits. Still all the perceived problem of the meat industry. Least with a ribeye steak, you know what it's suppose to look like, taste like. There are vegan versions of meat, but never want to try any of them. Just too many steps in the process, which is more opportunities for contamination.

Even the IPCC admits that the most common, plentiful 'greenhouse' gas is water vapor. Cumulatively, it's more potent than all other 'greenhouse' gasses combine. They compare using the same volume, not proportions in the atmosphere to dodge the issue. Nearly 80% of the planet surface is water. No chance in controlling water vapor from forming. Controlling the less common gasses, pointless.

Swan wrote:

Antotoro wrote:
I was looking for some opinions and potential feedback. I am also interested in some sources related to public polling and national policies regarding factory farming if anyone can link me to some.

The famous primatologist and animal activist Dr. Jane Goodall once said, "Thousands of people who say they love animals sit down once or twice a day to enjoy the flesh of creatures who have been utterly deprived of everything that could make their lives worth living and who endured the awful suffering and the terror of the abattoirs"(Farm Sanctuary). Although her main line of work was not associated with the agriculture industry, her statement is well founded, as factory farming has been brought to the attention of the public more and more. In the past century, the world's population grew four-fold, while new innovations and research have made mass scale farming cheaper. Those were two of the main factors that paved the way for the agriculture industry to become the largest industry in the world. The agriculture industry is the second greatest cause of global carbon emissions contributing to almost a third of the global emissions, only behind the use of energy for electricity, transport and other modern technology (Ritchie Food). Among the many smaller industries within the agricultural sector, the use of factory farming is the largest producer of greenhouse gasses, notably methane and nitrous oxide (Ritchie How Much). Recently, more and more people have been spreading awareness about the cruelty towards animals in factory farming systems, but the environmental impacts of the systems are also very significant in the argument against factory farming. No matter how you look at it, it is undeniable that climate change has already happened and that its continued change is inevitable. Regardless of the ethical ideology you follow, whether it is utilitarianism or deontology, climate change impacts the world as a whole, only impacting various people in various ways at various magnitudes. Overall, despite the potential impact on the farming industry and the cost of animal products, the practices of factory farming should be abolished or dealt with as soon as possible.



First introduced in the 1930s, factory farming is commonly used by farmers who seek to achieve the greatest profits for both their land usage (When Did). Alongside the overall cruelty to farm animals, factory farming often uses processes or practices that release far more greenhouse gasses than other farming practices, either traditional or more modern. Firstly, some farm animals such as cattle and sheep are known as ruminant animals, animals who have different digestive systems that allow them to digest foods that are inedible to other animals. As a by-product of this unique type of digestion, lots of methane is produced and released into the atmosphere. On top of that, according to NASA, methane is 30 times more potent in insulating the heat in the atmosphere, making its impact far greater than some may expect from it being such a small percentage of the atmosphere's greenhouse gasses (Gray). In terms of potential plans of methane removal from the atmosphere, methane's scarcity in the atmosphere as compared to carbon dioxide and other gasses makes removal more difficult. In turn, scientists have focused more on using the process of oxidation to turn the methane into carbon dioxide, which will then further contribute to the overall problem of carbon dioxide emissions and increase the heating caused by the greenhouse effect (Bond).

Outside of the farms, the production of crops to feed the animals in factory farms requires about 40 times more water than the water needed if farmers used grazing to feed their animals (Compassion). On top of that, fertilizers were most likely also used to aid the production of crops fed to farm animals, which release nitrous oxide, another greenhouse gas more potent than even methane, into the atmosphere (Robert). Additionally, manure from farm animals also releases methane and nitrous oxide into the atmosphere, only adding to the large amount of greenhouse gasses that factory farming is emitting.

Outside of its impacts on climate change, factory farming also creates a variety of other issues, such as unemployment, lower quality meat, contamination of natural systems, and even a potential of causing starvation. From the aspect of unemployment, newer technologies and techniques used in factory farming bring in some automation to the farming, causing not only workers at factory farms but also other farmers who use traditional methods of farming to lose their jobs. Automation and poor livestock conditions also cause meat to be lower quality and possibly contain diseases or make humans more resistant to antibiotics. Either from direct contact between workers and farm animals or from disease passed through the animals' meat, the CDC states that "Scientists estimate that more than 6 out of every 10 known infectious diseases in people can be spread from animals, and 3 out of every 4 new or emerging infectious diseases in people come from animals"(Zoonotic). On the other hand, pesticides and fertilizers may contaminate the local environment, while the farming itself also drains the land of its nutrients, often inhibiting future farming at the same location. Lastly, if the world's population continues to grow, there is a risk of factory farming accentuating the hunger issue, as farming meat is overall less efficient when compared to farming fruits and vegetables.



On the contrary, some may support the usage of factory farming for its many benefits as well. The first of the benefits is the cheaper cost to produce meats, leading to greater profits. The compact size of factory farming practices allows for farmers to produce lots of produce, leading to more profits, while still saving money on land costs. Although this may benefit workers in the industry, farmers who are aware of the consequences of climate change would most likely still stray away from factory farming unless they were very selfish or in desperate situations. Some farmers around the world are indeed quite selfish or in desperate situations, leading to the factory farms we see today. In countries such as Brazil and Indonesia, though, farmers gain cheap land in forests and use a practice called slash-and-burn to clear the land for farming both animals and the produce to feed to the animals, notably cattle. This method of clearing forests is cheap for farmers, but especially harmful to the environment due to the large amount of carbon dioxide released by the burning of trees and other plants. At the same time, competition between farmers can cause the price of meat to decrease, making the price cheaper to consumers as well, but as said, the meat of factory farms is lower quality than those of traditional farming. More specifically, products from factory farms often contain "harmful bacteria, pesticide residue, antibiotics and artificial hormones, all of which can be harmful to consumers,"(Food) while pasture raised products have less calories and total fat, "higher levels of vitamins and a healthier balance of omega-3 and omega-6 fats"(Raising).



As climate change continues, considerations over the reduction or elimination of factory farming must be made, even if some groups may suffer from the economic or political changes. Obviously, one easy solution is using the utilitarian approach: totally boycotting the meat industry as a whole. The problem with this approach is that boycotting a trillion dollar industry is unrealistic without total government control of the economy. Even then, almost all of the current infrastructure of the world's meat industry consists of factory farming and the farms that feed its animals. In order for the world to shift to a diet with little to no meat, trillions of dollars will likely need to be invested into creating new infrastructure to make up for the loss of production through the shutting down of factory farms. Still, the utilitarian viewpoint does point out the urgency of the large amount of greenhouse gasses generated from the meat industry, as climate change has reached the point where scientists have discussed the boundaries that cannot be crossed to ensure human survival.

Instead of following the utilitarian approach, one's ideals may stray closer to a deontological approach, seeing the protection of the environment and the humane treatment of animals in agriculture as the obligatory duty. Supporters of this deontological approach may still encourage the total boycott of the meat industry, although some may still look to retain the more ethical traditional methods of animal agriculture. With recent discoveries in the cultivation of animal cells, some may also reject traditional farming practices and support a full reliance on cultivated meats.

Regardless of the ideology, the most extreme approach of each ideology will have something along the lines of total independence from farming or even eating meat. Many people may oppose this more radical change, some viewing meat as an important aspect of their religion, while others may cling onto the meat-containing foods that they enjoy. Either way, it is practically impossible for the farming of livestock to be totally eradicated, as those who seek economic opportunity, even if they must go through illegal means, will find a way to supply any product that is in demand. Thus, there must be ways for countries to deal with the environmental consequences of the meat industry without abolishing it as a whole. One way to do so with the methane produced by ruminant animals was stated by Ermias Kebreab in his TED Talk about his research on feeding different foods as supplements to cattle. In his talk, he states that feeding as little as 60 to 80 grams of seaweed "reduces emissions by over 80 percent"(Kebreab). Kebreab then explains that "Some seaweeds contain ingredients that directly inhibit microbes in the cow's gut from forming methane without interfering with food digestion"(Kebreab).



Other solutions aside from avoiding the production or consumption of animal meat include offsetting emissions to become closer to carbon neutral, adding an extra price tag onto carbon emissions, and the adoption of sustainable practices. Like many corporations who made declarations about becoming carbon neutral within a time span, factory farms can try to become carbon neutral or help the climate crisis by planting new trees to replace trees that were originally cut down for farming. On the political side, policies can be made to make products or services, in this case, meat, more expensive based on the environmental impact of the practices behind the product. Overall, sustainable practices such as using green energy for transportation and electricity, using environmentally safe fertilizers and pesticides, and selling locally all can help convert society into one that will survive climate change.

Sources

So what is your point in one sentence?

Great writers have this ability.

Antotoro wrote:

Swan wrote:

Antotoro wrote:
I was looking for some opinions and potential feedback. I am also interested in some sources related to public polling and national policies regarding factory farming if anyone can link me to some.

The famous primatologist and animal activist Dr. Jane Goodall once said, "Thousands of people who say they love animals sit down once or twice a day to enjoy the flesh of creatures who have been utterly deprived of everything that could make their lives worth living and who endured the awful suffering and the terror of the abattoirs"(Farm Sanctuary). Although her main line of work was not associated with the agriculture industry, her statement is well founded, as factory farming has been brought to the attention of the public more and more. In the past century, the world's population grew four-fold, while new innovations and research have made mass scale farming cheaper. Those were two of the main factors that paved the way for the agriculture industry to become the largest industry in the world. The agriculture industry is the second greatest cause of global carbon emissions contributing to almost a third of the global emissions, only behind the use of energy for electricity, transport and other modern technology (Ritchie Food). Among the many smaller industries within the agricultural sector, the use of factory farming is the largest producer of greenhouse gasses, notably methane and nitrous oxide (Ritchie How Much). Recently, more and more people have been spreading awareness about the cruelty towards animals in factory farming systems, but the environmental impacts of the systems are also very significant in the argument against factory farming. No matter how you look at it, it is undeniable that climate change has already happened and that its continued change is inevitable. Regardless of the ethical ideology you follow, whether it is utilitarianism or deontology, climate change impacts the world as a whole, only impacting various people in various ways at various magnitudes. Overall, despite the potential impact on the farming industry and the cost of animal products, the practices of factory farming should be abolished or dealt with as soon as possible.



First introduced in the 1930s, factory farming is commonly used by farmers who seek to achieve the greatest profits for both their land usage (When Did). Alongside the overall cruelty to farm animals, factory farming often uses processes or practices that release far more greenhouse gasses than other farming practices, either traditional or more modern. Firstly, some farm animals such as cattle and sheep are known as ruminant animals, animals who have different digestive systems that allow them to digest foods that are inedible to other animals. As a by-product of this unique type of digestion, lots of methane is produced and released into the atmosphere. On top of that, according to NASA, methane is 30 times more potent in insulating the heat in the atmosphere, making its impact far greater than some may expect from it being such a small percentage of the atmosphere's greenhouse gasses (Gray). In terms of potential plans of methane removal from the atmosphere, methane's scarcity in the atmosphere as compared to carbon dioxide and other gasses makes removal more difficult. In turn, scientists have focused more on using the process of oxidation to turn the methane into carbon dioxide, which will then further contribute to the overall problem of carbon dioxide emissions and increase the heating caused by the greenhouse effect (Bond).

Outside of the farms, the production of crops to feed the animals in factory farms requires about 40 times more water than the water needed if farmers used grazing to feed their animals (Compassion). On top of that, fertilizers were most likely also used to aid the production of crops fed to farm animals, which release nitrous oxide, another greenhouse gas more potent than even methane, into the atmosphere (Robert). Additionally, manure from farm animals also releases methane and nitrous oxide into the atmosphere, only adding to the large amount of greenhouse gasses that factory farming is emitting.

Outside of its impacts on climate change, factory farming also creates a variety of other issues, such as unemployment, lower quality meat, contamination of natural systems, and even a potential of causing starvation. From the aspect of unemployment, newer technologies and techniques used in factory farming bring in some automation to the farming, causing not only workers at factory farms but also other farmers who use traditional methods of farming to lose their jobs. Automation and poor livestock conditions also cause meat to be lower quality and possibly contain diseases or make humans more resistant to antibiotics. Either from direct contact between workers and farm animals or from disease passed through the animals' meat, the CDC states that "Scientists estimate that more than 6 out of every 10 known infectious diseases in people can be spread from animals, and 3 out of every 4 new or emerging infectious diseases in people come from animals"(Zoonotic). On the other hand, pesticides and fertilizers may contaminate the local environment, while the farming itself also drains the land of its nutrients, often inhibiting future farming at the same location. Lastly, if the world's population continues to grow, there is a risk of factory farming accentuating the hunger issue, as farming meat is overall less efficient when compared to farming fruits and vegetables.



On the contrary, some may support the usage of factory farming for its many benefits as well. The first of the benefits is the cheaper cost to produce meats, leading to greater profits. The compact size of factory farming practices allows for farmers to produce lots of produce, leading to more profits, while still saving money on land costs. Although this may benefit workers in the industry, farmers who are aware of the consequences of climate change would most likely still stray away from factory farming unless they were very selfish or in desperate situations. Some farmers around the world are indeed quite selfish or in desperate situations, leading to the factory farms we see today. In countries such as Brazil and Indonesia, though, farmers gain cheap land in forests and use a practice called slash-and-burn to clear the land for farming both animals and the produce to feed to the animals, notably cattle. This method of clearing forests is cheap for farmers, but especially harmful to the environment due to the large amount of carbon dioxide released by the burning of trees and other plants. At the same time, competition between farmers can cause the price of meat to decrease, making the price cheaper to consumers as well, but as said, the meat of factory farms is lower quality than those of traditional farming. More specifically, products from factory farms often contain "harmful bacteria, pesticide residue, antibiotics and artificial hormones, all of which can be harmful to consumers,"(Food) while pasture raised products have less calories and total fat, "higher levels of vitamins and a healthier balance of omega-3 and omega-6 fats"(Raising).



As climate change continues, considerations over the reduction or elimination of factory farming must be made, even if some groups may suffer from the economic or political changes. Obviously, one easy solution is using the utilitarian approach: totally boycotting the meat industry as a whole. The problem with this approach is that boycotting a trillion dollar industry is unrealistic without total government control of the economy. Even then, almost all of the current infrastructure of the world's meat industry consists of factory farming and the farms that feed its animals. In order for the world to shift to a diet with little to no meat, trillions of dollars will likely need to be invested into creating new infrastructure to make up for the loss of production through the shutting down of factory farms. Still, the utilitarian viewpoint does point out the urgency of the large amount of greenhouse gasses generated from the meat industry, as climate change has reached the point where scientists have discussed the boundaries that cannot be crossed to ensure human survival.

Instead of following the utilitarian approach, one's ideals may stray closer to a deontological approach, seeing the protection of the environment and the humane treatment of animals in agriculture as the obligatory duty. Supporters of this deontological approach may still encourage the total boycott of the meat industry, although some may still look to retain the more ethical traditional methods of animal agriculture. With recent discoveries in the cultivation of animal cells, some may also reject traditional farming practices and support a full reliance on cultivated meats.

Regardless of the ideology, the most extreme approach of each ideology will have something along the lines of total independence from farming or even eating meat. Many people may oppose this more radical change, some viewing meat as an important aspect of their religion, while others may cling onto the meat-containing foods that they enjoy. Either way, it is practically impossible for the farming of livestock to be totally eradicated, as those who seek economic opportunity, even if they must go through illegal means, will find a way to supply any product that is in demand. Thus, there must be ways for countries to deal with the environmental consequences of the meat industry without abolishing it as a whole. One way to do so with the methane produced by ruminant animals was stated by Ermias Kebreab in his TED Talk about his research on feeding different foods as supplements to cattle. In his talk, he states that feeding as little as 60 to 80 grams of seaweed "reduces emissions by over 80 percent"(Kebreab). Kebreab then explains that "Some seaweeds contain ingredients that directly inhibit microbes in the cow's gut from forming methane without interfering with food digestion"(Kebreab).



Other solutions aside from avoiding the production or consumption of animal meat include offsetting emissions to become closer to carbon neutral, adding an extra price tag onto carbon emissions, and the adoption of sustainable practices. Like many corporations who made declarations about becoming carbon neutral within a time span, factory farms can try to become carbon neutral or help the climate crisis by planting new trees to replace trees that were originally cut down for farming. On the political side, policies can be made to make products or services, in this case, meat, more expensive based on the environmental impact of the practices behind the product. Overall, sustainable practices such as using green energy for transportation and electricity, using environmentally safe fertilizers and pesticides, and selling locally all can help convert society into one that will survive climate change.

Sources

So what is your point in one sentence?

Great writers have this ability.

I followed an essay format that I believe many people use.
My thesis statement is the last sentence of my introduction paragraph:

"Overall, despite the potential impact on the farming industry and the cost of animal products, the practices of factory farming should be abolished or dealt with as soon as possible."

GasGuzzler wrote:

Antotoro wrote:
I was looking for some opinions and potential feedback.

No, you are looking for a place to preach your climate change religion.

Antotoro wrote:
No matter how you look at it, it is undeniable that climate change has already happened.

What exactly is climate change? What has "happened"? Can I safely assume it's a sexy buzzword used to make global warming more believable?

Antotoro wrote:
factory farming should be abolished or dealt with as soon as possible.

You do realize you are trying to kill millions?

Antotoro wrote:
which will then further contribute to the overall problem of carbon dioxide emissions and increase the heating caused by the greenhouse effect

OK, so we ARE discussing global warming. I suspected as such.
Dude, you've bought into the lies. Heat is the flow of thermal energy via conduction, convection and radiation. It ALWAYS flows from hot to cold. The suns electromagnetic radiation reaches the earths surface and converts it to thermal energy and it begins to flow...warmer to cooler. A cooler gas cannot heat a warmer surface. Carbon dioxide or methane are just another way for the surface to COOL itself as all thermal energy works it's way back into space.
There is no "greenhouse effect". A greenhouse REDUCES heat (the flow of thermal energy) by preventing convective heat, therefore staying warmer. No gas has the ability to warm the earth or prevent convection. Carbon dioxide is neither an insulator nor an energy source. It is a conductor of thermal energy. It absorbs and emits.

Antotoro wrote:
factory farming also creates a variety of other issues, such as unemployment

I suspect this is just like the robots putting the auto workers out of jobs. Almost no auto workers left anymore.

Antotoro wrote:
lower quality meat,

Why are you arguing this to be a problem when you are arguing to abolish meat?

Antotoro wrote:
and even a potential of causing starvation.

abolishing meat will take care of this just fine

Antotoro wrote:
competition between farmers can cause the price of meat to decrease, making the price cheaper to consumers as well

This is how free markets thrive. This is how economies thrive. This is how wealth is created. Liberals despise successful citizens earning shitloads while not under the gov bootheel. Really? I'm wrong about that? Listen to yourself!!!

Antotoro wrote:
In order for the world to shift to a diet with little to no meat, trillions of dollars will likely need to be invested into creating new infrastructure to make up for the loss of production through the shutting down of factory farms

Free and thriving markets are not created by destroying free and thriving markets. Only the government will be able to "save" us from the problems it creates. In this case the created problem is global warming. It is nothing more than the creation of a fear mongering lie by which they frighten gullible morons such as yourself into believing you are someone special because you care enough to destroy your neighbor.

Antotoro wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Antotoro wrote:
I was looking for some opinions and potential feedback.

No, you are looking for a place to preach your climate change religion.

Antotoro wrote:
No matter how you look at it, it is undeniable that climate change has already happened.

What exactly is climate change? What has "happened"? Can I safely assume it's a sexy buzzword used to make global warming more believable?

Antotoro wrote:
factory farming should be abolished or dealt with as soon as possible.

You do realize you are trying to kill millions?

Antotoro wrote:
which will then further contribute to the overall problem of carbon dioxide emissions and increase the heating caused by the greenhouse effect

OK, so we ARE discussing global warming. I suspected as such.
Dude, you've bought into the lies. Heat is the flow of thermal energy via conduction, convection and radiation. It ALWAYS flows from hot to cold. The suns electromagnetic radiation reaches the earths surface and converts it to thermal energy and it begins to flow...warmer to cooler. A cooler gas cannot heat a warmer surface. Carbon dioxide or methane are just another way for the surface to COOL itself as all thermal energy works it's way back into space.
There is no "greenhouse effect". A greenhouse REDUCES heat (the flow of thermal energy) by preventing convective heat, therefore staying warmer. No gas has the ability to warm the earth or prevent convection. Carbon dioxide is neither an insulator nor an energy source. It is a conductor of thermal energy. It absorbs and emits.

Antotoro wrote:
factory farming also creates a variety of other issues, such as unemployment

I suspect this is just like the robots putting the auto workers out of jobs. Almost no auto workers left anymore.

Antotoro wrote:
lower quality meat,

Why are you arguing this to be a problem when you are arguing to abolish meat?

Antotoro wrote:
and even a potential of causing starvation.

abolishing meat will take care of this just fine

Antotoro wrote:
competition between farmers can cause the price of meat to decrease, making the price cheaper to consumers as well

This is how free markets thrive. This is how economies thrive. This is how wealth is created. Liberals despise successful citizens earning shitloads while not under the gov bootheel. Really? I'm wrong about that? Listen to yourself!!!

Antotoro wrote:
In order for the world to shift to a diet with little to no meat, trillions of dollars will likely need to be invested into creating new infrastructure to make up for the loss of production through the shutting down of factory farms

Free and thriving markets are not created by destroying free and thriving markets. Only the government will be able to "save" us from the problems it creates. In this case the created problem is global warming. It is nothing more than the creation of a fear mongering lie by which they frighten gullible morons such as yourself into believing you are someone special because you care enough to destroy your neighbor.

Yes you may say that I am trying to "preach" my "climate change religion," but the intention of this post was not to spread awareness about the content of my essay. I was instead looking for ways I could improve my essay and further my interest in these topics.

According to the UN, "Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns." It may potentially be seen as a buzzword for those who do not fully grasp the topic, but I is indeed a coined term focused on changes in climate that have become increasingly apparent recently.

When you say "You do realize you are trying to kill millions?". I am not in charge of the policymaking, and in turn I myself am not exactly causing any deaths. I am advocating for policy to be changed "as soon as possible", and with possible, I would hope that lives are being put before the policy changes.

Antotoro wrote:
I followed an essay format that I believe many people use.
My thesis statement is the last sentence of my introduction paragraph:

"Overall, despite the potential impact on the farming industry and the cost of animal products, the practices of factory farming should be abolished or dealt with as soon as possible."

James_ wrote:

Antotoro wrote:
I followed an essay format that I believe many people use.
My thesis statement is the last sentence of my introduction paragraph:

"Overall, despite the potential impact on the farming industry and the cost of animal products, the practices of factory farming should be abolished or dealt with as soon as possible."

This wouldn't be economically feasible. Not all farms can be like this one;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqpESZDVfkU

And I am aware that in India that cows are sacred. And if people wish for them to be sacred then India is a good place for them to live. That is like Jews are kosher and will not eat pork while they like lamb. And yet who doesn't like bacon? A Jew wouldn't. They are better than that. I like bacon so I'm not someone Jews would like. Myself, a greasy double bacon cheeseburger would hit the spot.

Antotoro wrote:
Yes you may say that I am trying to "preach" my "climate change religion," but the intention of this post was not to spread awareness about the content of my essay. I was instead looking for ways I could improve my essay

Antotoro wrote:
According to the UN,

Antotoro wrote:
Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns.

Antotoro wrote:
It may potentially be seen as a buzzword for those who do not fully grasp the topic,

Antotoro wrote:
but it is indeed a coined term focused on changes in climate that have become increasingly apparent recently.

Antotoro wrote:
When you say "You do realize you are trying to kill millions?". I am not in charge of the policymaking, and in turn I myself am not exactly causing any deaths.

Antotoro wrote:
I would hope that lives are being put before the policy changes.

Swan wrote:
Actually you copied and pasted from wiki.

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Antotoro wrote:
I followed an essay format that I believe many people use.
My thesis statement is the last sentence of my introduction paragraph:

"Overall, despite the potential impact on the farming industry and the cost of animal products, the practices of factory farming should be abolished or dealt with as soon as possible."

This wouldn't be economically feasible. Not all farms can be like this one;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqpESZDVfkU

And I am aware that in India that cows are sacred. And if people wish for them to be sacred then India is a good place for them to live. That is like Jews are kosher and will not eat pork while they like lamb. And yet who doesn't like bacon? A Jew wouldn't. They are better than that. I like bacon so I'm not someone Jews would like. Myself, a greasy double bacon cheeseburger would hit the spot.

James_ wrote:
This wouldn't be economically feasible. Not all farms can be like this one;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqpESZDVfkU

And I am aware that in India that cows are sacred. And if people wish for them to be sacred then India is a good place for them to live. That is like Jews are kosher and will not eat pork while they like lamb. And yet who doesn't like bacon? A Jew wouldn't. They are better than that. I like bacon so I'm not someone Jews would like. Myself, a greasy double bacon cheeseburger would hit the spot.

sealover wrote:

Welcome to our new member!

This excellent post addresses many different issues related to factory farming, any one of which is worthy of separate discussion.

The connections to climate change are multiple, and I have a special interest in the topic as a biogeochemist.

Antotoro, I'd be happy to provide you with relevant information.

For example, my published work is cited in papers about how free ranging ruminants can reduce their digestive methane emissions significantly, compared to factory farms, by feeding on rangeland species with the optimal polyphenol composition.

As a sentient human being who has been around many kinds of livestock in both free range, or at least cage free conditions compared to those packed into death camp conditions.

Their entire lives are torture.

And then there is the problem of how to feed them all.

Well, take cropland and use it to grow animal feed to bring to the factory. What could be the downside to that? (sarcasm intended)

And the problem of what to do with all the urine and feces from the densely populated site. Although, in fairness, factory farms release orders of magnitude less nitrogen into groundwater or surface water compared to croplands. Unless there is a flood.

You can certainly smell the ammonia they emit, but nitrous oxide is the more environmentally significant gas getting into the atmosphere from the decomposing urine and manure concentrated at the factory farm.

Here's a new sales pitch for free ranging livestock. It is now known that the disturbance caused to the soil by livestock hooves is beneficial to rangeland productivity, particularly if the herd is frequently on the move.

Another pitch is that the corn and soybeans we grow might be better spent on human nutrition, cutting out the livestock middleman who takes a 90% cut.

We can still get plenty of meat from free ranging, or at least cage free livestock.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Ever consider that factory farming is a more controlled environment, than just letting animals wander around, consuming anything they can get to. Drinking from any source of water. Injuries, infestations, infections... The animals are a product, and protecting them is profit.

Farm land is shrinking in many areas. Farming has never been hugely profitable, and a lot of work. It's not for everyone. Many sell off land to developers, who build affordable housing, condos, townhouses, strip-malls... Solar and wind farms take up a lot of land as well. Land stripped of vegetation...

Earlier this year, the FDA approved lab cultivated chicken 'meat'. Basically vat grown chicken muscle/fat tissue, as food. Might provide some of the bulk, nutritional requirements, but would be lacking many provided by the live bird. The nutritional value is further degraded, since it's pre-cooked, before leaving the factory. Partly to kill the cells, and anything else that might be growing in the vat. The vat is also the perfect environment for any cell, bacteria or otherwise... Quite likely, they would also want to protect the process, and destroy the DNA, so other startup companies don't profit of their work. The product from the factory, will be reheated, cooked again before consumed. Further degrading any nutritional value. Least no live chickens were tortured in cages...

Cattle grazing in pastures hasn't been profitable for decades. Takes a lot of grazing land, for the amount of demand. Takes weeks/months for vegetation to regrow. We can't create more land, or knock down people's homes to expand farms. We need to make more efficient use of the remaining land. Our expanding population needs housing, just as much as food. Abolishing efficient farming, reduces supply, driving up costs, and consumer prices. Doesn't really improve profit, or quality. Consumers will be forced to buy foods they can afford. Which of course would be government approved, and subsidized. Basically, anything processed and pre-packaged, could be anything that resembles food... Real food would be for the wealthy, or those able to grow their own. The bulk of the population would have little choice to eat what the government offers as nutrition, Soylent Green...

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Ever consider that factory farming is a more controlled environment, than just letting animals wander around, consuming anything they can get to. Drinking from any source of water. Injuries, infestations, infections... The animals are a product, and protecting them is profit.

Farm land is shrinking in many areas. Farming has never been hugely profitable, and a lot of work. It's not for everyone. Many sell off land to developers, who build affordable housing, condos, townhouses, strip-malls... Solar and wind farms take up a lot of land as well. Land stripped of vegetation...

Earlier this year, the FDA approved lab cultivated chicken 'meat'. Basically vat grown chicken muscle/fat tissue, as food. Might provide some of the bulk, nutritional requirements, but would be lacking many provided by the live bird. The nutritional value is further degraded, since it's pre-cooked, before leaving the factory. Partly to kill the cells, and anything else that might be growing in the vat. The vat is also the perfect environment for any cell, bacteria or otherwise... Quite likely, they would also want to protect the process, and destroy the DNA, so other startup companies don't profit of their work. The product from the factory, will be reheated, cooked again before consumed. Further degrading any nutritional value. Least no live chickens were tortured in cages...

Cattle grazing in pastures hasn't been profitable for decades. Takes a lot of grazing land, for the amount of demand. Takes weeks/months for vegetation to regrow. We can't create more land, or knock down people's homes to expand farms. We need to make more efficient use of the remaining land. Our expanding population needs housing, just as much as food. Abolishing efficient farming, reduces supply, driving up costs, and consumer prices. Doesn't really improve profit, or quality. Consumers will be forced to buy foods they can afford. Which of course would be government approved, and subsidized. Basically, anything processed and pre-packaged, could be anything that resembles food... Real food would be for the wealthy, or those able to grow their own. The bulk of the population would have little choice to eat what the government offers as nutrition, Soylent Green...

Over 99 percent of vegetables come from factory farms, harvested by million dollar factory farming machines, in fact trillions of vegetables are murdered by vegetarians every year

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Ever consider that factory farming is a more controlled environment, than just letting animals wander around, consuming anything they can get to. Drinking from any source of water. Injuries, infestations, infections... The animals are a product, and protecting them is profit.

Farm land is shrinking in many areas. Farming has never been hugely profitable, and a lot of work. It's not for everyone. Many sell off land to developers, who build affordable housing, condos, townhouses, strip-malls... Solar and wind farms take up a lot of land as well. Land stripped of vegetation...

Earlier this year, the FDA approved lab cultivated chicken 'meat'. Basically vat grown chicken muscle/fat tissue, as food. Might provide some of the bulk, nutritional requirements, but would be lacking many provided by the live bird. The nutritional value is further degraded, since it's pre-cooked, before leaving the factory. Partly to kill the cells, and anything else that might be growing in the vat. The vat is also the perfect environment for any cell, bacteria or otherwise... Quite likely, they would also want to protect the process, and destroy the DNA, so other startup companies don't profit of their work. The product from the factory, will be reheated, cooked again before consumed. Further degrading any nutritional value. Least no live chickens were tortured in cages...

Cattle grazing in pastures hasn't been profitable for decades. Takes a lot of grazing land, for the amount of demand. Takes weeks/months for vegetation to regrow. We can't create more land, or knock down people's homes to expand farms. We need to make more efficient use of the remaining land. Our expanding population needs housing, just as much as food. Abolishing efficient farming, reduces supply, driving up costs, and consumer prices. Doesn't really improve profit, or quality. Consumers will be forced to buy foods they can afford. Which of course would be government approved, and subsidized. Basically, anything processed and pre-packaged, could be anything that resembles food... Real food would be for the wealthy, or those able to grow their own. The bulk of the population would have little choice to eat what the government offers as nutrition, Soylent Green...

Over 99 percent of vegetables come from factory farms, harvested by million dollar factory farming machines, in fact trillions of vegetables are murdered by vegetarians every year

Making up numbers and using them as 'data' is a fallacy, dummy.

Swan wrote:
Millions of dollars worth of harvesters killing billions of individual plants indiscriminately.

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Ever consider that factory farming is a more controlled environment, than just letting animals wander around, consuming anything they can get to. Drinking from any source of water. Injuries, infestations, infections... The animals are a product, and protecting them is profit.

Farm land is shrinking in many areas. Farming has never been hugely profitable, and a lot of work. It's not for everyone. Many sell off land to developers, who build affordable housing, condos, townhouses, strip-malls... Solar and wind farms take up a lot of land as well. Land stripped of vegetation...

Earlier this year, the FDA approved lab cultivated chicken 'meat'. Basically vat grown chicken muscle/fat tissue, as food. Might provide some of the bulk, nutritional requirements, but would be lacking many provided by the live bird. The nutritional value is further degraded, since it's pre-cooked, before leaving the factory. Partly to kill the cells, and anything else that might be growing in the vat. The vat is also the perfect environment for any cell, bacteria or otherwise... Quite likely, they would also want to protect the process, and destroy the DNA, so other startup companies don't profit of their work. The product from the factory, will be reheated, cooked again before consumed. Further degrading any nutritional value. Least no live chickens were tortured in cages...

Cattle grazing in pastures hasn't been profitable for decades. Takes a lot of grazing land, for the amount of demand. Takes weeks/months for vegetation to regrow. We can't create more land, or knock down people's homes to expand farms. We need to make more efficient use of the remaining land. Our expanding population needs housing, just as much as food. Abolishing efficient farming, reduces supply, driving up costs, and consumer prices. Doesn't really improve profit, or quality. Consumers will be forced to buy foods they can afford. Which of course would be government approved, and subsidized. Basically, anything processed and pre-packaged, could be anything that resembles food... Real food would be for the wealthy, or those able to grow their own. The bulk of the population would have little choice to eat what the government offers as nutrition, Soylent Green...

Over 99 percent of vegetables come from factory farms, harvested by million dollar factory farming machines, in fact trillions of vegetables are murdered by vegetarians every year

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Ever consider that factory farming is a more controlled environment, than just letting animals wander around, consuming anything they can get to. Drinking from any source of water. Injuries, infestations, infections... The animals are a product, and protecting them is profit.

Farm land is shrinking in many areas. Farming has never been hugely profitable, and a lot of work. It's not for everyone. Many sell off land to developers, who build affordable housing, condos, townhouses, strip-malls... Solar and wind farms take up a lot of land as well. Land stripped of vegetation...

Earlier this year, the FDA approved lab cultivated chicken 'meat'. Basically vat grown chicken muscle/fat tissue, as food. Might provide some of the bulk, nutritional requirements, but would be lacking many provided by the live bird. The nutritional value is further degraded, since it's pre-cooked, before leaving the factory. Partly to kill the cells, and anything else that might be growing in the vat. The vat is also the perfect environment for any cell, bacteria or otherwise... Quite likely, they would also want to protect the process, and destroy the DNA, so other startup companies don't profit of their work. The product from the factory, will be reheated, cooked again before consumed. Further degrading any nutritional value. Least no live chickens were tortured in cages...

Cattle grazing in pastures hasn't been profitable for decades. Takes a lot of grazing land, for the amount of demand. Takes weeks/months for vegetation to regrow. We can't create more land, or knock down people's homes to expand farms. We need to make more efficient use of the remaining land. Our expanding population needs housing, just as much as food. Abolishing efficient farming, reduces supply, driving up costs, and consumer prices. Doesn't really improve profit, or quality. Consumers will be forced to buy foods they can afford. Which of course would be government approved, and subsidized. Basically, anything processed and pre-packaged, could be anything that resembles food... Real food would be for the wealthy, or those able to grow their own. The bulk of the population would have little choice to eat what the government offers as nutrition, Soylent Green...

Over 99 percent of vegetables come from factory farms, harvested by million dollar factory farming machines, in fact trillions of vegetables are murdered by vegetarians every year

Making up numbers and using them as 'data' is a fallacy, dummy.

How many wheat plants per acre? All murdered for vegetarian bread.

Millions of dollars worth of harvesters killing billions of individual plants indiscriminately. And asses like you complain about the half of a cow that I eat per year. Do the math turd, as you are helping murder trillions of plants to feed your fat face.



And still more trillions of plants murdered.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:
Millions of dollars worth of harvesters killing billions of individual plants indiscriminately.

Congratulations are in order! You have just achieved an unprecedented level of stupid. Corn aand bean plants are green when they are living. Harvest is done when the plant has died and some drying of the crop has taken place.

Congrats!!!!

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Ever consider that factory farming is a more controlled environment, than just letting animals wander around, consuming anything they can get to. Drinking from any source of water. Injuries, infestations, infections... The animals are a product, and protecting them is profit.

Farm land is shrinking in many areas. Farming has never been hugely profitable, and a lot of work. It's not for everyone. Many sell off land to developers, who build affordable housing, condos, townhouses, strip-malls... Solar and wind farms take up a lot of land as well. Land stripped of vegetation...

Earlier this year, the FDA approved lab cultivated chicken 'meat'. Basically vat grown chicken muscle/fat tissue, as food. Might provide some of the bulk, nutritional requirements, but would be lacking many provided by the live bird. The nutritional value is further degraded, since it's pre-cooked, before leaving the factory. Partly to kill the cells, and anything else that might be growing in the vat. The vat is also the perfect environment for any cell, bacteria or otherwise... Quite likely, they would also want to protect the process, and destroy the DNA, so other startup companies don't profit of their work. The product from the factory, will be reheated, cooked again before consumed. Further degrading any nutritional value. Least no live chickens were tortured in cages...

Cattle grazing in pastures hasn't been profitable for decades. Takes a lot of grazing land, for the amount of demand. Takes weeks/months for vegetation to regrow. We can't create more land, or knock down people's homes to expand farms. We need to make more efficient use of the remaining land. Our expanding population needs housing, just as much as food. Abolishing efficient farming, reduces supply, driving up costs, and consumer prices. Doesn't really improve profit, or quality. Consumers will be forced to buy foods they can afford. Which of course would be government approved, and subsidized. Basically, anything processed and pre-packaged, could be anything that resembles food... Real food would be for the wealthy, or those able to grow their own. The bulk of the population would have little choice to eat what the government offers as nutrition, Soylent Green...

Over 99 percent of vegetables come from factory farms, harvested by million dollar factory farming machines, in fact trillions of vegetables are murdered by vegetarians every year

Making up numbers and using them as 'data' is a fallacy, dummy.

How many wheat plants per acre? All murdered for vegetarian bread.

Millions of dollars worth of harvesters killing billions of individual plants indiscriminately. And asses like you complain about the half of a cow that I eat per year. Do the math turd, as you are helping murder trillions of plants to feed your fat face.



And still more trillions of plants murdered.

Clueless moron... Lot of plants survive, if the roots remain mostly intact. Takes a really hard freeze during the winter to kill them. Which rarely happens. Farms plow the fields for other reasons, and replant. With grains, only the seed stalk is harvested. The plant can send up several during a growing season. How often do you mow your lawn? If you have one... I get seed stalks here, in about two weeks. Don't think the city would let me get away with letting them mature, to re-seed. Would be more than a few weeks. I do know hay and wheat are good for two harvests out west, where I grew up.

Antotoro wrote:

sealover wrote:

Welcome to our new member!

This excellent post addresses many different issues related to factory farming, any one of which is worthy of separate discussion.

The connections to climate change are multiple, and I have a special interest in the topic as a biogeochemist.

Antotoro, I'd be happy to provide you with relevant information.

For example, my published work is cited in papers about how free ranging ruminants can reduce their digestive methane emissions significantly, compared to factory farms, by feeding on rangeland species with the optimal polyphenol composition.

As a sentient human being who has been around many kinds of livestock in both free range, or at least cage free conditions compared to those packed into death camp conditions.

Their entire lives are torture.

And then there is the problem of how to feed them all.

Well, take cropland and use it to grow animal feed to bring to the factory. What could be the downside to that? (sarcasm intended)

And the problem of what to do with all the urine and feces from the densely populated site. Although, in fairness, factory farms release orders of magnitude less nitrogen into groundwater or surface water compared to croplands. Unless there is a flood.

You can certainly smell the ammonia they emit, but nitrous oxide is the more environmentally significant gas getting into the atmosphere from the decomposing urine and manure concentrated at the factory farm.

Here's a new sales pitch for free ranging livestock. It is now known that the disturbance caused to the soil by livestock hooves is beneficial to rangeland productivity, particularly if the herd is frequently on the move.

Another pitch is that the corn and soybeans we grow might be better spent on human nutrition, cutting out the livestock middleman who takes a 90% cut.

We can still get plenty of meat from free ranging, or at least cage free livestock.

Got it, thanks for the additional information. I'll be sure to check out some published works on these topics.

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Ever consider that factory farming is a more controlled environment, than just letting animals wander around, consuming anything they can get to. Drinking from any source of water. Injuries, infestations, infections... The animals are a product, and protecting them is profit.

Farm land is shrinking in many areas. Farming has never been hugely profitable, and a lot of work. It's not for everyone. Many sell off land to developers, who build affordable housing, condos, townhouses, strip-malls... Solar and wind farms take up a lot of land as well. Land stripped of vegetation...

Earlier this year, the FDA approved lab cultivated chicken 'meat'. Basically vat grown chicken muscle/fat tissue, as food. Might provide some of the bulk, nutritional requirements, but would be lacking many provided by the live bird. The nutritional value is further degraded, since it's pre-cooked, before leaving the factory. Partly to kill the cells, and anything else that might be growing in the vat. The vat is also the perfect environment for any cell, bacteria or otherwise... Quite likely, they would also want to protect the process, and destroy the DNA, so other startup companies don't profit of their work. The product from the factory, will be reheated, cooked again before consumed. Further degrading any nutritional value. Least no live chickens were tortured in cages...

Cattle grazing in pastures hasn't been profitable for decades. Takes a lot of grazing land, for the amount of demand. Takes weeks/months for vegetation to regrow. We can't create more land, or knock down people's homes to expand farms. We need to make more efficient use of the remaining land. Our expanding population needs housing, just as much as food. Abolishing efficient farming, reduces supply, driving up costs, and consumer prices. Doesn't really improve profit, or quality. Consumers will be forced to buy foods they can afford. Which of course would be government approved, and subsidized. Basically, anything processed and pre-packaged, could be anything that resembles food... Real food would be for the wealthy, or those able to grow their own. The bulk of the population would have little choice to eat what the government offers as nutrition, Soylent Green...

Over 99 percent of vegetables come from factory farms, harvested by million dollar factory farming machines, in fact trillions of vegetables are murdered by vegetarians every year

Making up numbers and using them as 'data' is a fallacy, dummy.

How many wheat plants per acre? All murdered for vegetarian bread.

Millions of dollars worth of harvesters killing billions of individual plants indiscriminately. And asses like you complain about the half of a cow that I eat per year. Do the math turd, as you are helping murder trillions of plants to feed your fat face.



And still more trillions of plants murdered.

Clueless moron... Lot of plants survive, if the roots remain mostly intact. Takes a really hard freeze during the winter to kill them. Which rarely happens. Farms plow the fields for other reasons, and replant. With grains, only the seed stalk is harvested. The plant can send up several during a growing season. How often do you mow your lawn? If you have one... I get seed stalks here, in about two weeks. Don't think the city would let me get away with letting them mature, to re-seed. Would be more than a few weeks. I do know hay and wheat are good for two harvests out west, where I grew up.

You tell yourself whatever you need to justify your plant genocide, no matter I am still going to eat my half of a cow and about 100 chickens and about 1600 chicken eggs, whites only

So are you proud to be part of the corn genocide?

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Ever consider that factory farming is a more controlled environment, than just letting animals wander around, consuming anything they can get to. Drinking from any source of water. Injuries, infestations, infections... The animals are a product, and protecting them is profit.

Farm land is shrinking in many areas. Farming has never been hugely profitable, and a lot of work. It's not for everyone. Many sell off land to developers, who build affordable housing, condos, townhouses, strip-malls... Solar and wind farms take up a lot of land as well. Land stripped of vegetation...

Earlier this year, the FDA approved lab cultivated chicken 'meat'. Basically vat grown chicken muscle/fat tissue, as food. Might provide some of the bulk, nutritional requirements, but would be lacking many provided by the live bird. The nutritional value is further degraded, since it's pre-cooked, before leaving the factory. Partly to kill the cells, and anything else that might be growing in the vat. The vat is also the perfect environment for any cell, bacteria or otherwise... Quite likely, they would also want to protect the process, and destroy the DNA, so other startup companies don't profit of their work. The product from the factory, will be reheated, cooked again before consumed. Further degrading any nutritional value. Least no live chickens were tortured in cages...

Cattle grazing in pastures hasn't been profitable for decades. Takes a lot of grazing land, for the amount of demand. Takes weeks/months for vegetation to regrow. We can't create more land, or knock down people's homes to expand farms. We need to make more efficient use of the remaining land. Our expanding population needs housing, just as much as food. Abolishing efficient farming, reduces supply, driving up costs, and consumer prices. Doesn't really improve profit, or quality. Consumers will be forced to buy foods they can afford. Which of course would be government approved, and subsidized. Basically, anything processed and pre-packaged, could be anything that resembles food... Real food would be for the wealthy, or those able to grow their own. The bulk of the population would have little choice to eat what the government offers as nutrition, Soylent Green...

Over 99 percent of vegetables come from factory farms, harvested by million dollar factory farming machines, in fact trillions of vegetables are murdered by vegetarians every year

Making up numbers and using them as 'data' is a fallacy, dummy.

How many wheat plants per acre? All murdered for vegetarian bread.

Millions of dollars worth of harvesters killing billions of individual plants indiscriminately. And asses like you complain about the half of a cow that I eat per year. Do the math turd, as you are helping murder trillions of plants to feed your fat face.



And still more trillions of plants murdered.

Clueless moron... Lot of plants survive, if the roots remain mostly intact. Takes a really hard freeze during the winter to kill them. Which rarely happens. Farms plow the fields for other reasons, and replant. With grains, only the seed stalk is harvested. The plant can send up several during a growing season. How often do you mow your lawn? If you have one... I get seed stalks here, in about two weeks. Don't think the city would let me get away with letting them mature, to re-seed. Would be more than a few weeks. I do know hay and wheat are good for two harvests out west, where I grew up.

You tell yourself whatever you need to justify your plant genocide, no matter I am still going to eat my half of a cow and about 100 chickens and about 1600 chicken eggs, whites only

So are you proud to be part of the corn genocide?

Totally idiotic nonsense coming from a tomato farmer... Every tomato you eat, has seeds... You replant every year, but with already started plants from the store. Pretty odd, since you could start your own, save a bundle, and get better plants. But then again, you post mostly nonsense, and doubtful, or current. Maybe it was your daddy who grew tomatoes, but you never had much luck.

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

How many wheat plants per acre? All murdered for vegetarian bread.

Millions of dollars worth of harvesters killing billions of individual plants indiscriminately. And asses like you complain about the half of a cow that I eat per year. Do the math turd, as you are helping murder trillions of plants to feed your fat face.

Clueless moron... Lot of plants survive, if the roots remain mostly intact. Takes a really hard freeze during the winter to kill them. Which rarely happens. Farms plow the fields for other reasons, and replant. With grains, only the seed stalk is harvested. The plant can send up several during a growing season. How often do you mow your lawn? If you have one... I get seed stalks here, in about two weeks. Don't think the city would let me get away with letting them mature, to re-seed. Would be more than a few weeks. I do know hay and wheat are good for two harvests out west, where I grew up.