Ann Hyphen (trancendenz) wrote in vegandebate,
Ann Hyphen
trancendenz
vegandebate

Uses of a cow's non-meat bi-products

http://www.oregonlive.com/special/madcow/index.ssf?/special/oregonian/madcow/040104_one.html

Many of these products can be used simultaneously - meaning one cow can go towards several of these products + meat.

Supposedly, it's more efficient to eat vegetables. So I'm looking for other uses of plant matter (excluding what's used for food). Please post as many as you can find to try and convince me that it's more efficient to eat plant matter and then create the products synthetically.

All I can think is that trees that loose their leaves can be used for humus and other uses for grain shafts such as food for animals or other plants.

I'm being serious on this because I really want to know what other products or even multiple food products from the *same* plant, excluding a plant that only has one food product that are more efficient in combination with synthetic.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 123 comments
I'll have to check into individual plants... but I want to point out the obvious: Raising cattle or any other creature for use as any type of product or products involves the consumption of a monumental amount of plant life. Far more than plants are fed to livestock than are fed to the human population as a whole. That is where the inefficiency lies, not in the uses of plants versus the uses of animals. The bulk of all crop grown in the world goes to feed livestock. Generally, as far as I know, the majority of any given food-plant is eaten, wasting very little. To tackle some of the points raised in the article you posted however...

"Gel capsules often are made from bovine gelatin."
Plant cellulose is a good alternative. Hence "vegetarian capsules."

"Bars of soap probably come from processed cow tallow, which is solid fat."
All of the soap I use is made from either shea butter, vegetable glycerine, or other soponified oils derived from plants. In other words, all plant material. And they work better for me anyway.

"Asphalt roads may contain bovine fatty acids."
Several years ago my family worked with a Canadian inventor who had created an incineration system of which the only by-product was an inert inorganic material that proved very suitable for highway paving. Unfortunately, his company was sold before the product was properly marketed. It's not plant-based, but demonstrates the possibility of alternatives to animal products that "waste not."
To clarify, the inefficiency argument is typically raised as a food issue, not a byproduct issue. Again, there is much less waste associated with food crops than there is with livestock, thus making a comparison irrelevant. It's a matter of "protein efficiency" more than an issue of how many footballs we can make out of a cow versus out of plants.
If we were going by protein efficiency than one cow would definately win out over plants since animals are composed of complete proteins whereas you would need twice as much for plants since plants are "incomplete" in terms of protein compared to that.

Can't restrict that argument to food alone, unless you want to get into the whole thing of how one cow contains more vitamins and minerals than one plant does. I'd highly call that "inefficent" especially in terms of feeding and growing, not to mention they make for a steady flow of money so that vegetarians/vegans can keep getting their crops as well as everyone else. :P

uchikikun

10 years ago

smumma6125

10 years ago

uchikikun

10 years ago

smumma6125

10 years ago

uchikikun

10 years ago

smumma6125

10 years ago

uchikikun

10 years ago

theevilchemist

10 years ago

theevilchemist

10 years ago

trancendenz

10 years ago

processes

theevilchemist

10 years ago

trancendenz

10 years ago

smumma6125

10 years ago

Except byproduct waste isn't waste if you can use it...

savagefreedom

10 years ago

trancendenz

10 years ago

Entropy

theevilchemist

10 years ago

Re: Entropy

trancendenz

10 years ago

hannahumafe

9 years ago

trancendenz

9 years ago

*An example being a hydrogen fuel cell car which creates water vapor, most of which can be trapped in another machine.
Well yeah, of course it uses a lot of plants to feed cattle. Unless one wanted cattle to starve anyway, they would have to feed them a lot. :P Not to mention most of the stuff that's fed to the cattle cannot be digested by humans anyways since we are not true herbivores (we don't have a four chambered stomach for instance or a digestive track that can break down plant cellulose efficently).

But the whole point is, a lot of stuff comes from one cow whereas with one stalk of wheat (which is compared to one cow in terms of water usage) can only be made for bread and probably a couple of other things.

""Bars of soap probably come from processed cow tallow, which is solid fat."
All of the soap I use is made from either shea butter, vegetable glycerine, or other soponified oils derived from plants. In other words, all plant material. And they work better for me anyway."

Have you tested this on yourself? Or are you just guessing based on your biasness toward people who eat meat that somehow using a plant-based product is superior to one that was made from a cow?
Are you aware that the majority of soybeans and corn produced today go toward feeding livestock? Did you know that they are cutting down forests in Brazil to meet the demand? You don't have as many cows these days out grazing in the field; you lock them in stables and fatten them with corn and soy, because it's cheaper.

One cow does NOT equal one stalk of wheat. Even if we were talking one pound of cow protein to one pound of wheat protein, wheat still wins in efficiency.

trancendenz

10 years ago

uchikikun

10 years ago

trancendenz

10 years ago

uchikikun

10 years ago

trancendenz

10 years ago

cannibalcountry

10 years ago

cannibalcountry

10 years ago

fishycreambun

10 years ago

cannibalcountry

10 years ago

fishycreambun

10 years ago

trancendenz

10 years ago

cannibalcountry

10 years ago

fishycreambun

10 years ago

uchikikun

10 years ago

isnifpixistix

10 years ago

trancendenz

10 years ago

smumma6125

10 years ago

uchikikun

10 years ago

smumma6125

10 years ago

trancendenz

10 years ago

uchikikun

10 years ago

uchikikun

10 years ago

trancendenz

10 years ago

uchikikun

10 years ago

trancendenz

10 years ago

smumma6125

10 years ago

uchikikun

10 years ago

smumma6125

10 years ago

smumma6125

10 years ago

uchikikun

10 years ago

Do you mean have I tested the soaps on myself? Yes, I only use plant-based soaps, and they literally do work better for me (it might have more to do with the fact that the soaps I use are free of harmful chemicals though... I had eczema a long time ago and ever since then my skin has been more or less sensitive to any sort of artificial scents and stuff like that.) I think the ones we use right now are Ida's... it's a family run company that makes all kinds of good herbal soaps. And then I had some vegetable glycerin soap from France that I can't think of the name of, but I prefer the hand-crafted stuff.

cannibalcountry

10 years ago

trancendenz

10 years ago

cannibalcountry

10 years ago

smumma6125

10 years ago

Have you tested this on yourself? Or are you just guessing based on your biasness toward people who eat meat that somehow using a plant-based product is superior to one that was made from a cow?

Do you realize nearly all vegans were omnivores at one time, so the vast majority of vegans have experience with animal products. We're born into an animal consuming culture, so we know what animal products are like.

There are distinct differences between vegetable and animal lipids.

Animal fat is mostly larger chain saturated fatty acids, while vegetable fats are mainly mono and poly unsaturated, with the exception of tropical fats such as coconut, palm kernel, shea, and cocoa butter, which are medium chain saturated fats.

Usually the tropical fats are used in soap production, b/c they are solid at room temp and make better soaps. The med chain fatty acids are more polar and wash off easier than longer chain fatty acids, but that can be partially alleviated by the use of other surfactants. If you look at the ingredients of most animal soaps there's a ton more quanternary ammonium compounds, to help wash off easier compared to vegetable based soaps.

I guess whether one is better than the other is personal preference.

Vegetable soaps are easy to make, and a bunch of people I know make custom fragrances, so I just use their soaps.

Btw, see the posts below on the many uses of corn and the many uses of soybean. The many uses of cow stems directly from the meat consumption. Technologies were developed to convert unused portions of the cow into other products in order to recoup some of the production costs.

The increase in soy and corn production also gave rise to other uses of these materials. This trend will continue with cotton and hemp, as vegetable based fuels and foodstuff increase in demand.

jv

jv

Re: Soaps

trancendenz

10 years ago

Re: Soaps

theevilchemist

10 years ago

Carrots

theevilchemist

10 years ago

But plants also take correct soil conditions and fertilizers.

The poop they get from cows is 1) processed as manure and 2) they reuse the water from the poop. Just like human waste plants get water that you drink from your faucet.

And also, cows can eat products that humans can't grown on land that cannot grow crops suitable for humans, such as grasslands.

Soil maps are a pretty good indicator of where agriculture and animal agriculture grow. http://ag.arizona.edu/OALS/IALC/images/map_soil_moisture_regimes.jpg

I think the main problem is human consumption of meat has grown too far that they no longer just live on shrublunds/semi-desert, which I will admit.
Well the bad thing about putting the cattle on the grasslands is that then they're contributing to desertification, destroying native wild grasses and habitats of other animals, and upsetting ecosystems etc...

"I think the main problem is human consumption of meat has grown too far" --- You hit the nail on the head there.


Meat consumption would not be so dangerous for the environment or wasteful of water and land resources, etc... if all people just consumed less of it. If people consumed less, thus lowering the demand for meat, the farms could shrink back in scale, and not have to rush their practices so much to meet supply and demand, etc... which would be also better all around for the animal's well being and the human workers well being too.
But that's the hard thing to get around though.... especially in countries like the USA with the "convenience" of cheap fast food on nearly every corner, where you can eat meat for every meal every single day if you please.
There is a huge problem with manure right now - especially from the swine industry (in the mid west notably). The manure is put into wet lands, lagoons, ponds and lakes because there is no where else to put it. And you are right, this has a lot to do with over eating meat.
I still think the plant matter can be framented and limed as manure is - which would probably be more efficient (because the plant waste wouldn't be transported to another farm - as manure often is transported from an animal farm to a crop farm). The other thing is the anti-biotics in manure that even some small inorganic farms use still - antibiotics reak havok on local ecosystems.
:|

Hemp has got a million uses. Cotton for clothes, trees for building houses. Biodiesel from plant oils. Soy can make candles and ink. You can make paint out of linseed/flax. A lot of the ingredients in shampoo can be derived from coconut.
Cotton doesn't exactly make one warm during the colder months. :P It's relatively inferior to wool from my experience anyway of wearing one and then the other. It's funny on how you need a lot of plants to make different products when a couple animals would do for it, I find that highly inefficient in some way.
I think those are good points, but I was mainly wanting people to tell me a product that can be used for BOTH food AND another product at the *same* time.

Like if I eat a carrot, what else can the carrot be used for. Or if I eat soy, what else can it be used for.

My point is that cows I can eat all the meat of that cow and then the rest that's left over is used for something else.
Yeah, cotton sucks as a wool replacement, I prefer synthetics (not just because they're not animal-based, but because they're lighter, often better at body-temperature regulation, wicking, quick-drying, etcetera. I just wish they'd find a better way to do all of it, seeing how some of the alternatives are petroleum based even.

smumma6125

10 years ago

soulcatcher318

10 years ago

Whether you need a lot of plants to make different products when a couple animals would do for it... you need a lot of plants to raise the animals to "do for it" which I find even more inefficient.

trancendenz

10 years ago

soulcatcher318

10 years ago

trancendenz

10 years ago

trancendenz

10 years ago

soulcatcher318

10 years ago

trancendenz

10 years ago

soulcatcher318

10 years ago

trancendenz

10 years ago

soulcatcher318

10 years ago

smumma6125

10 years ago

smumma6125

10 years ago

Actually, that's a really good point.

My question is (because I honestly don't know) are plant oils able to be drawn while still using the plant for food.

I know green olives they are able to use as food after they press them, but only for certain things that don't need the oils.
Ahh, now I see your question. Well, food peels and scraps can be composted like you mentioned.

I'm pretty sure hemp has multiple uses, people can eat the nuts are extract their oil, while using the rest as fiber for clothing or paper and other products.

I know that oil can be extracted from grapeseeds as a byproduct of the wine industry.

Humans have not found as many uses for the byproducts of plants as they have for animals. A lot of the energy going in to produce animals is expended when they're active (like, if one raised humans for meat, they wouldn't want them to be cross-country runners, they'd probably lock them up so they couldn't burn many calories) and make animal parts that aren't very edible. I have to give our ancestors a hand, though, for being so resourceful.

trancendenz

10 years ago

soulcatcher318

10 years ago

cannibalcountry

10 years ago

smumma6125

10 years ago

"I really want to know what other products or even multiple food products from the *same* plant, excluding a plant that only has one food product that are more efficient in combination with synthetic.

There's an old axiom scientists are told very early on in their research:

"The questions we ask as scientists, ultimately bias our results."

The use of the word "same" specificially biases the results, whereas one could also ask the question

"which has more uses, plant material or animal material" and from that, you would get a much different result.

From plant material, you get thousands of medicines, food, water, glycerin, fuel, fabric, buidling materials, lubricants, dyes, explosives, fitration agents, clarifying agents, drying agents, flow agents, mold release agents, cosmetics, polymers, bioreactors, poisons, literally thousands upon thousands of products.

If you summed up all the uses of animal products and compared this to all the uses of plant products, plants products dwarf the animal list.

Ultimately *ALL* our energy comes from the sun. It's the plants that harvest that solar energy and convert it into other chemicals that can be used for other things, including making animals and thus animal products.
jv



"Ultimately *ALL* our energy comes from the sun. It's the plants that harvest that solar energy and convert it into other chemicals that can be used for other things, including making animals and thus animal products"

Wow, thanks for pointing that out captain obvious...

""Because all the energy ultimately comes from the sun. Plants absorb it, turn it into something else."

Not all energy comes from the sun.

There is such a thing as combustion via greenhouse gases. There is such a thing as internal energy from the earth itself.

Yes, that oil ORIGINALLY came from energy from the sun because it was once plant or animal matter. But we are an open system. So we keep getting energy and we are using energy that was "stored" in the planet via the sources I already listed.

You clearly ARE a chemist and not a physicist if you don't understand basic thermodynamics. A plant or most plants lose about 90% of their energy when they are eaten and then each trophic level after that loses 90%. So assuming a plant has 1000 Joules of energy and we eat the plant directly we get 100 Joules. But if we eat an animal that ate that plant than we get 10 Joules. You are oversimplifying this by looking solely at energy in via consumption and energy out/lost. There are numerous other factors that result in more or less energy. Such as cows can live on land NOT suitable for agriculture. Also, agriculture requires the use of fertilizers, etc., in the majority of places that now grow food. If we stopped harvesting the rainforest (which we should because these soils suck for growing anything other than rainforest), then we would be forced to expand the plant matter grown there (whether it was for cows or not) and make it for direct human consumption. Where areyou going to find these lands that don't require fertilizers or horrible pesticides that introduce higher nitrogen and phophorus rates to areas that do not need or shouldn't have more N,P? Thus, your whole point (if everyone ate plants instead of cows eating them) doesn't make sense unless we eat what cows eat. Guess what, we don't. We eat plants like rice, tomatoes, corn, and other products that take HUGE AMOUNTS OF WATER, just like cows. Corn, in fact, raises humidity in an area enough to enhance thunderstorms and even cause more tornadoes. So, again, ethically under your logic, we should no longer eat rice (which also causes methane EQUAL to a cow), tomatoes (which cause high VOCs), and corn (because it causes more unnatural storms) and all of them require huge amounts of waters. And each plant requires different nutrients. Some are not easily available in some places. I can eat fish in Alaska without causing much more greenhouses, but try eating an orange in Alaska. And where do our strawberries in the midwest come from in mid-march. OH that's right, they come from california.

And we NEVER grow oranges here. So if you want to drink orange juice fortified in vitamin D and calcium, do you live in Georgia or Florida or California? Because I'm pretty sure that the greenhouse gases used to produce your orange juice are far more than the GHG's used to produce my cow that lives next door. Vegans wouldn't have enough foods if they ONLY ate locally because where, in Montana, are you going to find a health food store near you that will sell you B12 as well as other vegan vegetables. Or Colorado?

Basically, vegans like to ignore the fact that if we all ate local foods, some of us wouldn't be able to survive on a non-meat diet (like Alaska or Maine, etc.) You would never have any food... "

Oh and if eating plants is so inefficient, then why has the planet survived 3 billion years with life on this earth when plants were NOT the first beings on earth.

Oh, and if eating animals that eat plants is SOOOO horrible, then why don't we just kill all the animals that eat other animals as well, since they are damaging the planet.

And the whole "well we CAN survive on a vegan diet" is bunk. If we didn't have cars and trucks and planes that produce greehouse gases to bring you your vegan foods from all the places that are excellent for growing, then the people in the Northern states, Canada, and Midwest would starve in the winter unless they canned foods. England would be eating potatoes right now and nothing else. How would people in, let's say, Northern Russia or Poland, survive without importing foods and exporting? Did you every wonder WHY so many people in America and NOT other countries are ABLE to eat vegetarian? It's because we have a great system of transportation. Those countries eat probably the most meat and if you really are Captain Obvious, you would know that that's because they have never been able to grow a lot of fresh fruits and vegetables besides like beans and potatoes.

Canning foods takes a lot of energy because you have to cook it first. So right there you are using energy to cook the food to can, sterilize the jar, and then again when you cook it, unless you eat it cold.
You're just sounding hysterical now.

"Oh and if eating plants is so inefficient

Eating plants is efficient.

"Oh, and if eating animals that eat plants is SOOOO horrible

It's simply not necessary anymore. It's just culturally indoctrinated into a person. It's not an instinct. An interesting website is Feralchildren.com which documents the behaviors and diets of children forced to fend for themselves, with little or no cultural influence.

"then why don't we just kill all the animals that eat other animals as well, since they are damaging the planet.

They are self-regulating, since they do not use technological adaptation to go beyond their biological means. There's no reason to do anything but leave them alone. Humans have a greater responsibility, because we have the ability to do the most damage.

"And the whole "well we CAN survive on a vegan diet" is bunk.

Oh c'mon you're suppose to be some sort of scientist aren't you? There's no shortage of plant based food. There was 280,000 ton surplus of peanuts this year in the USA, and this was considered *bad* for the economy.


Besides, Technology is non-linear. It progresses based on demand. Animal agriculture progressed because people like eating meat.

We sailed to all corners of the globe because technology allowed us to. And all of a sudden you seem to think the same scientific impetus that brought you the 99 cent double cheeseburger somehow will fail us all when it comes to growing more plants.

You're seeing all this crazy soy shit all over the place, because there's a demand now. In the future you are going to see a lot more, exotic proteins from mycoproteins, algae, cottonseed, hemp, and spinach.

If we didn't have cars and trucks and planes that produce greehouse gases to bring you your vegan foods from all the places that are excellent for growing,

And if you didn't have weapons, you'd be eating grass, 'cuse you wouldn't be able to kill a bull with your scrawny arms. It's rediculous to invoke technology as a argument against plant diets, when it was technology that allowed you to eat anything bigger than a bug or mouse.

then the people in the Northern states, Canada, and Midwest would starve in the winter unless they canned foods.

It's like you never ate oatmeal before? I've got a 50lbs bag of flax seeds from North Dakota that's a year old and I still eat them every day. I also got me some nice soybeans. I think your hysteria is blinding you to the obvious; Dry foods keep for *years* Ya ever here of SILOS!

And I'll tell ya, shipping grains and low water content plant stuff across the planet to the consumer is a lot more fuel efficient than shipping flesh.

All I gotta do is dry my plants in the summer. I just harvested a nice bunch or Fenugreek, Alfalfa, and Arugula. When the stuff starts to look unappealing, I dry it, grind it, and put it into bread. on A dry basis, most leafy greens are 20-40% protein.

See there are a number of ways to preserve foods. Reducing water activity (drying, salting, etc...) is one way. Increasing the acidity is another.

England would be eating potatoes right now and nothing else.

You've never been to England, have you? The way you're talking, you'd think cars have been around for 2000 years. The cabbage and peas in England are quite yummy, btw.

"Did you every wonder WHY so many people in America and NOT other countries are ABLE to eat vegetarian?

Like all those people in *INDIA*. The poorer countries of the world eat *LESS* meat, not more. I'll give you some countries have a harder time growing plants than others, but people live there because technology allowed them to do so. If they couldn't live there, they wouldn't have migrated.

It's kinda silly that you recognise and dismiss technological advancement to fit your very small view of the world.

jv

Re: Hysterics

smumma6125

10 years ago

Re: Hysterics

trancendenz

10 years ago

Re: Hysterics

theevilchemist

10 years ago

Re: Hysterics

theevilchemist

10 years ago


Thus, your whole point (if everyone ate plants instead of cows eating them) doesn't make sense unless we eat what cows eat. Guess what, we don't. We eat plants like rice, tomatoes, corn, and other products that take HUGE AMOUNTS OF WATER, just like cows. Corn, in fact, raises humidity in an area enough to enhance thunderstorms and even cause more tornadoes.

It doesn't suprise me that you don't know the 1st thing about modern beef production. The 1st thing is:

"Q. What's the primary use for corn?

A. Corn serves as a primary livestock feed source. More than half of the crop puts meat on America's dinner table. A bushel of corn fed to livestock produces 5.6 pounds of retail beef." National Corn Growers Association

"88% of the feed ration for beef is corn" -beeftechnologies.com

Well your argument sure supports a plant based diet. Allow the cattle to taper off naturally and so will the thunderstorms! Or we can just keep them, since they will rain back down on our fields of food for human consumption, thereby reducing the water demand. And unlike cattle, you don't have to purify plant water.

Additionally, allowing Cattle populations to gradually dwindle to a more natural number would in fact drastically free good soil for lessay soybean production, since farmers often switch between them depending on the market.

And we won't have to worry that somehow the phosphorus will somehow disappear with the cattle. It's the 15th most abundant element on earth. Nitrogen is #7. We have nice little bacteria that are quite good at making biomass for us.

The future in food production are microbes, btw. Good little workers they are.

Now Look where all the corn is grown.... in The midwest of course!

Next Look where the majority of cattle are raised In Southern California, Texas, and the Western Pacific States.

So more than 200 *Billion* pounds of corn are shipped around the US each year for feed, and cattle poop is shipped back. Then when Cattle is slaughtered, a 3rd shipment is made. And you're complaining about Green house gasses in shipping A 10 year supply of B12 which easily fits in a standard envelope. Besides, anyone can grow it with cyanobacteria, the original source of B12.

Btw, since the corn syrup is extracted and the resultant oil/gluten is fed to the cattle, you can use Nutritiondata.com to calculate the protein yield of the cattle, which comes out to a 19.3% recovery from the original corn gluten, which could have been used to make some nice veggie burgers without all the water, shipping, pollution created by the 100 million cattle in the US.

If you wonder why beef cattle are fed corn and not grass. It's because of economic efficiency. They grow bigger, faster. The same reason why they are penned up in remote areas of Colorado, the same reason they are implanted with hormones and anti-biotics.

Btw, "There are more than 3,500 different uses for corn products and more uses are being found each day. Many of the new products, like paints, are more environmentally friendly than their petroleum counterparts."
National Corn Growers Association I think that answers your original question.

Tomorrow, if I have time, I'' explain to you why your tomato = VOC's statement is just irrational, unscientific fear mongering.

Friday, I'll cover your ridiculous rice statement and the differences between animal & plant water supply's particularly in tropical regions like the Philippines.

We can also cover transportation impact in the global economy, particularly in Beef Exports from the US.
jv