I was reading an article on efforts to bring conservation and poverty relief efforts together in my Nature Conservancy magazine, and it mentioned the raising of rabbits for meat as an environmentally preferable alternative to raising cattle:

"One Dominican community has flourished, in part, by shifting away from traditional slash-and-burn agriculture. Los Dajaos now uses a low-tech lab with glass milk bottles to grow strawberry seedlings and other crops and raises rabbits as an environmentally friendly alternative to cattle."

As a vegetarian, I'm of two minds about this. It still requires feed to raise rabbits, and although I would guess rabbits are considerably more efficient energy converters than cattle, it seems you could still feed more people on the feed itself rather than feeding it to the rabbits and eating them.

I would prefer to see international environmental and poverty relief efforts focusing on teaching poor people in third world countries how to eat healthy diets that don't depend on slaughtering animals for food at all, but I guess raising rabbits is less environmentally destructive than raising cattle.

It also raises the question in my mind of whether it's actually feasible for poor third-worlders to be vegetarian at all. maybe vegetarianism is more of a luxury for the wealthy than we realize. We take for granted the ability to have access to a variety of foods, but I'm not at all sure that's the case for many poor rural populations in different parts of the world. If you can only grow a few nutrient-poor crops on your land (example: cassava and yam, the dominant crops in much of West Africa), can you really do without the protein that daily serving of fish or rabbit meat supplies?

What do you think of this?

My viewpoint on such things is unpopular, but IMHO the introduction of modern medicine is in part to blame. Mortality is less across the board, but the birth rate hasn't decreased accordingly: population explosion leads to not enough to go around.

Mind you, overpopulation is the root cause of a lot of food/resource issues in the US too.

maybe vegetarianism is more of a luxury for the wealthy than we realize. We take for granted the ability to have access to a variety of foods, but I'm not at all sure that's the case for many poor rural populations in different parts of the world. If you can only grow a few nutrient-poor crops on your land (example: cassava and yam, the dominant crops in much of West Africa), can you really do without the protein that daily serving of fish or rabbit meat supplies?

What do you think of this?
True, that is.

I was reading an article on efforts to bring conservation and poverty relief efforts together in my Nature Conservancy magazine, and it mentioned the raising of rabbits for meat as an environmentally preferable alternative to raising cattle:

"One Dominican community has flourished, in part, by shifting away from traditional slash-and-burn agriculture. Los Dajaos now uses a low-tech lab with glass milk bottles to grow strawberry seedlings and other crops and raises rabbits as an environmentally friendly alternative to cattle."

As a vegetarian, I'm of two minds about this. It still requires feed to raise rabbits, and although I would guess rabbits are considerably more efficient energy converters than cattle, it seems you could still feed more people on the feed itself rather than feeding it to the rabbits and eating them.

I would prefer to see international environmental and poverty relief efforts focusing on teaching poor people in third world countries how to eat healthy diets that don't depend on slaughtering animals for food at all, but I guess raising rabbits is less environmentally destructive than raising cattle.

It also raises the question in my mind of whether it's actually feasible for poor third-worlders to be vegetarian at all. maybe vegetarianism is more of a luxury for the wealthy than we realize. We take for granted the ability to have access to a variety of foods, but I'm not at all sure that's the case for many poor rural populations in different parts of the world. If you can only grow a few nutrient-poor crops on your land (example: cassava and yam, the dominant crops in much of West Africa), can you really do without the protein that daily serving of fish or rabbit meat supplies?

What do you think of this?

Dead on yes. My only reservation is what seems to be a general statement treating swidden agriculture as bad. In fact, it is a very healthy means of field rotation when done properly, and it is in many cases.

In places where I've worked, people eat the staple (say, corn) with little else but perhaps some sugar chili and instant coffee, except on Sunday when they can kill a rabbit (in this scenario) to supplement their diet. Environmentally, the raising of the rabbit is sound - it gets to eat the best of what would have gone to the compost tip. This single supplement of a weekly rabbit (or pidgeon, or gopher) does a lot for the diet of a family of four or five.

I'll also note that in the absence of such meat sources, my friends would feel inclinded to buy chicharon, which is just fried pork fat and skin, to get their meat fix. The rabbit sounds better to me.

Dead on yes. My only reservation is what seems to be a general statement treating swidden agriculture as bad.
"Swidden"??
This single supplement of a weekly rabbit (or pidgeon, or gopher) does a lot for the diet of a family of four or five.
It sure does. It leaches calcium from their bones, forms calculi in their urinary tracts, and promotes cancers.
I'll also note that in the absence of such meat sources, my friends would feel inclinded to buy chicharon, which is just fried pork fat and skin, to get their meat fix. The rabbit sounds better to me.
Sorta like the way smoking five packs of filtered cigarettes is "better" than smoking five packs of unfiltered.

It sure does. It leaches calcium from their bones, forms calculi in their urinary tracts, and promotes cancers.

Sorta like the way smoking five packs of filtered cigarettes is "better" than smoking five packs of unfiltered.Your analogy is way off... It'd be more like comparing breathing smoke filled air, with breathing no air at all.

These increased risks of cancer, and the leeching of calcium from bones only happen when you have a huge overabudance of protein. In case you missed the point of the thread, she was discussing third world countries and the starving poor. Protein overabudance is just not a concern.

As a vegetarian, I'm of two minds about this. It still requires feed to raise rabbits, and although I would guess rabbits are considerably more efficient energy converters than cattle
Pretty much anything is, including chickens and pigs.
it seems you could still feed more people on the feed itself rather than feeding it to the rabbits and eating them.
In the US where something like 65-70% of grain is fed to livestock this is absolutely true. In situations where rabbits and cattle eat mostly grasses that humans can't really digest, this *particular* argument doesn't have as much weight, though environmental destruction due to grazing practices is gargantuan.
It also raises the question in my mind of whether it's actually feasible for poor third-worlders to be vegetarian at all. maybe vegetarianism is more of a luxury for the wealthy than we realize. We take for granted the ability to have access to a variety of foods, but I'm not at all sure that's the case for many poor rural populations in different parts of the world.
While access to a *variety* of exotic foods may correlate with affluence, and while there are some exceptions (the Masai come to mind), it would seem that by and large, dietary animal fat and protein consumption correlates with affluence (and osteoporosis, breast cancer, etc).

I'm reading The China Study ( http://product.half.ebay.com/The-China-Study_W0QQtgZinfoQQprZ46738820 ) right now and while I knew before that animal products have no positive nutritional place in our diets, the *scientific* evidence here is startling. You really really must read this book.

But I digress ... much quantitative information is given in this book, but my point here indicated in chart 4.3, Chinese and American [sic] dietary intakes. (sigh, wish this whitespace wasn't collapsed)


Nutrient China US

kcal/day 2641 1989
total fat % calories 14.5 34-38
dietary fiber g/day 33 12
total protein g/day 64 91
animal protein % of cal 0.8 10-11
total iron mg/day 34 18


I've read that in the US, average intake of meat and butter has increased substantially since the 1920+ depression, when affluence was limited, and WWII when they were rationed -- sort of an overcompensating rebound effect.
If you can only grow a few nutrient-poor crops on your land (example: cassava and yam, the dominant crops in much of West Africa), can you really do without the protein that daily serving of fish or rabbit meat supplies?
Cassava tubers are admittedly extremely low in proteins, even when one realistically considers that human protein intake greater than 10% of calories is excessive. Eating cassava *leaves* helps quite a bit. While I'll admit that my mastery of west African agricultural issues is limited, my first-blush thought is that amaranth would be a marvelous dietary complement to cassava.

But, when it comes down to it, if a region is truly this agriculturally-hostile, humans really shouldn't be living there in the first place.

"Swidden"??

It sure does. It leaches calcium from their bones, forms calculi in their urinary tracts, and promotes cancers.

Sorta like the way smoking five packs of filtered cigarettes is "better" than smoking five packs of unfiltered.

swidden = means slash and burn

your other responses are so far off, I have no response. You seem to think that eating small amounts of meat in an environment where there are no other sources of complete protein is tantamount to suicide.

Go join a cult. You'll make many friends.

These increased risks of cancer, and the leeching of calcium from bones only happen when you have a huge overabudance of protein.
I guess that depends on how you define a huge overabundance. Studies have shown that even "modest" dietary animal protein intake correlates with these things.
In case you missed the point of the thread, she was discussing third world countries and the starving poor. Protein overabudance is just not a concern.
I think she was wondering about a hypothetical situation of adding ranched rabbits to the diet, not existing real-world conditions. But then, I haven't had my average of thirty-two teaspoons of added surgers today so I might be cloudy on this.

your other responses are so far off, I have no response.
That's a lovely self-contradictory sentence.
You seem to think that eating small amounts of meat
Define "small".
in an environment where there are no other sources of complete protein
That isn't clear, even if "complete protein" weren't a wildly exaggerated idea.
Go join a cult. You'll make many friends.
Eat my shorts.

That's a lovely self-contradictory sentence.

Define "small".

That isn't clear, even if "complete protein" weren't a wildly exaggerated idea.

Eat my shorts.

1. wrong
2. answered
3. wrong

I suggest you reread the entire thread, do a little research, then come up with a statement all on your own about the way you feel about the topic under discussion. Throwing rocks at text bytes really doesn't do anybody much grace, and certainly can't be called a discussion.

How, specifically do you fell about the question to OP present?

I guess that depends on how you define a huge overabundance. Studies have shown that even "modest" dietary animal protein intake correlates with these things.

I think she was wondering about a hypothetical situation of adding ranched rabbits to the diet, not existing real-world conditions. But then, I haven't had my average of thirty-two teaspoons of added surgers today so I might be cloudy on this.
I don't know what numbers define an overabundance, but certainly these people are not getting even 50g/day. I think their risk for protein deficiency far outweighs their risk of any diseases associated with elevated protein levels.

Why can't those people get their protein from growing beans and stuff like that? Beans (especially soybeans) are a staple crop in many poorer parts of the world.

Those of us who can run down to the store and grab what we want even if we are poor and can only have limited selections are lucky.

In some parts of the world traping or raiseing small amounts of meat are still needed for basic survival.
Some places are so desperate even the most hardy of crops will not grow very well much less protien rich crops so in those cases raising rabbits for food is perhaps the best option these people have.
Even then these people will not meet thier nutrisional needs but it is better than nothing.
I think the estimation is 20,000 people die from starvation or starvation related problems worldwide per day with 75% of those being children.

I mean we could sit here on a highhorse and look down on them for eating a rabbit as some are prone to do but in thier spot I for one would do the same.

The advantage I see to growing small quantities of small animal protein is that animals such as rabbits and chickens can eat food humans can't (or don't) such as grass and insects, and change those into food humans can eat. So, in a small and integrated system, animals can have a place. But it is not necessary to raise animals to provide complete nutrition in a small space and with low tech. The book "One Circle" outlines complete vegan diets raised on the smallest possible space, as small as less than 1000 square feet for a woman.

http://www.bountifulgardens.org/shop/growbiointensive-books.html#5

Well, this thread got out of hand quickly. *sigh* I was hoping for constructive discussion here, not a lot of random attacks.

Why can't those people get their protein from growing beans and stuff like that? Beans (especially soybeans) are a staple crop in many poorer parts of the world.
That's exactly what I've been wondering myself. I read a very good book called Nine Hills to Nambokaha, which is the memoir of a Peace Corp worker who spent two years in a desperately poor West African village, and they seem to have about two crops that they grow. She had a small stipend from the Corps which made her fabulously wealthy by their standards, and she would drive to the nearest town (a half-day trip) and bring back tomatoes etc, and these were exotic vegetables to the villagers. I don't know why more international aid efforts don't focus on distributing seeds and teaching people how to grow them. There was no indication that this particular village wasn't fertile enough to grow a variety of foods if they had access to seed stock and the know-how and encouragement to get started. My impression was that they were simply growing what was native to the area, and they had never known anything else.

This was also a village where protein was a precious commodity, but in many cases its value wasn't even recognized. The range of health problems they suffered were diseases of poverty, not diseases of affluence, and malnutrition from lack of protein was rampant in the children and a leading cause of death. They supplemented their diet of yams and rice with fish from the local waterways and MSG bouillion cubes and powdered milk bought from the market. I doubt issues like osteoporosis or cancer were of any concern to the villagers themselves or those trying to help them-- they had more immediate health problems to worry about, like keeping their children alive. Not to mention surviving in the world's highest density of HIV. Several of the villagers died of HIV while she was there.

While I think raising rabbits instead of cattle is most likely preferable from an environmental viewpoint, I also wonder why there (apparently) isn't more focus on teaching people to grow nutritious plant foods. According to this Nature Conservancy article, use of what appears to be low-tech hydroponics seems to be a central theme, so we're not talking about devastating many square miles of land for more agriculture. The people in the community I originally mentioned are now growing hydroponic strawberries and making a tidy profit while reducing their impact... why not soybeans or peas as well? Clearly it can be done with minimal impact, as Ludi's link shows.

Unfortunately these very important small scale agricultural technologies aren't well known. Ecology Action does outreach to various poor countries, teaching biointensive gardening so folks can grow their own food, but it is a very small organization.

See link below "grow biointensive"

Any soil can be made fertile with biointensive techniques, so that's not really an issue. The issue is knowledge.

Unfortunately these very important small scale agricultural technologies aren't well known. Ecology Action does outreach to various poor countries, teaching biointensive gardening so folks can grow their own food, but it is a very small organization.

See link below "grow biointensive"

Any soil can be made fertile with biointensive techniques, so that's not really an issue. The issue is knowledge.
I looked at the Grow Biointensive link, and it's really exciting to visualize people around the world growing their own wholesome food in small areas of land using sustainable methods! :bobo: But yeah, the key is spreading the knowledge and encouraging people to do it. I can't wait to start my own biointensive sustainable garden, but I don't think I could even grow a potted tomato right now. :(

I think it is because we are talking about large amounts of people who often times live in area's not real good for farming.
Even if the land is fertile unlike here they are at the mercy of the rainfall which is more often than not nearly enough to support a garden.
Here we have irrigation, water hoses and a tap to water our garden and even me , I live in the USA but in a hot area if I do not water myplants twice a day everyday they die.
Imagine how it is in Ethipoia were they DO farm but like is 2003 drought swept the area, once drought sets it and lack of food feed each other.
Wihtout plants that live there are no seeds for next year plus no food this year so the process is repeated.
The very poor are to busy attempting to buy water for that is semi safe they havent got the funds for seeds.
in 2002 crops failed across the nation of south africa, it is not a matter of teaching them to plant food it is a matter of they are at the mercy of the rainfall.
Now they do have geneticly altered seeds that can withstand droughts but not real bad ones.
Problem is it is hard to get those out when people here are fighting against them, while I do not blame people for fighting against it after all who wants pig genetics in thier cantalope but the fact remains that genetic alterations can help starving countries.

I know it is hard to understand specialy if you are in a country were food is thrown away daily without thought.
As of a couple months ago here is world hunger and its causes these are the worst effected places.

Niger: This area in central Africa has been struggling to cope with the devastating impact of drought and locusts infestations.

Haiti: In this region extreme poverty has been further exacerbated by a political crisis, floods, tropical storms, and hurricanes.

Horn of Africa: An estimated 11 million people in the Horn of Africa "are on the brink of starvation" because of severe drought and war. Somalia, Kenya, Djibouti and Ethiopia need food aid, water, new livestock and seeds. This is a major hunger crisis in development.

Afghanistan: Poverty in Afghanistan, made worse by drought, has contributed greatly to their hunger problem.

Pakistan: The recent earthquake coupled with a severe winter have produced starvation conditions. Recently, mud slides have hampered relief efforts.

North Korea: Food insecurity caused by the countries economic problems, is compounded by unpredictable and severe weather conditions. To date, the North Korean government has failed in its duty to provide for it‘s starving people. The North Korean government has actually refused foreign aid.

Columbia: A 40 year civil conflict and the illegal drug trade have caused mass displacement and poverty.

Democratic Republic of Congo: 3.4 million people have been internally displaced as a result of a continuing internal conflict.

Mali: They are struggling to cope with the devastating impact of a recent drought.

Southern Africa: Erratic weather, lack of seed and fertilizer, chronic poverty, and AIDS have been contributing factors to starvation.

If you are wondering why peopleneed livestock you have to look at thier culture, it is at the very heart of thier traditions and livliehood, animals are to valuble to kill and eat.

As for AIDS, a sick person can not get up and work in the fields and some areas have over 70% of thier population effected.

So telling them hey grow a garden is not a real viable option specialy if water is not avalible.

If you are wondering why peopleneed livestock you have to look at thier culture, it is at the very heart of thier traditions and livliehood, animals are to valuble to kill and eat.
In many cases, it's also at the heart of the problem. A man whose family has been involved in the cycle of slash-and-burn, a few years of agriculture, then cattle grazing when the soil is too worn out to grow anything, and has been moving to a new patch of land every decade or so because the old land is now dead really doesn't have a leg to stand on when arguing, "this is my livelihood." The whole point is that he needs a better livelihood. That's the heart of the issue I'm raising-- efforts by environmental groups and humanitarian groups to teach people around the globe better ways of living, both for themselves and for the planet. And in some cases, it's working. The same methods are being used both to help people make better livings, and reduce their impact. One of those methods was raising rabbits instead of cattle, and I'm questioning whether that's really the best solution.

So telling them hey grow a garden is not a real viable option specialy if water is not avalible.
I can easily believe that's true for some areas of the world like the ones you mentioned. Clearly those people need more immediate aid due to assorted catastrophes. And I think you're right that access to clean water is critical and will only become more critical in the future.

But when it comes to teaching people long-term strategies for better living, both for themselves and the planet, part of the question I'm raising is what new methods are truly viable, and can promoting vegetarianism as a healthier, more efficient and lower impact diet be a part of it?

I think that idealy a vegetarian diet would be best.
Small animals added in is a better option than things like cows which eat far tomuch and do destroy the land.
Rabbits can eat what humans can not and animals like chickens can provide a valuble sorce of protien in the form of eggs and they also eat things humans do not.
I think the biggest problem is overcomming the water solution.
Small animals do not drinkmuch either

Here's the link to the complete article that started me thinking about this.

http://www.nature.org/magazine/summer2006/features/

This article also has me questioning the sensibility of continuing to rely on clean fresh water as a vehicle for our sewage. Ayrlin correctly pointed out that access to clean water is crucial, and supplies will only become more scarce and more precious. And yet people seem to be busily working to make it possible for more and more people around the world to poop in clean water. I think it's a form of madness.

http://weblife.org/humanure/default.html

Here's the link to the complete article that started me thinking about this.

http://www.nature.org/magazine/summer2006/features/

This article also has me questioning the sensibility of continuing to rely on clean fresh water as a vehicle for our sewage. Ayrlin correctly pointed out that access to clean water is crucial, and supplies will only become more scarce and more precious. And yet people seem to be busily working to make it possible for more and more people around the world to poop in clean water. I think it's a form of madness.

http://weblife.org/humanure/default.html

It is madness but given our current legal system it is our only option.
Now granted our water for sewage is often recycled back into drinking water but while it gets the bacteria and such out it can not get out things like hormones and drugs.
Water testing has shown high levels of things like prozac and hormones used for birth control in our drinking water.
Granted that is not what this thread is about but it does show that recyling water while important does not give us the means to use it haphazardly and it is certainly not for pooping in.
Course I admit I use water to flush my toilet and such as much as anyone but like getting buried in a box that does not allow a body to decay I am greatly against it.

I don't know why more international aid efforts don't focus on distributing seeds and teaching people how to grow them. There was no indication that this particular village wasn't fertile enough to grow a variety of foods if they had access to seed stock and the know-how and encouragement to get started.

Hey Tess - this is a big beef of mine, too. There's a big problem when subsistence based economies and cash based economies collide... the subsistence folks are always left trampled. An example that comes to mind is a village I lived near in Guatemala. Most of the people started worked for a foreign owned coffee company in the 70's, then through the aid of some charitable groups and banks, they bought their own land and started their own finca. They were finally free from unfair wages and imperialism and all that bad stuff. The real problem for them, however, was that they were still living at the crap end of a cash economy. In the single generation that had passed since they, as a group, shifted from being subsistence agriculturalists to field workers, and they had comletely lost their knowledge of how to raise food.

Ironically, the two volunteer groups who were trying to help the village were 1) only showing them how to boost coffee production, and 2) building them a bigger church (I'm not being sarcastic, it's just the truth). When I suggested to the ag. folks that maybe they should develop a small homegarding program so the villagers could relearn how to grow their own food, they looked at me like I was from the moon. I was already on my way to other committments, so I couldn't do it myself.

The situation, globally, is only getting worse.

Grazing large animals is one of the major causes of desertification worldwide. Overstocking the land is typical, so the grasses are eaten down until they are very short, and all other plants are often killed, including trees. This leads to a situation of very severe runoff and erosion in the case of rain, and wind erosion in drought. Eventually the soil is worn away to rock. This has happened in many parts of the world and continues today even though it is common knowledge that this kind of grazing practice is terrible on the watershed. It's happening in my part of the world, where used to be Tallgrass Prairie and year-round streams and springs, now the tallgrass has been grazed down to shortgrass and the streams and springs dried up, lowering the water table so wells must be dug much deeper.

Gardens can be grown with very little water. Biointensive techniques use little water, as do techniques borrowed from the Southwest Native Americans, who developed highly sophisticated low-water farming.