Environment

Der Sturm im Wasserglas

Marcel — Mon, 08 Jun 2015 14:53:23 +0000

The storm in the water glass Anonymous (not verified) Wed, 12/06/2017 - 09:53

The fact that the production of meat requires a lot of water is now known. By contrast, the danger that intensive livestock farming represents for our drinking water is only known to a few people.

Franziska Herren is the initiator of the petition "Healthy clean water for all". She has worked intensively on the topic of contamination in drinking water and is convinced: "The current animal husbandry in agriculture represents a high health risk for humans, animals and plants".

How does pollution happen?

So-called microimpurities in the drinking water come from countless everyday products. Medicines, pesticides, detergents, cosmetics, plastics, etc. get into the water cycle and remain there because the timely upgrade of the treatment plants has been missed. Our drinking water is not routinely tested for micro-pollutants or multiresistant bacteria before it is released for use. In 2009, however, the Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN) commissioned various research projects to analyze micro-pollutants in Swiss waters. The results show that these substances are demonstrably contained in the water, depending on the supply area and origin in larger or smaller quantities.

Multiresistent bacteria

Another problem is the use of antibiotics. Today, 53 tonnes of antibiotics are used in Switzerland each year for animal feed. In comparison, the Swiss population consumes about 10 tonnes of antibiotics per year. The antibiotics from the animal mast are brought to the fields via manure thus also reach the drinking water. This excessive use of antibiotics has been led to the formation of multidrug-resistent bacteria that present a high health risk for humans and animals. More and more often it has become apparent that common antibiotics are ineffective against certain types of bacteria. The Commission for Biosafety (SECF) which was set up by the Federal Council, concluded after a comprehensive investigation: "Antibiotics-resistant bacteria are the greatest biological threat to the health of the Swiss population" 1

Pesticides

Conventional agriculture has a major impact on the quality of our drinking water. In this country almost twice as much pesticides are used as in Austria or in Germany. Three-quarters of the unwanted chemicals in our drinking water come from this excessive use in conventional cultivation. Pesticides can not be filtered out in most sewage treatment plants and remain in drinking water.

Demands of the petition

By upgrading existing wastewater treatment plants, it would now be possible today to filter 80% of micropollutants from wastewater. The federal government plans to upgrade 100 of the total 700 wastewater treatment plants (ARAs) in Switzerland over the next 20 years. As a result, 50% of the wastewater could already be 80% freed from micropollutants. In order to ensure the supply of clean, healthy drinking water in Switzerland, the petition "Healthy clean water for all" demands that the Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications (DETEC) immediately updates all ARAs in Switzerland and tests the drinking water for micropollutants and multi-drug resistant bacteria before it is released for use.

20% of the micropollutants are substances that can not be degraded or filtered out today (eg X-ray contrast media). Such polluting residues that are neither degradable nor filterable must be captured before they enter the water cycle.

Organic farming

Almost 12% of all Swiss farms are organic farms. Although the trend is upward, the remaining 88% continue to produce conventionally, including large amounts of pesticides and antibiotics. In order to protect the waters, the petition therefore calls for the annual subsidy payments of 3.5 billion francs to be linked with the requirement to operate exclusively organic farming. This could reduce the use of antibiotics to a minimum and pesticides would be banned. The positive effects of a nationwide sustainable production in agricultural could influence consumer behavior. The organic label would be superfluous if healthy foods were (again) the standard with no residues of chemicals and toxins. Anyone who already today decides to live completely without animal products can solve the problem at its root. Because without animal husbandry no antibiotics have to be used.

What can I do?

Franziska Herren recommends that consumers themselves ask their community whether the drinking water has been tested for micropollutants or the presence of multidrug-resistant bacteria. Bacteria can be eliminated, for example by UV light, but not the micropollutants. "Many communities still have no idea what micropollutants are. The demand for drinking water quality in the community helps to make those responsible aware of the problem", Franziska is convinced.

Consumers have it in their own hands, because those who are aware that our most valuable food is provided with water by nature purely and free of charge, pay close attention to their shopping behavior and act with more respect in everyday life: less meat, organic food, biodegradable cleanser and detergent, vegetable and organic cosmetics in the shopping basket keep the water quality high. Even those who are vegetarian or vegan help to protect the drinking water. Even a minimal reduction in meat consumption has an impact on production and thus also on the quantity of antibiotics used. In addition, a predominantly herbal and organic diet with seasonal foods makes a significant contribution to the reduction of CO2 emissions.

Bernadette Raschle

1 «Micropollution in our waters» www.bafu.admin.ch/publikationen/publikation/01051

Weitere Infos

Pathogens: Much more germs in drinking water than assumed, Beobachter Natur
Result of agriculture:"There is too much poison in our streams", 4.4.2017, SRF
Polluted water agriculture is responsible for "toxic" streams, 4.4.2017, SRF

Artenvielfalt

Anonymous — Tue, 21 Jan 2014 07:49:36 +0000

Biodiversity Anonymous (not verified) Wed, 12/13/2017 - 09:59

Biodiversity simply means "diversity of life". Behind this is the task of preserving our ecosystem as well as the most diverse types of creatures and genes. So, to preserve the diversity in nature, several factors speak in favor of the vegetarian diet.

Destruction of grasslands

Bison, antelope and other animals that rely on pasture areas are increasingly being displaced by herds of cattle. For the herds of cattle uniform pastures are created (grass monocultures), which lack the natural diversity of the plant world. The cattle themselves have a destructive effect on the soil. In contrast to antelope, they have to go to the water points every day and thus compress the soil due to their heavier weight.
The feces of antelopes is compact and spherical. The nitrogen is held in it and thus fertilizes the soil sustainably. Cattle, on the other hand, have a very moist feces that spreads flat on the ground, allowing the heat to evaporate most of the nitrogen. This produces ammonia, which also pollutes the atmosphere.
This deprives the soil of a valuable nutrient and enriches the atmosphere with ammonia, which later falls to earth as acid rain somewhere else.

Deforestation

In Central America, over the past 40 years, 40 percent of the total rainforest has been cleared or burned, mainly to conserve pasture or grow feed. In addition, fisheries in the oceans have been forced so much that here too the borders are reached and fish stocks can no longer recover.

Microorganisms are killed

Animal farming produces an enormous amount of manure, which is then dumped in the meadows. Permanent fertilization with faeces and the increased nitrogen content in the soil kill many microorganisms, which reduces soil fertility. As a result, the biodiversity of flora and fauna is increasingly reduced. "According to some experts disappear up to 35,000 species annually from the earth."¹ Other causes of this problem are the use of more and more poisons (herbicides, pesticides, fungicides) in agriculture.

Seas are threatened

For ten years, the food industry has been all about fish. Global consumption levels are constantly increasing. In Switzerland, the increase from 2001 to 2005 was 15%, worldwide the consumption has increased sixfold since 1950.² This, of course, has a huge impact on the fish stock itself, but also on the whole ecosystem. Stocks of predatory species, such as tuna or swordfish, have shrunk by 90%, in contrast to the period when non-industrial fishing has taken place. Without their natural predators it will be easy for pests such as jellyfish to multiply unhindered and destroy the ecological balance of the oceans.
An additional problem for the biodiversity of fish comes from the ever-growing breeding facilities, where millions of animals live. Time and again, breeding animals from these farms flee to freedom, where they then mate with the wild fish. But if the number of fleeing farmed fish is constantly increasing and that of wild fish is constantly decreasing due to overfishing, this results in a spiral that leads faster to extinction of the wild genes with each new crossing. More about the fish in the sea: Overfishing

Biodiversity gets lost

What is slowly emerging in the fish, has long been a reality for livestock on land. For economic reasons, especially the livestock breeds are bred, with whom earns the most. Through this deliberate displacement of the original breeds by the few livestock breeds automatically reduces the biodiversity.
The problem is also compounded by the cutting down of rainforests. The rainforests are home to an estimated 80% of all animal and plant species living on Earth. "The jungle is really eaten by the cattle," says Tobias Riedl, forest expert from Greenpeace. "This madness must be stopped immediately, otherwise it has catastrophic consequences for the global climate and the preservation of biodiversity."

Honeybees

The usefulness of small bees to humans is only noticeable since the topic of bee mortality has appeared in the media. The rapid decline of more and more bee colonies shows probably the clearest, where the reduction of biodiversity leads. Again, the breeders have specialized in the most profitable bee species and bred about 20 subspecies of this honey bee and spread. The worldwide genetically almost identical honeybee of beekeepers now displaces the other pollinating insects of nature, which bring no direct profit to humans.

The consequences have been visible for some time: One bee species is rapidly displacing all other species. This results in a genetic impoverishment. There are more and more diseases among bee colonies that spread epidemic-like. The disease resistance of the bee stems decreases more and more. More on this: H oney.

Genetic Engineering

As mentioned above, specializing in certain profitable farm animals ensures that wild animal species die out more and more. This fact is further promoted by genetic engineering. For here, too, plants are deliberately manipulated in such a way that they are more resistant to the poisons distributed by the manufacturers than their natural counterparts. This is particularly evident in fodder plants such as soy and rice, which are mainly affected by the manipulation. Original species, which are not up to the recommended poisons of genetic engineering manufacturers, are gradually supplanted by the genetically engineered plants. This ensures that natural species disappear from the earth and that farmers depend on the GM-cultivated seeds of the producers. In this way, an ecosystem is created that consists only of monocultures.

Species protection or animal welfare?

In the name of biodiversity, it is particularly important to point out that the diversity of life can not involve killing other sentient beings. Nevertheless, it does not seem easy to find unity in this diversity. Not for nothing there is the division into so-called animal welfare and species protection organizations.
While biodiversity deals exclusively with endangered species, animal welfare organizations are primarily concerned with the welfare of pets. Where the farm animals are hardly protected by anyone, but - as the name implies - only paid attention to how they can be better used. Just the subdivision into these different groups shows that society has probably defined for itself what is protective and lovable.
Vegetarians are convinced that our compassion for other living things can not be reduced to certain types. For the task of man is to care for all animals well and responsibly. Vegetarianism is therefore the clearest sign of biodiversity exploitation and waste of biodiversity. By consciously deciding which foods are good for ourselves and our environment, vegetarians probably make the most important contribution to the preservation of life.

Bernadette Raschle

The fisherman world almanac 2010, Page 741
The magazine of the Tages-Anzeiger, 10. Febr. 2007

Weitere Infos

Organization portraits: What animal, environmental and wildlife conservation organizations really do for vegetarianism.

Tierische Dünger

Anonymous — Tue, 21 Jan 2014 07:50:11 +0000

Animal Fertilizer Sara Renold Thu, 04/08/2021 - 08:27

As long as individual animals live in their natural environment, their excrement is a valuable fertilizer for the soil. Due to the high demand for meat, dairy and eggs, however, more and more animals are being kept in ever smaller areas. The soil can no longer absorb the enormous amounts of animal excrement that is generated.

As a result, the excretions of animals enter the air through evaporation (ammonia) as well as seeping into the groundwater (nitrate). The fish in rivers and lakes die from this overfertilization. It causes an explosion in algae growth, which in turn uses up the entire oxygen supply in the water and suffocates all remaining life. This process is responsible for eliminating life in a large part of the Gulf of Mexico.
In the US, this contamination from the meat industry is 130 times higher than that caused by humans.

Hardly any vegetable is grown without the use of animal manure. At a minimum the feces of so-called “animals for slaughter”, liquid and solid droppings alike, are dumped on almost every field nowadays. A significant producer are the land-independent animal factories. So many animals are kept in these large barns that their waste poses a disposal problem. Furthermore, pigs, for example, are unlikely kept in open habitats, where (given sufficient land) their excrement would be easily distributed.

Although around half of the meat consumed in Switzerland comes from pigs and almost all pork is produced domestically, you hardly ever see pigs in nature. They are held in pens. And the waste from these pens has to be disposed of somewhere. The easiest way to do this is to spread it as fertilizer on agricultural land.
If you shop in a supermarket, you can be certain that the vegetables are also grown using animal matter. Unfortunately, organic farming does not offer an alternative here either. Even today, organic associations, besides animal feces, still allow horn shavings, hair and feather waste from slaughtered animals to be used as fertilizer for their fields. Most associations in the EU have now banned blood meal and bone meal because of the BSE problem. In Switzerland, these products of slaughter were long used in plant agriculture.
In the Bio-Suisse guidelines (Knospe) of January 1, 2001, it is stated in regard to permitted fertilization and soil improvement (Appendix 1, Section 2):

«Products and by-products of animal origin such as horn-, blood-, bone meal, hair and feather waste."

This was changed due to BSE and the new laws that followed¹. Blood and bone meal are no longer allowed (directive of 1.1.2004).
The extent of which fertilizing with animal feces is considered a matter of course can by seen in the choice of words in the Bio-Suisse guidelines, where cattle are referred to as «Düngergrossvieheinheiten» or manure large livestock units.
Vegans and many vegetarians reject such animal fertilization practices. Unfortunately, there are only a few farmers who have recognized the advantages of purely plant-based fertilization. Such products are therefore barely available today.²

What are the issues of fecal manure?

Several problems arise from current animal fertilization practices:

Overfertilization

The amount of animal excrement produced by meat, dairy and egg production is greater than the soil can handle. A small amount of manure, which is naturally present when animals graze on fields, does not pose a problem concerning overfertilization. Nowadays, however, pigs and chickens particularly are kept in stables all the time as a rule and the resulting dung and urine must be disposed of somewhere else. This causes certain areas to receive too much manure resulting in materials penetrating the groundwater directly.
You can observe this, for example, at Lake Sempach, which resists complete suffocation from the feces of the surrounding hog fattening plants only due to artificial ventilation.
Flora is also negatively influenced by this overfertilization. Consequently, biodiversity is decreasing.

Antibiotics

It is becoming more and more evident that the high levels of antibiotic use cause the bacteria that it combats to become increasingly resistant. Therefore, people are starting to utilize antibiotics more cautiously.
Although the use of antibiotics as mere performance boosters has been banned in animal husbandry, around half of antibiotics are still used by animal agriculture³ (the other half in hospitals, etc.).
An animal treated with antibiotics must not be slaughtered immediately thereafter, as the meat would otherwise contain too much antibiotic residue. But what occurs with the administered antibiotics in the animal's body during these instances has not received enough attention: within hours, most of the medicine is excreted through feces and urine and thus enters the environment. The aforementioned Lake Sempach also contains higher concentrations of antibiotics for this reason.⁴
The widespread prevalence of antibiotics in nature caused by animal agriculture poses a major and not yet adequately studied risk to the environment: Will this induce new resistant pathogens? What kind of influence does this have on vegetables, fruits or other foods?

Soil life

Natural soil is full of life: countless microorganisms, worms, beetles, ants and many more reside on or in it. The effects drugs used in animal farming have on the soil have so far hardly been researched. What is clear, however, is that antibiotics (whose purpose is to destroy life: anti-«bio»-tics) do not exactly promote life in the soil. Bacteria are the dominant group of microorganisms in the soil. It is estimated that there are 106 to 109 bacteria in each gram of soil.⁵ It is precisely these bacteria that are especially affected by antibiotics.

In addition, the large amount of feces favors those creatures that require or desire a lot of nitrogen and disadvantages other life forms. This can disturb the natural balance of life in the soil. Biodiversity it not only endangered above the ground, but also within the soil below it.
Farmers who have not loaded their soil with feces for many years have found that their plant-based soil evidently attracts fewer “pests”. This could, on the one hand, have something to do with the absence of the stench, but could also be due to a greater diversity of useful soil organisms. ⁶

Myths and constraints

To question animal fertilizer in agriculture is often considered heretical in and of itself. Manuring has always been considered integral to an optimal and natural nutrient cycle: The animals are fed the grass from the meadow that they once fertilized. Today, this idyllic representation is sustained on organic farms at best. Yet even there, some of the same issues described above arise.
For meat producers it is absolutely crucial to perpetuate this myth of the natural cycle. If it were not possible for animal owners to spread the feces from the animal factories onto the agricultural land, they would face a disaster scenario. So there exists a practical constraint that prohibits questioning this practice.
The stench of manure has become an indispensable part of today’s agriculture.

Conclusion

Although fertilization with animal feces and other animal products is not welcomed by vegetarians and vegans, the food produced by it is not rejected. This is certainly not least due to the fact that it would be very difficult to entirely do away with all foods produced in this manner. Interestingly enough, people who obtain a portion of their vegetables from farmers who farm exclusively with plants, report that these products are considerably tastier than their counterparts. Reduced overfertilization may explain this, allowing the plants more time to grow. For as long as practicality (as well as cost) does not allow for a diet consisting of strictly plant-grown crops, most vegetarians and vegans will continue to be forced to make concessions in this regard. For the farmers a market, rarely cultivated today, lies fallow.
As a first step towards a more natural and environmentally friendly agriculture, a discussion on animal fertilizers would be much welcome.

Organic vegetables from slaughterhouse waste?

Some organic organizations recommend blood meal, bone meal and even entrails from slaughtered animals as fertilizers in order to maintain the “natural cycle”. This approach has always been problematic as there are certain animal pathogens that can survive in the soil for a long time. Yet mad cow disease has made this practice even more questionable. Swissveg has clarified (as of the beginning of Dec. 2000):
Bio-Suisse (the “Knospe” label) still allows all animal fertilizers, i.e.: meat meal, blood meal, feather waste, hair meal, horn meal as well as liquid manure and manure. However, (liquid) manure is only rarely used in organic vegetable growing. Fertilizers made from slaughterhouse waste are derived from conventionally kept animals. However, this fertilization practice is soon to be reconsidered, as attitudes among the population have changed significantly due to BSE.
The biodynamic Demeter farms, which in practice also always include animal husbandry, previously recommended all the above animal fertilizers. Fortunately, this changed in1997: Blood and bone meal has since been banned in all biodynamic farms because of the risk of BSE. Nonetheless, fertilizers made from pure horn substance, hair and feather waste are still allowed today.
The situation is different in the case of the German organization “Bioland”: Blood meal and bone meal are still permitted fertilizers there.

Renato Pichler

www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/916_171_1/app6.html
An exception in Switzerland is the «Bliib Gsund»-Nature-Distributor with their online-shop: www.bliib-gsund-versand.ch and in Germany: www.lebegesund.de
90% der Schweizer Kälber erhalten Antibiotika
Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Forschung und Technik, 28.2.2001: Antibiotika allüberall
www.bvl.bund.de/pflanzenschutz/FolSerie/BeglText6.pdf
Bioveganer Landbau

Weitere Infos

Resistente Bakterien erobern die Schweiz, Universität Zürich, 16.5.2013

Tsunami

Anonymous — Thu, 20 Feb 2014 10:42:37 +0000

Tsunami Anonymous (not verified) Wed, 11/29/2017 - 10:43

Tsunami Suffering: Just a whim of Nature? What role did human activities play in the disaster?

The earthquake on 26 December 2004 killed more than 250,000 people in eleven countries, one third were children. The World Health Organization was right in assuming that the number of victims after the event rose due to a lack of clean drinking water, food and medicines. Millions of people were homeless. A fatalistic way of looking at the catastrophe might be that nature follows its own rules that are as mysterious as they are uncontrollable. Is that correct? Are we people really innocent? Do we not play a part in such unspeakable misery?

Jeff McNeely, a scientist at the World Conservation Union (IUCN), says we are complicit in this terrible situation:

For a long time, mangrove forests have been destroyed to make room for shrimp farms that export to Europe and other parts of the world «... at a price that does not in any way include the ecological costs that must be paid today».
Fishermen throw explosive charges on coral reefs or just sweep them away when enormous trawls are pulled across the bottom of the oceans in search of ever fewer and fewer fish.
Experts have emphasized again and again that coral reefs and mangrove forests are critically important for the ecological balance and the protection of sensitive coastal areas by slowing down giant waves and neutralizing much of the destructive energy.

Despite all warnings, commercial interests were stronger than the safety of humans, animals and the environment.
After the catastrophe, the United Nations and national politicians made every effort to meet the challenge. It was agreed that existing alarm systems would be made available to others and new ones developed. But who is talking about healing the wounds of nature and avoiding new ones? Would not this be the right moment to think about fundamental changes? Should international organizations such as the FAO, the WHO and the EU not finally make a blueprint for a better future in which vegetarianism plays a much greater role?
Of course, vegetarians can not prevent an earthquake, but they also have no part in the enormous amount of devastation that the production of meat causes: Anyone who does not consume meat contributes to the recovery of our planet and thus to a safer future for all.

Burma: Nothing learned from the 2004 tsunami? Thousands killed for shrimps and fish production

The biggest damage to the storm in Burma at the beginning of May 2008 originated in coastal regions. There were tens of thousands of dead and around one million homeless. Only through the deforestation of the mangrove forests on the coastal areas could reach the disaster of this scale. The dense mangrove forests offer good protection against tsunamis and storms, as they leave the environmental influences from the sea only in a much attenuated form to the interior. In a 2004 study, this was evident in the then devastating tsunami in Sri Lanka. Wherever mangrove forests grew on the coastal areas, the devastation in the interior of the country was much lower.

Scientists of the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) have e.g. described two neighboring villages in Sri Lanka compared. One was protected by mangrove forests on the coast, the other not. In the sheltered village there were two dead, in the unprotected 6000.

Why were the mangrove forests cut down, regardless of their use?

Since 1980, almost 4 million hectares of mangrove forests have been destroyed worldwide to use the land differently.
The main use of the areas on which the protective forests were previously located are shrimp and fish farming.
The global increase in the consumption of these marine animals, has increased the pressure on the forests.
Each year, around 100,000 hectares of mangrove forests are still destroyed - mainly to breed shrimp and fish.
Since 1975, about half of the mangrove forests in the Ayeyarwady Delta of Burma have been destroyed.¹

BBC News: Mangrove loss 'put Burma at risk', Spiegel Online: Wie «Nargis» ein schutzloses Land verwüsten konnte und Welternährungsorganisation der UNO: Intact mangroves could have reduced Nargis damage, 15. Mai 08

Weitere Infos

Überschwemmung

Anonymous — Thu, 20 Feb 2014 10:36:16 +0000

Flooding Anonymous (not verified) Wed, 12/06/2017 - 11:35

Overgrazing leads to enormous environmental damage. English experts consider uncontrolled sheep breeding the cause of flood disasters.

When the water reached its highest level in 2000/2001 in the winter in some English areas, the newspapers brought photos of sheep, which crowded together in the living room of a farmhouse: victims of the flooding - and also its cause? Intense sheep breeding is now suspected as the author of the dramatic floods, which then, but in the winter of 2013/2014 again, haunted British cities.

Ann Sansom, a soil expert, says:

“We have focused on the rivers so far, but these tides find their true origin on land.”

She believes the bogs can no longer function as huge sponges as they have been ruined by a huge increase in the sheep farming: in the 1860s, shepherds numbered about eight million in England, twelve during the war, and today - thanks to subsidies of the EU - more than forty million.

Sansom and other experts say that the loose highlands can not handle more than one and a half of these animals per hectare, but in some areas actually seven are kept, all year round. The floor can not recover. An investigation has shown that the pressure of many cloven-hoofed animals seals the surfaces, so that ultimately only the uppermost layer can be moistened – there is dryness below. If then the vegetation is destroyed by overgrowth, this harmful combination leads to an ever faster drainage of the water down the valley: a double flow speed quadruples the erosive force and increases the transport of sediments even to the sixty-fourfold. This creates deadly spring tides, through which more and more soil is washed into the rivers. This endangers the fish world and clogs the water reservoirs.

“People need to understand that upstream changes inevitably lead to downstream effects.”

... says Sansom and warns even against desertification of the highlands, caused by sprawling livestock.

Following the devastating dust storms of the 1930s, the US government has disrupted long-range areas to prevent overgrowth and the ensuing dramatic consequences for humans and the environment.

Herma Brockmann

Weitere Infos

The Guardian, 15. Nov. 2000

Versteppung

Anonymous — Thu, 20 Feb 2014 10:33:06 +0000

Desertification Anonymous (not verified) Wed, 11/29/2017 - 11:59

The miscalculation: In less fertile and plowable areas such as the steppes and prairies of Africa and North America animal husbandry can also be used to produce food where agriculture is not or hardly possible: The cattle eats the grass, which otherwise would not be useful to human nutrition. With a purely vegetarian diet, these areas could therefor no longer be populated. Are steppe areas ideal for "meat production"?

On the contrary, meat production in steppe areas makes the situation worse and is not sustainable. At first sight, the assumption seems logical: planting vegetables in a steppe will not be very successful. In a holistic approach, however, the situation is quite different: How does the continual expansion of the steppe regions occur? A steppe arises when the groundwater level drops more and more and the larger plant vegetation disappears.

The main reason for this is the meat production, because it requires a lot of water and forests or single trees and shrubs, which are important for the water balance of each region, backs.
For example: To produce one kilogram of grain about 100 liters of water are needed; for a kilogram of beef about 5000 liters (depending on the production method, the water consumption can even be a multiple of this). But this ratio of 1:50 shows that meat production, especially in arid areas, can not be a good way of dealing with the land. Afforestation with (fruit-) trees is a tedious affair, but brings the ecological balance in order in the long term and then alows a healthy vegetarian diet again. Some development aid organizations have already recognized this.
Instead of digging deeper and deeper wells for the drinking water of the so-called "slaughter animals", it makes more sense to ensure that the groundwater does not continue to fall by caring for the environment. Grass and pastureland can store very little water, allowing the soil to dry out much faster than in shrubs and trees. Meat production in steppe areas thus worsense the situation and is anything but sustainable.

Fertile land by vegetarian diet

Fortunately, with a plant-based diet not only fertile soil can be preserved, but also fertile, green land can be made again from barely fertile, dry steppe soils. It takes a lot of stamina, because this does not go from one day to the other (although the steppes became what they are today after many years). The following example shows that it is possible:

After 10 years:
Mango and walnut trees instead of dry steppe landscape.

The Peoples-Clinic

In this Swiss-initiated project in a poorer region in southern India (in Arai of the Chitoor district of Andhra-Pradesh), it was hard to imagine at the beginning that a thriving, green landscape could ever develop here. The barren, dry, stony landscape was used at most for some goats. To get enough food for the goats, branches were cut from the trees so that the goats could reach the leaves. The sparse last trees were felled because of their wood, so that they could be sold in the city. This not only made the country poorer, but also the inhabitants of the whole region. The drought was able to spread more and more.

After more than ten years, however, you will find vegetation in this once inhospitable area, which not only positively influences the local climate, but also allowed many free-living animals to settle in the area. This "miracle" was accomplished by switching to a vegetarian use of the area. Trees were planted, which not only donated shade and positively influenced the climate, but also opened up new economic opportunities for the area through their fruits (especially mangos and cashews). With the trees the ecological balance could be restored.
The pictures show clearly how nature can recover when you focus on a sustainable, plant-based, vegetarian diet.

That's none of my business?

India is far away and there is enough water in Switzerland. Nevertheless, our diet in Switzerland has a connection with the spread of the steppes abroad. One connection is that the rich industrial nations have a model effect on poorer countries. Today, most people who eat no meat can not do so for economic reasons (along with the religiously based vegetarian diet). However, as soon as these people have enough money, they will try to acquire what was previously reserved for the richer sections of the population. If the Swiss population, which is known to be very wealthy abroad, would largely dispense with meat consumption, even though it could afford it, this would be a sign that wealth and meat consumption are not necessarily related. The meat would be attacked in his reputation as a status symbol. A high meat consumption would therefore not be so desirable for people who (still) can not rarely afford.

Lead by example

In today's situation with the highest meat consumption in developed countries, it is completely unbelievable to say to poorer countries that high meat consumption is not desirable. This is a big global problem: If one day all the Chinese would eat as much meat as the industrialized countries do today, the entire global grain harvest would not be enough to provide China with enough meat. It is therefore urgent to stop this trend immediately, as long as not all rainforests and other areas for meat or feed production have been converted to steppes. And more than all the arguments the own role model counts.

The second reason is that Swiss meat consumption also has negative environmental effects as a result of meat production:

International integration of meat production

In 2002, 9.5 million birds were imported. These are fed almost exclusively with concentrates (cereals / legumes). Switzerland imported more than 140,000 tonnes of meat in 2002. But even with the meat that is "produced" in Switzerland, there is an indirect connection with animal feed production abroad. The Swiss meat production would be impossible today, if it were not imported from abroad.

The weakness has also been noticed by the meat industry several years ago. This is why today animal feeds are increasingly being produced in Switzerland. The extent to which this lobby was successful shows that, even in 1994, subsidies for bread grain were lifted unilaterally, while the subsidies for feed crops remained. As a result: even more bread grain and other plant-based foods have to be imported into Switzerland, as the agricultural land is now increasingly used for animal feed.

In 2002, Switzerland imported approximately 700,000 tonnes of feed.
Increasing trend: In 2012 there were already over 1 million tons!

In 2002, 300,000 tonnes of wheat were imported into Switzerland, as most of the domestic agriculture land is occupied by animal feed. In addition, there are still around 700,000 tonnes of feed from abroad.

All this must first grow on some soil. In order to be able to produce this imported feed in Switzerland, more than 100,000 ha of additional arable land would be needed (today Switzerland has about 250,000 ha of arable land). That is why Switzerland is directly linked to foreign countries through meat consumption.

Is meat abstinence enough?

In addition to the renunciation from meat, one can, of course, on the basis of these facts, also consider whether an organization is providing sustainable development aid or trying to export our livestock to the near-sighted. Think about this before you support an organization next time!

Renato Pichler

Statistical figures according to Swiss foreign trade statistics, published under: www.bauernverband.ch
Heks promotes the desertification with his action «Gib e Geiss»

Weitere Infos

The mountain areas: Ideal region for the livestock industry?
Nonsensical: Import food for Swiss meat, TV-Sendung Kassensturz from1.9.2009 at 21:06.
A man plants trees in the Indian desert for years: N ow there is a forest. This shows too: If you want, any pasture can be transformed and used better.

Wasserverbrauch

Anonymous — Tue, 21 Jan 2014 07:52:51 +0000

Water usage Anonymous (not verified) Wed, 08/09/2017 - 09:33

Future wars will no longer be about oil, they say. They'll be about water. When thinking about water usage, the first thing that comes to mind is drinking water. However, an average household needs only about 2 to 5 liters of water every day for drinking and 100 to 500 liters for everything else like showering, washing, etc. This is almost negligible compared to the 2000 to 5000 liters which are necessary for the cultivation of food for an average family. What role does the meat consumption play in this case?

Order the leaflet «Water is precious» for free.

In combating the worldwide hunger, food supply is often mentioned. However water, which is necessary to produce food at all, is mostly neglected. In 2004, a water conference with participants from more than 100 countries took place in Stockholm and exclusivly dealt with the water supply of mankind. According to the findings of the conference, the problems connected to the supply of drinking water were often made on the topic by the media. Unfortunately, one of the main causes for the soiling of the water in the industrial nations was neglected again: the livestock farming. At the conference interesting but also frightening facts came to the light.

Graphic: Swissveg, number source: UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education

A lot of water for a little of meat

About 50% of the water soiling in Europe is to be led back on the prodcution of animal food. Most of the water is used by the humans to produce their food. Grain belongs to the useful plants whose cultivation requires particularly a lot of water. Therefore , meat is – which requires the sevenfold amount of water as grain – a food which devours mostly water: for 1 kilogram of chicken 35‘000 liters of water are needed, for a kilogram of beef even 100‘000 liters. In a hamburger (125 grammes) are nearly 13‘000 liters of drinking water. In this calculation is included: the irrigation of the fields, the impregnation of the cattle and also the water consumption during processing and transportation.

Wether a family needs 2000 or 5000 liters daily for their food, depends very much on their eating habits. Worldwide on an average about 1200m³ water per year and person is required for the food production. In the poorest regions of the world where they can hardly afford animal products the value is approx. 600m³ per year. In contrast, in the regions where the most meat is consumed (USA and EU) about 1800m³ per year and person is needed.

1 m³ = 1000 Liter

A direct comparison makes the influence of the meat consumption even clearer:

With a adequate diet with 80% of plant food an 20% of meat (in the Industrial Nations the animal share amounts now even 30-35%) the water consumption per year is 1300m3. With a purely vegetarian diet only around half. ³

Water requirements of the food
Description	consumption
Beef (fed with concentraited feed stuff)	15 m³/kg
Lamb	10 m³/kg
Chicken	6 m³/kg
Grain	0.4-3 m³/kg
Palm oil	2 m³/kg
Citrus fruits	1 m³/kg

Notelet «Steak vs. potato» order for free.

Rising consumption

Herbal foods need on average only ten percent of water as meat. Only 300 liters are necessary to produce 1 kilo of potatos, about the fourfold for 1 kilo of soy beans or corn. For the daily diet on a purely vegetarian base with an energy content of 2500 calories (world average at the beginning of the nineties) 360‘000 liters of water for every earthling per year are required according to US investigations. When people‘s diet contains at least 20 percent of meat, the water consumption rises to around one million liters. In the USA and Canada – the two countries with the world‘s largest meat consumption – the food-related water consumption is just under 1.7 million liters per person. The worldwide water consumption has increased sixfold since 1950.

And in Switzerland?

Of course, water shortage in Switzerland is due to its geographic situation and the Alps not a big problem. Still it would be wrong to ignore it. Through the import of nutrition (incl. animal feed) water is imported virtually, because it is needed to produce at the production place. This way it can be saved in Switzerland.

Unfortunately, the water shortage hits always the poorest populations first. Due to the huge demand of water in agriculture more and more pumps are being used, which pumps the ground water to the surface. Poor farmers can only afford hand pumps or low-performing, simple pumps. If the ground water level drops by several meters, the many small wells dry out first, since they cannot inflate the water from a great depth.

In India, the water has to be pumped up from over 1000 meters in some regions. Just a generation ago hand-dug wells were more than enough for their irrigation. Today, 95% of the small pump places are already dried out. In other Asian countries the development also looks similar.

It is noteworthy that in spite of these impressive numbers, which clearly emphasize meat production as the largest water consumer, the vegetarian diet is not addressed in the corresponding studies. It does not seem appropriate for scientists to mention it as a possible alternative. This suggests once more that scientific neutrality is not guaranteed in the subject of meat in the diet, since every scientist is either meat-eating or vegetarian.

Renato Pichler

Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI): Water – More Nutrition per Drop; Towards Sustainable Food Production and Consumption Patterns in a Rapidly Changing World. 2004 www.siwi.org
Rockström, J.: Water for food and nature in drought-prone tropics: vapour shift in rain-fed agriculture. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, 29 December 2003, vol. 358, iss. 1440, pp. 1997-2009(13) Royal Society
Water – More Nutrition per Drop and Rockström, J., Gordon, L., Folke, C., Falkenmark, M., and Engwall, M.: Linkages among water vapor flows, food production, and terrestrial ecosystem services. 1999, Conservation Ecology 3(2):5. www.consecol.org/vol3/iss2/art5
Spiegel online: Grundwasserspiegel sinken dramatisch, 26.8.2004

Weitere Infos

Tom Aldridge, Herb Schlubach: Water Requirements for Food Production. Soil and Water, no. 38 (Fall 1978), University of California Cooperative Extension, 13017
Paul and Anne Ehrlich: Population, Resources, Environment. San Francisco: Freeman, 1972, Seite 13-17
Georg Borgstrom, speech 1981 at the annual conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science http://www.aaas.org
Diet change—a solution to reduce water use?, Juli 2014

Überfischung

Anonymous — Tue, 21 Jan 2014 07:52:07 +0000

Overfishing Anonymous (not verified) Wed, 12/06/2017 - 11:04

The problem of overfishing has been known for many years. There were enough warnings and calls for the sustainable management of the oceans, but so far they have not led to any results. On World Environment Day on June 5, 2004, proclaimed in 1972 by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), around 150 states participated worldwide. But according to former UNEP leader Klaus Töpfer, there was not much to celebrate: the oceans that make up 70 percent of the earth's surface, are seriously threatened by overfishing, pollution and other negative environmental factors.

The environmental program of the UNO (UNEP) clearly explaines some background to the worrying situation:

Oceans contain 90 percent of earth’s biomass, from seaweed to blue whale.
About 3.5 billion people (the number could double in the next 20 years) depend on the seas.
More than 70 percent of the fish stocks are taken beyond the sustainable levels. The stocks of tuna, cod, swordfish and marlins alone have been reduced by 90 percent in the last century.
80 percent of the marine pollution is already occuring ashore. The situation will worsen if, as estimated in 2010, eighty percent of the world's population lives near the coast (radius 100 km).
Caused by contaminated coastal waters, deaths and illnesses cost 12.8 billion dollars a year
Plastic waste kills up to a million seabirds a year, 100,000 marine mammals and countless fish.
Enormous amounts of oil pollute the oceans every year due to unintentional infiltration, illegal pollution from shipping traffic and maritime disasters.
The sea level has increased by 10-25 cm over the last 100 years and could continue to rise and flood low-lying countries.
Of the tropical coral reefs off 109 nations, 93 are already severly damaged by the economic development of coastal regions and growing tourism. Although coral reefs cover only 0.5 percent of the seabed, more than 90 percent of the species depend directly or indirectly on them.

At the World Summit in Johannesburg in 2002, there was also an agreement in principle that marine protected areas should be created by 2012, and by 2015 the contaminated fish stocks replenished. In order to avoid further overfishing, it also called for the elimination of subsidied, which, at an estimated 15 to 20 billion dollars, alone account to 20 percent of fishing indusrty revenues.

"Fleet overcapacity is responsible for many of the problems the sector faces today. An active policy to limiting fishing capacity and fishing effort is therefore essential. "

Dr. Franz Fischler

In September 2000, Dr. Franz Fischler, Member of the European Commission responsible for Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries, says that the fisheries sector is in a crisis: "If we... fail to reform, the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) in the interest of society in general and of the fisheries sector in particular, we will fall into a 'fisheries sclerosis' and the first victims of this inaction will be our fishermen. "

That is to be contradicted! The first victims of human recklessness are still the animals: sterile coral reefs, whose once-living vivid color can only be admired on films, the endangered cod (remember the cod-wars between England and Iceland!), a record number starved penguins in the Falklands and highly mercury-contaminated marine mammals (Japanese scientists recently found that, in some samples, the concentration of toxic heavy metal exceeded the international limit by more than 5,000 times, and consumption could lead to acute poisoning). The damage to the whales itself does not seem worthy of investigation).

The seas are sick!

And all the animals living in them are threatened not only by the human-caused impurities, but above all, not only as individuals, but also as species, through unrestrained fishing. Human access to ever smaller fish means that the stock of adult animals required for successful reproduction can no longer be maintained. The seas are empty!

The situation is critical: in comparison with 1902, only about one-sixth of the biomass of the seas at that time can be registered, and moreover (according to the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas (ICES)), over the past 25 years of mature fish in EU waters has decreased by 90%.

So we are faced with the paradoxical situation that more and more fishing boats are fighting over the remaining ten percent of adult fish. This vicious circle is as well known as it is hard to control. Again and again, national egoisms prevent all reform projects, thereby shattering the prospect of a more sustainable strategy.

Fish disappear

Fishing becomes progressively more difficult. Increasingly long journeys must be made to detect swarms - if they are still to be found at all. Even in the once so fish-rich waters around England, there is increasing an emptiness, and so the likelihood is now very high that the customer gets served imported fish meat at the consumption of National dish Fish & Chips. These imports are by no means a solution, on the contrary: they only export the problem to other regions.

A study in Boston in 2003 examined the situation in the entire North Atlantic (Canada, USA, Europe). The result shocked even the scientists themselves: "We have found that the situation is much worse than expected," said the project leader, Dr. Daniel Pauly from the University of British Columbia, Canada.

If Commissioner Fischler resolutely insists on a fleet reduction of 40% in the face of such a dramatic emergency in European waters, this will sound logical and sensible. It is also supported by many governments. However, those responsible in Spain, France, Portugal, Italy and Greece are far from agreeing with the planned measures. They are not only opposed to reducing fleet capacity, but also strengthening controls and the regulating cross-species catch quotas. However, these opponents of reform are particularly irritated by the planned deletion of subsidies amounting to 460 million euro, which were actually earmarked for the construction and repair of fishing boats over the next four years.

Even though Fischler, as he clearly suggests at every opportunity, does not intend to fundamentally change his strategy, he hopes for a compromise. Perhaps the suggestion could be to use non-subsidized financial resources to develop career alternatives for fishermen, many of whom have already lost their livelihoods. However, the prospects for a satisfactory agreement are not bright, because of all things Spain holds the current EU Presidency and therefore has to play the role of the mediator in this dispute...

But even the most bitter adversary of the reform plans would not have to face the simple question: why should one maintain a fishery infrastructure unchanged when there are no fish to catch soon?

Herma Caelen

Weitere Infos

See also: living thing animal - Fish
Ending Overfishing: The beautifully animated video explains the course of overfishing. Only in English. As a non-EU member state, we, the easiest way to control fishing via our consumption, can do without fish.
Reuters/UN/FAO/BBC

Landflächenverbrauch

Anonymous — Tue, 21 Jan 2014 07:49:09 +0000

Land Area Usage Anonymous (not verified) Wed, 11/15/2017 - 11:47

The production of meat requires a multiple of the land area, which requires the production of plant foods, because in the production of meat always first plants must be grown as feed, which are then fed. And only a small part of the feed is converted into meat, milk or eggs.

order A6-card in German

More than 70% of the Swiss agricultural land is used for animal feed. At least half of the area used could easily be grown vegetables, fruits or cereals.

On the area of a property needed to produce one kilo of meat 200 kg of tomatoes or 160 kg of potatoes could be harvested during the same period. This immense land consumption is mainly due to feed production: in Switzerland, nearly three-quarters of the agricultural land is devoted to animal feed. To produce 1 kg of meat, 7-16 kg of grain or soybeans are needed. When "converting" grain into meat, among other things 90% protein, 99% carbohydrates and 100% fibers are lost. 57% of Swiss grain are fed to animals (1990).

On the same piece of land can be produced¹
Cherrys	Apples	Carrots	Beef
1000 kg	4000 kg	6000 kg	50 kg

Following this table, the ratio between steak and carrot can be calulated on the same piece of land.

50 kg beef corresponds to 250 steaks à 200 g. 6000 kg carrots correspond to 96618 pieces à 62.1 g².
A steak needs the same amount of acreage as 386.5 carrots.

Analogously, these would be 88 apples (à 182 g) and 267 cherries (à 15 g).

EarthSave Foundation, depending on the cultivation or rearing method, the values may vary.
This average weight for carrots comes from the document «Mittlere Gewichte einzelner Obst- und Gemüseerzeugnisse» of the German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety.

Weitere Infos

Flächenbelegung von Ernährungsgütern 2010 from the Federal Statistical Office Germany
Hunger weltweit und durch die Schweiz

Wasser

Anonymous — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 09:21:35 +0000

Water Anonymous (not verified) Wed, 11/29/2017 - 09:15

Water is one of the foundations of our existence. Bathing, drinking and washing, we are aware of it. However, it is also consumed virtually - in huge quantities. In great masses it is immensely powerful and swallows up, everything that gets in its way. But even if it stays away, it becomes uncomfortable for people. Both extremes are increasing. Swissveg investigates the causes.

Tsunami

Shrimp and fish produce large waves.

Consumption

An ordinary household consumes about 2 to 5 liters of water per day for drinking, 100 to 500 liters are needed for everything else in the household, such as showering or washing, and 2000 to 5000 liters are needed daily to grow the food of an average family.

Desertification

How dry areas can blossom again.

Pollution

How the livestock pollutes our drinking water.

Overfishing

Empty nets, empty seas.

Flooding

The overloading of bogs leads to a more sensitive environment.

Weitere Infos

free, informative leaflet about water: Wa ter is precious.