Collegiate Times

I would like to respond to the letter to the editor titled, "Other effects of sustainability," (CT, Feb. 25). How dare PETA, in any fashion, attempt to use the banner of sustainability to push a personal agenda, a personal agenda that has nothing even to do with sustainability.

I personally believe that confined animal feeding operations are wrong for multiple reasons, including the treatment of the animals. But to go so far as to attempt to cloak animal rights activism under "sustainability" is just unforgivable.

On Nov. 29, 2006, a United Nations study found, "Cattle-rearing generates more global warming greenhouse gases, as measured in CO2 equivalent, than transportation." The author of the letter said, "raising animals for food contributes more to global warming than all of the cars, trains, boats, and trains combined."

Both statements are true, but as I pointed out earlier, one states the facts (UN quote), and the other (letter) pushes a personal agenda. "CO2 equivalent," is methane, which can easily be captured in CAFOs and used to generate energy. Altering the diets of the animals (sustainable) has been shown to seriously reduce biological methane generation.

Waving the flag of sustainability in the reader's face, the author then goes on to challenge the reader to "cut out the meat."

His rationale for such a drastic action follows his challenge. I fully agree that we should cut down on our consumption of meat, for the same reasons the author feels we not eat meat at all.

We do not need to feed cattle grains that could be used for human consumption, but since Americans want white fat in their meat rather than yellow fat, we will. I will point out, however, that ethanol production is the more threatening unsustainable practice.

In an article on Reuters, Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute, said that "an SUV with a 25-gallon tank filling up with ethanol would use enough grain, about 560 pounds, to feed the average person for one year."

So, if you really want be sustainable and feed more people with grains, we should eat meat with yellow fat and stop ethanol production. I should point out, however, that most starvation and malnutrition in the world is related to a lack of protein (meat), not energy (grains).

The author then goes on to write, "farmed animals produce about 130 times as much excrement as the entire U.S. population." Is that for the entire world? Because, "The USDA estimates that more than 335 million tons of 'dry matter' waste (the portion of waste remaining after water is removed) is produced annually on farms in the United States, representing almost a third of the total municipal and industrial waste produced every year," according to sustainabletable.org.

As for the statement, "much of which finds its way into our local waterways," well, as someone who has taken watershed management classes, I have to simply agree.

If you're talking about industrialized agriculture, CAFOs account for somewhere between 40 percent and 50 percent of all freshwater pollution in the United States.

I would point out that sustainable animal farming, however, doesn't even register on the scales the EPA uses.

Finally, we get to the point of his entire letter, the promotion of "green" meals. If you're going to attempt to use sustainability to irresponsibly rationalize your belief system, at least stick to your guns and pick something that's actually sustainable to eat instead of meat.

The transportation, storage and manufacture of those veggie burgers served at Denny's and Burger King are completely unsustainable, almost as bad as ethanol production from grains.

Your vegetarian riblets and vegan pizzas move through the same food supply system as every other product offered at grocery stores. If you actually want to eat sustainably, go to the farmers market in town (Wednesdays and Saturdays), and make sure you walk (sustainable).

Wes Aldridge

Senior, Agricultural Sciences