I was devastated reading Martha Rosenberg's article on the Gates Foundation intending to use Heifer International to promote animal husbandry in the poor parts of Africa. I couldn't help thinking --when will it stop? We and the poor of Africa don't need meat to be healthy and it is not even cost efficient, good for the animals or the environment.

::::::::

I hope someone from the Gates Foundation will read this and/or Martha Rosenberg's Oped article on using the Heifer Foundation to feed  the impoverished nations of Africa. 

Bill Gates who made a gigantic name for himself in the computer business may have surrounded himself with people who don't seem to know how to use computers for research.  Addressing hunger by introducing meat to the diets of the poor people of Africa just doesn't seem a wise move given findings of research scientists and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.  

I knew that I could easily find information on this subject by using the many available search engines.  I often use the one benefiting my animal charity.  So on the Welcome Good Search line I typed - Can the earth sustain a meat-eating world?  Simple as that.  Here are some of relevant quotes from four sources:

WHY ANIMAL AGRICULTURE DOESN'T ADD UP 

"The more meat we eat, the fewer people we can feed.  If everyone on Earth received 25 percent of his or her calories from animal products, only 3.2 billion people could be nourished.  Dropping that figure to 15 per cent would mean that 4.2 billion people could be fed......Producing the grain that is used to feed farmed animals requires vast amounts of water.  It takes about 300 gallons of water per day to produce food for a vegan, and more than 4,000 gallons of water per day to produce food for a meat- eater."  Goveg.org/WorldHunger-animal Agriculture).   

LEARNING FROM CHINA (Why the Western Economic Model Will not work for the World)

For this exercise we will assume an 8 percent annual economic growth rate (for China).  If the Chinese consume resources in 2031 as voraciously as Americans do now, grain consumption per person there would be a climb from 291 kilograms today to the 935 kilograms needed to sustain a U.S. -style diet rich in MEAT, MILK, AND EGGS....

To reach the U.S. 2004 meat intake of 125 kilograms per person, China's meat consumption would rise from the current 64 million tons to 181 million tons in 2031, or roughly four fifths of current world meat production of 239 million tons." 

Do we really want to teach other nations to eat meat?  I hope China doesn't follow our bad example or that of the other rich nations because we are seriously depleting the resources of the world.  Of course, it seems that they are heading there.

And from OUT OF THE EARTH-GO VEGETARIAN! I found 11 pages of worthwhile considerations-- hoping I have picked the most "neutral." 

"Planet Earth is suffering.  In large measure, the escalating loss of species, destruction of ancient rainforests to create pasture lands for livestock, loss of topsoils and the consequent increase of water impurities and air pollution have all been traced to the single fact of MEAT in the human diet."

The ENVIRONMENTAL ARGUMENT AGAINST MEAT-EATING --

"The temperature of the earth is rising.  This global warming, known as 'the greenhouse effect' results primarily from carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas.  Three times more fossil fuels must be burned to produce a meat-centered diet than for a meat-free diet.  If people stopped eating meat, the threat of higher world temperatures would be vastly diminished." 

If we believe this, then should we be introducing the raising of meat animals in Africa?

I found this quote from OUT OF THE EARTH:

"Meat-eating is devouring oil reserves at an alarming rate.  It takes 78 calories of fossil fuel (oil, natural gas, etc.) energy to produce one calorie of beef protein and only 2 calories of fossil fuel energy to produce one calorie of soybean.  If every human ate a meat-centered diet, the world's known oil reserves would last a mere 13 years.  They would last 260 years if humans stopped eating meat altogether.  That is 20 times longer, giving humanity ample time to develop alternative energy sources."

Of course, I don't envision people being so concerned about the global issues as to stop eating meat completely, but can't we try to eat less meat for the good of the world?

My last quote comes from www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston:

"Last year researchers at the University of Chicago took the Prius down a peg when they turned their attention to another gas-guzzling consumer purchase.  They noted that feeding animals for meat, dairy, and egg production requires growing some ten times as much crops as we'd need if we just ate pasta primavera, faux chicken nuggests, and other plant foods.  On top of that, we have to transport the animals to slaughterhouses, slaughter them, refrigerate their carcasses, and distribute their flesh all across the country.  Producing a calorie of meat protein means burning more than ten times as much fossil fuels--and spewing more than ten times as much heat-trapping carbon dioxide--as does a calorie of plant protein."

I also shudder to think of what the slaughter practices will be in Africa if the Heifer Project goes forward, especially in light of the inhumane practices in the U.S.  If you want to read Martha Rosenberg's description of the wrenching of a rabbit's neck with the accompanying screams -go to her OpEd article on the Gates Foundation support of the Heifer International Program.  

If the Gates people didn't do their homework, I hope it is not too late to do it now.  And if the plan seems unwise, it probably is.  Helping the impoverished of Africa is a wonderful enterprise - but sending helpless innocent animals in horrible transportation conditions to people who don't have the resources or know-how to raise them compassionately will only lead to incidences of cruelty.  

The Foundation would do much better to send people with an agricultural background to show them how to coax grain and vegetables from their poor land.  They will probably need help finding water resources along with sending them seeds, fertilizer as well as tools which will make farming easier for them. 

Providing them with live animals is the last thing they need to be healthily nourished.  They need an agricultural plan which will be a constantly renewing means of providing food for their families.  All of us can benefit from becoming more vegetarian or at least cutting down considerably from a meat lifestyle which has been proven unhealthy -not only for us but for our environment as well.

Can you believe that even Gandhi in the 40's warned against the devastation of a world committed to eating meat.  He wisely noted that the world could not sustain such a condition.  His words are being proven over and over again.  Sadly, too many people prefer to ignore not only his words
but the words of environmental scientists and health practitioners.

Authors Bio:
I have been concerned about animal suffering ever since

I received my first puppy Peaches in 1975. She made me take a good look at the animal kingdom and I was shocked to see how badly we treat so many animals. At 77, I've been a vegan for the past 30 years and I thank God every day that I am. I am most disturbed at how little the Catholic Church and Christian churches generally give to concern re animal suffering in their ministry. I wrote to 350 bishops in 2001 and only 10-13 responded. I feel that the very least they can do is to instruct that the priests give one sermon a year on compassion to animals. I am still waiting for that sermon. I also belong to Catholic Concern for Animals - founded in England in 1929. (They are on the internet) I recently sent a sample copy of their bi-monthly publication called the ARK to the 8 Catholic bishops of Ohio. Only ONE kindly responded. Somehow we have to reach the Christian teaching magisterium. There is next to nothing re animal concerns and compassion for them. They basically believe that animals are the lesser of God's creation and that gives us the right to do anything we want to them. Way wrong. We need to change their mindsets. The animals are God's first and He expects us to treat them compassionately.