In Lisa Hamilton’s “Unconventional Farmers; Let Them Eat Meat”, she justifies the issue of raising livestock for food causing greenhouse gas emissions. Should we be eating less meat or actually eating more? Hamilton’s research found many interesting points that would interest any human beings that consume meat or any other type of consumable goods. In her essay, Hamilton begins with the statistic that “eighteen percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions come from livestock”. The idea to eat less meat was established by Dr. Rakendra Pachauri.
Hamilton disagreed and believed that humans should be eating more of a different kind of meat. In her research, she found that the livestock could actually service the farmers with less work by improving the soil in a natural way. Jason Mann, another farmer who also believed the livestock could have a few advantages, viewed the issue as if it were a bank account. Bank accounts allow someone to withdraw money that they place into it. Thinking in a way of a farmer, Mann saw that when he harvested a crop, he took away nutrients from the soil.
Summary-Analysis-Response essay Essay Example
In order to deposit more nutrients for the next harvest season, he would need the nutrients from livestock manure and also use them as a natural plowing machine using their hoofs to help break up the old soil. Like the weather, the seasons change. Some seasons may produce an abundance of products to sell, but then others might produce little to done caused by droughts, lack of attention, or pesticides. Raising livestock for food acts as a back up plan. Selling the meat will allow money to still be made to keep the bank account from over drafting.
Hamilton finds that it may be easier to keep the meat and vegetation at an equal level to keep the greenhouse gasses equal instead of constant rising. Lisa Hamilton used the five elements of rhetorical situation to make this essay simpler to understand the issue of the greenhouse gasses that is believed to be the exigence by raising livestock for food. This cause may not be proven completely since there are pros and cons to raising livestock for food along with having vegetation crops. These pros and cons are easier
understood with Hamilton’s text. She uses her research in an organized way and also uses metaphors to compare to something many adults and young adults could understand. Since she used Jason Mann’s comparison to a bank account, some readers might get a glimpse of the other side of the argument over this issue. The audience mainly attracted by this essay may mostly be farmers, but it could also attract vegetarians, meat market owners, produce managers, and any one else interested in the environment.
Each individual reader will have many constraints towards this essay. Although the pros and cons may be equal, the issue of how to decrease the percentage of greenhouse gasses may never be solved. The livestock could help reduce the gasses by adding organic matter to the soil and breaking down dead plant residue, but will it be enough to make everyone happy? The author writes in a neutral view to prevent attracting hostile readers, but makes many excellent points.
Although she found little proof of the exact cause to the greenhouse gasses, she did find few scapegoats (the blaming of something else causing the issue), such as the livestock emitting methane. In response, there have not been any proven facts that the livestock is the one to take complete blame for theses greenhouse gasses increasing. I agree with Hamilton’s idea of eating more meat instead of less. Eating grass-fed meat is a more natural food source that is healthier for the environment.
I also believe that with more research and more time, conclusions could be formed to decrease the amount of greenhouse gas in our environment by an incredible percentage. Blaming the issue on livestock who do things the only way it knows, natural, does not make sense to me since many humans have survived centuries from the livestock’s ancestors. Being vegetarian to prevent the gasses from increasing is ultimately any human’s right. A little change can start a huge chain reaction in the right direction to solving many issues involving our environment.