General question, are you eating less meat than you were 12 months ago? My wife has started eating less, which means I have as well. Noticed more of the weekly shop has been heading to veggies and less into meat, now its mainly a pack of chicken a week between us. No big ethical reasons, just eating less.
Curious if this is a wider trend in your house as well?
I tried veganism and didn't help me at all, I lacked energy, regularly had a "crook" gut and over the month that I did it managed to lose a grand total of about 300 grams of weight. Switched to full carnivore after doing keto and lost 18KG in my first month, My heart rate and blood pressure have dropped to numbers that don't require me to sit around in the hospital to "make sure you're OK" and I rarely feel tired anymore.
Each to their own but there is people like me who a heavy meat based diet is beneficial, and obviously there are those that thrive on a more vegetable centered diet. While I also agree that cattle produce a large amount of green house gases a lot of anti meat propaganda is likely related to the fossil fuel industry, and there are ways to also benefit the environment with cattle farming, check out Allan Savory's Reversing Desertification with Livestock.
I don't follow Veganism. I said a diet rich in fruit and vegetables is better for you, not that this is the only thing you eat. Personally I'm an omnivore but I try to keep the amount of meat down. I have yet to see any scientific study that indicates eating a lot of meat is better for your health. I've seen plenty that say exactly the opposite. The issue is the effect of your meat heavy diet on your long term health. As I said before, each to his own and I won't tell you how to live, but I will follow the scientific studies rather than a snapshot of an individual.
What studies? I've never been able to find anything besides dubious epidemiological studies.
Interesting article here on where the 5 a day campaign in the UK (equivalent to our 2 and 5) came from.
http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2012/03/five-a-day-the-truth/
What studies?
It literally took seconds to find studies such as this one
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4698595/
It references many other studies.
Perhaps fewer internet conspiracies and more science/ medicine should be on the menu too
@parsimonious one: Epidemiology is not "science", all it shows is correlation, not CAUSATION!
For example, the "SMOKING" epidemiology studies showed smokers and cancer with a 2000% to 3000% relative risk … those studies you link show relative risks of 10 - 30% (the Cocharyne criteria requires at least 200% relative risk to even suggest correlation)!
@7ekn00: You do you…. chuck on your tin foil hat and catch up on the latest instalment of your favourite antivax blog too.
You are right correlation is not causation but it would be virtually impossible to do a large enough prospective randomised control trial to account for the various confounders
Also, you might not believe epidemiology has any merit but many others do
https://www.who.int/topics/epidemiology/en/
PS it’s Cochrane not cocharyne
PPS With respect to your “data” on smoking -?Did you know that 80% of statistics on the internet are made up?
Nope, over 50 randomized controlled trials (the "best" type of scientific research - not just poorly done epidemiology which can NOT show causation, only correlation) on weight loss of low fat vs low carb diets … ZERO show more (or sustained) weight loss with low fat, over 30 show low carb having more weight loss and sustained weight loss ;)
a diet rich in vegetables and fruit
Person you're replying to has diabetes. Fruit and carbs are definitely NOT better for them.
There’s been a mistake. You’ve accidentally given me the food that my food eats.
"I only eat vegans"
I would personally like to eat less meat but find it difficult to go full vegetarian so I just try not to eat a ridiculous amount of meat. As much as I find it delicious, I don't like how animals are mass slaughtered. It saddens me as someone who appreciates animals and eating meat for myself is something I don't personally like doing on a moral level.
ZERO chance. Veg is great, helps make my steak.
I don't choose to have the tastes of a caveman. But I'm drawn HARD to it. I'm not stupid, so I PUSH to get my fruit and veg levels normal. I'm supposed to be a grown-up, so I just suck it up & do it. A lot of it tastes gross, and I can't just eat each item the one way I love it. So it's always been a chore.
Try adding some spices etc. vegetarian curries are just as tasty as meat ones. You just need to hide the veggies from your inner 6 year old.
Hilarious the argument about children not eating veggies - they truly know something we don't!
Maybe they taste the phytic acid or lectins (which includes gluten) or oxalates or saponins or tripsin inhibitors or isoflavaones or chaconine in their plant food ;)
Or maybe they would be happy to live on junk food all the time. I wouldn’t trust the taste buds, or the nutritional knowledge, of a 6 year old.
I don’t live with your wife. So no can’t say much.
Same as ever.
I started cutting back on meat to once a week 15 years ago.
Its really not hard to do, but people are so entitled and stuck in their habits. Which is understandable, habits are really hard to break. You grow up with a certain diet, and breaking outside of the diet is something most people just aren't willing to do. No matter if our obsession with beef is helping destroy the world.
Our obsession with beef isn't destroying the world, Sure it is a inefficient way of getting energy but if we weren't so greedy when it comes to money farming livestock for meat would actually benefit the world. Allan Savory's Reversing Desertification with Livestock is a good example, if every single living human being became vegan tomorrow we would see little change to the increase in global temp, rising sea levels and acidification of our reefs and the reason is the baddie isn't meat production, A better place to look would be the fossil fuel industry, Poorer countries stuck playing catch up with the 1st world (Which sucks because we exploited our way to the top and now they are told that they can't) and our 1 percent that decided to exchange this planet for profits.
This issue is we are to far gone already, A chain reaction is in effect and even if tomorrow we stopped all industry and everyone collectively started planting billions of trees it's impossible to reverse the damage we have done and incredibly unlikely to stop what we are heading to.
And we are ALL guilty, but that doesn't matter because we are all on this sinking ship together and the only people that might get to jump of is that 1 percent I mentioned earlier.
This reminds of a thought exercise where one expert says cycling is better for your health than running, while another says the opposite.
While the experts fight it out we think that because they can’t decide then no exercise must be the best option. Whereas if we just got out and went for a run or a ride we would be better off.
Cutting meat will reduce greenhouse emissions. So would green energy. Why not shoot for both.
Best comment yet.
I think you've greatly underestimated the impact of animal agriculture.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding…
"The new analysis shows that while meat and dairy provide just 18% of calories and 37% of protein, it uses the vast majority – 83% – of farmland and produces 60% of agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions. Other recent research shows 86% of all land mammals are now livestock or humans. The scientists also found that even the very lowest impact meat and dairy products still cause much more environmental harm than the least sustainable vegetable and cereal growing.
The study, published in the journal Science, created a huge dataset based on almost 40,000 farms in 119 countries and covering 40 food products that represent 90% of all that is eaten. It assessed the full impact of these foods, from farm to fork, on land use, climate change emissions, freshwater use and water pollution (eutrophication) and air pollution (acidification).
“A vegan diet is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use,” said Joseph Poore, at the University of Oxford, UK, who led the research. “It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car,” he said, as these only cut greenhouse gas emissions."
Edit - This is by far the largest study of its kind that has been conducted. Researchers from Oxford, published in Science.
Have you checked the conflict of interest statements from the actual scientific article?
Sponsored marketing from Kellogs, Coke and Monsanto - but hey, money can't be a reason for a favorable opinion piece!
While it is a good study it still doesn’t mention that a lot of the land that is used to grow livestock is not suitable for growing crops, and still doesn’t detract from the point that if people were more worried about the world and not money, livestock could be used to reverse desertification and actually increase current farmable land.
Also the part about being vegan is better then buying a ev is just bull, the entire agriculture industry generally produces around 10% of all ghgs with meat being around half of that, transportation is about 30% of all ghgs with passenger cars producing about half of that. So all the meat is 5% while all ice cars are 15%, not to mention heavy vehicles which make up about another 10% of ghgs can be switched to ev variants and I can see a much larger impact with a switch to ev over a switch to veganism even if it is only a reduction in ghgs, basically a swap from farming meat to crops would be a ~3% reduction where a swap from ice to ev would be a ~20% reduction. If you are worried about water use don’t ever drink another soft drink and land pollution again is a result of not moving the livestock frequently to allow for the plants and trees to utilise the the nutrients left behind to grow. Its been proven that livestock can help land recover from desertification if we could rotate them between feed and areas that struggle to grow the damage livestock produce is neglable at best.
@JustASmoothSkin: We could grow FAR LESS crops than we currently do, if we stopped feeding the majority of them into the grossly inefficient process of animal agriculture. Your point that some land that livestock are on is not suitable for crops is acknowledged but not relevant.
It doesn't really matter if it's a bit better or a bit worse than driving a car, it is undeniably a huge part of the impact we humans are having on the environment. However, you ignored the second part of the quote you are arguing against, so here it is again: “It is far bigger than cutting down on your flights or buying an electric car,” he said, as these only cut greenhouse gas emissions."
So all the meat is 5% while all ice cars are 15%
Nope, your numbers don't add up. Agriculture is 1/3 of global CO2 emissions, higher than all of transportation combined. In the lifecycle production of meat, it is the most taxing (and least effective) of all of agriculture sectors and because meat production requires other types of food production, it is compounded.
Agriculture is also no. 1 source of methane and no. 1 source of N20 - and no, grains don't produce
Here's a quick breakdown for each type of dead animal: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-top-10-foods-with-the…
land that is used to grow livestock is not suitable for growing crops
Hahah, well sure. You can keep cows and pigs locked in small pens in industrial buildings, which is how factory farming looks like, but you have to feed them - an what they are eating has to grow somewhere. For each kg of "beef" you need many kg of feed and tens of litres of water, and that's just feeding, not including other processes for converting a living animal into a "product".
Here's a good breakdown of CO2 and NO2 emissions during production of meat: https://www.ewg.org/meateatersguide/a-meat-eaters-guide-to-c…
How about the latter part of the chain?
Slaughterhouses dump millions of pounds of toxic pollutants – primarily nitrogen, phosphorus and ammonia – into waterways. Eight slaughterhouses are consistently among the nation’s top 20 industrial polluters of surface water, responsible for discharging 13.6 million kilos (30 million lbs) of contaminants – primarily nitrates – in 2009 (EPA 2009). Nitrates are a significant source of drinking water contamination in agricultural communities nationwide. Excessive amounts of these pollutants lead to massive fish kills and oxygen-deprived “dead zones” where no marine life can survive.
.
If you are worried about water use don’t ever drink another soft drink and land pollution
More suggestions straight from arse?
A single cow consumes between 11 to 110 litres of water EVERY DAY (depending on size and age)
How much water do you consume daily? (including plastic production if you still drink from non-reusable bottles)
Nope, your numbers don't add up. Agriculture is 1/3 of global CO2 emissions, higher than all of transportation combined. In the lifecycle production of meat, it is the most taxing (and least effective) of all of agriculture sectors and because meat production requires other types of food production, it is compounded.
That claim is from 2006 and has since been revealed by the guy (Henning Steinfeld) that authored the original paper to be wrong.
The problem was that FAO analysts used a comprehensive life-cycle assessment to study the climate impact of livestock, but a different method when they analyzed transportation.
Real numbers are around 5 percent, still really bad but all transport combined is alot more.
Also you grabbed that from the guardian which has been proven to being influenced by Monsanto and pump out contradictory hate spreading articles all the time.
@JustASmoothSkin: I'm not familiar with the claims you're making. There is a direct link to the study in the 4th paragraph.
@manlol: I am aware, and read the article. As I said good article but currently it is in Vogue to hate meat.
The article doesn't however offer comparisons outside the AG industry and when you compare other industries it quickly becomes apparent that while we definitely should make changes to the cattle industry it is not even nearly as big a problem as it's made out to be.
@JustASmoothSkin: If that's what you've concluded I've got to wonder whether we read the same study.
@JustASmoothSkin: Have you considered that over one third of crops are purely to generate animal feed?
If we approach the problem mathematically the best way to feed the most people is to not waste kilojoules on feeding animals. Would you agree with the science that energy is lost in the process of feeding crops to animals?
Shh, don't tell the vegans that the fertilizer that contains the carbon and nutrients that grows their precious crops comes from animals!
Shh, don't tell 7ekn00 that vegans actually know about manure. Further, don't tell him/her about the existence of fertilizers that don't contain manure, and the logical expectation that a reduction in animal agriculture would mean less animal shit and an uptake in other fertilizers.
@manlol: Ah, more profits from vegan fertilizers for the big conglomerate company that endorses factory farming - Monsanto!
So funny to see the vegans both condemning and praising the same company for their business practices!
@manlol: Last year monsanto was found "pressuring" journalists, monsanto is a provider for the AG industry.
Oh and surprise this article was published a year ago
@JustASmoothSkin: So because you've heard that Monsanto was "pressuring" journalists, you're going to disregard a large scale multi-year study by a highly respected organisation, published in a prestigious journal?
@manlol: Yeah, cause scientists can't be corrupted by money! They are pure saints!
Especially those dealing with Epidemiology where it's simple to adjust ANOVA confounders to show whatever statistical outcome you desire …
If you want to link actual "science" articles, ensure they are randomized controlled trials, as it is much harder to manipulate data ;)
@7ekn00: Oh, and how do you imagine an RCT would work to determine the environmental impact of the agriculture industry? We aren't studying medicine here.
On the money claim, are the farmers who you prefer to get your scientific information from less likely to be corrupted by money, despite the industry they're defending being responsible for the entirety of their income? Do you think that's maybe a more obvious vested interest?
@manlol: I didn't say the facts where false I am saying they are put forth in a biased way that doesn't take into account what we could be doing, Cattle farming is bad for environment we can all agree on that. But the way the article has put it forth makes it seem like livestock is the biggest thing that is pushing us to a global warming apocalypse and that is false. We know that livestock can be used to effect the environment in a positive way (Dedesertification) and we know that we can reduce methane production from cattle hugely (Round 99%) by introducing a small amount of Asparagopsis to their diet. But does that article mention either of these things? Nope it doesn't nor does it mention that the reason we do neither of these things in any capacity is due to nothing but sheer profits.
I am not disregarding the study, Vegetables are a more efficient source of energy then meat, I am aware of the environmental effects of livestock (And agree that they are currently bad) but I am also aware that we are not doing the best we can to help the situation and simply pointing at meat as the big bad without comparing it to the whole picture is the same as taking something out of context.
We can improve the process of livestock raising to a point where environmental effects are practically naught, the actual reason the world is heading down this road is due nearly entirely to human greed. We are also guilty but the people that actually put us here is the 1% that decide that a billion dollars isn't enough for them, That humans don't need rights, that someone else will save the environment, that something they know isn't safe is fine as long as no one finds out, that takes "donations" to open yet another coal mine which is destined to fail but not before it destroys Australia's natural ecosystem then siphons cash from tax payers to bail them out.
Here is some reading material, form your own opinions. Personally these things are a larger problem in my opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_(company)#Controversies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn#Controversies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Legal_affairs
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/08/28/monsanto-doctor…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmichael_coal_mine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola#Criticism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Coca-Cola#Environ…
https://waronwant.org/media/coca-cola-drinking-world-dry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labour_in_cocoa_producti…
@JustASmoothSkin: This study (and all studies) has a limited scope. I agree with you that there is a better way to raise cattle but it will always have a harsh environmental impact, even just considering emissions.
To say that there are worse things (I would disagree with most of the things you've listed being worse, but respect your opinion) so you'll just keep actively supporting [bad thing] seems like a cop-out. Why care at all about anything you've listed, when there is the heat death of the universe?
@manlol: If we shifted method it won’t have a harsh environmental impact at all, the impact of cattle farming depending on region could actually be benificial.
I am not disregarding the study, Vegetables are a more efficient source of energy then meat, I am aware of the environmental effects of livestock (And agree that they are currently bad) but I am also aware that we are not doing the best we can to help the situation and simply pointing at meat as the big bad without comparing it to the whole picture is the same as taking something out of context.
Thank you for that.
I'm very confused by your stance though. You've spend a lot of time arguing against some of the reports or conclusions brought up on this forum… yet you understand how stupidly inefficient meat production is and how damaging it is to the planet…
The question here was "Are you eating less meat?" - there are many people who do, thankfully, and they are greatly helping un-(profanity) our planet. Because of mob mentality, we can't be looking at each other and instead look at oneself when making those choices.
It's objectively a good choice health-wise and environment-wise to EAT LESS MEAT.
Be that 5% or 100% (vegetarian), it's one's individual decision based on culture, awareness and habits. Eating one type of food or recipe is mostly habit/choice - some people like vegemite, some don't, some like goulash, some don't etc.
Separate from discussion on how to run vegan diets, which often requires more knowledge and planning, DECIDING TO EAT LESS MEAT has no downsides.
Spend 2 mins reading through this: https://www.meatlessmonday.com/ and try for yourself.
@Thinkscape: And @Manlol:
Here is a article that you can take a gander at, and please give it a read. It's impossible to win an internet argument but I would like to try to dispel a couple of misconceptions you have.
Frank M. Mitloehner, Professor of Animal Science and Air Quality Extension Specialist, University of California, Davis
https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2018/10/29/a_huge_…
by Anne Mottet and Henning Steinfeld | FAO
Anne Mottet- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations | FAO · Animal Production and Health Division PHD Environmental Science
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anne_Mottet
Henning Steinfeld- The guy Manlol quoted earlier with the "Livestock is worse then all transport" argument and author behind a "Livestock's Long Shadow"
https://www.researchgate.net/scientific-contributions/397210…
http://news.trust.org/item/20180918083629-d2wf0
A nice excerpt that I like
As one example, the energy in plants that livestock consume is most often contained in cellulose, which is indigestible for humans and many other mammals. But cows, sheep and other ruminant animals can break cellulose down and release the solar energy contained in this vast resource. According to the FAO, as much as 70 percent of all agricultural land globally is range land that can only be utilized as grazing land for ruminant livestock.
The world population is currently projected to reach 9.8 billion people by 2050. Feeding this many people will raise immense challenges. Meat is more nutrient-dense per serving than vegetarian options, and ruminant animals largely thrive on feed that is not suitable for humans. Raising livestock also offers much-needed income for small-scale farmers in developing nations. Worldwide, livestock provides a livelihood for 1 billion people.
@JustASmoothSkin: Will do. Thanks. From a scan it's quite picky on what it refers to, but I'm giving it a better look.
"As one example, the energy in plants that livestock consume is most often contained in cellulose, which is indigestible for humans and many other mammals. But cows, sheep and other ruminant animals can break cellulose down and release the solar energy contained in this vast resource"
That some part of our vegetables are comprised of cellulose does not mean it is more efficient to feed them to animals, where we get 1 calorie back for every 5-15 that we feed them (depending on the animal; cattle are at the worse end). This is a grossly inefficient process and there is simply no getting around it.
"According to the FAO, as much as 70 percent of all agricultural land globally is range land that can only be utilized as grazing land for ruminant livestock. The world population is currently projected to reach 9.8 billion people by 2050. Feeding this many people will raise immense challenges. "
We are only using 17% of agricultural land to supply 82% of our calories (non-animal products), which means we could supply around 150% of the world's current caloric requirements (or 10B people) with that 30% of crop-suitable land, and let the remaining 70% regenerate. This is obviously over simplified but it demonstrates the enormous disparity in the efficiency of crops vs animal agriculture. (I've pulled these figures from the previously linked Oxford study)
"Meat is more nutrient-dense per serving than vegetarian options, and ruminant animals largely thrive on feed that is not suitable for humans."
Nutrient density is not particularly relevant to a sustainability argument (rather nutrients or calories per area), however while meats are very nutrient dense there are plenty of vegetarian options that rival them in nutrient density without the trans-fats and cholesterol eg. beans, lentils, nuts.
"Raising livestock also offers much-needed income for small-scale farmers in developing nations. Worldwide, livestock provides a livelihood for 1 billion people."
Harmful industries should not be supported simply because people are working in them. People can reskill, particularly over long periods of time as would be realistic to expect the decline of animal agriculture. Additionally, that people in developing nations may be dependant upon meat production does not excuse the actions of either of us.
@manlol: So, You are going to completely disregard this study that is 13 years newer with more up to date statistics authored by the same person and organization that you based your earlier argument on?
I am going to make a pros and cons list here to explain why this is not as simple a solution as your making it.
Pros:
* Limiting necessary slaughter of animals
* Roughly 3 percent decrease in GHG emissions
* Reclaim 60% of farmland (70% of which isn't useful for crops, fruits or vege farms)
* Eco diversity recovering from damage caused by livestock in effected areas
* Crops are roughly 500% more efficient then livestock
Cons:
* More than a billion people that may need to relocate for re-education and re-employment
* Land prices plummeting in regional areas
* Animal produced goods like wool and leather skyrocketing
* Impoverished nations will not be able to secure enough food
* Limiting diet options on people who may be restricted IE: Diabetics and people with food related allergies.
* Regional towns will suffer, resulting people moving out of them for work . This will hurt other farmers as they will struggle to find mechanics, field hands, operators and expenses such as fuel, food and transport/freight fees will increase due to lack of both supply and demand.
I am not saying the world should eat more meat, I am in agreement that livestock has a negative effect on the planet but a balanced varied diet with regular fasting periods and exercise is the healthiest option. The livestock industry will slowly shrink over time as technology introduces lab produced meat and cheaper good alternatives but over time we have made meat more efficient and it is only getting more efficient as we advance. We have more then doubled meat production in the last 60 years yet we have actually seen a 12 percent decrease in GHG emissions from livestock in that time. This can be reduced even further with asperagopsis and smart farming methods like moving cattle frequently.
Saying no to meat is in vogue, It's popular and the reason is it is a untapped market. People are willing to pay more for the ethical choice and many companies are jumping on this wagon early to get the most out of it.
A meat only diet like my current one is most likely NOT the healthiest diet to choose, It is possible that increased consumption can increase the risk of cancers related to the digestive system (Though this is speculation as no long term study has been done)
as well as problems related to cholesterol, but with the correct supplements, monitoring your health and regular exercise it is likely to be beneficial to an individual. Personally I don't drink, smoke or do any drugs so I think what little nitrates are in my processed meats will do limited damage and studies have shown that regular fasting can actually reduce unnecessary cell division resulting in a longer life.
@JustASmoothSkin: I think you've confused the study I posted with something else? It came out this year, with authors J Poore and T Nemecek of Oxford. Direct link https://josephpoore.com/Science%20360%206392%20987%20-%20Acc… I previously linked to a Guardian article with a nice summary. I wouldn't try to argue that a newer study is more accurate, however this is a very large scale several-year study from one of the most respected universities in the world, and your study just seems to be an article?
I could raise objection with pretty much your whole list of pros and cons but at the moment I just feel we're spinning the wheels on this.
@manlol: Seems I mistook one of thinkscapes comments as yours, Yeah seems neither of us are going to budge though I did get to learn quite alot. Cheers for the argument been something fun to think about the last few days.
@JustASmoothSkin: Sorry, but you lost me now …
- More than a billion people that may need to relocate for re-education and re-employment
ugh that is just plain taken from the sky. If you play with supply chains argument, every second single working person on earth supplies war effort (guns, ammunition, clothing, computers, food for people who produce those, energy for military bases etc.)
Farmers will have to adjust, as they have been for ages. As all humans are adjusting for changing realities. If the business moves from apples to bananas, more bananas are getting planted an farmed. No, a billion people will not have to relocate next year, or even the year after that.
In developed countries majority of meat is FACTORY FARMED - which means handful of staff, heavily automated and processed. Those factories will eventually close, people will move on.
In developing countries, where there are actually farms, the change will be more progressive but will happen.
On the contrary, rising sea levels, droughts and unbearable heatwaves (among other natural disasters) are already killing or dislocating millions this year, with many more expected in the coming decade.
- Land prices plummeting in regional areas
why would that be? Again - the crops grown for feeding livestock will now be converted/used to feed humans, esp. in poverty areas.
Land not used for one thing, will be used for another. This happens all the time with farmers shifting their production.
- Animal produced goods like wool and leather skyrocketing
… with alternatives taking over their place. Normal market mechanisms. Good.
Leather and wool have been going out of fashion for some time now in developed countries either way.
- Impoverished nations will not be able to secure enough food
That is some BS. Members of impoverished nations often times can't afford meat to begin with.
- Limiting diet options on people who may be restricted IE: Diabetics and people with food related allergies.
This is just weak. There are handful of types of meat consumed globally and most dairy comes from goat, cows or sheep… on the contrary, there are THOUSANDS of plant-based ingredients that can be used to create millions of recipes. People with allergies avoid certain foods, be that dairy, nuts, or whatever else. Nothing changes here. (not sure why diabetics are even here. Haven't heard of a single diabetic cured by eating more cows)
- Regional towns will suffer, resulting people moving out of them for work . This will hurt other farmers as they will struggle to find mechanics, field hands, operators and expenses such as fuel, food and transport/freight fees will increase due to lack of both supply and demand.
That is very weird extrapolation. Demand for anything, be that apples, ICE cars or asbestos mittens, can change. With changing climate that will be even harder for farmers that need to adapt. For those towns that exclusively work in meat industry, yes, that will be a big change. If global temperatures rise by 2.5 deg, ALL tows around the world are royally screwed.
Sorry but all of those "cons" are socio-economic effects of changing demand and affect every single market. Because meat demand is still high and not dropping as fast as we need it in developing countries, there's going to be delayed effect. In developed countries, there is higher market adaptability for those things (see the current rise of faux meats). "What about poor tobacco farmers after 1970s when the cigarette demand started dropping." kind of argumentation.
@Thinkscape: As is with above with Manlol, it's obvious neither of each other will change our way of thinking and just like you did now I can dispute each and every one of your responses in what will result in a endless cycle of "No, you're wrong."
I am calling a end to it here like Manlol did earlier, I have learnt alot from our back and forth and honestly thank you for participating in the discussion, It has actually been fun the last couple of days to discuss this and hopefully people have picked up some knowledge of both sides of this issue.
where we get 1 calorie back for every 5-15 that we feed them (depending on the animal; cattle are at the worse end). This is a grossly inefficient process and there is simply no getting around it.
If it's calories by way of cellulose as stated in the article, it's calories people can't use anyway. If you think of it in terms of useful calories, meat from ruminants is > 0, cellulose is 0.
We are only using 17% of agricultural land to supply 82% of our calories
It's not just about calories. If only calories mattered, people eating just junk food wouldn't be nutrient deficient.
If it's calories by way of cellulose as stated in the article, it's calories people can't use anyway. If you think of it in terms of useful calories, meat from ruminants is > 0, cellulose is 0.
It's not as though we have a bunch of pure cellulose that would otherwise be thrown away.
Even if we were to imagine that ruminant livestock could extract twice as much energy from what they're fed compared to us (extremely generous), due to their ability to digest cellulose, it still ends up as a huge loss. 1 x 2 / 10 (avg) = 0.2 calories out for each calorie input.
It's not just about calories. If only calories mattered, people eating just junk food wouldn't be nutrient deficient.
Agreed, calories were focused on for simplicity. Vegetables/grains/legumes are pretty healthy though..?
It's not as though we have a bunch of pure cellulose that would otherwise be thrown away.
That's what a majority of ruminant (cattle/sheep/etc) feedstock are though - cellulose based feed that has 0 useful calories for people.
Even if we were to imagine that ruminant livestock could extract twice as much energy from what they're fed compared to us
Maybe the science isn't clear. Humans can extract ZERO calories from cellulose. Ruminants extract, literally, INFINITE times more energy from cellulose than humans because we're dividing by zero here.
Agreed, calories were focused on for simplicity. Vegetables/grains/legumes are pretty healthy though..?
The specialist supplements or foods vegans/vegetarians need include some which don't come as easily from legumes. Though it's not an insurmountable hurdle, it represents a significant one for people in very poor areas because they won't have access to these specialised foods - far easier to eat a cow every so often.
@HighAndDry: Can you provide information on this cellulose feed and how common it is? I'm googling with no success. I was under the impression that a majority of these livestock are fed grains, soy, corn.
Regardless, your statement is only valid if this cellulose is a waste product or something that grows passively, though even that would require consideration of land use / water use / emissions.
If we're actively growing some kind of high cellulose feed then obviously we could just grow something more useful to humans, right?
The specialist supplements or foods vegans/vegetarians need include some which don't come as easily from legumes. Though it's not an insurmountable hurdle, it represents a significant one for people in very poor areas because they won't have access to these specialised foods - far easier to eat a cow every so often.
People keep making this argument and I've seen no evidence of it, but I do know that it should have nothing to do with the choices we're making in a developed nation.
Can you provide information on this cellulose feed and how common it is? I'm googling with no success. I was under the impression that a majority of these livestock are fed grains, soy, corn.
No, what you see labelled "grain-fed" or "corn-fed" beef are just finished on those feedstuffs. Most of their calorie requirements are from cellulose. That's the entire point of them being ruminants - the fact that they can digest and process cellulose. Here's a primer:
https://qz.com/1343690/why-cattle-are-the-key-to-unlocking-t…
Most of the solar energy captured by terrestrial plants is put into cellulose, the most abundant organic molecule in the biosphere. This molecule is indigestible to humans and most of our fellow mammals—we cannot unlock the solar energy. The only organisms that can are bacteria.
[…]
This is true even for grain-finished beef in the United States—90% of what grain-finished cattle eat in their lifetimes is grass and human-inedible plant leftovers that are high in cellulose.
That's why JASS said above:
it still doesn’t mention that a lot of the land that is used to grow livestock is not suitable for growing crops
Because this land has generally nutrient-poor soils that can't support crops like wheat or rice, and only good for growing grazing pastures like different types of grass. People and non-ruminants can't eat grass. So either this land and the grazing pastures go wasted, or you raise ruminants - cattle, sheep - on them.
@HighAndDry: While that is a great article from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, since they avoid going into how many ruminant animals are actually given the opportunity to ruminate, I looked it up: https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/us-factory-farming-estima… (admittedly only for US but is the best data I could find)
We estimate that 99% of US farmed animals are living in factory farms at present. By species, we estimate that 70.4% of cows, 98.3% of pigs, 99.8% of turkeys, 98.2% of chickens raised for eggs, and over 99.9% of chickens raised for meat are raised in factory farms.
In the optimal example of a cow eating 90% cellulose feed and 10% soy/corn, at a 10:1 calories in/out ratio, we get pretty much what we put in. This ignores GHGs etc, which are particularly bad from pasture raised cows. https://www.carbonbrief.org/grass-fed-beef-will-not-help-tac…
But consider that 70% of cows are fed much more grain/corn/soy than this. Consider that the vast, vast majority of animals that we farm do not eat cellulose, and the fact that some cows get to spend some of their lives eating grass is utterly insignificant.
@manlol: In Australia our cows do mostly eat grass, cows that are grainfed are primarily fed that way because people want grainfed meat and only for the last part of their lives. The data is a couple of years old, but 80% of beef on supermarket shelves was grain fed at the end of their life. The percentage of cows that were grainfed was the same as those that were fed hormones, likely the same ones.
Still, two-thirds of grain in Australia is grown to feed animals so they can become someone's food.
@manlol: Replying in a separate comment for… ease of reading I guess:
People keep making this argument and I've seen no evidence of it, but I do know that it should have nothing to do with the choices we're making in a developed nation.
A lot of essential nutrients aren't commonly naturally-occuring in plants. That's why people are omnivores. As examples:
https://familydoctor.org/vegan-diet-how-to-get-the-nutrients…
Biggest ones to note are:
You can get complete protein by eating certain foods together. Examples include rice and beans or corn and beans.
and
Omega-3 fatty acids improve your heart health and brain function. Flaxseed meal and oil are two sources. You also can look for food products fortified with omega-3 from a plant source.
For people in a first world country, these aren't usually a problem. For someone in a developing country, or someone who is poor in a developed country, who works 10+hrs a day, sourcing these, and making sure that you have enough of these in your diet to not developmentally stunt your children, is not something they have the time or energy to keep track of.
Just because you're not poor and can source these doesn't mean everyone else can too.
@HighAndDry: Vegan diets are supported by every major dietetics institution in the world, for all stages of human life. It does take some education but it's really not that hard.
Again, I'm not speaking to people in developing nations and urging them to think about the morality of their only livelihood. That some people have limited options is not an excuse for everyone else.
It does take some education but it's really not that hard.
Some people have trouble getting a basic education (and keeping up) as it already is.
Again, I'm not speaking to people in developing nations and urging them to think about the morality of their only livelihood. That some people have limited options is not an excuse for everyone else.
This is an incorrect premise - it's not just people in developing nations that will have trouble following the specific supplementary nutritional requirements of a vegan diet. (Extreme) cases in point:
Sweden: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/vegan-baby-s…
US: https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/vegan-parents-accus…
Belgium: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wjqbem/judge-convicts-par…
And, on yeah, Australia: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/24/health/vegan-parents-maln…
A vegan diet isn't as easy to implement or follow as it might seem.
@HighAndDry: These are anecdotes. I'm sure you are aware that omnivore parents also produce malnourished children.
@manlol: No, those are news articles. Of course omnivorous parents also can malnourish their children, it's harder to do it - even if all they're feeding kids is Kraft singles and cheeseburgers.
@manlol: It's not - you don't need to track nutrients anywhere near as closely on even a junk food diet as a vegan diet. It's not baseless. You don't see articles on "How to get all your nutrients on an Omnivorous diet" for a reason.
@HighAndDry: According to whom? There certainly are a lot of articles about nutrition as an omnivore, what an obviously false statement.
I discover Wagyu beef now I'm stuck :)
Same here!
All this talk about what is better, vegetarian, veganism or a carnivore diet.
It is very simple; each of us is unique and our bodies will be able to handle and respond to different diets more efficiently than others.
For example, I am an alpha hunter so meat works well for me but most likely not for the majority of people who are beta gatherers and berry pickers.
Don't be mad, it's just how it is. You guys stay back at the camp, while me and the hunters go and do what needs to be done.
10/10 haha.
I knew it would be downvoted to the depths of oblivion but I could not resist.
I'm surprised that many people used negs on this. You used "berry pickers" as an insult!
I'd say more 3/10 being generous. Obvious troll. Alpha hunter lol
When I return all sweaty after the hunt, muscles glistening in the sunlight I think I can convince you to make that a solid 6/10.
I might even let you hand feed me some berries.
@hey aj: When was the last time you hunted exactly and what muscles did you have to operate?
I do agree that we have different constitutions and there's no one size diet fits all.
I do believe though that we have a lot of work to do in order to bring all food production to an ethical standards.
When was the last time you hunted exactly and what muscles did you have to operate?
Colesworths is a freakin battlefield, matey!
Knocking pensioners over in the meat aisles? 3/10 max. Bonus points only if they're on mobility devices.
@hey aj: We only really eat grass, we no longer have the skill to determine which berries are poisonous.
haha, 10/10 comment
I try and eat more meat in protest against self righteous vegans
If you really wanted to add insult to injury, you would shop in the supermarket for all that meat marked "Factory Farmed Only" ;)
On a side note, can anybody actually point to a single meat product in Australia that is a known product of an actual factory farm?
Double post
Likely all pork products imported from the USA, they still use sow stalls to stop them attacking each other and their litters.
99% of US livestock live on factory farms, I can't find accurate figures for Australia but I can't imagine it would be much lower.
If you want to see what factory farms in Australia look like, here's a nice documentary for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQRAfJyEsko
Most chicken come from factory farming of some sort.
Is much of it processed meat and/or red meat?
Haha yeah you show the planet who is boss
Yes, I quite enjoy creating new meals. Chic pea/ besan flour is very versatile. Made awesome “sausage” rolls, chic pea chips all sorts. More veggies equals more poops which makes me feel lighter lol.
I’m here for the vegan comments
Sous vide Chuck steaks.
Individually cut 50mm thick steaks, individually vac bag, complete 48 hours sous vide at 60°C
Refrigerate until chilled.
Season, smoke at ~100°C with apple (your choice) wood chips until an internal temp of 60-70°C (your preference) is reached.
Only done this once, but it was fantastic.
This seems to reflect a global trend pushed by the profit mongers, not possibly a health incentive.
Eat what feels right, enjoy life. Animal based food is very satisfying. Veganism is for vegans.
Ethically, we need food. If you can convince a lion to eat vegetables, or a cow to eat sheep, I'll listen. Until then I'll continue a million+ year trend that has us surviving at the top of the food chain.
hahahah….
"it feels right to eat dogs and humans… Come closer… let me enjoy my life now"
If you were honest with yourself. Yes it may be so.
You call yourself thinkscape. So use it.
So you're proud to put yourself in the same category as animals that act purely on primal instincts? In the same category as cavemen?
'Ethically, we need food" - what does that even mean? Scientifically, we need some form of sustenance to survive, yes. Ethically (i.e. relating to moral principles) shouldn't we stop and consider what is the right thing to do? We've eaten meat throughout history because we didn't have the knowledge that it was causing harm to the environment. We were oblivious, like the animals you have described. But now we know better.
Perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself though. Are you saying you don't believe meat production harms the environment? Or you do, but you believe it's ok to act selfishly in pursuit of satisfaction / enjoying life?
Your strawman argument and entire ethical outlook that you are trying to impose on others is purely based on speculation that plant food (CO2) is harmful to an environment that has fostered plants with the same plant food for millions of years.
Here is my first thought experiment:
What has the biggest impact on temperature changes on earth in extremely quick time frames (hours)?
Given the propoganda pushed here, I suspect some will need hints:
1) It causes temperature changes of over 30C on some regions of the Earth
2) It causes these changes on a daily basis over a matter of hours
3) It rises and sets each day
Oh, chicken little, chicken little, the maximum temperature during the day time has risen 1C over the past 30 years!
Chicken Little: So? it rose 20C this morning from 6am to 9am!!!!!!!!!!
And here is my second thought experiment (or you can go out and try it right now):
Open your front door, walk outside, pick the first plant leaf / branch / root you see and start eating it and let us know how you go!
Try that with any plant you can find after stepping outside.
Hint:
No matter the plant, there is a great chance you will have stomach cramps, vomit or die ;)
Good thing plants are so healthy for us :P
7
Not surprising to see your inability to think critically has led you to climate change denial too. Let me guess - flat earth? Moon hoax? 911 inside job?
What is hilarious is your repeated accusation of others of the very things that you are doing. Alderson didn't create a strawman, but you very clearly did with your leap from "eating plants can be healthy" to "eating ALL plants is healthy". You also supposed an ethical claim that no one has made.
T
(Tobias)
whatever rocks your boat but the studies show a diet rich in vegetables and fruit is better for you. I think you could’ve achieved the same thing by cutting back on certain trigger allergy foods than going all carnivore. The proof of the pudding will be your long term health.