FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Climate change
Climate change
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"Are world leaders going to start taking the issue of climate change seriously?" Sadly doesn't seem like they will anytime soon. Shame really because all the arguments about Brexit mean f*ck all compared to the impacts of climate change, but hey that's the kids problem right  | |||
"Are world leaders going to start taking the issue of climate change seriously?" Macron tried and everyone lost their shit and started burning cars and rioting. Climate. Change is as popular as herpes . We must now accept a 3 to 5 degree rise by the end of the century.It's going to be the best summers ever!  | |||
"Are world leaders going to start taking the issue of climate change seriously?" nope course there not.theres to much money to be made and they will be long gone so they dont give a flying fuck.sad but true | |||
| |||
"happy days if kent turns into spain ...then people wont be flying to spain thus saving the planet ...job done " I can see you've thought this climate change stuff through... 
| |||
| |||
"Are world leaders going to start taking the issue of climate change seriously? nope course there not.theres to much money to be made and they will be long gone so they dont give a flying fuck.sad but true" The irony is that there are barrel loads of money to be made. It's wall to wall new technology to be developed if you're at the front of the pack. The USA has deliberately placed itself at the back whilst China and India are both embracing the opportunity along with Europe and even us! There is also a lot of money and chaos to be saved if we can avoid climate change. The question is how fast we move and if we start only after it's roo late. | |||
| |||
"Sadly it will be too late before the "penny drops" and yes mother nature will put us in our place! " 100%. We are fast approaching the point of no return. Even with some moderate political will and adherence to the Paris Climate accord, it’s still a case of too little too late. | |||
| |||
"Are world leaders going to start taking the issue of climate change seriously? nope course there not.theres to much money to be made and they will be long gone so they dont give a flying fuck.sad but true The irony is that there are barrel loads of money to be made. It's wall to wall new technology to be developed if you're at the front of the pack. The USA has deliberately placed itself at the back whilst China and India are both embracing the opportunity along with Europe and even us! There is also a lot of money and chaos to be saved if we can avoid climate change. The question is how fast we move and if we start only after it's roo late." Agreed. And ironically conservatives should push for this the most. It reinvigorates markets, speculative and figurative, creates new jobs, incourages individual and corporate responsibility. Not to mention that in the long term is reduces government spending, and yet, we are here with most politicians looking a year to five into the future. | |||
| |||
| |||
"It appears that they won't choose to do much differently to their former choices, which is not much at all. It obviously should be given greater attention than the world wars and other crises combined, as the massive catastrophe that is underway. But it's being ignored as it doesn't fit their desire for short term minor adjustments to the status qyo, if that's not an oxymoron. It's a point when it's time to be ashamed to be human. " Sophie, you are wrong, this crisis is not being ignored, that would be bad, but this is worse. Any attempt to combat climate change is being actively disrupted by those profiting from the causes of climate change. The tobacco industry did the same for 50 years suppressing evidence of the harm done by smoking while adding sulphates to their products to make them more addictive, and in the process killing hundreds of millions across the world. The petrochemical industry are doing the same today only this time it is the whole of humanity and the planet they are killing to make an extra buck! | |||
"Are world leaders going to start taking the issue of climate change seriously?" It was rather ironic that the UN conference was held in Poland, a country that still deep mines coal and burns vast quantities of it to create electricity. | |||
| |||
"Well I really expected someone to claim it was all a hoax but the posts so far seem unanimous - question is how to stay at least a little optimistic!" Quite a few of us will be dead before it gets so bad? | |||
| |||
"Climate change is happening, and will continue to happen regardless of what we do as a society. We have definitely caused things to speed up considerably with all the carbon emissions we produce on a daily basis, but there is no way to stop climate change, that's just a fairy tale. The only thing we can do is try to prepare for the changes that are going to happen. It's happened many times before and it will happen again. Humanity needs to quit polluting the earth and ourselves, but that won't stop the climate from changing." How many Ice ages has the planet had?? and then it has heated up again. We are however making a mess of the planet. | |||
"Climate change is happening, and will continue to happen regardless of what we do as a society. We have definitely caused things to speed up considerably with all the carbon emissions we produce on a daily basis, but there is no way to stop climate change, that's just a fairy tale. The only thing we can do is try to prepare for the changes that are going to happen. It's happened many times before and it will happen again. Humanity needs to quit polluting the earth and ourselves, but that won't stop the climate from changing. How many Ice ages has the planet had?? and then it has heated up again. We are however making a mess of the planet." 5 ice ages earliest one 2 billion years ago most recent started 3 million years ago and is still on going . What's that got to go with man made climate change.?? | |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
"30 years ago 'the news' told us that global warming was going to finish us...then 12 years ago 'the news' said we had only 12 years to save the planet...then 3 years ago 'the news' told us that we had just 3 years to stop climate wotsit. Think we have another 12 years on the meter before catastrophic and irreversable weather stuff happens. That's according to 'the news'. As we all know...we have never been lied to by 'the news'. We really really need a new tax hike to fix this thermostat problem....quick everybody!! To the Range Rover dealership!! " You are, of course, absolutely correct. Well argued. It's all a hoax by the wealthy and powerful academic and science community perpetrated against the poor, defenceless petrochemical industry. There is absolutely no evidence to support any of this and our own senses tell us that everything is just fine. On top of all of that "evidence" we are being lied to by everyone all of the time so the only thing you should believe is what you make up inside your own head where they can't get to you  | |||
| |||
"A quick check of media archives will prove what has been claimed in the past. " I'm agreeing with yiu. There's no problem whatsoever is there? Why are so many people worried? It's just scaremongering right? We are obviously being deceived by liberals and the reason for it is clear. We all know that globally complex problems like this can be measured incredibly precisely and even id there was a problem it could be solved simply and easily with a cheap solution. You've provided all of the answers. Everyone should listen | |||
"Listened to a fascinating documentary this morning on how global warming is accelerating the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. One of the most worrying points was that the potential sea level rise from that alone is 23 metres which will make Canterbury a bit wetter than Some might like! I’m glad I live on the high ground. "This is the bit we should be most alarmed about - the huge refugee crisis as low-lying settlements are inundated. We've seen how a few thousand migrants can destabilise a continent like Europe and give a country like the UK a nervous breakdown. When millions are on the move, will we build walls or send rescue boats? | |||
"30 years ago 'the news' told us that global warming was going to finish us...then 12 years ago 'the news' said we had only 12 years to save the planet...then 3 years ago 'the news' told us that we had just 3 years to stop climate wotsit. Think we have another 12 years on the meter before catastrophic and irreversable weather stuff happens. That's according to 'the news'. As we all know...we have never been lied to by 'the news'. We really really need a new tax hike to fix this thermostat problem....quick everybody!! To the Range Rover dealership!! " Best stick to the IPCC reports and the underlying expert evidence, rather than the news. We've been fortunate to have increasingly detailed and sophisticated evidence and tools for analysis. The tragedy is that people like the Koch brothers are determined to undermine attempts to limit their massive attacks upon the planet, via their coal, oil and other business activities. Most world leaders are carrying on as if there's not anything to be concerned abou. | |||
| |||
"Listened to a fascinating documentary this morning on how global warming is accelerating the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. One of the most worrying points was that the potential sea level rise from that alone is 23 metres which will make Canterbury a bit wetter than Some might like! I’m glad I live on the high ground.
This is the bit we should be most alarmed about - the huge refugee crisis as low-lying settlements are inundated.
We've seen how a few thousand migrants can destabilise a continent like Europe and give a country like the UK a nervous breakdown.
When millions are on the move, will we build walls or send rescue boats?"To be honest if predictions are correct then more violent weather systems will put paid to most of our infrastructure and agriculture before we get to that point so we will all be in the same boat. Perhaps we are the modern day Egyptians. | |||
"Listened to a fascinating documentary this morning on how global warming is accelerating the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. One of the most worrying points was that the potential sea level rise from that alone is 23 metres which will make Canterbury a bit wetter than Some might like! I’m glad I live on the high ground.
This is the bit we should be most alarmed about - the huge refugee crisis as low-lying settlements are inundated.
We've seen how a few thousand migrants can destabilise a continent like Europe and give a country like the UK a nervous breakdown.
When millions are on the move, will we build walls or send rescue boats?
To be honest if predictions are correct then more violent weather systems will put paid to most of our infrastructure and agriculture before we get to that point so we will all be in the same boat. Perhaps we are the modern day Egyptians."I'm going to start building an ark! | |||
"Climate change is happening, and will continue to happen regardless of what we do as a society. We have definitely caused things to speed up considerably with all the carbon emissions we produce on a daily basis, but there is no way to stop climate change, that's just a fairy tale. The only thing we can do is try to prepare for the changes that are going to happen. It's happened many times before and it will happen again. Humanity needs to quit polluting the earth and ourselves, but that won't stop the climate from changing." you are a hundred percent right it's happened before you can't stop it but maybe slow it down a little. | |||
"Climate change is happening, and will continue to happen regardless of what we do as a society. We have definitely caused things to speed up considerably with all the carbon emissions we produce on a daily basis, but there is no way to stop climate change, that's just a fairy tale. The only thing we can do is try to prepare for the changes that are going to happen. It's happened many times before and it will happen again. Humanity needs to quit polluting the earth and ourselves, but that won't stop the climate from changing.you are a hundred percent right it's happened before you can't stop it but maybe slow it down a little. " You're 100% wrong. | |||
"Listened to a fascinating documentary this morning on how global warming is accelerating the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. One of the most worrying points was that the potential sea level rise from that alone is 23 metres which will make Canterbury a bit wetter than Some might like! I’m glad I live on the high ground. "Try 20 ft not meters, still alot but if youre going to put up stats at least use accurate ones | |||
"Listened to a fascinating documentary this morning on how global warming is accelerating the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. One of the most worrying points was that the potential sea level rise from that alone is 23 metres which will make Canterbury a bit wetter than Some might like! I’m glad I live on the high ground.
Try 20 ft not meters, still alot but if youre going to put up stats at least use accurate ones"What’s a little fabrication of facts between friends eh Rob? But lets be honest the point wasnt about the size or should that be depth if you see what I mean. | |||
"Talking won't help ,recycling your waste won't help.Clicking like on a image of a polar bear on the ice won't help. Voting for green policy or a party that will deliver the goods is the only option. If your still voting for people who don't care you're part of the problem.. "The biggest thing you can do is eat less meat and educate women. Really. | |||
"A quick check of media archives will prove what has been claimed in the past. " Okay bring up your articles and I'll log onto my academic registrar to see if any of the writers or people they cite/organisations they site, publish research papers which are submitted for verification and replication. It'll be interesting to see which outlets published this. P.s, just like the internal combustion engine, data modelling gets better exponentially over time. The combustion engine never used to be as fuel efficient as it is now, the algorithms used 30 years ago are not as reliable and accurate as those today. | |||
"happy days if kent turns into spain ...then people wont be flying to spain thus saving the planet ...job done " Unfortunately it will turn large amounts of Kent into sea..... | |||
"Talking won't help ,recycling your waste won't help.Clicking like on a image of a polar bear on the ice won't help. Voting for green policy or a party that will deliver the goods is the only option. If your still voting for people who don't care you're part of the problem..
The biggest thing you can do is eat less meat and educate women.
Really."I don't eat meat .Which women need education?Is that a reference to population control , | |||
"Talking won't help ,recycling your waste won't help.Clicking like on a image of a polar bear on the ice won't help. Voting for green policy or a party that will deliver the goods is the only option. If your still voting for people who don't care you're part of the problem..
The biggest thing you can do is eat less meat and educate women.
Really.
I don't eat meat .Which women need education?Is that a reference to population control ,
"While you mention it bob do you really think the world population can carry on growing at its current rate? | |||
"Talking won't help ,recycling your waste won't help.Clicking like on a image of a polar bear on the ice won't help. Voting for green policy or a party that will deliver the goods is the only option. If your still voting for people who don't care you're part of the problem..
The biggest thing you can do is eat less meat and educate women.
Really.
I don't eat meat .Which women need education?Is that a reference to population control ,
While you mention it bob do you really think the world population can carry on growing at its current rate?"It'll grow to 10 billion .Although the planet can't sustain 10 billion meat eaters. | |||
"Talking won't help ,recycling your waste won't help.Clicking like on a image of a polar bear on the ice won't help. Voting for green policy or a party that will deliver the goods is the only option. If your still voting for people who don't care you're part of the problem..
The biggest thing you can do is eat less meat and educate women.
Really.
I don't eat meat .Which women need education?Is that a reference to population control ,
"It is mainly a reference to population control in the context of climate change. Inherently a good thing regardless. | |||
| |||
"I don't even believe they no what causes climate change . All they really blame is cars. How about mobile phones all day everyday across the world intwrfeeeing with satellites in tge sky . Text messages wiz zing around the world . Wi fi ..microwaves..electric cars now Badly explained but you know what I mean " Nobody knows what you mean.Go read up on the causes of anthropogenic climate climate change. Radio waves and microwaves aren't the problem. Lack of understanding of the problem is the problem. | |||
"Talking won't help ,recycling your waste won't help.Clicking like on a image of a polar bear on the ice won't help. Voting for green policy or a party that will deliver the goods is the only option. If your still voting for people who don't care you're part of the problem..
The biggest thing you can do is eat less meat and educate women.
Really.
I don't eat meat .Which women need education?Is that a reference to population control ,
While you mention it bob do you really think the world population can carry on growing at its current rate?
It'll grow to 10 billion .Although the planet can't sustain 10 billion meat eaters.
"So how are you going to grow food for 10 B without the fertility animals provide | |||
"Talking won't help ,recycling your waste won't help.Clicking like on a image of a polar bear on the ice won't help. Voting for green policy or a party that will deliver the goods is the only option. If your still voting for people who don't care you're part of the problem..
The biggest thing you can do is eat less meat and educate women.
Really.
I don't eat meat .Which women need education?Is that a reference to population control ,
While you mention it bob do you really think the world population can carry on growing at its current rate?
It'll grow to 10 billion .Although the planet can't sustain 10 billion meat eaters.
So how are you going to grow food for 10 B without the fertility animals provide"You farm cattle right?? Do think before the advent of agriculture plants had a problem...?? | |||
| |||
"I suppose you do realise that cows don't make Nitrogen phosphorus and potassium.NPK is basically everything you find in fertilisers.To grow plants. A quick google tells me farmers use mostly commercial fertilisers and not manure..Correct me if I'm wrong..." Yes you are wrong im afraid. Cattle urine is high in N, PK in sh1t, how do you think organic farmers grow anything? Yes we use lots of fertilisers to increase output to feed a growing population, we couldnt feed the world without them, but they dont contain many of the macro and micro nutrients that plants need. we dont plough any more as its quite destructive to soil life and loses large amounts of organic matter which absorbs water and helps in wet and dry times, without cattle and the OM they provide soil will become a dead medium needing higher and higher amounts of fert to make them grow. Also huge areas of land arent suitable to grow crops apart from grass cattle also consume vast amounts of food by products that would have to be buried otherwise, of course we then have the eco systems that depend on animals, from the bacteria and fungi through worms,bettles and othe insects to the hedgehogs, birds etc etc that feed on them. I have no problem with people being vegetarian if they dont like meat or feel its wrong to kill animals but it is complete nonsense to say that its better for the environment, I can tear huge holes in any argument that says it is, what I have written above is a tiny part of it | |||
| |||
"I suppose you do realise that cows don't make Nitrogen phosphorus and potassium.NPK is basically everything you find in fertilisers.To grow plants. A quick google tells me farmers use mostly commercial fertilisers and not manure..Correct me if I'm wrong... Yes you are wrong im afraid. Cattle urine is high in N, PK in sh1t, how do you think organic farmers grow anything? Yes we use lots of fertilisers to increase output to feed a growing population, we couldnt feed the world without them, but they dont contain many of the macro and micro nutrients that plants need. we dont plough any more as its quite destructive to soil life and loses large amounts of organic matter which absorbs water and helps in wet and dry times, without cattle and the OM they provide soil will become a dead medium needing higher and higher amounts of fert to make them grow. Also huge areas of land arent suitable to grow crops apart from grass cattle also consume vast amounts of food by products that would have to be buried otherwise, of course we then have the eco systems that depend on animals, from the bacteria and fungi through worms,bettles and othe insects to the hedgehogs, birds etc etc that feed on them. I have no problem with people being vegetarian if they dont like meat or feel its wrong to kill animals but it is complete nonsense to say that its better for the environment, I can tear huge holes in any argument that says it is, what I have written above is a tiny part of it" It is transparently inefficient to provide food from animal meat. You either grow plants and feed people or you grow plants to feed animals to feed people. You add an entire step of production, transport, methane production and biological energy processing inefficiency within the animal. As an aside, excessive meat consumption causes significant health problems. Feel free to look up the numbers. Then you can tell me why the production and consumption of so much meat is not a major contributor to global warming. At least nobody is arguing that education for women is a bad thing | |||
"I suppose you do realise that cows don't make Nitrogen phosphorus and potassium.NPK is basically everything you find in fertilisers.To grow plants. A quick google tells me farmers use mostly commercial fertilisers and not manure..Correct me if I'm wrong... Yes you are wrong im afraid. Cattle urine is high in N, PK in sh1t, how do you think organic farmers grow anything? Yes we use lots of fertilisers to increase output to feed a growing population, we couldnt feed the world without them, but they dont contain many of the macro and micro nutrients that plants need. we dont plough any more as its quite destructive to soil life and loses large amounts of organic matter which absorbs water and helps in wet and dry times, without cattle and the OM they provide soil will become a dead medium needing higher and higher amounts of fert to make them grow. Also huge areas of land arent suitable to grow crops apart from grass cattle also consume vast amounts of food by products that would have to be buried otherwise, of course we then have the eco systems that depend on animals, from the bacteria and fungi through worms,bettles and othe insects to the hedgehogs, birds etc etc that feed on them. I have no problem with people being vegetarian if they dont like meat or feel its wrong to kill animals but it is complete nonsense to say that its better for the environment, I can tear huge holes in any argument that says it is, what I have written above is a tiny part of it" I'll say it again the cow doesn't produce any NPK .Its all in the food it eats.Then shits and pisses out . The cow isn't required to produce fertile soil..It's basic chemistry..
How come we use less than 5% manure to fertilise plants.Where on earth do you think the other 95% comes from.
I understand you as a cattle farmer have an interest in keeping your livelihood.The science and data says cattle farming is detrimental to the earth.Its a fact you have no arguments .
I don't blame the producers like yourself I blame the consumers and the state.
| |||
"Are world leaders going to start taking the issue of climate change seriously?" No and neither do a lot of the general public | |||
"Are world leaders going to start taking the issue of climate change seriously? No and neither do a lot of the general public" | |||
"I suppose you do realise that cows don't make Nitrogen phosphorus and potassium.NPK is basically everything you find in fertilisers.To grow plants. A quick google tells me farmers use mostly commercial fertilisers and not manure..Correct me if I'm wrong... Yes you are wrong im afraid. Cattle urine is high in N, PK in sh1t, how do you think organic farmers grow anything? Yes we use lots of fertilisers to increase output to feed a growing population, we couldnt feed the world without them, but they dont contain many of the macro and micro nutrients that plants need. we dont plough any more as its quite destructive to soil life and loses large amounts of organic matter which absorbs water and helps in wet and dry times, without cattle and the OM they provide soil will become a dead medium needing higher and higher amounts of fert to make them grow. Also huge areas of land arent suitable to grow crops apart from grass cattle also consume vast amounts of food by products that would have to be buried otherwise, of course we then have the eco systems that depend on animals, from the bacteria and fungi through worms,bettles and othe insects to the hedgehogs, birds etc etc that feed on them. I have no problem with people being vegetarian if they dont like meat or feel its wrong to kill animals but it is complete nonsense to say that its better for the environment, I can tear huge holes in any argument that says it is, what I have written above is a tiny part of it It is transparently inefficient to provide food from animal meat. You either grow plants and feed people or you grow plants to feed animals to feed people. You add an entire step of production, transport, methane production and biological energy processing inefficiency within the animal. As an aside, excessive meat consumption causes significant health problems. Feel free to look up the numbers. Then you can tell me why the production and consumption of so much meat is not a major contributor to global warming. At least nobody is arguing that education for women is a bad thing "Ok tell me what we do with all the land that isnt suitable for growing crops which in this country would be roughly 25% of all ag land,please dont say grow trees as the world needs all the food it can, left to its own devices in five years it would be brambles/gorse or other s which provide very little benefit to wildlife and in many ways are detrimental to bio diversity, even groups such as the nat trust and natural england are beginning to accept that traditional farmpractices are best for wild life, they have seen the damage done after wild fires this year where they had let scrub take over and burn totally out of control. Therefore the grass that grows in these areas produces meat sheep especially and some beef uses nothing but grass and some studies show they sequest more carbon than than they produce, as for methane that is the result of digestion, it makes no difference if an animal is eating veg or humans the methane produced will be the same. Transport of meat produced in this country is far less than flying seasonal veg here from around the world and dont forget the levels of artificial fert and ag chems needed to produce them, the shorter the rotation the more fert and chem that is needed, most are oil based and also many use up large anounts of energy in production, many veg crops are grown in drier areas of the world using valuable water reserves, also soya/palm oil etc is grown in huge quantities as a meat replacement destroying large areas of rain forest, some is used as protien for animals too though. A vegan diet is far more damaging to humans health than a sensible level of meat consumption,children need min and vit supplements if fed a vegan diet. | |||
"Where do you stand on the dredging of sand eels to provide protein for animal feed? As I understand it we are bypassing and therefore disrupting parts of the food chain with this practice. Any thoughts?" It certainly needs reducing if it is causing harm, it was banned from ruminant diets years ago | |||
"I suppose you do realise that cows don't make Nitrogen phosphorus and potassium.NPK is basically everything you find in fertilisers.To grow plants. A quick google tells me farmers use mostly commercial fertilisers and not manure..Correct me if I'm wrong... Yes you are wrong im afraid. Cattle urine is high in N, PK in sh1t, how do you think organic farmers grow anything? Yes we use lots of fertilisers to increase output to feed a growing population, we couldnt feed the world without them, but they dont contain many of the macro and micro nutrients that plants need. we dont plough any more as its quite destructive to soil life and loses large amounts of organic matter which absorbs water and helps in wet and dry times, without cattle and the OM they provide soil will become a dead medium needing higher and higher amounts of fert to make them grow. Also huge areas of land arent suitable to grow crops apart from grass cattle also consume vast amounts of food by products that would have to be buried otherwise, of course we then have the eco systems that depend on animals, from the bacteria and fungi through worms,bettles and othe insects to the hedgehogs, birds etc etc that feed on them. I have no problem with people being vegetarian if they dont like meat or feel its wrong to kill animals but it is complete nonsense to say that its better for the environment, I can tear huge holes in any argument that says it is, what I have written above is a tiny part of it I'll say it again the cow doesn't produce any NPK .Its all in the food it eats.Then shits and pisses out . The cow isn't required to produce fertile soil..It's basic chemistry..
How come we use less than 5% manure to fertilise plants.Where on earth do you think the other 95% comes from.
I understand you as a cattle farmer have an interest in keeping your livelihood.The science and data says cattle farming is detrimental to the earth.Its a fact you have no arguments .
I don't blame the producers like yourself I blame the consumers and the state.
"Sorry your statement about fertile soil shows how little you know about the subject, NPK are but just part of a crops needs, S is needed in a ratio of 1 to 3 of the N applied, higher in oil seedswhere its nearly 1 in 2, also there are many other nutrients needed that animals recycle, what do you suggest we do with all the by products and waste food production creates, for everything we eat there is a byproduct that animales eat and turn into food, meat production was the first industry to use recycling, I notice you didnt comment on the bio diversity point or the need for higher levels of pesticides in veg production,where did you get your figure for 5% from muck ? While I was a dairy and beef producer for many years weare now not all our production goes into the equine market apart from our cereals | |||
"I suppose you do realise that cows don't make Nitrogen phosphorus and potassium.NPK is basically everything you find in fertilisers.To grow plants. A quick google tells me farmers use mostly commercial fertilisers and not manure..Correct me if I'm wrong... Yes you are wrong im afraid. Cattle urine is high in N, PK in sh1t, how do you think organic farmers grow anything? Yes we use lots of fertilisers to increase output to feed a growing population, we couldnt feed the world without them, but they dont contain many of the macro and micro nutrients that plants need. we dont plough any more as its quite destructive to soil life and loses large amounts of organic matter which absorbs water and helps in wet and dry times, without cattle and the OM they provide soil will become a dead medium needing higher and higher amounts of fert to make them grow. Also huge areas of land arent suitable to grow crops apart from grass cattle also consume vast amounts of food by products that would have to be buried otherwise, of course we then have the eco systems that depend on animals, from the bacteria and fungi through worms,bettles and othe insects to the hedgehogs, birds etc etc that feed on them. I have no problem with people being vegetarian if they dont like meat or feel its wrong to kill animals but it is complete nonsense to say that its better for the environment, I can tear huge holes in any argument that says it is, what I have written above is a tiny part of it It is transparently inefficient to provide food from animal meat. You either grow plants and feed people or you grow plants to feed animals to feed people. You add an entire step of production, transport, methane production and biological energy processing inefficiency within the animal. As an aside, excessive meat consumption causes significant health problems. Feel free to look up the numbers. Then you can tell me why the production and consumption of so much meat is not a major contributor to global warming. At least nobody is arguing that education for women is a bad thing
Ok tell me what we do with all the land that isnt suitable for growing crops which in this country would be roughly 25% of all ag land,please dont say grow trees as the world needs all the food it can, left to its own devices in five years it would be brambles/gorse or other s which provide very little benefit to wildlife and in many ways are detrimental to bio diversity, even groups such as the nat trust and natural england are beginning to accept that traditional farmpractices are best for wild life, they have seen the damage done after wild fires this year where they had let scrub take over and burn totally out of control.
Therefore the grass that grows in these areas produces meat sheep especially and some beef uses nothing but grass and some studies show they sequest more carbon than than they produce, as for methane that is the result of digestion, it makes no difference if an animal is eating veg or humans the methane produced will be the same.
Transport of meat produced in this country is far less than flying seasonal veg here from around the world and dont forget the levels of artificial fert and ag chems needed to produce them, the shorter the rotation the more fert and chem that is needed, most are oil based and also many use up large anounts of energy in production, many veg crops are grown in drier areas of the world using valuable water reserves, also soya/palm oil etc is grown in huge quantities as a meat replacement destroying large areas of rain forest, some is used as protien for animals too though. A vegan diet is far more damaging to humans health than a sensible level of meat consumption,children need min and vit supplements if fed a vegan diet.
"What did I actually write? Why assume the most extreme position? I said eat LESS meat. I didn't say stop completely. I didn't suggest not grazing animals on non-fertile land. I would suggest not clearing vast areas for industrial scale animal production. I would suggest not pursuing large-scale deforestation. I would suggest not running topsoil and effluent off into the water courses. Palm oil is not food. I would not advocate growing inappropriate crops in inappropriate locations. No the methane production of a ruminant is not the same as in a human. They consume different products and have different digestive systems. Why do they have two stomachs do you think? If the food grown to feed cattle was used to feed people directly would that be a more or less efficient use of the world's resources? Your personal experience does not translate to the world at large does it. I said eat LESS meat. Make it better quality, less damaging and more expensive. We are evolved as a species to primarily eat vegetables with only a small proportion of protein not the vast quantities that we eat now. So less meat is better health. What do you not like about this other than disagree with me because you always disagree with me? | |||
"I suppose you do realise that cows don't make Nitrogen phosphorus and potassium.NPK is basically everything you find in fertilisers.To grow plants. A quick google tells me farmers use mostly commercial fertilisers and not manure..Correct me if I'm wrong... Yes you are wrong im afraid. Cattle urine is high in N, PK in sh1t, how do you think organic farmers grow anything? Yes we use lots of fertilisers to increase output to feed a growing population, we couldnt feed the world without them, but they dont contain many of the macro and micro nutrients that plants need. we dont plough any more as its quite destructive to soil life and loses large amounts of organic matter which absorbs water and helps in wet and dry times, without cattle and the OM they provide soil will become a dead medium needing higher and higher amounts of fert to make them grow. Also huge areas of land arent suitable to grow crops apart from grass cattle also consume vast amounts of food by products that would have to be buried otherwise, of course we then have the eco systems that depend on animals, from the bacteria and fungi through worms,bettles and othe insects to the hedgehogs, birds etc etc that feed on them. I have no problem with people being vegetarian if they dont like meat or feel its wrong to kill animals but it is complete nonsense to say that its better for the environment, I can tear huge holes in any argument that says it is, what I have written above is a tiny part of it I'll say it again the cow doesn't produce any NPK .Its all in the food it eats.Then shits and pisses out . The cow isn't required to produce fertile soil..It's basic chemistry..
How come we use less than 5% manure to fertilise plants.Where on earth do you think the other 95% comes from.
I understand you as a cattle farmer have an interest in keeping your livelihood.The science and data says cattle farming is detrimental to the earth.Its a fact you have no arguments .
I don't blame the producers like yourself I blame the consumers and the state.
Sorry your statement about fertile soil shows how little you know about the subject, NPK are but just part of a crops needs, S is needed in a ratio of 1 to 3 of the N applied, higher in oil seedswhere its nearly 1 in 2, also there are many other nutrients needed that animals recycle, what do you suggest we do with all the by products and waste food production creates, for everything we eat there is a byproduct that animales eat and turn into food, meat production was the first industry to use recycling, I notice you didnt comment on the bio diversity point or the need for higher levels of pesticides in veg production,where did you get your figure for 5% from muck ?
While I was a dairy and beef producer for many years weare now not all our production goes into the equine market apart from our cereals "You said "So how are you going to grow food for 10 B without the fertility animals provide" Are you seriously suggesting that without cows we can't fertilise the soil. You've admitted that almost all fertilisers aren't from cows.Your statement that you can't feed the world without animals is blatantly false.. Come on .!Your statement is utter nonsense.. I'll say it one more time cows don't make Nitrogen they don't make phosphorous and the don't make potassium.Its in their feed..!!! They are not required . | |||
"I suppose you do realise that cows don't make Nitrogen phosphorus and potassium.NPK is basically everything you find in fertilisers.To grow plants. A quick google tells me farmers use mostly commercial fertilisers and not manure..Correct me if I'm wrong... Yes you are wrong im afraid. Cattle urine is high in N, PK in sh1t, how do you think organic farmers grow anything? Yes we use lots of fertilisers to increase output to feed a growing population, we couldnt feed the world without them, but they dont contain many of the macro and micro nutrients that plants need. we dont plough any more as its quite destructive to soil life and loses large amounts of organic matter which absorbs water and helps in wet and dry times, without cattle and the OM they provide soil will become a dead medium needing higher and higher amounts of fert to make them grow. Also huge areas of land arent suitable to grow crops apart from grass cattle also consume vast amounts of food by products that would have to be buried otherwise, of course we then have the eco systems that depend on animals, from the bacteria and fungi through worms,bettles and othe insects to the hedgehogs, birds etc etc that feed on them. I have no problem with people being vegetarian if they dont like meat or feel its wrong to kill animals but it is complete nonsense to say that its better for the environment, I can tear huge holes in any argument that says it is, what I have written above is a tiny part of it I'll say it again the cow doesn't produce any NPK .Its all in the food it eats.Then shits and pisses out . The cow isn't required to produce fertile soil..It's basic chemistry..
How come we use less than 5% manure to fertilise plants.Where on earth do you think the other 95% comes from.
I understand you as a cattle farmer have an interest in keeping your livelihood.The science and data says cattle farming is detrimental to the earth.Its a fact you have no arguments .
I don't blame the producers like yourself I blame the consumers and the state.
Sorry your statement about fertile soil shows how little you know about the subject, NPK are but just part of a crops needs, S is needed in a ratio of 1 to 3 of the N applied, higher in oil seedswhere its nearly 1 in 2, also there are many other nutrients needed that animals recycle, what do you suggest we do with all the by products and waste food production creates, for everything we eat there is a byproduct that animales eat and turn into food, meat production was the first industry to use recycling, I notice you didnt comment on the bio diversity point or the need for higher levels of pesticides in veg production,where did you get your figure for 5% from muck ?
While I was a dairy and beef producer for many years weare now not all our production goes into the equine market apart from our cereals
You said "So how are you going to grow food for 10 B without the fertility animals provide"
Are you seriously suggesting that without cows we can't fertilise the soil.
You've admitted that almost all fertilisers aren't from cows.Your statement that you can't feed the world without animals is blatantly false..
Come on .!Your statement is utter nonsense..
I'll say it one more time cows don't make Nitrogen they don't make phosphorous and the don't make potassium.Its in their feed..!!!
They are not required .
"british agriculture .... the lie of the land | |||
" You said "So how are you going to grow food for 10 B without the fertility animals provide" Are you seriously suggesting that without cows we can't fertilise the soil. You've admitted that almost all fertilisers aren't from cows.Your statement that you can't feed the world without animals is blatantly false.. Come on .!Your statement is utter nonsense.. I'll say it one more time cows don't make Nitrogen they don't make phosphorous and the don't make potassium.Its in their feed..!!! They are not required . " I said no such thing about how much fert comes from animals compared to artificial, they recycle the nutrients, just the same as you cant destroy energy you dont destroy the nutrients most of the fert used in the world comes from oil which is used to make urea less comes from gas which is used to make AN, both those resources are finite so in the end we will have to stop using them,of course you could feed the world without using animal manures but you as a green supporter should be very concerned about that as the enormous damage it would do to the eco systems of the world, one poster brought up fish meal and the fact that taking to much can have an effect of birds etc higher up the food chain, the same is being seen in soils, in fact some "experts" say the world has less than 100 harvests left due to soil degradation by too much cultivation, the world evolved with animals eating grasses etc and recycling them into the soil to feed it and the soil life, just smell the soil from ground that is "alive" to one that has just had man made fert applied and you will see the difference, its a complex subject and is one that we are only just learning the science of, | |||
" What did I actually write? Why assume the most extreme position? I said eat LESS meat. I didn't say stop completely. I didn't suggest not grazing animals on non-fertile land. I would suggest not clearing vast areas for industrial scale animal production. I would suggest not pursuing large-scale deforestation. I would suggest not running topsoil and effluent off into the water courses. Palm oil is not food. I would not advocate growing inappropriate crops in inappropriate locations. No the methane production of a ruminant is not the same as in a human. They consume different products and have different digestive systems. Why do they have two stomachs do you think? If the food grown to feed cattle was used to feed people directly would that be a more or less efficient use of the world's resources? Your personal experience does not translate to the world at large does it. I said eat LESS meat. Make it better quality, less damaging and more expensive. We are evolved as a species to primarily eat vegetables with only a small proportion of protein not the vast quantities that we eat now. So less meat is better health. What do you not like about this other than disagree with me because you always disagree with me?" We did not evolve to primarily eat vegtables we were hunter gatherers long before we became farmers, had we evolved to be primarily veg eaters we would have evolved like ruminants and have FOUR stomachs. I would agree with you about eating better quality meats though, however most people buy food on price, when asked they always say they want quality food but their buying patterns showthats not true, of course its easy to say make food higher quality andmore expensive but not everyone can afford that choice. Palm oil is the mostly used veg oil used in food and the expansion of land used to grow it is causing huge damage. My personal experience of growing food and keeping animals gives me the knowledge to know what is and isnt good for the soil we live from | |||
" What did I actually write? Why assume the most extreme position? I said eat LESS meat. I didn't say stop completely. I didn't suggest not grazing animals on non-fertile land. I would suggest not clearing vast areas for industrial scale animal production. I would suggest not pursuing large-scale deforestation. I would suggest not running topsoil and effluent off into the water courses. Palm oil is not food. I would not advocate growing inappropriate crops in inappropriate locations. No the methane production of a ruminant is not the same as in a human. They consume different products and have different digestive systems. Why do they have two stomachs do you think? If the food grown to feed cattle was used to feed people directly would that be a more or less efficient use of the world's resources? Your personal experience does not translate to the world at large does it. I said eat LESS meat. Make it better quality, less damaging and more expensive. We are evolved as a species to primarily eat vegetables with only a small proportion of protein not the vast quantities that we eat now. So less meat is better health. What do you not like about this other than disagree with me because you always disagree with me? We did not evolve to primarily eat vegtables we were hunter gatherers long before we became farmers, had we evolved to be primarily veg eaters we would have evolved like ruminants and have FOUR stomachs. I would agree with you about eating better quality meats though, however most people buy food on price, when asked they always say they want quality food but their buying patterns showthats not true, of course its easy to say make food higher quality andmore expensive but not everyone can afford that choice. Palm oil is the mostly used veg oil used in food and the expansion of land used to grow it is causing huge damage. My personal experience of growing food and keeping animals gives me the knowledge to know what is and isnt good for the soil we live from " Really? How many stomachs do gorillas have? Bears? How much meat has most of humanity eaten for most of it's history? The discussion is not about people lying in surveys, the discussion is about what's better for the environment. It should not be a choice for every meal. Palm oil is an ingredient not a primary source of nutrients. It can and should be substituted. Your personal experience doesn't extend to cattle ranching in the amazon or intensive cattle farming in the USA does it? | |||
" What did I actually write? Why assume the most extreme position? I said eat LESS meat. I didn't say stop completely. I didn't suggest not grazing animals on non-fertile land. I would suggest not clearing vast areas for industrial scale animal production. I would suggest not pursuing large-scale deforestation. I would suggest not running topsoil and effluent off into the water courses. Palm oil is not food. I would not advocate growing inappropriate crops in inappropriate locations. No the methane production of a ruminant is not the same as in a human. They consume different products and have different digestive systems. Why do they have two stomachs do you think? If the food grown to feed cattle was used to feed people directly would that be a more or less efficient use of the world's resources? Your personal experience does not translate to the world at large does it. I said eat LESS meat. Make it better quality, less damaging and more expensive. We are evolved as a species to primarily eat vegetables with only a small proportion of protein not the vast quantities that we eat now. So less meat is better health. What do you not like about this other than disagree with me because you always disagree with me? We did not evolve to primarily eat vegtables we were hunter gatherers long before we became farmers, had we evolved to be primarily veg eaters we would have evolved like ruminants and have FOUR stomachs. I would agree with you about eating better quality meats though, however most people buy food on price, when asked they always say they want quality food but their buying patterns showthats not true, of course its easy to say make food higher quality andmore expensive but not everyone can afford that choice. Palm oil is the mostly used veg oil used in food and the expansion of land used to grow it is causing huge damage. My personal experience of growing food and keeping animals gives me the knowledge to know what is and isnt good for the soil we live from Really? How many stomachs do gorillas have? Bears? How much meat has most of humanity eaten for most of it's history? The discussion is not about people lying in surveys, the discussion is about what's better for the environment. It should not be a choice for every meal. Palm oil is an ingredient not a primary source of nutrients. It can and should be substituted. Your personal experience doesn't extend to cattle ranching in the amazon or intensive cattle farming in the USA does it?" Gorillas have a similar digestive system to us but like ruminants they "ferment" their food but unlike them they do it in the lower colon,( no I didnt know that before I looked it up) bears do eat meat and as we have all seen gorge on fish at certain time of the year, of course polar bears eat only meat/fish. I agree palm oil needs replacing but the problem is is with what, our western diet is too heavy with fats and sugars, of course if people did more physical work/exercise that would be less of an issue. My actual experience of different farming systems isnot really relevant to the point about the environment.Feedlot farming in the states is a more extreme version of beef fattening here in some ways, in winter here cattle are finished by feeding fermented forage, often maize these days as less cereal is used that way, in the states the base stock can be maize,lucerne or alfalfa depending on the area and growth stage, maize isnt a great crop for the environment as it needs planting yearly, these crops are often grown in dry areas as they are drought tolerant, most veg need large amounts of water. traditional cattle ranching in south america is fine but ripping out increasing areas of forest isnt. | |||
" What did I actually write? Why assume the most extreme position? I said eat LESS meat. I didn't say stop completely. I didn't suggest not grazing animals on non-fertile land. I would suggest not clearing vast areas for industrial scale animal production. I would suggest not pursuing large-scale deforestation. I would suggest not running topsoil and effluent off into the water courses. Palm oil is not food. I would not advocate growing inappropriate crops in inappropriate locations. No the methane production of a ruminant is not the same as in a human. They consume different products and have different digestive systems. Why do they have two stomachs do you think? If the food grown to feed cattle was used to feed people directly would that be a more or less efficient use of the world's resources? Your personal experience does not translate to the world at large does it. I said eat LESS meat. Make it better quality, less damaging and more expensive. We are evolved as a species to primarily eat vegetables with only a small proportion of protein not the vast quantities that we eat now. So less meat is better health. What do you not like about this other than disagree with me because you always disagree with me? We did not evolve to primarily eat vegtables we were hunter gatherers long before we became farmers, had we evolved to be primarily veg eaters we would have evolved like ruminants and have FOUR stomachs. I would agree with you about eating better quality meats though, however most people buy food on price, when asked they always say they want quality food but their buying patterns showthats not true, of course its easy to say make food higher quality andmore expensive but not everyone can afford that choice. Palm oil is the mostly used veg oil used in food and the expansion of land used to grow it is causing huge damage. My personal experience of growing food and keeping animals gives me the knowledge to know what is and isnt good for the soil we live from Really? How many stomachs do gorillas have? Bears? How much meat has most of humanity eaten for most of it's history? The discussion is not about people lying in surveys, the discussion is about what's better for the environment. It should not be a choice for every meal. Palm oil is an ingredient not a primary source of nutrients. It can and should be substituted. Your personal experience doesn't extend to cattle ranching in the amazon or intensive cattle farming in the USA does it? Gorillas have a similar digestive system to us but like ruminants they "ferment" their food but unlike them they do it in the lower colon,( no I didnt know that before I looked it up) bears do eat meat and as we have all seen gorge on fish at certain time of the year, of course polar bears eat only meat/fish. I agree palm oil needs replacing but the problem is is with what, our western diet is too heavy with fats and sugars, of course if people did more physical work/exercise that would be less of an issue. My actual experience of different farming systems isnot really relevant to the point about the environment.Feedlot farming in the states is a more extreme version of beef fattening here in some ways, in winter here cattle are finished by feeding fermented forage, often maize these days as less cereal is used that way, in the states the base stock can be maize,lucerne or alfalfa depending on the area and growth stage, maize isnt a great crop for the environment as it needs planting yearly, these crops are often grown in dry areas as they are drought tolerant, most veg need large amounts of water. traditional cattle ranching in south america is fine but ripping out increasing areas of forest isnt. " Very interesting! But like everything on this planet we all have to survive together. Man being the superior being on the planet has to take responsibility as there is nobody else. It's all about "in moderation " and that involves choices - we either doing something now or generations in the future will pay the price. Yes the industrial revolution was great and brought us to where we are today - but look at our planet! | |||
" What did I actually write? Why assume the most extreme position? I said eat LESS meat. I didn't say stop completely. I didn't suggest not grazing animals on non-fertile land. I would suggest not clearing vast areas for industrial scale animal production. I would suggest not pursuing large-scale deforestation. I would suggest not running topsoil and effluent off into the water courses. Palm oil is not food. I would not advocate growing inappropriate crops in inappropriate locations. No the methane production of a ruminant is not the same as in a human. They consume different products and have different digestive systems. Why do they have two stomachs do you think? If the food grown to feed cattle was used to feed people directly would that be a more or less efficient use of the world's resources? Your personal experience does not translate to the world at large does it. I said eat LESS meat. Make it better quality, less damaging and more expensive. We are evolved as a species to primarily eat vegetables with only a small proportion of protein not the vast quantities that we eat now. So less meat is better health. What do you not like about this other than disagree with me because you always disagree with me? We did not evolve to primarily eat vegtables we were hunter gatherers long before we became farmers, had we evolved to be primarily veg eaters we would have evolved like ruminants and have FOUR stomachs. I would agree with you about eating better quality meats though, however most people buy food on price, when asked they always say they want quality food but their buying patterns showthats not true, of course its easy to say make food higher quality andmore expensive but not everyone can afford that choice. Palm oil is the mostly used veg oil used in food and the expansion of land used to grow it is causing huge damage. My personal experience of growing food and keeping animals gives me the knowledge to know what is and isnt good for the soil we live from Really? How many stomachs do gorillas have? Bears? How much meat has most of humanity eaten for most of it's history? The discussion is not about people lying in surveys, the discussion is about what's better for the environment. It should not be a choice for every meal. Palm oil is an ingredient not a primary source of nutrients. It can and should be substituted. Your personal experience doesn't extend to cattle ranching in the amazon or intensive cattle farming in the USA does it? Gorillas have a similar digestive system to us but like ruminants they "ferment" their food but unlike them they do it in the lower colon,( no I didnt know that before I looked it up) bears do eat meat and as we have all seen gorge on fish at certain time of the year, of course polar bears eat only meat/fish. I agree palm oil needs replacing but the problem is is with what, our western diet is too heavy with fats and sugars, of course if people did more physical work/exercise that would be less of an issue. My actual experience of different farming systems isnot really relevant to the point about the environment.Feedlot farming in the states is a more extreme version of beef fattening here in some ways, in winter here cattle are finished by feeding fermented forage, often maize these days as less cereal is used that way, in the states the base stock can be maize,lucerne or alfalfa depending on the area and growth stage, maize isnt a great crop for the environment as it needs planting yearly, these crops are often grown in dry areas as they are drought tolerant, most veg need large amounts of water. traditional cattle ranching in south america is fine but ripping out increasing areas of forest isnt. " In the US.It takes 2,500 gallons of water, 12 pounds of grain, 35 pounds of topsoil and the energy equivalent of one gallon of gasoline to produce one pound of feedlot beef.  | |||
" What did I actually write? Why assume the most extreme position? I said eat LESS meat. I didn't say stop completely. I didn't suggest not grazing animals on non-fertile land. I would suggest not clearing vast areas for industrial scale animal production. I would suggest not pursuing large-scale deforestation. I would suggest not running topsoil and effluent off into the water courses. Palm oil is not food. I would not advocate growing inappropriate crops in inappropriate locations. No the methane production of a ruminant is not the same as in a human. They consume different products and have different digestive systems. Why do they have two stomachs do you think? If the food grown to feed cattle was used to feed people directly would that be a more or less efficient use of the world's resources? Your personal experience does not translate to the world at large does it. I said eat LESS meat. Make it better quality, less damaging and more expensive. We are evolved as a species to primarily eat vegetables with only a small proportion of protein not the vast quantities that we eat now. So less meat is better health. What do you not like about this other than disagree with me because you always disagree with me? We did not evolve to primarily eat vegtables we were hunter gatherers long before we became farmers, had we evolved to be primarily veg eaters we would have evolved like ruminants and have FOUR stomachs. I would agree with you about eating better quality meats though, however most people buy food on price, when asked they always say they want quality food but their buying patterns showthats not true, of course its easy to say make food higher quality andmore expensive but not everyone can afford that choice. Palm oil is the mostly used veg oil used in food and the expansion of land used to grow it is causing huge damage. My personal experience of growing food and keeping animals gives me the knowledge to know what is and isnt good for the soil we live from Really? How many stomachs do gorillas have? Bears? How much meat has most of humanity eaten for most of it's history? The discussion is not about people lying in surveys, the discussion is about what's better for the environment. It should not be a choice for every meal. Palm oil is an ingredient not a primary source of nutrients. It can and should be substituted. Your personal experience doesn't extend to cattle ranching in the amazon or intensive cattle farming in the USA does it? Gorillas have a similar digestive system to us but like ruminants they "ferment" their food but unlike them they do it in the lower colon,( no I didnt know that before I looked it up) bears do eat meat and as we have all seen gorge on fish at certain time of the year, of course polar bears eat only meat/fish. I agree palm oil needs replacing but the problem is is with what, our western diet is too heavy with fats and sugars, of course if people did more physical work/exercise that would be less of an issue. My actual experience of different farming systems isnot really relevant to the point about the environment.Feedlot farming in the states is a more extreme version of beef fattening here in some ways, in winter here cattle are finished by feeding fermented forage, often maize these days as less cereal is used that way, in the states the base stock can be maize,lucerne or alfalfa depending on the area and growth stage, maize isnt a great crop for the environment as it needs planting yearly, these crops are often grown in dry areas as they are drought tolerant, most veg need large amounts of water. traditional cattle ranching in south america is fine but ripping out increasing areas of forest isnt. In the US.It takes 2,500 gallons of water, 12 pounds of grain, 35 pounds of topsoil and the energy equivalent of one gallon of gasoline to produce one pound of feedlot beef. " can you give me a link to those figues especially the water one, the feed one would be half that you quote IIRC from our days,at that rate you would be bankrupt, pigs and chicken would have a conversion of around 3 and 1.7 respectively.
I wouldnt argue that feeding grain to beef is the best way and of course most uk beef isnt fed on a totally cereal diet but a forage/byproduct based one with a cereal/protein top up, dont forget that not every grain that is grown is human quality as much as we would like it to be, the same goes for any food these days, we are extremely picky of shape, size and imperfections.
as the population grows we need some serious discussions about how we balance food and environmental issues, often the prooblem is far more complex than many realise | |||
" Very interesting! But like everything on this planet we all have to survive together. Man being the superior being on the planet has to take responsibility as there is nobody else. It's all about "in moderation " and that involves choices - we either doing something now or generations in the future will pay the price. Yes the industrial revolution was great and brought us to where we are today - but look at our planet!" Yes I agree totally, the issue is some with an agenda spread missinformation, either because they dont know how everything interacts or because they have an agenda that has nothing to do with the environment and then people pick that info up and think its the truth, again its the media I blame as the truth is out there but they are too lazy to dig down and find it | |||
" What did I actually write? Why assume the most extreme position? I said eat LESS meat. I didn't say stop completely. I didn't suggest not grazing animals on non-fertile land. I would suggest not clearing vast areas for industrial scale animal production. I would suggest not pursuing large-scale deforestation. I would suggest not running topsoil and effluent off into the water courses. Palm oil is not food. I would not advocate growing inappropriate crops in inappropriate locations. No the methane production of a ruminant is not the same as in a human. They consume different products and have different digestive systems. Why do they have two stomachs do you think? If the food grown to feed cattle was used to feed people directly would that be a more or less efficient use of the world's resources? Your personal experience does not translate to the world at large does it. I said eat LESS meat. Make it better quality, less damaging and more expensive. We are evolved as a species to primarily eat vegetables with only a small proportion of protein not the vast quantities that we eat now. So less meat is better health. What do you not like about this other than disagree with me because you always disagree with me? We did not evolve to primarily eat vegtables we were hunter gatherers long before we became farmers, had we evolved to be primarily veg eaters we would have evolved like ruminants and have FOUR stomachs. I would agree with you about eating better quality meats though, however most people buy food on price, when asked they always say they want quality food but their buying patterns showthats not true, of course its easy to say make food higher quality andmore expensive but not everyone can afford that choice. Palm oil is the mostly used veg oil used in food and the expansion of land used to grow it is causing huge damage. My personal experience of growing food and keeping animals gives me the knowledge to know what is and isnt good for the soil we live from Really? How many stomachs do gorillas have? Bears? How much meat has most of humanity eaten for most of it's history? The discussion is not about people lying in surveys, the discussion is about what's better for the environment. It should not be a choice for every meal. Palm oil is an ingredient not a primary source of nutrients. It can and should be substituted. Your personal experience doesn't extend to cattle ranching in the amazon or intensive cattle farming in the USA does it? Gorillas have a similar digestive system to us but like ruminants they "ferment" their food but unlike them they do it in the lower colon,( no I didnt know that before I looked it up) bears do eat meat and as we have all seen gorge on fish at certain time of the year, of course polar bears eat only meat/fish. I agree palm oil needs replacing but the problem is is with what, our western diet is too heavy with fats and sugars, of course if people did more physical work/exercise that would be less of an issue. My actual experience of different farming systems isnot really relevant to the point about the environment.Feedlot farming in the states is a more extreme version of beef fattening here in some ways, in winter here cattle are finished by feeding fermented forage, often maize these days as less cereal is used that way, in the states the base stock can be maize,lucerne or alfalfa depending on the area and growth stage, maize isnt a great crop for the environment as it needs planting yearly, these crops are often grown in dry areas as they are drought tolerant, most veg need large amounts of water. traditional cattle ranching in south america is fine but ripping out increasing areas of forest isnt. In the US.It takes 2,500 gallons of water, 12 pounds of grain, 35 pounds of topsoil and the energy equivalent of one gallon of gasoline to produce one pound of feedlot beef.
can you give me a link to those figues especially the water one, the feed one would be half that you quote IIRC from our days,at that rate you would be bankrupt, pigs and chicken would have a conversion of around 3 and 1.7 respectively.
I wouldnt argue that feeding grain to beef is the best way and of course most uk beef isnt fed on a totally cereal diet but a forage/byproduct based one with a cereal/protein top up, dont forget that not every grain that is grown is human quality as much as we would like it to be, the same goes for any food these days, we are extremely picky of shape, size and imperfections.
as the population grows we need some serious discussions about how we balance food and environmental issues, often the prooblem is far more complex than many realise"You know how go use google I guess. You can google it .There are plenty of loons who would report the link as it's not approved. Been here before with you ...  | |||
| |||
"So to all the carnivores - why are you so desperate to eat beef?" We arent carnivores we are omnivores, and we arent desperate to et meat, we enjoy it, it does us good and provides lots of the nutrients thats we need, we also like to excercise that choice just as those that dont want to eat meat do, the difference meat eaters dont preach at non meat eaters, its a free world, just | |||
"So to all the carnivores - why are you so desperate to eat beef?" Let them .Its incredible destructive to the environment and your bowels...Only the wilfully ignorant would claim beef is beneficial to the environment and your bowels. At least we'v put the lie to bed that we need cow shit to fertilise the planet. Fuck knows what the soil is like in the united states they use 95% commercial fertilisers to grow all their produce. They'll all soon not be able to feed 300 million yanks if we listened to some people's facts on fertilisers .. | |||
"So to all the carnivores - why are you so desperate to eat beef? We arent carnivores we are omnivores, and we arent desperate to et meat, we enjoy it, it does us good and provides lots of the nutrients thats we need, we also like to excercise that choice just as those that dont want to eat meat do, the difference meat eaters dont preach at non meat eaters, its a free world, just" You’ve lived a sheltered life, vegetation’s and vegans have to endure constant barrage of abuse and “advice” to eat burgers. Just as bad as militant vegans. We all know meat production is bad for the environment. It’s up to everyone to make up their own minds. Choose your own diet based on what you like, what you think is good for you and for your own moral reasons. | |||
"So to all the carnivores - why are you so desperate to eat beef? Let them .Its incredible destructive to the environment and your bowels...Only the wilfully ignorant would claim beef is beneficial to the environment and your bowels. At least we'v put the lie to bed that we need cow shit to fertilise the planet. Fuck knows what the soil is like in the united states they use 95% commercial fertilisers to grow all their produce. They'll all soon not be able to feed 300 million yanks if we listened to some people's facts on fertilisers .. "The green supporter who thinks its better to use oil/gas based fert to feed the world, couldnt make it up, you must be a troll no one with a desire to see the environment improve would be so blind | |||
"So to all the carnivores - why are you so desperate to eat beef? Let them .Its incredible destructive to the environment and your bowels...Only the wilfully ignorant would claim beef is beneficial to the environment and your bowels. At least we'v put the lie to bed that we need cow shit to fertilise the planet. Fuck knows what the soil is like in the united states they use 95% commercial fertilisers to grow all their produce. They'll all soon not be able to feed 300 million yanks if we listened to some people's facts on fertilisers ..
The green supporter who thinks its better to use oil/gas based fert to feed the world, couldnt make it up, you must be a troll no one with a desire to see the environment improve would be so blind"Just for clarity; do you think that it is a more efficient use of scarce resources to grow plants to feed to animals and then eat the animals or to grow plants and eat them directly? | |||
"So to all the carnivores - why are you so desperate to eat beef? Let them .Its incredible destructive to the environment and your bowels...Only the wilfully ignorant would claim beef is beneficial to the environment and your bowels. At least we'v put the lie to bed that we need cow shit to fertilise the planet. Fuck knows what the soil is like in the united states they use 95% commercial fertilisers to grow all their produce. They'll all soon not be able to feed 300 million yanks if we listened to some people's facts on fertilisers ..
The green supporter who thinks its better to use oil/gas based fert to feed the world, couldnt make it up, you must be a troll no one with a desire to see the environment improve would be so blind
Just for clarity; do you think that it is a more efficient use of scarce resources to grow plants to feed to animals and then eat the animals or to grow plants and eat them directly?"Its not as simple as that, its a bit of yes and no As I have said before not all areas are suitable to grow crops that are edible by us,(30% of the uk ag land) unless of course you want to eat grass, even crops that we can eat often have large amounts of by products that we dont eat and which are fed to animals, also not all crops grown forhumn consumption meet the quality required, unless we accept that the quality of food declines then all these products are either dumped in land fill or fed to animals. Also soil being a part of the eco system relies on animals to provide food for the bacteria/fungi/worms etc that live in it they in turn feed larger insects/animals/birds etc higher up the food chain, without a decent rotation production of crops declines and requires higher inputs of artificial ferts and chemicals. It is really sad and deeply worrying that a so called green suporter like bob is so uneducated on this subject | |||
"So to all the carnivores - why are you so desperate to eat beef? Let them .Its incredible destructive to the environment and your bowels...Only the wilfully ignorant would claim beef is beneficial to the environment and your bowels. At least we'v put the lie to bed that we need cow shit to fertilise the planet. Fuck knows what the soil is like in the united states they use 95% commercial fertilisers to grow all their produce. They'll all soon not be able to feed 300 million yanks if we listened to some people's facts on fertilisers ..
The green supporter who thinks its better to use oil/gas based fert to feed the world, couldnt make it up, you must be a troll no one with a desire to see the environment improve would be so blind
Just for clarity; do you think that it is a more efficient use of scarce resources to grow plants to feed to animals and then eat the animals or to grow plants and eat them directly?
Its not as simple as that, its a bit of yes and no
As I have said before not all areas are suitable to grow crops that are edible by us,(30% of the uk ag land) unless of course you want to eat grass, even crops that we can eat often have large amounts of by products that we dont eat and which are fed to animals, also not all crops grown forhumn consumption meet the quality required, unless we accept that the quality of food declines then all these products are either dumped in land fill or fed to animals.
Also soil being a part of the eco system relies on animals to provide food for the bacteria/fungi/worms etc that live in it they in turn feed larger insects/animals/birds etc higher up the food chain, without a decent rotation production of crops declines and requires higher inputs of artificial ferts and chemicals.
It is really sad and deeply worrying that a so called green suporter like bob is so uneducated on this subject"The question really was simple. Give it another go rather than answering the one you'd prefer to answer. | |||
"So to all the carnivores - why are you so desperate to eat beef? Let them .Its incredible destructive to the environment and your bowels...Only the wilfully ignorant would claim beef is beneficial to the environment and your bowels. At least we'v put the lie to bed that we need cow shit to fertilise the planet. Fuck knows what the soil is like in the united states they use 95% commercial fertilisers to grow all their produce. They'll all soon not be able to feed 300 million yanks if we listened to some people's facts on fertilisers ..
The green supporter who thinks its better to use oil/gas based fert to feed the world, couldnt make it up, you must be a troll no one with a desire to see the environment improve would be so blind
Just for clarity; do you think that it is a more efficient use of scarce resources to grow plants to feed to animals and then eat the animals or to grow plants and eat them directly?
Its not as simple as that, its a bit of yes and no
As I have said before not all areas are suitable to grow crops that are edible by us,(30% of the uk ag land) unless of course you want to eat grass, even crops that we can eat often have large amounts of by products that we dont eat and which are fed to animals, also not all crops grown forhumn consumption meet the quality required, unless we accept that the quality of food declines then all these products are either dumped in land fill or fed to animals.
Also soil being a part of the eco system relies on animals to provide food for the bacteria/fungi/worms etc that live in it they in turn feed larger insects/animals/birds etc higher up the food chain, without a decent rotation production of crops declines and requires higher inputs of artificial ferts and chemicals.
It is really sad and deeply worrying that a so called green suporter like bob is so uneducated on this subject
The question really was simple.
Give it another go rather than answering the one you'd prefer to answer."But the question is far from simple as I explained, its a bit like asking is nuclear power better for the environment than coal power | |||
"So to all the carnivores - why are you so desperate to eat beef? Let them .Its incredible destructive to the environment and your bowels...Only the wilfully ignorant would claim beef is beneficial to the environment and your bowels. At least we'v put the lie to bed that we need cow shit to fertilise the planet. Fuck knows what the soil is like in the united states they use 95% commercial fertilisers to grow all their produce. They'll all soon not be able to feed 300 million yanks if we listened to some people's facts on fertilisers ..
The green supporter who thinks its better to use oil/gas based fert to feed the world, couldnt make it up, you must be a troll no one with a desire to see the environment improve would be so blind
Just for clarity; do you think that it is a more efficient use of scarce resources to grow plants to feed to animals and then eat the animals or to grow plants and eat them directly?
Its not as simple as that, its a bit of yes and no
As I have said before not all areas are suitable to grow crops that are edible by us,(30% of the uk ag land) unless of course you want to eat grass, even crops that we can eat often have large amounts of by products that we dont eat and which are fed to animals, also not all crops grown forhumn consumption meet the quality required, unless we accept that the quality of food declines then all these products are either dumped in land fill or fed to animals.
Also soil being a part of the eco system relies on animals to provide food for the bacteria/fungi/worms etc that live in it they in turn feed larger insects/animals/birds etc higher up the food chain, without a decent rotation production of crops declines and requires higher inputs of artificial ferts and chemicals.
It is really sad and deeply worrying that a so called green suporter like bob is so uneducated on this subject
The question really was simple.
Give it another go rather than answering the one you'd prefer to answer.
But the question is far from simple as I explained, its a bit like asking is nuclear power better for the environment than coal power"You answer complex questions by addressing the simple ones. This question is simple. We can build on it. What is your answer? Nuclear power is better for the environment, especially if we invested in thorium salt reactors rather than the fast breeders chosen primarily to produce material for nuclear metals. | |||
"So to all the carnivores - why are you so desperate to eat beef? Let them .Its incredible destructive to the environment and your bowels...Only the wilfully ignorant would claim beef is beneficial to the environment and your bowels. At least we'v put the lie to bed that we need cow shit to fertilise the planet. Fuck knows what the soil is like in the united states they use 95% commercial fertilisers to grow all their produce. They'll all soon not be able to feed 300 million yanks if we listened to some people's facts on fertilisers ..
The green supporter who thinks its better to use oil/gas based fert to feed the world, couldnt make it up, you must be a troll no one with a desire to see the environment improve would be so blind
Just for clarity; do you think that it is a more efficient use of scarce resources to grow plants to feed to animals and then eat the animals or to grow plants and eat them directly?
Its not as simple as that, its a bit of yes and no
As I have said before not all areas are suitable to grow crops that are edible by us,(30% of the uk ag land) unless of course you want to eat grass, even crops that we can eat often have large amounts of by products that we dont eat and which are fed to animals, also not all crops grown forhumn consumption meet the quality required, unless we accept that the quality of food declines then all these products are either dumped in land fill or fed to animals.
Also soil being a part of the eco system relies on animals to provide food for the bacteria/fungi/worms etc that live in it they in turn feed larger insects/animals/birds etc higher up the food chain, without a decent rotation production of crops declines and requires higher inputs of artificial ferts and chemicals.
It is really sad and deeply worrying that a so called green suporter like bob is so uneducated on this subject
The question really was simple.
Give it another go rather than answering the one you'd prefer to answer.
But the question is far from simple as I explained, its a bit like asking is nuclear power better for the environment than coal power
You answer complex questions by addressing the simple ones.
This question is simple. We can build on it. What is your answer?
Nuclear power is better for the environment, especially if we invested in thorium salt reactors rather than the fast breeders chosen primarily to produce material for nuclear metals."Build on what ? Your question isnt a simple one. the answer certainly isnt | |||
"So to all the carnivores - why are you so desperate to eat beef? Let them .Its incredible destructive to the environment and your bowels...Only the wilfully ignorant would claim beef is beneficial to the environment and your bowels. At least we'v put the lie to bed that we need cow shit to fertilise the planet. Fuck knows what the soil is like in the united states they use 95% commercial fertilisers to grow all their produce. They'll all soon not be able to feed 300 million yanks if we listened to some people's facts on fertilisers ..
The green supporter who thinks its better to use oil/gas based fert to feed the world, couldnt make it up, you must be a troll no one with a desire to see the environment improve would be so blind
Just for clarity; do you think that it is a more efficient use of scarce resources to grow plants to feed to animals and then eat the animals or to grow plants and eat them directly?
Its not as simple as that, its a bit of yes and no
As I have said before not all areas are suitable to grow crops that are edible by us,(30% of the uk ag land) unless of course you want to eat grass, even crops that we can eat often have large amounts of by products that we dont eat and which are fed to animals, also not all crops grown forhumn consumption meet the quality required, unless we accept that the quality of food declines then all these products are either dumped in land fill or fed to animals.
Also soil being a part of the eco system relies on animals to provide food for the bacteria/fungi/worms etc that live in it they in turn feed larger insects/animals/birds etc higher up the food chain, without a decent rotation production of crops declines and requires higher inputs of artificial ferts and chemicals.
It is really sad and deeply worrying that a so called green suporter like bob is so uneducated on this subject
The question really was simple.
Give it another go rather than answering the one you'd prefer to answer.
But the question is far from simple as I explained, its a bit like asking is nuclear power better for the environment than coal power
You answer complex questions by addressing the simple ones.
This question is simple. We can build on it. What is your answer?
Nuclear power is better for the environment, especially if we invested in thorium salt reactors rather than the fast breeders chosen primarily to produce material for nuclear metals.
Build on what ?
Your question isnt a simple one. the answer certainly isnt "Do you think that it is a more efficient use of scarce resources to grow plants to feed to animals and then eat the animals or to grow plants and eat them directly? | |||
"So to all the carnivores - why are you so desperate to eat beef? Let them .Its incredible destructive to the environment and your bowels...Only the wilfully ignorant would claim beef is beneficial to the environment and your bowels. At least we'v put the lie to bed that we need cow shit to fertilise the planet. Fuck knows what the soil is like in the united states they use 95% commercial fertilisers to grow all their produce. They'll all soon not be able to feed 300 million yanks if we listened to some people's facts on fertilisers ..
The green supporter who thinks its better to use oil/gas based fert to feed the world, couldnt make it up, you must be a troll no one with a desire to see the environment improve would be so blind
Just for clarity; do you think that it is a more efficient use of scarce resources to grow plants to feed to animals and then eat the animals or to grow plants and eat them directly?
Its not as simple as that, its a bit of yes and no
As I have said before not all areas are suitable to grow crops that are edible by us,(30% of the uk ag land) unless of course you want to eat grass, even crops that we can eat often have large amounts of by products that we dont eat and which are fed to animals, also not all crops grown forhumn consumption meet the quality required, unless we accept that the quality of food declines then all these products are either dumped in land fill or fed to animals.
Also soil being a part of the eco system relies on animals to provide food for the bacteria/fungi/worms etc that live in it they in turn feed larger insects/animals/birds etc higher up the food chain, without a decent rotation production of crops declines and requires higher inputs of artificial ferts and chemicals.
It is really sad and deeply worrying that a so called green suporter like bob is so uneducated on this subject
The question really was simple.
Give it another go rather than answering the one you'd prefer to answer.
But the question is far from simple as I explained, its a bit like asking is nuclear power better for the environment than coal power
You answer complex questions by addressing the simple ones.
This question is simple. We can build on it. What is your answer?
Nuclear power is better for the environment, especially if we invested in thorium salt reactors rather than the fast breeders chosen primarily to produce material for nuclear metals.
Build on what ?
Your question isnt a simple one. the answer certainly isnt
Do you think that it is a more efficient use of scarce resources to grow plants to feed to animals and then eat the animals or to grow plants and eat them directly?"Read the answer I gave, it explains quite simply that in some cases it is but in others it isnt. sheep and grass fed and finished beef can use grss grown on land that cant grow edible crops so are very efficient compared to say strawberries grown under glass in winter in this country or flown in from spain that have taken large amounts of water, fert and pesticide to produce. | |||
"So to all the carnivores - why are you so desperate to eat beef? Let them .Its incredible destructive to the environment and your bowels...Only the wilfully ignorant would claim beef is beneficial to the environment and your bowels. At least we'v put the lie to bed that we need cow shit to fertilise the planet. Fuck knows what the soil is like in the united states they use 95% commercial fertilisers to grow all their produce. They'll all soon not be able to feed 300 million yanks if we listened to some people's facts on fertilisers ..
The green supporter who thinks its better to use oil/gas based fert to feed the world, couldnt make it up, you must be a troll no one with a desire to see the environment improve would be so blind
Just for clarity; do you think that it is a more efficient use of scarce resources to grow plants to feed to animals and then eat the animals or to grow plants and eat them directly?
Its not as simple as that, its a bit of yes and no
As I have said before not all areas are suitable to grow crops that are edible by us,(30% of the uk ag land) unless of course you want to eat grass, even crops that we can eat often have large amounts of by products that we dont eat and which are fed to animals, also not all crops grown forhumn consumption meet the quality required, unless we accept that the quality of food declines then all these products are either dumped in land fill or fed to animals.
Also soil being a part of the eco system relies on animals to provide food for the bacteria/fungi/worms etc that live in it they in turn feed larger insects/animals/birds etc higher up the food chain, without a decent rotation production of crops declines and requires higher inputs of artificial ferts and chemicals.
It is really sad and deeply worrying that a so called green suporter like bob is so uneducated on this subject
The question really was simple.
Give it another go rather than answering the one you'd prefer to answer.
But the question is far from simple as I explained, its a bit like asking is nuclear power better for the environment than coal power
You answer complex questions by addressing the simple ones.
This question is simple. We can build on it. What is your answer?
Nuclear power is better for the environment, especially if we invested in thorium salt reactors rather than the fast breeders chosen primarily to produce material for nuclear metals.
Build on what ?
Your question isnt a simple one. the answer certainly isnt
Do you think that it is a more efficient use of scarce resources to grow plants to feed to animals and then eat the animals or to grow plants and eat them directly?
Read the answer I gave, it explains quite simply that in some cases it is but in others it isnt. sheep and grass fed and finished beef can use grss grown on land that cant grow edible crops so are very efficient compared to say strawberries grown under glass in winter in this country or flown in from spain that have taken large amounts of water, fert and pesticide to produce. "Why so reluctant to answer? The question isn't where it's grown. It's the basic principle! Wow. It's an attempt to establish simple, clear communication. The answer is no. It is not more efficient to feed an animal and then us rather than us directly. Let's try the next question. Does the western diet contain too much meat protein (particularly red) both processed and unprocessed? | |||
"So to all the carnivores - why are you so desperate to eat beef? Let them .Its incredible destructive to the environment and your bowels...Only the wilfully ignorant would claim beef is beneficial to the environment and your bowels. At least we'v put the lie to bed that we need cow shit to fertilise the planet. Fuck knows what the soil is like in the united states they use 95% commercial fertilisers to grow all their produce. They'll all soon not be able to feed 300 million yanks if we listened to some people's facts on fertilisers ..
The green supporter who thinks its better to use oil/gas based fert to feed the world, couldnt make it up, you must be a troll no one with a desire to see the environment improve would be so blind
Just for clarity; do you think that it is a more efficient use of scarce resources to grow plants to feed to animals and then eat the animals or to grow plants and eat them directly?
Its not as simple as that, its a bit of yes and no
As I have said before not all areas are suitable to grow crops that are edible by us,(30% of the uk ag land) unless of course you want to eat grass, even crops that we can eat often have large amounts of by products that we dont eat and which are fed to animals, also not all crops grown forhumn consumption meet the quality required, unless we accept that the quality of food declines then all these products are either dumped in land fill or fed to animals.
Also soil being a part of the eco system relies on animals to provide food for the bacteria/fungi/worms etc that live in it they in turn feed larger insects/animals/birds etc higher up the food chain, without a decent rotation production of crops declines and requires higher inputs of artificial ferts and chemicals.
It is really sad and deeply worrying that a so called green suporter like bob is so uneducated on this subject
The question really was simple.
Give it another go rather than answering the one you'd prefer to answer.
But the question is far from simple as I explained, its a bit like asking is nuclear power better for the environment than coal power
You answer complex questions by addressing the simple ones.
This question is simple. We can build on it. What is your answer?
Nuclear power is better for the environment, especially if we invested in thorium salt reactors rather than the fast breeders chosen primarily to produce material for nuclear metals.
Build on what ?
Your question isnt a simple one. the answer certainly isnt
Do you think that it is a more efficient use of scarce resources to grow plants to feed to animals and then eat the animals or to grow plants and eat them directly?
Read the answer I gave, it explains quite simply that in some cases it is but in others it isnt. sheep and grass fed and finished beef can use grss grown on land that cant grow edible crops so are very efficient compared to say strawberries grown under glass in winter in this country or flown in from spain that have taken large amounts of water, fert and pesticide to produce.
Why so reluctant to answer?
The question isn't where it's grown. It's the basic principle!
Wow. It's an attempt to establish simple, clear communication.
The answer is no. It is not more efficient to feed an animal and then us rather than us directly.
Let's try the next question. Does the western diet contain too much meat protein (particularly red) both processed and unprocessed?
"Sorry but you are wrong as I have explained, I understand you arent involved in food production but you dont appear to be able to see beyond a very simplistic idea. As for your second one again it depends on what you do for work if you sit on your ass all day and eat high salt burgers for every meal then yes it needs less eating and more working. Sugar and to a lesser degree salt are the killers in the food sector not meat | |||
"So to all the carnivores - why are you so desperate to eat beef? Let them .Its incredible destructive to the environment and your bowels...Only the wilfully ignorant would claim beef is beneficial to the environment and your bowels. At least we'v put the lie to bed that we need cow shit to fertilise the planet. Fuck knows what the soil is like in the united states they use 95% commercial fertilisers to grow all their produce. They'll all soon not be able to feed 300 million yanks if we listened to some people's facts on fertilisers ..
The green supporter who thinks its better to use oil/gas based fert to feed the world, couldnt make it up, you must be a troll no one with a desire to see the environment improve would be so blind
Just for clarity; do you think that it is a more efficient use of scarce resources to grow plants to feed to animals and then eat the animals or to grow plants and eat them directly?
Its not as simple as that, its a bit of yes and no
As I have said before not all areas are suitable to grow crops that are edible by us,(30% of the uk ag land) unless of course you want to eat grass, even crops that we can eat often have large amounts of by products that we dont eat and which are fed to animals, also not all crops grown forhumn consumption meet the quality required, unless we accept that the quality of food declines then all these products are either dumped in land fill or fed to animals.
Also soil being a part of the eco system relies on animals to provide food for the bacteria/fungi/worms etc that live in it they in turn feed larger insects/animals/birds etc higher up the food chain, without a decent rotation production of crops declines and requires higher inputs of artificial ferts and chemicals.
It is really sad and deeply worrying that a so called green suporter like bob is so uneducated on this subject
The question really was simple.
Give it another go rather than answering the one you'd prefer to answer.
But the question is far from simple as I explained, its a bit like asking is nuclear power better for the environment than coal power
You answer complex questions by addressing the simple ones.
This question is simple. We can build on it. What is your answer?
Nuclear power is better for the environment, especially if we invested in thorium salt reactors rather than the fast breeders chosen primarily to produce material for nuclear metals.
Build on what ?
Your question isnt a simple one. the answer certainly isnt
Do you think that it is a more efficient use of scarce resources to grow plants to feed to animals and then eat the animals or to grow plants and eat them directly?
Read the answer I gave, it explains quite simply that in some cases it is but in others it isnt. sheep and grass fed and finished beef can use grss grown on land that cant grow edible crops so are very efficient compared to say strawberries grown under glass in winter in this country or flown in from spain that have taken large amounts of water, fert and pesticide to produce.
Why so reluctant to answer?
The question isn't where it's grown. It's the basic principle!
Wow. It's an attempt to establish simple, clear communication.
The answer is no. It is not more efficient to feed an animal and then us rather than us directly.
Let's try the next question. Does the western diet contain too much meat protein (particularly red) both processed and unprocessed?
Sorry but you are wrong as I have explained, I understand you arent involved in food production but you dont appear to be able to see beyond a very simplistic idea.
As for your second one again it depends on what you do for work if you sit on your ass all day and eat high salt burgers for every meal then yes it needs less eating and more working.
Sugar and to a lesser degree salt are the killers in the food sector not meat"Fine. The western diet has reached an optimum state for health. The food production and processing industries are also working in a perfectly efficient way with minimal environmental impact and any such costs fully accounted for. Everyone on tue planet should be aiming to achieve the same. Millions of people changing their eating habits will make no difference to the environment. You know this because you farm some cows in one very specific location
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpellmanrowland/2018/06/12/save-the-planet/ | |||
| |||
"Hah hah your still wasting your time with the ignorant farmer who thinks you can fertilise the World with cowshit,as long as you bullshit in the hope that bullshit baffles brains.Known as the triple B position. They have been a perpetual liar on the subject of climate change over the years because they have a vested interest in farming. Climate change deniers are the same ad holocaust deniers.Its will full ignorance. "I wouldn't go that far. However, I am very aware from my own field that having specialist expertise can give you a false sense of complacency in your own knowledge. It's important to continually challenge your own assumptions and change your position if tue data (not popular opinion or not wanting to be wrong) require it. | |||
| |||
"Hah hah your still wasting your time with the ignorant farmer who thinks you can fertilise the World with cowshit,as long as you bullshit in the hope that bullshit baffles brains.Known as the triple B position. They have been a perpetual liar on the subject of climate change over the years because they have a vested interest in farming. Climate change deniers are the same ad holocaust deniers.Its will full ignorance. "Still waiting for you to put up a link to show only 5% of nutrients are supplied by manures, organic food in the USA is nearly five % alone and that is 100% manure for fertility, you can chuck as many insults out as you like that just proves you have lost the argument, glad to see im now a holocaust denier, | |||
"
I wouldn't go that far.
However, I am very aware from my own field that having specialist expertise can give you a false sense of complacency in your own knowledge.
It's important to continually challenge your own assumptions and change your position if tue data (not popular opinion or not wanting to be wrong) require it."I totally agree that it doesnt matter how much knowledge one has its very important to question what you do all the time,for instance we have changed from ploughing arable land every year to direct drilling as it saves large amounts of fuel/time but more importantly is far better for the soil in that it doesnt harm the natural structure and life that is the bedrock of production, we are only just beginning to learn how soil really works and the interactions that affects it, this work is being driven by farm research groups as it is then not influenced by companies who obviously have a financial interest. This work is beginning to show how we can lower inputs by feeding/caring for the soil life rather than the crop directly, its early days yet we are already beginning to reduce artificial inputs, its a long way to go before we can stop every application and we may never get that far but this work is really exciting. Of course we could all just produce food hydroponically with just npk like good old bob thinks plants need, it would be pretty tasteless and the nutrition level would be poor too | |||
"
I wouldn't go that far.
However, I am very aware from my own field that having specialist expertise can give you a false sense of complacency in your own knowledge.
It's important to continually challenge your own assumptions and change your position if tue data (not popular opinion or not wanting to be wrong) require it.
I totally agree that it doesnt matter how much knowledge one has its very important to question what you do all the time,for instance we have changed from ploughing arable land every year to direct drilling as it saves large amounts of fuel/time but more importantly is far better for the soil in that it doesnt harm the natural structure and life that is the bedrock of production, we are only just beginning to learn how soil really works and the interactions that affects it, this work is being driven by farm research groups as it is then not influenced by companies who obviously have a financial interest. This work is beginning to show how we can lower inputs by feeding/caring for the soil life rather than the crop directly, its early days yet we are already beginning to reduce artificial inputs, its a long way to go before we can stop every application and we may never get that far but this work is really exciting.
Of course we could all just produce food hydroponically with just npk like good old bob thinks plants need, it would be pretty tasteless and the nutrition level would be poor too"https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpellmanrowland/2018/06/12/save-the-planet/ | |||
"
I wouldn't go that far.
However, I am very aware from my own field that having specialist expertise can give you a false sense of complacency in your own knowledge.
It's important to continually challenge your own assumptions and change your position if tue data (not popular opinion or not wanting to be wrong) require it.
I totally agree that it doesnt matter how much knowledge one has its very important to question what you do all the time,for instance we have changed from ploughing arable land every year to direct drilling as it saves large amounts of fuel/time but more importantly is far better for the soil in that it doesnt harm the natural structure and life that is the bedrock of production, we are only just beginning to learn how soil really works and the interactions that affects it, this work is being driven by farm research groups as it is then not influenced by companies who obviously have a financial interest. This work is beginning to show how we can lower inputs by feeding/caring for the soil life rather than the crop directly, its early days yet we are already beginning to reduce artificial inputs, its a long way to go before we can stop every application and we may never get that far but this work is really exciting.
Of course we could all just produce food hydroponically with just npk like good old bob thinks plants need, it would be pretty tasteless and the nutrition level would be poor too
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpellmanrowland/2018/06/12/save-the-planet/"The only problem with that is the chap doing the research is a vegan so hardly independant. His figure of 370sqmt of land to produce 100 grms of protein is hilarious. Beef is roughly 30% protein so what he is saying is that a hectare of land is only producing around 9 kilo of meat per year at a killing out percentage of around 60% per animal and a deadweight price of around £3.50 a kilo that means an income of under £20 per hectare per year, the rent alone for the ground to grow that cereal on would be between £150 and 300. My figures are based on 370 sqmtr which is 1/27 of a hectare(10000 sqmtrs). 100 grms times 27 is 2700 grams times 3 to get to kilo of meat equals 8100 grams of meat per hectare equals 8.1 kilos | |||
"
I wouldn't go that far.
However, I am very aware from my own field that having specialist expertise can give you a false sense of complacency in your own knowledge.
It's important to continually challenge your own assumptions and change your position if tue data (not popular opinion or not wanting to be wrong) require it.
I totally agree that it doesnt matter how much knowledge one has its very important to question what you do all the time,for instance we have changed from ploughing arable land every year to direct drilling as it saves large amounts of fuel/time but more importantly is far better for the soil in that it doesnt harm the natural structure and life that is the bedrock of production, we are only just beginning to learn how soil really works and the interactions that affects it, this work is being driven by farm research groups as it is then not influenced by companies who obviously have a financial interest. This work is beginning to show how we can lower inputs by feeding/caring for the soil life rather than the crop directly, its early days yet we are already beginning to reduce artificial inputs, its a long way to go before we can stop every application and we may never get that far but this work is really exciting.
Of course we could all just produce food hydroponically with just npk like good old bob thinks plants need, it would be pretty tasteless and the nutrition level would be poor too
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpellmanrowland/2018/06/12/save-the-planet/
The only problem with that is the chap doing the research is a vegan so hardly independant.
His figure of 370sqmt of land to produce 100 grms of protein is hilarious. Beef is roughly 30% protein so what he is saying is that a hectare of land is only producing around 9 kilo of meat per year at a killing out percentage of around 60% per animal and a deadweight price of around £3.50 a kilo that means an income of under £20 per hectare per year, the rent alone for the ground to grow that cereal on would be between £150 and 300.
My figures are based on 370 sqmtr which is 1/27 of a hectare(10000 sqmtrs). 100 grms times 27 is 2700 grams times 3 to get to kilo of meat equals 8100 grams of meat per hectare equals 8.1 kilos"According to the actual words in the article the named researcher (not the only one) became vegan after doing thus work. Possibly "hilarious" for our tiny corner of the globe. In Brazil? In the USA? Got those figures? I'm sure you have also researched this full-time over several months so you'll have all of that data to hand | |||
" According to the actual words in the article the named researcher (not the only one) became vegan after doing thus work. Possibly "hilarious" for our tiny corner of the globe. In Brazil? In the USA? Got those figures? I'm sure you have also researched this full-time over several months so you'll have all of that data to hand "But he said HIGH IMPACT BEEF implying that it was the worse case, it doesnt say where in the world it was but just the worse, the figures I used were for the "worse"case in this country, grass fed suckler beef would take more land to produce a kilo than cereal beef but would produce less emissions per kilo, If his one figure of land use for beef is so far out then either the report has been missreported or you cant beleive a word in it. several studies have shown that grass fed beef and sheep, can sequest CO2 http://www.eblex.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Beef-and-Lamb-APPG-The-carbon-footprint-of-the-beef-cattle-and-sheep-sector.pdf Of course this report might be considered to be biased. | |||
 | |||
"To be honest I don't really give a fuck. The methane that came out of the cows arse that produced my medium rare filet steak is a drop in the ocean compared to what other countries pump into the atmosphere every second. Oh! and I'm certainly not giving up my French trimmed rack of lamb chops, so that the Chinese can have another coal fired power station, any time soon. "You haven't indicated any interest in thinking about yourself in the past so why change now?
Why would millions of people make a small change make a difference overall? I mean, it's not like there's any maths to back this hypothesis up.
It's not as if the Chinese are investing massively in green energy.
You take care of yourself old chum. Don't worry about who comes next. You aren't going to be here eh?
Good logical arguments and cracker-jack "common sense"  | |||
" According to the actual words in the article the named researcher (not the only one) became vegan after doing thus work. Possibly "hilarious" for our tiny corner of the globe. In Brazil? In the USA? Got those figures? I'm sure you have also researched this full-time over several months so you'll have all of that data to hand
But he said HIGH IMPACT BEEF implying that it was the worse case, it doesnt say where in the world it was but just the worse, the figures I used were for the "worse"case in this country, grass fed suckler beef would take more land to produce a kilo than cereal beef but would produce less emissions per kilo,
If his one figure of land use for beef is so far out then either the report has been missreported or you cant beleive a word in it.
several studies have shown that grass fed beef and sheep, can sequest CO2
http://www.eblex.org.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Beef-and-Lamb-APPG-The-carbon-footprint-of-the-beef-cattle-and-sheep-sector.pdf
Of course this report might be considered to be biased.
"You are still confining yourself to your globally tiny area of expertise. Just for the record the conclusion of the report that you sent states: "The beef and lamb industry is a net emitter of carbon and therefore has to accept that it has a duty to reduce its environmental impact as much as is possible. From our evidence, we are confident that the industry accepts this responsibility and is working on the challenges of meeting it. What this inquiry has exposed is that in order to have an informed debate, and to generate a set of policies that enable the industry to meet this challenge, much work needs to be done to ensure that the scientific foundations are solid." What's the global effect? Costs? Environmental destruction? Pollution? What happens when we unilaterally remove import tariffs as Centaur's Economists for Free Trade want after our hard Brexit? What will the cost of Brazilian, Argentinean or US beef be? Will the extensive use of antibiotics be good for our health? I assume that you believe that the UK eats exactly the correct amount of meat and it's only lack of exercise that has any health consequences? I also assume that you think that it is more efficient to feed plants to animals rather than directly to us? "Meat and dairy provide only 18% of our calories and 37% of our protein, yet use up 83% of our farmland. Without meat and dairy consumption, global farmland use could be reduced by more than 75% – an area equivalent to the U.S., China, the European Union and Australia combined – and still feed the world" You are also judy addressing beef. How about pigs and chickens? I never stated that nobody should eat any meat ever. I suggested that some, relatively small, dietary changes in reducing meat consumption could have significant positive effects on the environment (and health). You, apparently, do not. | |||
" You are still confining yourself to your globally tiny area of expertise. Just for the record the conclusion of the report that you sent states: "The beef and lamb industry is a net emitter of carbon and therefore has to accept that it has a duty to reduce its environmental impact as much as is possible. From our evidence, we are confident that the industry accepts this responsibility and is working on the challenges of meeting it. What this inquiry has exposed is that in order to have an informed debate, and to generate a set of policies that enable the industry to meet this challenge, much work needs to be done to ensure that the scientific foundations are solid." What's the global effect? Costs? Environmental destruction? Pollution? What happens when we unilaterally remove import tariffs as Centaur's Economists for Free Trade want after our hard Brexit? What will the cost of Brazilian, Argentinean or US beef be? Will the extensive use of antibiotics be good for our health? I assume that you believe that the UK eats exactly the correct amount of meat and it's only lack of exercise that has any health consequences? I also assume that you think that it is more efficient to feed plants to animals rather than directly to us? "Meat and dairy provide only 18% of our calories and 37% of our protein, yet use up 83% of our farmland. Without meat and dairy consumption, global farmland use could be reduced by more than 75% – an area equivalent to the U.S., China, the European Union and Australia combined – and still feed the world" You are also judy addressing beef. How about pigs and chickens? I never stated that nobody should eat any meat ever. I suggested that some, relatively small, dietary changes in reducing meat consumption could have significant positive effects on the environment (and health). You, apparently, do not." Im not confining myself to any area, I have shown you that the "facts" he puts up are bollocks, so much so that even if any beef produced anywhere in the world could not in the wildest imagination survive in business if it used the large of land he claims it does. You can say what you like you cant deny the economics. Of course some people eat too much for the amount of exercise they do and need to cut down, I note you didnt comment on the point about sugar and salt. How many times do I have to say that whether its more efficient to fed directly or not depends on a lot of factors, I have explained why that is the case, yet all you do is say that my area of expertise is limited, while different areas use different crops due to climate etc the basics are the same the world over, your comment is like saying that because we drive on the left I couldnt drive on the right and do you have the slightest knowledge how to grow any crop or rear any animal, from your comments I doubt that very much. | |||
"To be honest I don't really give a fuck. The methane that came out of the cows arse that produced my medium rare filet steak is a drop in the ocean compared to what other countries pump into the atmosphere every second. Oh! and I'm certainly not giving up my French trimmed rack of lamb chops, so that the Chinese can have another coal fired power station, any time soon.
You haven't indicated any interest in thinking about yourself in the past so why change now?
Why would millions of people make a small change make a difference overall? I mean, it's not like there's any maths to back this hypothesis up.
It's not as if the Chinese are investing massively in green energy.
You take care of yourself old chum. Don't worry about who comes next. You aren't going to be here eh?
Good logical arguments and cracker-jack "common sense" "Why the fuck should I worry about who comes next? There are billions worldwide who will (and probably already have) fuck it up, so any gesture I make will be (at best) token. When the rest of the world comes on board, then I will think about it. Until then, forget it. The hair shirt can wait. | |||
" You are still confining yourself to your globally tiny area of expertise. Just for the record the conclusion of the report that you sent states: "The beef and lamb industry is a net emitter of carbon and therefore has to accept that it has a duty to reduce its environmental impact as much as is possible. From our evidence, we are confident that the industry accepts this responsibility and is working on the challenges of meeting it. What this inquiry has exposed is that in order to have an informed debate, and to generate a set of policies that enable the industry to meet this challenge, much work needs to be done to ensure that the scientific foundations are solid." What's the global effect? Costs? Environmental destruction? Pollution? What happens when we unilaterally remove import tariffs as Centaur's Economists for Free Trade want after our hard Brexit? What will the cost of Brazilian, Argentinean or US beef be? Will the extensive use of antibiotics be good for our health? I assume that you believe that the UK eats exactly the correct amount of meat and it's only lack of exercise that has any health consequences? I also assume that you think that it is more efficient to feed plants to animals rather than directly to us? "Meat and dairy provide only 18% of our calories and 37% of our protein, yet use up 83% of our farmland. Without meat and dairy consumption, global farmland use could be reduced by more than 75% – an area equivalent to the U.S., China, the European Union and Australia combined – and still feed the world" You are also judy addressing beef. How about pigs and chickens? I never stated that nobody should eat any meat ever. I suggested that some, relatively small, dietary changes in reducing meat consumption could have significant positive effects on the environment (and health). You, apparently, do not. Im not confining myself to any area, I have shown you that the "facts" he puts up are bollocks, so much so that even if any beef produced anywhere in the world could not in the wildest imagination survive in business if it used the large of land he claims it does. You can say what you like you cant deny the economics. Of course some people eat too much for the amount of exercise they do and need to cut down, I note you didnt comment on the point about sugar and salt. How many times do I have to say that whether its more efficient to fed directly or not depends on a lot of factors, I have explained why that is the case, yet all you do is say that my area of expertise is limited, while different areas use different crops due to climate etc the basics are the same the world over, your comment is like saying that because we drive on the left I couldnt drive on the right and do you have the slightest knowledge how to grow any crop or rear any animal, from your comments I doubt that very much. " No. What you have done is continue to repeat yourself regardless of what's being asked. What you have done is try to transpose your knowledge of farming in the UK to the global food industry. What you have done is imply that some vegan is unable to understand er anything about er anything. You do know that this was not some began right? It's an Oxford university research team which analysed data from 30,000 food producing organisations. You can look up the primary data from the research paper to pick holes in if you like. I'm guessing that they had a little more data to work with than you. I suppose I shouldn't have an opinion on police spending as I'm not a policeman nor been a direct victim of crime. OK. The western high processed and unprocessed meat diet has no effect on health. It's only exercise and salt and sugar. Meat is just as efficiently produced as vegetables and cereals. There's no problem. Silly me. | |||
"To be honest I don't really give a fuck. The methane that came out of the cows arse that produced my medium rare filet steak is a drop in the ocean compared to what other countries pump into the atmosphere every second. Oh! and I'm certainly not giving up my French trimmed rack of lamb chops, so that the Chinese can have another coal fired power station, any time soon.
You haven't indicated any interest in thinking about yourself in the past so why change now?
Why would millions of people make a small change make a difference overall? I mean, it's not like there's any maths to back this hypothesis up.
It's not as if the Chinese are investing massively in green energy.
You take care of yourself old chum. Don't worry about who comes next. You aren't going to be here eh?
Good logical arguments and cracker-jack "common sense"
Why the fuck should I worry about who comes next?
There are billions worldwide who will (and probably already have) fuck it up, so any gesture I make will be (at best) token.
When the rest of the world comes on board, then I will think about it. Until then, forget it.
The hair shirt can wait."That's the summary. Nice | |||
" You are still confining yourself to your globally tiny area of expertise. Just for the record the conclusion of the report that you sent states: "The beef and lamb industry is a net emitter of carbon and therefore has to accept that it has a duty to reduce its environmental impact as much as is possible. From our evidence, we are confident that the industry accepts this responsibility and is working on the challenges of meeting it. What this inquiry has exposed is that in order to have an informed debate, and to generate a set of policies that enable the industry to meet this challenge, much work needs to be done to ensure that the scientific foundations are solid." What's the global effect? Costs? Environmental destruction? Pollution? What happens when we unilaterally remove import tariffs as Centaur's Economists for Free Trade want after our hard Brexit? What will the cost of Brazilian, Argentinean or US beef be? Will the extensive use of antibiotics be good for our health? I assume that you believe that the UK eats exactly the correct amount of meat and it's only lack of exercise that has any health consequences? I also assume that you think that it is more efficient to feed plants to animals rather than directly to us? "Meat and dairy provide only 18% of our calories and 37% of our protein, yet use up 83% of our farmland. Without meat and dairy consumption, global farmland use could be reduced by more than 75% – an area equivalent to the U.S., China, the European Union and Australia combined – and still feed the world" You are also judy addressing beef. How about pigs and chickens? I never stated that nobody should eat any meat ever. I suggested that some, relatively small, dietary changes in reducing meat consumption could have significant positive effects on the environment (and health). You, apparently, do not. Im not confining myself to any area, I have shown you that the "facts" he puts up are bollocks, so much so that even if any beef produced anywhere in the world could not in the wildest imagination survive in business if it used the large of land he claims it does. You can say what you like you cant deny the economics. Of course some people eat too much for the amount of exercise they do and need to cut down, I note you didnt comment on the point about sugar and salt. How many times do I have to say that whether its more efficient to fed directly or not depends on a lot of factors, I have explained why that is the case, yet all you do is say that my area of expertise is limited, while different areas use different crops due to climate etc the basics are the same the world over, your comment is like saying that because we drive on the left I couldnt drive on the right and do you have the slightest knowledge how to grow any crop or rear any animal, from your comments I doubt that very much. No. What you have done is continue to repeat yourself regardless of what's being asked. What you have done is try to transpose your knowledge of farming in the UK to the global food industry. What you have done is imply that some vegan is unable to understand er anything about er anything. You do know that this was not some began right? It's an Oxford university research team which analysed data from 30,000 food producing organisations. You can look up the primary data from the research paper to pick holes in if you like. I'm guessing that they had a little more data to work with than you. I suppose I shouldn't have an opinion on police spending as I'm not a policeman nor been a direct victim of crime. OK. The western high processed and unprocessed meat diet has no effect on health. It's only exercise and salt and sugar. Meat is just as efficiently produced as vegetables and cereals. There's no problem. Silly me." Well we all know how good some experts are at maths. Just to show how shit his figures are. in 2017 there was 70 million tonnes of beef produced world wide according to his figures that would take 8.75 BILLION hectares to produce, there are only 1.5 billion hectares of agriculturally productive land in the whole world. Go figure | |||
Meat is good for the environment and climate change is fake.Lies are alternative facts for the wilfully ignorant tools.. | |||
| |||
" You are still confining yourself to your globally tiny area of expertise. Just for the record the conclusion of the report that you sent states: "The beef and lamb industry is a net emitter of carbon and therefore has to accept that it has a duty to reduce its environmental impact as much as is possible. From our evidence, we are confident that the industry accepts this responsibility and is working on the challenges of meeting it. What this inquiry has exposed is that in order to have an informed debate, and to generate a set of policies that enable the industry to meet this challenge, much work needs to be done to ensure that the scientific foundations are solid." What's the global effect? Costs? Environmental destruction? Pollution? What happens when we unilaterally remove import tariffs as Centaur's Economists for Free Trade want after our hard Brexit? What will the cost of Brazilian, Argentinean or US beef be? Will the extensive use of antibiotics be good for our health? I assume that you believe that the UK eats exactly the correct amount of meat and it's only lack of exercise that has any health consequences? I also assume that you think that it is more efficient to feed plants to animals rather than directly to us? "Meat and dairy provide only 18% of our calories and 37% of our protein, yet use up 83% of our farmland. Without meat and dairy consumption, global farmland use could be reduced by more than 75% – an area equivalent to the U.S., China, the European Union and Australia combined – and still feed the world" You are also judy addressing beef. How about pigs and chickens? I never stated that nobody should eat any meat ever. I suggested that some, relatively small, dietary changes in reducing meat consumption could have significant positive effects on the environment (and health). You, apparently, do not. Im not confining myself to any area, I have shown you that the "facts" he puts up are bollocks, so much so that even if any beef produced anywhere in the world could not in the wildest imagination survive in business if it used the large of land he claims it does. You can say what you like you cant deny the economics. Of course some people eat too much for the amount of exercise they do and need to cut down, I note you didnt comment on the point about sugar and salt. How many times do I have to say that whether its more efficient to fed directly or not depends on a lot of factors, I have explained why that is the case, yet all you do is say that my area of expertise is limited, while different areas use different crops due to climate etc the basics are the same the world over, your comment is like saying that because we drive on the left I couldnt drive on the right and do you have the slightest knowledge how to grow any crop or rear any animal, from your comments I doubt that very much. No. What you have done is continue to repeat yourself regardless of what's being asked. What you have done is try to transpose your knowledge of farming in the UK to the global food industry. What you have done is imply that some vegan is unable to understand er anything about er anything. You do know that this was not some began right? It's an Oxford university research team which analysed data from 30,000 food producing organisations. You can look up the primary data from the research paper to pick holes in if you like. I'm guessing that they had a little more data to work with than you. I suppose I shouldn't have an opinion on police spending as I'm not a policeman nor been a direct victim of crime. OK. The western high processed and unprocessed meat diet has no effect on health. It's only exercise and salt and sugar. Meat is just as efficiently produced as vegetables and cereals. There's no problem. Silly me. Well we all know how good some experts are at maths. Just to show how shit his figures are. in 2017 there was 70 million tonnes of beef produced world wide according to his figures that would take 8.75 BILLION hectares to produce, there are only 1.5 billion hectares of agriculturally productive land in the whole world. Go figure " "His" figures don't state that. 1.5 billion hectares are currently used for crop production and more than twice that (another 3.5+ billion) for animal farming. What are you even looking at? "Mitigation through consumers Today, and probably into the future, dietary change can deliver environmental benefits on a scale not achievable by producers. Moving from current diets to a diet that excludes animal products (table S13) (35) has transformative potential, reducing food’s land use by 3.1 (2.8-3.3) billion hectares (a 76% reduction), including a 19% reduction in arable land; food’s GHG emissions by 6.6 (5.5-7.4) billion metric tons of CO2eq (a 49% reduction); acidification by 50% (45-54%); eutrophication by 49% (37-56%); and scarcity-weighted freshwater withdrawals by 19% (-5 to 32%) for a 2010 reference year. The ranges are based on producing new vegetable proteins with impacts between the 10th- and 90th-percentile impacts of existing production. For the United States, where per capita meat consumption is three times the global average, dietary change has the potential for a far greater effect on food’s different emissions, reducing them by 61-73%. See supplementary text (17) for diet compositions and sensitivity analyses and fig. S14 for alternative scenarios. Consumers can play another important role by avoiding high-impact producers. We consider a second scenario where consumption of each animal product is halved by replacing production with above-median GHG emissions with vegetable equivalents. This achieves 73% of the previous scenario’s GHG reduction and 67, 64, and 55% of the land use, acidification, and eutrophication reductions. Further, lowering consumption of more discretionary products (oils, sugar, alcohol, and stimulants) by 20% by avoiding production with the highest land use reduces the land use of these products by 39% on average. For emissions, the reductions are 31 to 46%, and for scarcity- weighted freshwater withdrawals, 87%. Communicating average product impacts to consumers enables dietary change and should be pursued. Though dietary change is realistic for any individual, widespread behavioral change will be hard to achieve in the narrow timeframe remaining to limit global warming and prevent further, irreversible biodiversity loss. Communicating producer impacts allows access to the second scenario, which multiplies the effects of smaller consumer changes." | |||
"https://youtu.be/EHFfOOF-6Fs Interesting discussion on youtube...spin forward 1h 7m for a debunking of the 99% of all scientists etc etc (actually 97% but who cares)" Just had a look at this. It's hilarious. Do you know who this guy is giving evidence to this US committee? He says that one fixed study produced the 97% consensus figure. You think that this is debunking?
I am also not particularly interested in the opinion of a scientist working in an unrelated field to the topic under discussion. Are you? You do know that they aren't interchangeable jist because they have white coats right?
Read an actual research paper on a synthesis of six studies looking into this.
Search for: "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming Cook et al"
"Abstract
The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies." | |||
"We have almost a 99% consensus from of our scientists that climate change is real and the meat industry contributes to it .Yet some expert yokel from bath knows better . Like I said you're wasting your time and energy with billy bullshitter on his tractor..
Meat is good for the environment and climate change is fake.Lies are alternative facts for the wilfully ignorant tools.."Such a nice fellow arent you, who said climate change isnt happening, I said the figures in this report are bollocks, I produced some to show why, I notice you still havent produced your source for the 5% of fertitilty that comes from manures. Try raising your arguement than chucking insults about | |||
" "His" figures don't state that. 1.5 billion hectares are currently used for crop production and more than twice that (another 3.5+ billion) for animal farming. What are you even looking at? "Mitigation through consumers Today, and probably into the future, dietary change can deliver environmental benefits on a scale not achievable by producers. Moving from current diets to a diet that excludes animal products (table S13) (35) has transformative potential, reducing food’s land use by 3.1 (2.8-3.3) billion hectares (a 76% reduction), including a 19% reduction in arable land; food’s GHG emissions by 6.6 (5.5-7.4) billion metric tons of CO2eq (a 49% reduction); acidification by 50% (45-54%); eutrophication by 49% (37-56%); and scarcity-weighted freshwater withdrawals by 19% (-5 to 32%) for a 2010 reference year. The ranges are based on producing new vegetable proteins with impacts between the 10th- and 90th-percentile impacts of existing production. For the United States, where per capita meat consumption is three times the global average, dietary change has the potential for a far greater effect on food’s different emissions, reducing them by 61-73%. See supplementary text (17) for diet compositions and sensitivity analyses and fig. S14 for alternative scenarios. Consumers can play another important role by avoiding high-impact producers. We consider a second scenario where consumption of each animal product is halved by replacing production with above-median GHG emissions with vegetable equivalents. This achieves 73% of the previous scenario’s GHG reduction and 67, 64, and 55% of the land use, acidification, and eutrophication reductions. Further, lowering consumption of more discretionary products (oils, sugar, alcohol, and stimulants) by 20% by avoiding production with the highest land use reduces the land use of these products by 39% on average. For emissions, the reductions are 31 to 46%, and for scarcity- weighted freshwater withdrawals, 87%. Communicating average product impacts to consumers enables dietary change and should be pursued. Though dietary change is realistic for any individual, widespread behavioral change will be hard to achieve in the narrow timeframe remaining to limit global warming and prevent further, irreversible biodiversity loss. Communicating producer impacts allows access to the second scenario, which multiplies the effects of smaller consumer changes."" Yes your right about the 1.5 billion figures, "MOST" grass round the world is "permanent" and we consider grass to be a "crop" just as much as arable ones are indeed much of the grass grown in most parts of the world are grown in a arable rotation, but the source I quoted counts grass differently, however the figure this report uses of 370sqrmts of land per 100 grms of protein would need 8.75 billion hectares to produce, the figures for total land being used for agriculture range from 4.2 to 5.6 depending on which source( strange how these experts cant seem to count). Even if you take the highest figure its nowhere near the amount needed to rear the 70 millions tonnes of beef reared last year. NO one is arguing that beef has an impact on climate change everything we do does, my argument is that reports likke this are rubbish, he has used a figure that might have some accuracy if you grazed an animal in a arid region and extrapolated it over every square inch of the agriculltural land in the world. Its lazy science or perhaps he is just trying to make a point, if yoou think he is right then show us some figures that you have worked out, it cant be hard if a simple tractor driving bumking can do it | |||
" "His" figures don't state that. 1.5 billion hectares are currently used for crop production and more than twice that (another 3.5+ billion) for animal farming. What are you even looking at? "Mitigation through consumers Today, and probably into the future, dietary change can deliver environmental benefits on a scale not achievable by producers. Moving from current diets to a diet that excludes animal products (table S13) (35) has transformative potential, reducing food’s land use by 3.1 (2.8-3.3) billion hectares (a 76% reduction), including a 19% reduction in arable land; food’s GHG emissions by 6.6 (5.5-7.4) billion metric tons of CO2eq (a 49% reduction); acidification by 50% (45-54%); eutrophication by 49% (37-56%); and scarcity-weighted freshwater withdrawals by 19% (-5 to 32%) for a 2010 reference year. The ranges are based on producing new vegetable proteins with impacts between the 10th- and 90th-percentile impacts of existing production. For the United States, where per capita meat consumption is three times the global average, dietary change has the potential for a far greater effect on food’s different emissions, reducing them by 61-73%. See supplementary text (17) for diet compositions and sensitivity analyses and fig. S14 for alternative scenarios. Consumers can play another important role by avoiding high-impact producers. We consider a second scenario where consumption of each animal product is halved by replacing production with above-median GHG emissions with vegetable equivalents. This achieves 73% of the previous scenario’s GHG reduction and 67, 64, and 55% of the land use, acidification, and eutrophication reductions. Further, lowering consumption of more discretionary products (oils, sugar, alcohol, and stimulants) by 20% by avoiding production with the highest land use reduces the land use of these products by 39% on average. For emissions, the reductions are 31 to 46%, and for scarcity- weighted freshwater withdrawals, 87%. Communicating average product impacts to consumers enables dietary change and should be pursued. Though dietary change is realistic for any individual, widespread behavioral change will be hard to achieve in the narrow timeframe remaining to limit global warming and prevent further, irreversible biodiversity loss. Communicating producer impacts allows access to the second scenario, which multiplies the effects of smaller consumer changes." Yes your right about the 1.5 billion figures, "MOST" grass round the world is "permanent" and we consider grass to be a "crop" just as much as arable ones are indeed much of the grass grown in most parts of the world are grown in a arable rotation, but the source I quoted counts grass differently, however the figure this report uses of 370sqrmts of land per 100 grms of protein would need 8.75 billion hectares to produce, the figures for total land being used for agriculture range from 4.2 to 5.6 depending on which source( strange how these experts cant seem to count). Even if you take the highest figure its nowhere near the amount needed to rear the 70 millions tonnes of beef reared last year. NO one is arguing that beef has an impact on climate change everything we do does, my argument is that reports likke this are rubbish, he has used a figure that might have some accuracy if you grazed an animal in a arid region and extrapolated it over every square inch of the agriculltural land in the world. Its lazy science or perhaps he is just trying to make a point, if yoou think he is right then show us some figures that you have worked out, it cant be hard if a simple tractor driving bumking can do it "Oh. Wow. Actually, you have been arguing that beef does not have an impact on climate change. That section is referring to how large a variation there is between the best and worst use of resource. The 370 sqm of land refers to the worst 10% "Immediately apparent in our results is the high variation in impact among both products and producers. Ninetieth-percentile GHG emissions of beef are 105kg of CO2eq per 100g of protein, and land use (area multiplied by years occupied) is 370 m2 ·year. These values are 12 and 50 times greater than 10th-percentile dairy beef impacts (which we report separately given that its production is tied to milk demand). Tenth-percentile GHG emissions and land use of dairy beef are then 36 and 6 times greater than those of peas. High variation within and between protein-rich products is also manifest in acidification, eutrophication, and water use." Confirmation bias anyone? Guess what it is hard to measure the amount of land used. It is an estimate. It is not known  | |||
" "His" figures don't state that. 1.5 billion hectares are currently used for crop production and more than twice that (another 3.5+ billion) for animal farming. What are you even looking at? "Mitigation through consumers Today, and probably into the future, dietary change can deliver environmental benefits on a scale not achievable by producers. Moving from current diets to a diet that excludes animal products (table S13) (35) has transformative potential, reducing food’s land use by 3.1 (2.8-3.3) billion hectares (a 76% reduction), including a 19% reduction in arable land; food’s GHG emissions by 6.6 (5.5-7.4) billion metric tons of CO2eq (a 49% reduction); acidification by 50% (45-54%); eutrophication by 49% (37-56%); and scarcity-weighted freshwater withdrawals by 19% (-5 to 32%) for a 2010 reference year. The ranges are based on producing new vegetable proteins with impacts between the 10th- and 90th-percentile impacts of existing production. For the United States, where per capita meat consumption is three times the global average, dietary change has the potential for a far greater effect on food’s different emissions, reducing them by 61-73%. See supplementary text (17) for diet compositions and sensitivity analyses and fig. S14 for alternative scenarios. Consumers can play another important role by avoiding high-impact producers. We consider a second scenario where consumption of each animal product is halved by replacing production with above-median GHG emissions with vegetable equivalents. This achieves 73% of the previous scenario’s GHG reduction and 67, 64, and 55% of the land use, acidification, and eutrophication reductions. Further, lowering consumption of more discretionary products (oils, sugar, alcohol, and stimulants) by 20% by avoiding production with the highest land use reduces the land use of these products by 39% on average. For emissions, the reductions are 31 to 46%, and for scarcity- weighted freshwater withdrawals, 87%. Communicating average product impacts to consumers enables dietary change and should be pursued. Though dietary change is realistic for any individual, widespread behavioral change will be hard to achieve in the narrow timeframe remaining to limit global warming and prevent further, irreversible biodiversity loss. Communicating producer impacts allows access to the second scenario, which multiplies the effects of smaller consumer changes." Yes your right about the 1.5 billion figures, "MOST" grass round the world is "permanent" and we consider grass to be a "crop" just as much as arable ones are indeed much of the grass grown in most parts of the world are grown in a arable rotation, but the source I quoted counts grass differently, however the figure this report uses of 370sqrmts of land per 100 grms of protein would need 8.75 billion hectares to produce, the figures for total land being used for agriculture range from 4.2 to 5.6 depending on which source( strange how these experts cant seem to count). Even if you take the highest figure its nowhere near the amount needed to rear the 70 millions tonnes of beef reared last year. NO one is arguing that beef has an impact on climate change everything we do does, my argument is that reports likke this are rubbish, he has used a figure that might have some accuracy if you grazed an animal in a arid region and extrapolated it over every square inch of the agriculltural land in the world. Its lazy science or perhaps he is just trying to make a point, if yoou think he is right then show us some figures that you have worked out, it cant be hard if a simple tractor driving bumking can do it
Oh. Wow.
Actually, you have been arguing that beef does not have an impact on climate change.
That section is referring to how large a variation there is between the best and worst use of resource. The 370 sqm of land refers to the worst 10%
"Immediately apparent in our results is the high variation in
impact among both products and producers. Ninetieth-percentile GHG emissions of beef are 105kg
of CO2eq per 100g of protein, and land use (area multiplied by years occupied) is 370 m2
·year.
These values are 12 and 50 times greater than 10th-percentile dairy beef impacts (which we report
separately given that its production is tied to milk demand). Tenth-percentile GHG emissions and
land use of dairy beef are then 36 and 6 times greater than those of peas. High variation within and
between protein-rich products is also manifest in acidification, eutrophication, and water use."
Confirmation bias anyone?
Guess what it is hard to measure the amount of land used. It is an estimate. It is not known "Where have I said it doesnt have an impact, what I have said and will keep saying his figures are bollocks as I have shown you several times | |||
" "His" figures don't state that. 1.5 billion hectares are currently used for crop production and more than twice that (another 3.5+ billion) for animal farming. What are you even looking at? "Mitigation through consumers Today, and probably into the future, dietary change can deliver environmental benefits on a scale not achievable by producers. Moving from current diets to a diet that excludes animal products (table S13) (35) has transformative potential, reducing food’s land use by 3.1 (2.8-3.3) billion hectares (a 76% reduction), including a 19% reduction in arable land; food’s GHG emissions by 6.6 (5.5-7.4) billion metric tons of CO2eq (a 49% reduction); acidification by 50% (45-54%); eutrophication by 49% (37-56%); and scarcity-weighted freshwater withdrawals by 19% (-5 to 32%) for a 2010 reference year. The ranges are based on producing new vegetable proteins with impacts between the 10th- and 90th-percentile impacts of existing production. For the United States, where per capita meat consumption is three times the global average, dietary change has the potential for a far greater effect on food’s different emissions, reducing them by 61-73%. See supplementary text (17) for diet compositions and sensitivity analyses and fig. S14 for alternative scenarios. Consumers can play another important role by avoiding high-impact producers. We consider a second scenario where consumption of each animal product is halved by replacing production with above-median GHG emissions with vegetable equivalents. This achieves 73% of the previous scenario’s GHG reduction and 67, 64, and 55% of the land use, acidification, and eutrophication reductions. Further, lowering consumption of more discretionary products (oils, sugar, alcohol, and stimulants) by 20% by avoiding production with the highest land use reduces the land use of these products by 39% on average. For emissions, the reductions are 31 to 46%, and for scarcity- weighted freshwater withdrawals, 87%. Communicating average product impacts to consumers enables dietary change and should be pursued. Though dietary change is realistic for any individual, widespread behavioral change will be hard to achieve in the narrow timeframe remaining to limit global warming and prevent further, irreversible biodiversity loss. Communicating producer impacts allows access to the second scenario, which multiplies the effects of smaller consumer changes." Yes your right about the 1.5 billion figures, "MOST" grass round the world is "permanent" and we consider grass to be a "crop" just as much as arable ones are indeed much of the grass grown in most parts of the world are grown in a arable rotation, but the source I quoted counts grass differently, however the figure this report uses of 370sqrmts of land per 100 grms of protein would need 8.75 billion hectares to produce, the figures for total land being used for agriculture range from 4.2 to 5.6 depending on which source( strange how these experts cant seem to count). Even if you take the highest figure its nowhere near the amount needed to rear the 70 millions tonnes of beef reared last year. NO one is arguing that beef has an impact on climate change everything we do does, my argument is that reports likke this are rubbish, he has used a figure that might have some accuracy if you grazed an animal in a arid region and extrapolated it over every square inch of the agriculltural land in the world. Its lazy science or perhaps he is just trying to make a point, if yoou think he is right then show us some figures that you have worked out, it cant be hard if a simple tractor driving bumking can do it
Oh. Wow.
Actually, you have been arguing that beef does not have an impact on climate change.
That section is referring to how large a variation there is between the best and worst use of resource. The 370 sqm of land refers to the worst 10%
"Immediately apparent in our results is the high variation in
impact among both products and producers. Ninetieth-percentile GHG emissions of beef are 105kg
of CO2eq per 100g of protein, and land use (area multiplied by years occupied) is 370 m2
·year.
These values are 12 and 50 times greater than 10th-percentile dairy beef impacts (which we report
separately given that its production is tied to milk demand). Tenth-percentile GHG emissions and
land use of dairy beef are then 36 and 6 times greater than those of peas. High variation within and
between protein-rich products is also manifest in acidification, eutrophication, and water use."
Confirmation bias anyone?
Guess what it is hard to measure the amount of land used. It is an estimate. It is not known
Where have I said it doesnt have an impact, what I have said and will keep saying his figures are bollocks as I have shown you several times"You didn't say that. It seemed that you were implying that a diet change wouldn't make much difference. You certainly have not shown that the methodology of the research team was flawed. You are welcome to keep trying. | |||
" "His" figures don't state that. 1.5 billion hectares are currently used for crop production and more than twice that (another 3.5+ billion) for animal farming. What are you even looking at? "Mitigation through consumers Today, and probably into the future, dietary change can deliver environmental benefits on a scale not achievable by producers. Moving from current diets to a diet that excludes animal products (table S13) (35) has transformative potential, reducing food’s land use by 3.1 (2.8-3.3) billion hectares (a 76% reduction), including a 19% reduction in arable land; food’s GHG emissions by 6.6 (5.5-7.4) billion metric tons of CO2eq (a 49% reduction); acidification by 50% (45-54%); eutrophication by 49% (37-56%); and scarcity-weighted freshwater withdrawals by 19% (-5 to 32%) for a 2010 reference year. The ranges are based on producing new vegetable proteins with impacts between the 10th- and 90th-percentile impacts of existing production. For the United States, where per capita meat consumption is three times the global average, dietary change has the potential for a far greater effect on food’s different emissions, reducing them by 61-73%. See supplementary text (17) for diet compositions and sensitivity analyses and fig. S14 for alternative scenarios. Consumers can play another important role by avoiding high-impact producers. We consider a second scenario where consumption of each animal product is halved by replacing production with above-median GHG emissions with vegetable equivalents. This achieves 73% of the previous scenario’s GHG reduction and 67, 64, and 55% of the land use, acidification, and eutrophication reductions. Further, lowering consumption of more discretionary products (oils, sugar, alcohol, and stimulants) by 20% by avoiding production with the highest land use reduces the land use of these products by 39% on average. For emissions, the reductions are 31 to 46%, and for scarcity- weighted freshwater withdrawals, 87%. Communicating average product impacts to consumers enables dietary change and should be pursued. Though dietary change is realistic for any individual, widespread behavioral change will be hard to achieve in the narrow timeframe remaining to limit global warming and prevent further, irreversible biodiversity loss. Communicating producer impacts allows access to the second scenario, which multiplies the effects of smaller consumer changes." Yes your right about the 1.5 billion figures, "MOST" grass round the world is "permanent" and we consider grass to be a "crop" just as much as arable ones are indeed much of the grass grown in most parts of the world are grown in a arable rotation, but the source I quoted counts grass differently, however the figure this report uses of 370sqrmts of land per 100 grms of protein would need 8.75 billion hectares to produce, the figures for total land being used for agriculture range from 4.2 to 5.6 depending on which source( strange how these experts cant seem to count). Even if you take the highest figure its nowhere near the amount needed to rear the 70 millions tonnes of beef reared last year. NO one is arguing that beef has an impact on climate change everything we do does, my argument is that reports likke this are rubbish, he has used a figure that might have some accuracy if you grazed an animal in a arid region and extrapolated it over every square inch of the agriculltural land in the world. Its lazy science or perhaps he is just trying to make a point, if yoou think he is right then show us some figures that you have worked out, it cant be hard if a simple tractor driving bumking can do it
Oh. Wow.
Actually, you have been arguing that beef does not have an impact on climate change.
That section is referring to how large a variation there is between the best and worst use of resource. The 370 sqm of land refers to the worst 10%
"Immediately apparent in our results is the high variation in
impact among both products and producers. Ninetieth-percentile GHG emissions of beef are 105kg
of CO2eq per 100g of protein, and land use (area multiplied by years occupied) is 370 m2
·year.
These values are 12 and 50 times greater than 10th-percentile dairy beef impacts (which we report
separately given that its production is tied to milk demand). Tenth-percentile GHG emissions and
land use of dairy beef are then 36 and 6 times greater than those of peas. High variation within and
between protein-rich products is also manifest in acidification, eutrophication, and water use."
Confirmation bias anyone?
Guess what it is hard to measure the amount of land used. It is an estimate. It is not known
Where have I said it doesnt have an impact, what I have said and will keep saying his figures are bollocks as I have shown you several times
You didn't say that. It seemed that you were implying that a diet change wouldn't make much difference.
You certainly have not shown that the methodology of the research team was flawed.
You are welcome to keep trying."I have shown a couple of times why his figures are flawed you just dont want to see it, i posted whats figures I was using-his and then just multiplied them up showing how I arrived at them,just do the maths yourself and show me im wrong | |||
" "His" figures don't state that. 1.5 billion hectares are currently used for crop production and more than twice that (another 3.5+ billion) for animal farming. What are you even looking at? "Mitigation through consumers Today, and probably into the future, dietary change can deliver environmental benefits on a scale not achievable by producers. Moving from current diets to a diet that excludes animal products (table S13) (35) has transformative potential, reducing food’s land use by 3.1 (2.8-3.3) billion hectares (a 76% reduction), including a 19% reduction in arable land; food’s GHG emissions by 6.6 (5.5-7.4) billion metric tons of CO2eq (a 49% reduction); acidification by 50% (45-54%); eutrophication by 49% (37-56%); and scarcity-weighted freshwater withdrawals by 19% (-5 to 32%) for a 2010 reference year. The ranges are based on producing new vegetable proteins with impacts between the 10th- and 90th-percentile impacts of existing production. For the United States, where per capita meat consumption is three times the global average, dietary change has the potential for a far greater effect on food’s different emissions, reducing them by 61-73%. See supplementary text (17) for diet compositions and sensitivity analyses and fig. S14 for alternative scenarios. Consumers can play another important role by avoiding high-impact producers. We consider a second scenario where consumption of each animal product is halved by replacing production with above-median GHG emissions with vegetable equivalents. This achieves 73% of the previous scenario’s GHG reduction and 67, 64, and 55% of the land use, acidification, and eutrophication reductions. Further, lowering consumption of more discretionary products (oils, sugar, alcohol, and stimulants) by 20% by avoiding production with the highest land use reduces the land use of these products by 39% on average. For emissions, the reductions are 31 to 46%, and for scarcity- weighted freshwater withdrawals, 87%. Communicating average product impacts to consumers enables dietary change and should be pursued. Though dietary change is realistic for any individual, widespread behavioral change will be hard to achieve in the narrow timeframe remaining to limit global warming and prevent further, irreversible biodiversity loss. Communicating producer impacts allows access to the second scenario, which multiplies the effects of smaller consumer changes." Yes your right about the 1.5 billion figures, "MOST" grass round the world is "permanent" and we consider grass to be a "crop" just as much as arable ones are indeed much of the grass grown in most parts of the world are grown in a arable rotation, but the source I quoted counts grass differently, however the figure this report uses of 370sqrmts of land per 100 grms of protein would need 8.75 billion hectares to produce, the figures for total land being used for agriculture range from 4.2 to 5.6 depending on which source( strange how these experts cant seem to count). Even if you take the highest figure its nowhere near the amount needed to rear the 70 millions tonnes of beef reared last year. NO one is arguing that beef has an impact on climate change everything we do does, my argument is that reports likke this are rubbish, he has used a figure that might have some accuracy if you grazed an animal in a arid region and extrapolated it over every square inch of the agriculltural land in the world. Its lazy science or perhaps he is just trying to make a point, if yoou think he is right then show us some figures that you have worked out, it cant be hard if a simple tractor driving bumking can do it
Oh. Wow.
Actually, you have been arguing that beef does not have an impact on climate change.
That section is referring to how large a variation there is between the best and worst use of resource. The 370 sqm of land refers to the worst 10%
"Immediately apparent in our results is the high variation in
impact among both products and producers. Ninetieth-percentile GHG emissions of beef are 105kg
of CO2eq per 100g of protein, and land use (area multiplied by years occupied) is 370 m2
·year.
These values are 12 and 50 times greater than 10th-percentile dairy beef impacts (which we report
separately given that its production is tied to milk demand). Tenth-percentile GHG emissions and
land use of dairy beef are then 36 and 6 times greater than those of peas. High variation within and
between protein-rich products is also manifest in acidification, eutrophication, and water use."
Confirmation bias anyone?
Guess what it is hard to measure the amount of land used. It is an estimate. It is not known
Where have I said it doesnt have an impact, what I have said and will keep saying his figures are bollocks as I have shown you several times
You didn't say that. It seemed that you were implying that a diet change wouldn't make much difference.
You certainly have not shown that the methodology of the research team was flawed.
You are welcome to keep trying.
I have shown a couple of times why his figures are flawed you just dont want to see it, i posted whats figures I was using-his and then just multiplied them up showing how I arrived at them,just do the maths yourself and show me im wrong"No. You did some worst case calculations and said they were wrong. They are. The data and the analysis are more complicated than that. Have a look at it. Why do you think it took the team 4 years? Are they too dumb or biased and their peer reviews equally so to spot glaring errors that you have in a skim read of it? | |||
| |||
" "His" figures don't state that. 1.5 billion hectares are currently used for crop production and more than twice that (another 3.5+ billion) for animal farming. What are you even looking at? "Mitigation through consumers Today, and probably into the future, dietary change can deliver environmental benefits on a scale not achievable by producers. Moving from current diets to a diet that excludes animal products (table S13) (35) has transformative potential, reducing food’s land use by 3.1 (2.8-3.3) billion hectares (a 76% reduction), including a 19% reduction in arable land; food’s GHG emissions by 6.6 (5.5-7.4) billion metric tons of CO2eq (a 49% reduction); acidification by 50% (45-54%); eutrophication by 49% (37-56%); and scarcity-weighted freshwater withdrawals by 19% (-5 to 32%) for a 2010 reference year. The ranges are based on producing new vegetable proteins with impacts between the 10th- and 90th-percentile impacts of existing production. For the United States, where per capita meat consumption is three times the global average, dietary change has the potential for a far greater effect on food’s different emissions, reducing them by 61-73%. See supplementary text (17) for diet compositions and sensitivity analyses and fig. S14 for alternative scenarios. Consumers can play another important role by avoiding high-impact producers. We consider a second scenario where consumption of each animal product is halved by replacing production with above-median GHG emissions with vegetable equivalents. This achieves 73% of the previous scenario’s GHG reduction and 67, 64, and 55% of the land use, acidification, and eutrophication reductions. Further, lowering consumption of more discretionary products (oils, sugar, alcohol, and stimulants) by 20% by avoiding production with the highest land use reduces the land use of these products by 39% on average. For emissions, the reductions are 31 to 46%, and for scarcity- weighted freshwater withdrawals, 87%. Communicating average product impacts to consumers enables dietary change and should be pursued. Though dietary change is realistic for any individual, widespread behavioral change will be hard to achieve in the narrow timeframe remaining to limit global warming and prevent further, irreversible biodiversity loss. Communicating producer impacts allows access to the second scenario, which multiplies the effects of smaller consumer changes." Yes your right about the 1.5 billion figures, "MOST" grass round the world is "permanent" and we consider grass to be a "crop" just as much as arable ones are indeed much of the grass grown in most parts of the world are grown in a arable rotation, but the source I quoted counts grass differently, however the figure this report uses of 370sqrmts of land per 100 grms of protein would need 8.75 billion hectares to produce, the figures for total land being used for agriculture range from 4.2 to 5.6 depending on which source( strange how these experts cant seem to count). Even if you take the highest figure its nowhere near the amount needed to rear the 70 millions tonnes of beef reared last year. NO one is arguing that beef has an impact on climate change everything we do does, my argument is that reports likke this are rubbish, he has used a figure that might have some accuracy if you grazed an animal in a arid region and extrapolated it over every square inch of the agriculltural land in the world. Its lazy science or perhaps he is just trying to make a point, if yoou think he is right then show us some figures that you have worked out, it cant be hard if a simple tractor driving bumking can do it
Oh. Wow.
Actually, you have been arguing that beef does not have an impact on climate change.
That section is referring to how large a variation there is between the best and worst use of resource. The 370 sqm of land refers to the worst 10%
"Immediately apparent in our results is the high variation in
impact among both products and producers. Ninetieth-percentile GHG emissions of beef are 105kg
of CO2eq per 100g of protein, and land use (area multiplied by years occupied) is 370 m2
·year.
These values are 12 and 50 times greater than 10th-percentile dairy beef impacts (which we report
separately given that its production is tied to milk demand). Tenth-percentile GHG emissions and
land use of dairy beef are then 36 and 6 times greater than those of peas. High variation within and
between protein-rich products is also manifest in acidification, eutrophication, and water use."
Confirmation bias anyone?
Guess what it is hard to measure the amount of land used. It is an estimate. It is not known
Where have I said it doesnt have an impact, what I have said and will keep saying his figures are bollocks as I have shown you several times
You didn't say that. It seemed that you were implying that a diet change wouldn't make much difference.
You certainly have not shown that the methodology of the research team was flawed.
You are welcome to keep trying.
I have shown a couple of times why his figures are flawed you just dont want to see it, i posted whats figures I was using-his and then just multiplied them up showing how I arrived at them,just do the maths yourself and show me im wrong
No. You did some worst case calculations and said they were wrong. They are. The data and the analysis are more complicated than that.
Have a look at it.
Why do you think it took the team 4 years?
Are they too dumb or biased and their peer reviews equally so to spot glaring errors that you have in a skim read of it?"yes of course the figures are worse case but the ones he puts for growing peas are best case and he uses the figures to imply that all beef is as bad as he says and peas are as good as he says. That just shows bias plain and simple | |||
" "His" figures don't state that. 1.5 billion hectares are currently used for crop production and more than twice that (another 3.5+ billion) for animal farming. What are you even looking at? "Mitigation through consumers Today, and probably into the future, dietary change can deliver environmental benefits on a scale not achievable by producers. Moving from current diets to a diet that excludes animal products (table S13) (35) has transformative potential, reducing food’s land use by 3.1 (2.8-3.3) billion hectares (a 76% reduction), including a 19% reduction in arable land; food’s GHG emissions by 6.6 (5.5-7.4) billion metric tons of CO2eq (a 49% reduction); acidification by 50% (45-54%); eutrophication by 49% (37-56%); and scarcity-weighted freshwater withdrawals by 19% (-5 to 32%) for a 2010 reference year. The ranges are based on producing new vegetable proteins with impacts between the 10th- and 90th-percentile impacts of existing production. For the United States, where per capita meat consumption is three times the global average, dietary change has the potential for a far greater effect on food’s different emissions, reducing them by 61-73%. See supplementary text (17) for diet compositions and sensitivity analyses and fig. S14 for alternative scenarios. Consumers can play another important role by avoiding high-impact producers. We consider a second scenario where consumption of each animal product is halved by replacing production with above-median GHG emissions with vegetable equivalents. This achieves 73% of the previous scenario’s GHG reduction and 67, 64, and 55% of the land use, acidification, and eutrophication reductions. Further, lowering consumption of more discretionary products (oils, sugar, alcohol, and stimulants) by 20% by avoiding production with the highest land use reduces the land use of these products by 39% on average. For emissions, the reductions are 31 to 46%, and for scarcity- weighted freshwater withdrawals, 87%. Communicating average product impacts to consumers enables dietary change and should be pursued. Though dietary change is realistic for any individual, widespread behavioral change will be hard to achieve in the narrow timeframe remaining to limit global warming and prevent further, irreversible biodiversity loss. Communicating producer impacts allows access to the second scenario, which multiplies the effects of smaller consumer changes." Yes your right about the 1.5 billion figures, "MOST" grass round the world is "permanent" and we consider grass to be a "crop" just as much as arable ones are indeed much of the grass grown in most parts of the world are grown in a arable rotation, but the source I quoted counts grass differently, however the figure this report uses of 370sqrmts of land per 100 grms of protein would need 8.75 billion hectares to produce, the figures for total land being used for agriculture range from 4.2 to 5.6 depending on which source( strange how these experts cant seem to count). Even if you take the highest figure its nowhere near the amount needed to rear the 70 millions tonnes of beef reared last year. NO one is arguing that beef has an impact on climate change everything we do does, my argument is that reports likke this are rubbish, he has used a figure that might have some accuracy if you grazed an animal in a arid region and extrapolated it over every square inch of the agriculltural land in the world. Its lazy science or perhaps he is just trying to make a point, if yoou think he is right then show us some figures that you have worked out, it cant be hard if a simple tractor driving bumking can do it
Oh. Wow.
Actually, you have been arguing that beef does not have an impact on climate change.
That section is referring to how large a variation there is between the best and worst use of resource. The 370 sqm of land refers to the worst 10%
"Immediately apparent in our results is the high variation in
impact among both products and producers. Ninetieth-percentile GHG emissions of beef are 105kg
of CO2eq per 100g of protein, and land use (area multiplied by years occupied) is 370 m2
·year.
These values are 12 and 50 times greater than 10th-percentile dairy beef impacts (which we report
separately given that its production is tied to milk demand). Tenth-percentile GHG emissions and
land use of dairy beef are then 36 and 6 times greater than those of peas. High variation within and
between protein-rich products is also manifest in acidification, eutrophication, and water use."
Confirmation bias anyone?
Guess what it is hard to measure the amount of land used. It is an estimate. It is not known
Where have I said it doesnt have an impact, what I have said and will keep saying his figures are bollocks as I have shown you several times
You didn't say that. It seemed that you were implying that a diet change wouldn't make much difference.
You certainly have not shown that the methodology of the research team was flawed.
You are welcome to keep trying.
I have shown a couple of times why his figures are flawed you just dont want to see it, i posted whats figures I was using-his and then just multiplied them up showing how I arrived at them,just do the maths yourself and show me im wrong
No. You did some worst case calculations and said they were wrong. They are. The data and the analysis are more complicated than that.
Have a look at it.
Why do you think it took the team 4 years?
Are they too dumb or biased and their peer reviews equally so to spot glaring errors that you have in a skim read of it?
yes of course the figures are worse case but the ones he puts for growing peas are best case and he uses the figures to imply that all beef is as bad as he says and peas are as good as he says.
That just shows bias plain and simple"Really? Peas?
Mentioned twice in the entire report and as a vegetable protein source compared to best and worst cattle keeping methods.
Elsewhere, average vegetable crops were used as a comparison to indicate how much best and worst practise varies in animal output.
You are perfectly demonstrating confirmation bias. Seeking out the details that you think back your position whilst ignoring the bulk of the data because it does not suit. | |||
