[Misc] Veganism

[FatSuperman]

Energy is never "lost", ever, it's just converted to something e.g. noise/heat that's not useful.

Indeed. We aren't losing the energy that is going into the cows. It's being converted to heat and unused cow parts.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Some of the comments are ridiculous. We aren't talking about Inuits being an issue here. You always hear these same tired old arguments "vegans never mention the inuits". "What about all that land wasted by growing plants, which aren't calorie/protein/iron/etc dense??".

It's all bollocks. It is simply INEFFICIENT to convert plant energy to animal energy to food energy. All other arguments about land use are just fluff. I'm not trying to preach to people to eat less meat, that's a waste of time. But I can't stand these nonsense arguments against a plant-based diet.

If you consider all of the arable land on the planet, then if we all had a typical US-omnivore diet, the planet could sustain around 2.5 billion people. If we used it all for plants, it would feed somewhere closer to 10 billion.

View attachment 104151

How do you fertilise the soil after the first few harvests? Soil gets depleted as it gives nutrients to the plants, but those nutrients need to be replaced.

 

[beorhthelm]

If you consider all of the arable land on the planet, then if we all had a typical US-omnivore diet, the planet could sustain around 2.5 billion people. If we used it all for plants, it would feed somewhere closer to 10 billion.

trouble with stats is they dont show topology very well. an awful lot of land under "agriculture" isnt effectively farmable unless it has a population of roaming ruminants on it, and only counts in that category because it does from time to time.

another interesting take from that infographic is how much land is given over to animals that another poster claims are shackled in sheds. big sheds.

 

[Bakero]

The distinguished medical journal The Lancet has issued not one but two apocalyptic warnings about our food in under a month. One of its special commissions reported earlier this month that civilisation itself was at risk from the effects of the current food system on both human health and the Earth’s ecosystems. This week comes the next instalment from another special Lancet commission which finds that pandemics of obesity and malnutrition are interacting with climate change in a feedback loop and represent an existential threat to humans and the planet. The modern western diet has become a highly damaging thing that needs a complete overhaul if we are to avoid potential ecological catastrophe. It concluded that we need to halve global meat consumption, and more than double the volume of whole grains, pulses, nuts, fruit and vegetables we eat.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-killing-humans-planet-climate-change-obesity

From the same article:

The evidence that our diets are the largest cause of climate change and biodiversity loss is now overwhelming. The global food system is responsible for up to 30% of total greenhouse gas emissions, the livestock sector on its own accounting for about half of that total or 14.5%. The modern western way of eating is also making very large numbers of people fat and sick as other parts of the world adopt it. Diet-related diseases now cause roughly 11 million deaths a year as preventable cancers, heart disease and strokes, obesity and diabetes have spread along with our way of eating. More than 800 million people are estimated to be chronically undernourished, and 2 billion suffer from micronutrient deficiencies, yet at the same time 2 billion are overweight or obese. In poorer counties you can even find obesity and stunting within the same family as calorie-heavy but nutrient-light processed industrialised foods are adopted.

 

[FatSuperman]

trouble with stats is they dont show topology very well. an awful lot of land under "agriculture" isnt effectively farmable unless it has a population of roaming ruminants on it, and only counts in that category because it does from time to time.

another interesting take from that infographic is how much land is given over to animals that another poster claims are shackled in sheds. big sheds.

Aside from Europe, most cattle are fattened in huge pens. Normally not indoor though, it's waste of money to build a roof for them when they don't really need to be sheltered, aside from when it gets too hot etc. So they'll spend half of their lives in those big plots, being fattened up. That inforgraphic includes the land used for grazing and for the production of the food they need to be fed.

There are 3.5 billion ruminants on the planet, and 75 million of those are non-domesticated (or roaming ruminants as you put it). Why are you fixated on a tiny proportion of creatures that are clearly not the big issue?

 

[FatSuperman]

another interesting take from that infographic is how much land is given over to animals that another poster claims are shackled in sheds. big sheds.

Some good images on here - stitched from google earth / publicly available satellite images.

https://mishkahenner.com/Feedlots

 

[beorhthelm]

Aside from Europe, most cattle are fattened in huge pens. Normally not indoor though, it's waste of money to build a roof for them when they don't really need to be sheltered, aside from when it gets too hot etc. So they'll spend half of their lives in those big plots, being fattened up. That inforgraphic includes the land used for grazing and for the production of the food they need to be fed.

There are 3.5 billion ruminants on the planet, and 75 million of those are non-domesticated (or roaming ruminants as you put it). Why are you fixated on a tiny proportion of creatures that are clearly not the big issue?

i was refering to all grazing livestock as roaming ruminants, not the indigenous animal populations. point was that the "agricultral land" covers a field that might have a few sheep in, i.e. the downland of Sussex, hill farms across the world that will never be suitable for anything else (except forests, accepted we could return a lot of forest). it distorts the amount of agriculture that is not human consumed crops. going back to an earlier point of yours, i agree that growing food for animals is not very efficient, we do so for commercial reasons to grow quicker/fatter than we necessarily need to for the sake of some nice good quality, nutritious meat product. and thats a shame because getting rid of animal feed would probably be better over all than getting rid of meat.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

Veganism is not good for the planet. Grassland is the world’s most important carbon sink existong only to graze farmed animals and would be ploughed up if the world went vegan. This would be catastrophic for climate change. Less intensive and organic farming relies on a mixed (livestock and crops) farming system to maintain soil fertility. Veganism would lead to an increase in the use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides and a deterioration in soil health.

Sadly the vegan society and others have politicised their beliefs by turning them into a campaign. As always, politics leads to only the telling of half the story and only the half that suits your cause.

The most conclusive studies ever between environment and diet were done last year by the UN , Oxford and Hardvard. Both studies concluded that the biggest impact an individual can have to help save the environment is to go vegan. The available science backs a vegan lifestyle. But you’re suggesting that these reputable studies and reputable organisations are lying?

 

[FatSuperman]

i was refering to all grazing livestock as roaming ruminants, not the indigenous animal populations. point was that the "agricultral land" covers a field that might have a few sheep in, i.e. the downland of Sussex, hill farms across the world that will never be suitable for anything else (except forests, accepted we could return a lot of forest). it distorts the amount of agriculture that is not human consumed crops. going back to an earlier point of yours, i agree that growing food for animals is not very efficient, we do so for commercial reasons to grow quicker/fatter than we necessarily need to for the sake of some nice good quality, nutritious meat product. and thats a shame because getting rid of animal feed would probably be better over all than getting rid of meat.

I'm under the impression that the problem will take care of itself to be honest. As developing nations continue to move toward a more western diet, the cost of animal products will start going up. It will eventually end with plant-based alternatives being so cheap by comparison, that those will become more popular. Obviously it's still going to be mostly rich western countries eating most of the meat, and these pesky newcomers having to eat most of the plant-based alternatives. But over time it should start to even out.

Except in America.

 

[Horses Arse]

The distinguished medical journal The Lancet has issued not one but two apocalyptic warnings about our food in under a month. One of its special commissions reported earlier this month that civilisation itself was at risk from the effects of the current food system on both human health and the Earth’s ecosystems. This week comes the next instalment from another special Lancet commission which finds that pandemics of obesity and malnutrition are interacting with climate change in a feedback loop and represent an existential threat to humans and the planet. The modern western diet has become a highly damaging thing that needs a complete overhaul if we are to avoid potential ecological catastrophe. It concluded that we need to halve global meat consumption, and more than double the volume of whole grains, pulses, nuts, fruit and vegetables we eat.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-killing-humans-planet-climate-change-obesity

From the same article:

The evidence that our diets are the largest cause of climate change and biodiversity loss is now overwhelming. The global food system is responsible for up to 30% of total greenhouse gas emissions, the livestock sector on its own accounting for about half of that total or 14.5%. The modern western way of eating is also making very large numbers of people fat and sick as other parts of the world adopt it. Diet-related diseases now cause roughly 11 million deaths a year as preventable cancers, heart disease and strokes, obesity and diabetes have spread along with our way of eating. More than 800 million people are estimated to be chronically undernourished, and 2 billion suffer from micronutrient deficiencies, yet at the same time 2 billion are overweight or obese. In poorer counties you can even find obesity and stunting within the same family as calorie-heavy but nutrient-light processed industrialised foods are adopted.

Rubbish. Absolute tosh. That's not what NSC says so I'm discounting all that old bollocks out of hand. Bloody amateurs.

 

[Bakero]

The most conclusive studies ever between environment and diet were done last year by the UN , Oxford and Hardvard. Both studies concluded that the biggest impact an individual can have to help save the environment is to go vegan. The available science backs a vegan lifestyle. But you’re suggesting that these reputable studies and reputable organisations are lying?

I bet the studies were funded by a cabal of wealthy vegan industrialists desperate to promote their spurious agenda.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Strikes me as a pretty miserable existence having to invest so much angst and research into every single thing you eat. Life's WAY too short non?

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

I bet the studies were funded by a cabal of wealthy vegan industrialists desperate to promote their spurious agenda.

Yeah. That must be it. Nothing to do with the fact our planet is in crisis

 

[abc]

How do you fertilise the soil after the first few harvests? Soil gets depleted as it gives nutrients to the plants, but those nutrients need to be replaced.

This.

This is why we need a balanced mixed farming approach to food production to look after our soils. This is the only route to sustainability with any other approach meaning depleted soils and greater and greater use of fossil fuel based fertilisers and pesticides which will only exacerbate climate change as well as continuing the wider environmental damage we, as humans, have been responsible for.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Quite amusing how suddenly nobody's boring old vegetarian any more, it's vegan or it's nothing at all.

New twist for the social media age on the same old virtue signalling.

 

[abc]

Interesting article relating to Californian forests, droughts and alternative land uses. All interesting stuff. Not sure how that is an argument for veganism not being good for the planet though; it is better for the planet than a high meat diet

Added it more to support the status of grassland as a carbon sink which has been been described as bollocks earlier in this thread!


[/QUOTE]Eating in moderation, not eating meat 3 times a day, thinking about what you do and how you travel in addition to how you eat are all key issues in terms of protecting the environment.[/QUOTE]

100% agree. Also how we produce the food that do eat and this is of far greater importance, in my opinion, than whether or not meat or dairy is part of that diet.

 

[BrickTamland]

Strikes me as a pretty miserable existence having to invest so much angst and research into every single thing you eat. Life's WAY too short non?

It really doesn't take that much time, once you've done it for a little while it becomes second nature.

 

[Bakero]

Quite amusing how suddenly nobody's boring old vegetarian any more, it's vegan or it's nothing at all.

New twist for the social media age on the same old virtue signalling.

Caring about your health, animal welfare and/or the survival of the planet is virtue signalling?

 

[beorhthelm]

Quite amusing how suddenly nobody's boring old vegetarian any more, it's vegan or it's nothing at all.

New twist for the social media age on the same old virtue signalling.

vegetarian is too easy, veganism is hard so must be more virtuous.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

It really doesn't take that much time, once you've done it for a little while it becomes second nature.

Fair play. In your own house, maybe. What if you're a stranger in a strange town and just fancy a takeaway, or you're on holiday in, say, Crete or China? You're going to have to spend half your waking life on Google, and even then the eating establishment you select is likely to tell you any old thing you want to hear. Even McDonald's in the UK appear incapable of keeping chicken out of their vegan wraps.Like I say, life's WAY too short.