Jump to content

Igloo Won't Pay For Your Meat Expenses

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, makapaka said:

Whilst there are examples of unsustainable methods of vegetarian farming it has been established that generally it is much more sustainable than meat farming.

And the people who have established that way of thinking are vegetarians who are also the ones putting forward Igloos stance. What is not taken into account is that there are many forms of meat farming but the whole lot is being lumped together and treated the same as being bad for the environment.

 

1 hour ago, makapaka said:

so if there is more vegetarian farming than meat farming the planet will be better off.

Not necessarily as I have already pointed out. More land needed, more water needed, more fertiliser needed, more energy needed in transportation and the added risk of crop failures.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, apelike said:

And the people who have established that way of thinking are vegetarians who are also the ones putting forward Igloos stance. What is not taken into account is that there are many forms of meat farming but the whole lot is being lumped together and treated the same as being bad for the environment.

 

Not necessarily as I have already pointed out. More land needed, more water needed, more fertiliser needed, more energy needed in transportation and the added risk of crop failures.

 

This argument makes no sense. 

 

How much land is required to produce 1000g of protein by growing vegetables? How much land is required to produce 1000g of protein by rearing meat?

How much water is required to produce 1000g of protein by growing vegetables? How much water is required to produce 1000g of protein by rearing meat?

How much energy is required to produce 1000g of protein by growing vegetables? How much energy is required to produce 1000g of protein by rearing meat? 

 

The answer to all three is that on average, it requires less land, less water, and less energy to produce protein from vegetables and pulses etc than from meat. I'm sure it is possible to find exceptions to that, but that doesn't mean reducing meat consumption isn't a good thing. It demonstrably is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Robin-H said:

https://humaneherald.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/calories-and-protein-produced-per-acre-1.pdf

 

  • Soybeans are the highest producer of protein per acre at 513,066 (g)/acre
  • Soybeans, dry peas, and dry beans all yield more protein per acre than the most productive animal product, chicken for meat (163,212 g/acre)
  • Soybeans produce 314% more protein per acre than chicken
  • Soybeans are the highest producer of calories per acre at 6,271,268 (g)/acre
  • All plant-based crops (soybeans, dry beans, dry peas, lentils, wheat, and sunflower seeds) yield more calories (kcal) per acre than the most productive animal product, chicken for meat (1,496,809/acre)
  • Soybeans produce 419% more calories per acre than chicken

Thanks for that. Those plant based crops used as a source of protein for vegetarians, soybeans, dried beans, pulses, lentils etc are normally grown far afield (pun intended) and use a lot of energy just to get here so can have a negative impact. They can also have a high carb value as well opposed to zero carbs in meat and are stored and used differently in the body. Another problem is that around 90% of Soybeans grown in the USA are from Monsanto GM seeds called Roundup Ready, which is a worry in itself. The GM market is set to boom as vegetarianism increases.

 

https://www.motherjones.com/food/2014/04/superweeds-arent-only-trouble-gmo-soy/

 

That naturally biased US Humane Party article seems to focus first on chicken production per acre because chicken has the lowest protein value of the meats. It's also odd when 95% of chickens consumed in the UK are intensively reared in barns. Now, given that 95% of the UK are meat eaters how much extra vegetable matter needs to be grown to meet the demand?

 

It's not as simple as stating stop eating meat to save the planet as many other factors come into play. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

This argument makes no sense. 

 

How much land is required to produce 1000g of protein by growing vegetables? How much land is required to produce 1000g of protein by rearing meat?

How much water is required to produce 1000g of protein by growing vegetables? How much water is required to produce 1000g of protein by rearing meat?

How much energy is required to produce 1000g of protein by growing vegetables? How much energy is required to produce 1000g of protein by rearing meat? 

 

The answer to all three is that on average, it requires less land, less water, and less energy to produce protein from vegetables and pulses etc than from meat. I'm sure it is possible to find exceptions to that, but that doesn't mean reducing meat consumption isn't a good thing. It demonstrably is. 

Unfortunately the science to prove that it requires less land, less water, and less energy to produce protein from vegetables and pulses etc than from meat is sadly lacking. In fact a recent study in the US by the Carnegie Mellon University has concluded that the idea may actually be false. 

 

Reducing meat consumption is a good idea but not because of the environmental impact

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vegans probably fart more methane than meat eaters  and cows .

however let's face it he only way to  save the planet is to reduce the number of humans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, apelike said:

Unfortunately the science to prove that it requires less land, less water, and less energy to produce protein from vegetables and pulses etc than from meat is sadly lacking. In fact a recent study in the US by the Carnegie Mellon University has concluded that the idea may actually be false. 

 

Reducing meat consumption is a good idea but not because of the environmental impact

think you will struggle to find any reputable scientific source that agrees with the claim that there is not an environmental benefit in reducing meat consumption. If you can find one I would be interested to read it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, apelike said:

Thanks for that. Those plant based crops used as a source of protein for vegetarians, soybeans, dried beans, pulses, lentils etc are normally grown far afield (pun intended) and use a lot of energy just to get here so can have a negative impact. They can also have a high carb value as well opposed to zero carbs in meat and are stored and used differently in the body. Another problem is that around 90% of Soybeans grown in the USA are from Monsanto GM seeds called Roundup Ready, which is a worry in itself. The GM market is set to boom as vegetarianism increases.

 

https://www.motherjones.com/food/2014/04/superweeds-arent-only-trouble-gmo-soy/

 

That naturally biased US Humane Party article seems to focus first on chicken production per acre because chicken has the lowest protein value of the meats. It's also odd when 95% of chickens consumed in the UK are intensively reared in barns. Now, given that 95% of the UK are meat eaters how much extra vegetable matter needs to be grown to meet the demand?

 

It's not as simple as stating stop eating meat to save the planet as many other factors come into play. 

Nope. Chicken has the highest. It's why body builders are always eating chicken. 

 

https://www.nutrition.org.uk/nutritionscience/nutrients-food-and-ingredients/protein.html

 

Chicken breast (grilled without skin) 32g/100g
Beef steak (lean grilled) 31.0g/100g
Lamb chop (lean grilled) 29.2g/100g
Pork chop (lean grilled)31.6/100g

 

Edited by Robin-H

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The aroma of wild rabbit roasting in the oven whilst being  basted with stew gravy could sway even the most ardent vegetarians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, CaptainSwing said:

 

 

No, trust me, it couldn't 🤢

 

Though I suppose that this does illustrate that meat eaters can provide a useful economic or other motivation for the control of pest species.  Performing a useful ecological function, like a fungus.

Which reminds me, add mushrooms, too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, CaptainSwing said:

(...)

 

Though I suppose that this does illustrate that meat eaters can provide a useful economic or other motivation for the control of pest species.  Performing a useful ecological function, like a fungus.

Likening meat eaters to "fungi", might not be the best approach to getting them onside, for helping to keep your vegetable patch safe from bunny-eared pests ;) 

 

It's shooters you want anyway, not necessarily of the meat-eating persuasion...but what a debating can of worms that one is! :hihi:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Robin-H said:

Nope. Chicken has the highest. It's why body builders are always eating chicken. 

 

https://www.nutrition.org.uk/nutritionscience/nutrients-food-and-ingredients/protein.html

 

Chicken breast (grilled without skin) 32g/100g
Beef steak (lean grilled) 31.0g/100g
Lamb chop (lean grilled) 29.2g/100g
Pork chop (lean grilled)31.6/100g

Interesting as I had already compiled a list in which chicken protein was on average 27g per 100g raw and Beef/Pork was 35g per 100g raw so something here is not right. Mabe the raw bit make a difference.

 

Now compare your site to this site: :)

 

https://www.nutritionvalue.org/Chicken%2C_raw%2C_ground_nutritional_value.html

 

It seems to vary depending on where you get the information.

 

Still does not address the land usage issue though.

 

 

14 hours ago, CaptainSwing said:

That's just an idle ad hominem argument.  

Not really as an Igloo representative has already made their case as to why they chose to do what they did. Someone made that decision based on what they thought was right and not on what others though.

 

Quote

You could just as easily say that the people who are putting forward the alternative viewpoint are militant carnivores.

I could but I didn't!

Edited by apelike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, apelike said:

Interesting as I had already compiled a list in which chicken protein was on average 27g per 100g raw and Beef/Pork was 35g per 100g raw so something here is not right. Mabe the raw bit make a difference.

 

Now compare your site to this site: :)

 

https://www.nutritionvalue.org/Chicken%2C_raw%2C_ground_nutritional_value.html

 

It seems to vary depending on where you get the information.

 

Still does not address the land usage issue though.

 

I'm sure that the exact figures will vary slightly from site to site yes,  but I think it's generally accepted that chicken has slightly more protein per kg than beef, tho it may be different for the raw meet (tho people don't tend to eat raw beef, and never eat raw chicken!).

 

Like I said, it's why a body builder's  go to for protein is chicken rather than beef (a quarter pound of ground beef has 20 grams of protein. A skinless chicken breast boasts 52 grams of protein). 

 

But no, that doesn't directly address the land use issue, but it makes it clear that if you were choosing an animal to rear in order to get the most protein out of a certain area of land (say per acre) you'd be massively better off to go for chicken rather than beef. Just think how many chickens you could fit on an acre of land compared to how many cows.... 

 

And, as the link I provided earlier showed, you'd be even better off in terms of protein per acre if instead of meat, you planted something like soybeans instead. 

 

https://www.truthordrought.com/soybean-myths

 

"This might seem counter-intuitive, but were we to eat soya rather than meat, the clearance of natural vegetation required to supply us with the same amount of protein would decline by 94%. Producing protein from chickens requires three times as much land as protein from soybeans. Pork needs nine times, beef 32 times."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.