Jump to content

Igloo Won't Pay For Your Meat Expenses

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, apelike said:

Mmm... That may be how it is now but what I am arguing is that a big increase in vegetarianism may also make a big difference in the long term. A lot of vegetables on a calorie to calorie comparison with meat actually require more resources in terms of energy and water usage alone and can result in more emissions, and Rice is a prime example. Protein is also needed in a diet and meat is a good source for protein.

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

 

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

Share this post


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

Mmm... That may be how it is now but what I am arguing is that a big increase in vegetarianism may also make a big difference in the long term. A lot of vegetables on a calorie to calorie comparison with meat actually require more resources in terms of energy and water usage alone and can result in more emissions, and Rice is a prime example. Protein is also needed in a diet and meat is a good source for protein.

 

Consuming less meat is a good thing but it's not as simple as stating stop eating meat and save the planet as other factors come into play.

 

 

Me bolded.. With that I agree :) Something Igloo seems to not bother about.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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
Posted (edited)
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
7 hours 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.

 

That's just an idle ad hominem argument.  You could just as easily say that the people who are putting forward the alternative viewpoint are militant carnivores.

 

1 hour ago, carosio said:

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

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.

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

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.