Jump to content
We’re excited to announce the forum is under new management! Click here for details.

Igloo Won't Pay For Your Meat Expenses

Recommended Posts

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
Posted (edited)
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
Posted (edited)
On ‎13‎/‎03‎/‎2020 at 21:28, L00b said:

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 ;) 

Hey, I was just holding out an olive branch!

 

As another example, if you guys could get into eating plague locusts on a bigger scale, that might be helpful too (though I suppose you never know what the unintended consequences might be).

 

On ‎13‎/‎03‎/‎2020 at 21:28, L00b said:

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

Well, ethical issues are not always black and white.  There's always been a certain amount of tension between animal welfare and environmental / ecological conservation, for instance.

Edited by CaptainSwing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McDonalds advertising freebies twice within this topic- what side are they on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like how the tea and coffee question goes unanswered.

 

Drinking tea and coffee damages the environment. Your company says no to it on expenses and if you have it supplied free at work, you'll be given an alternative instead. You'll agree to it though because of the environmental impact.. right?

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.