Is eating less meat ‘like taking 8m cars off road’?

submitted by ZephirAWT from bbc.com

all 23 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]ZephirAWT[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Is eating less meat ‘like taking 8m cars off road’?

Grains were never very nutritious. Eating grass is the last resort of any self-respecting hunter gatherer: "too much work, too little reward". What's worse, it's more environmentally demanding actually. From the same reason the people in desert or arctic areas (where the natural resources are really scarce) live from pasturage instead of agriculture. The greenhouse planting (as practiced by European countries) would be indeed possible even there - but it would also eliminate natural resources faster. The animals can concentrate proteins even from diluted plant sources, which would be solely ineffective to grow in an organized way. Do you still think, that eating of vegetables saves the nature and life environment all around us? Just think again - not only it exhausts water resources, steel and glass for greenhouses, but also most of this food is about transporting of ballast with low protein and energy value...

The taxation of meat is another greedy and imbecile proposal of technocrats, who are "ignoring", that meat is way more concentrated source of proteins than plants. The food isn't just about calories. For instance, for production of rice it's required 2552 m³ of water/ ton rice, whereas for production of one ton of poultry 3809 m³ of water is required. Therefore the production of poultry may sound like an ineffective waste of resources for someone - but the content of proteins in rice is ten times lower than in chicken meat and it consumes more water (and fertilizers) per mass unit of protein than the farming of poultry. The environmentalism has not so simple and straightforward math, as many its proponents (who are often silent lobbyist of various industrial groups - just different ones than the meat eaters) would like to see it.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 children)

Grains were never very nutritious.

Whole grains are very nutritious. Historically they're always were. Refined grains are a modern phenomenon.

Eating grass is the last resort of any self-respecting hunter gatherer: "too much work, too little reward".

They got quite good at this "last resort" of yours.

Are you sure it was a last resort?

What's worse, it's more environmentally demanding actually.

Hunter gatherers collecting wild grains doesn't damage the environment. You're thinking of agriculture. That's specifically not hunter-gatherers.

Do you still think, that eating of vegetables saves the nature and life environment all around us? Just think again - not only it exhausts water resources, steel and glass for greenhouses, but also most of this food is about transporting of ballast with low protein and energy value...

There's more transport involved in growing animal feed, transporting it to the animals, moving the animals to the slaughterhouse, moving the meat to the processing plant or butchers, and selling than taking a grain harvest straight to a cereal maker or bakery, distributing and selling, because there's fewer steps.

And it doesn't take less water, it takes more, because the animals also drink, and you still need to grow the feed.

And you don't get more energy from the meat than you do the grain. A cow doesn't break the laws of thermodynamics.

[–]ZephirAWT[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

because the animals also drink, and you still need to grow the feed

This doesn't apply to pasturage, which is on decline in Ireland, Dutch and Britain "thanks" to globalists. Actually the pasturage (like cattle of Mongols, goats and camels of Arabs, reindeers of Innuits, bizons of Indian natives) is the only sustainable agriculture we know as it doesn't need water and fertilizers and it can utilize soil of poor quality. The only problem is, it's agriculture of low intensity because it's limited by speed in which deep grass roots can drain new minerals from bedrock.

Pasturage animals essentially concentrate proteins and fats from diluted plant resources which would be otherwise ineffective to grow and collect with intensive agriculture, thus making the subsequent process more effective. Grains lack proteins and complete set of aminoacids, they're often poorly palatable and often actually prohibit the uptake of proteins and minerals from food. Grains are thus stapple food which makes you obese (excess of carbohydrates over proteins) and feeling hungry at the end.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Sure, grass fed beef/lamb releases less CO2 than grain fed.

10% beef produces out there can produce 100g of beef for as low as 9 kgCO2.

That's only slightly more than 10 times the emissions of the highest emissions from peas for 100g of protein. (same source).

[–]ZephirAWT[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

grass fed beef/lamb releases less CO2 than grain fed

This is because your numbers ignore the methane released during rotting of plants and compost production for veggies. Cows just produce methane and carbon dioxide from grass which would generate methane and carbon dioxide anyway during its annual rotting.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

This is because your numbers ignore the methane released during rotting of plants and compost production for veggies.

Most farms don't use compost, but fertilizer, and when you do plot the CH4 emissions for peas, they're insignificant.

So I'm not sure that you're correct about that claim. Do you have any evidence that CH4 has been excluded?

Cows just produce methane and carbon dioxide from grass which would generate methane and carbon dioxide anyway during its annual rotting.

Sure. Fossil fuels are the actual problem, because that's how you add extra carbon to the atmosphere that's not in circulation in the biosphere.

Nevertheless, we probably need to be looking at cheap wins at this point. Because food security and insurance costs are skyrocketing, and we're seeing increased extinctions.

[–]ZephirAWT[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Because food security and insurance costs are skyrocketing, and we're seeing increased extinctions

This is just why people in areas where resources are really scarce (arid/arctic/mountains) live just from pasturage. Animals can concentrate diluted plant sources which are ineffective to grow with intensive agriculture. Pasturage also makes grazing land more fertile. Yes, and such a production is truly least carbon dioxide demanding, we even don't need machines for to transport harvest from pastures.

We shouldn't follow mainstream ideology of globalists blindly but we should think independently.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

This is just why people in areas where resources are really scarce (arid/arctic/mountains) live just from pasturage. Animals can concentrate diluted plant sources which are ineffective to grow with intensive agriculture

The size of the human stomach isn't the limiting constraint in malnutrition. "Concentrating" nutrients in any way that loses any during the process exacerbates malnutrition. It doesn't ameliorate it.

Pasturage also makes grazing land more fertile.

Leaving a third of the farmland fallow rather than fertilize and plant reduces food production by about a third.

Yes, and such a production is truly least carbon dioxide demanding, we even don't need machines for to transport harvest from pastures.

Fertilizer manufacture, transport and spreading certainly has a carbon footprint. But there are people starving now. Dropping food production by a third shouldn't be a way of reducing emissions that we're looking at now.

[–]ZephirAWT[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

"Concentrating" nutrients in any way that loses any during the process exacerbates malnutrition.

Humans can not collect proteins from lichens, reindeers can. Even if they would do it in wasteful way, we can still profit from it. What's worse, eating plants often decreases ability of humans to digest proteins and uptake minerals from more nutritious and expensive food. This isn't wasting of resources?

Leaving a third of the farmland fallow

Grazing lands isn't fallow as pasturage still produces meat. But I'm not promoting tree-field systems here - I'm calling for wider utilization of pasturage. Now globalists want to eliminate millions of cows and many progressives applaud it despite "people are starving now" because "cows generate carbon dioxide and methane". If these cows will stop eat grass, then this grass will rot on field under formation of carbon dioxide and methane anyway every year. I don't follow this "logic".

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Humans can not collect proteins from lichens, reindeers can.

Eat a lot of reindeer do you?

Most people don't.

What's worse, eating plants often decreases ability of humans to digest proteins and uptake minerals

Okay. You've linked to an article about eating soy. It lists a stack of benefits, and a small list of disbenefits including anti-nutrients. But notes that that can be ameliorated by soaking, sprouting, or cooking.

You claim that that anti-nutrient part of soy also applies to "plants". And you say that is something that "often" occurs with plants. What's you evidence for that?

Grazing lands isn't fallow as pasturage still produces meat.

The article you linked didn't talk about grazing at sll. It was about 3 field crop rotation.

But I'm not promoting tree-field systems here - I'm calling for wider utilization of pasturage.

What's the relevance of the link to three-field systems then?

Now globalists want to eliminate millions of cows

Your link mentions 200,000 cows. And it doesn't mention globalists.

If these cows will stop eat grass, then this grass will rot on field under formation of carbon dioxide and methane anyway every year.

I imagine you run some other stock or plant some crop on the land rather than trying to get a return on investment from rotting grass.

[–]FullRetard 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Whole grains are very nutritious.

Misleading. They are only 'very' nutritious compared to refined grains.

And you don't get more energy from the meat than you do the grain. A cow doesn't break the laws of thermodynamics.

Misleading. Counting calories has nothing to do with nutrition.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Misleading. They are only 'very' nutritious compared to refined grains.

That doesn't sound right.

Do you have a source?

Misleading. Counting calories has nothing to do with nutrition.

Misleading. Counting calories has nothing to do with nutrition.

It works for proteins too. And every other nutrient, with the exception of a couple of b-vitamins, and iron.

[–]ZephirAWT[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

One can survive on plain meet diet easily whereas pure vegan diet leads to malnutrition.

But I'm not here for pushing of meat diet, but against its banning based on fringe arguments.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

One can survive on plain meet diet easily

Not easily. You'd have to eat very fresh meat, and either raw or very rare not to get of scurvy after a few weeks.

As some case studies show: https://www.self.com/story/james-blunt-scurvy

And you'd have to eat the organs as well as the muscle to get enough vitamin a. And you'd be at increased risk of colon cancer and colorectal adenoma from the lack of fiber.

vegan diet leads to malnutrition.

Fruit doesn't include grains and nuts. Vegetarians, especially vegans supplement b-12 and sometimes b-6. But because some nutcase tried to live on fruit alone doesn't mean that a vegetarian diet is insufficient.

But the article doesn't suggest going vegetarian. The headline is correct. It's talking about eating less meat.

[–]FullRetard 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Do you have a source?

You made a bullshit subjective unqualified hallmark argument. No I don't have a source to argue your verbal diarrhea. But yeah, here is the source: https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/grains-good-or-bad#whole-vs-refined

Your very nutritious whole grains only lead to 20% better outcomes (or so) COMPARED TO THE WORST 'FOOD' ON EARTH ASIDE FROM PURE SUGAR, refined grains.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You made a bullshit subjective unqualified hallmark argument.

I linked you to that article by the dietician, reviewed by another dietician. The relevant sentence is "The truth is, whole grains in particular are linked to numerous health benefits and are mostly considered very nutritious."

This contradicts, with some authority your bullshit unqualified claim that "Grains were never very nutritious."

You have supported your original claim with another bullshit unqualified claim that "They are only 'very' nutritious compared to refined grains."

Trying to imply, without evidence, that they are not nutritious compared to meat.

Obviously "No I don't have a source to argue your verbal diarrhea." Doesn't provide any accident of your claim.

So forgive me if I choose not to believe you about that.

Your very nutritious whole grains only lead to 20% better outcomes (or so) COMPARED TO THE WORST 'FOOD' ON EARTH ASIDE FROM PURE SUGAR, refined grains.

  • Where do you get this 20% (or so) figure from?
  • Outcomes for what group of people?
  • Where do you get this ranking of worst foods on earth?

[–]ZephirAWT[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Researchers found that vegetarians consuming Plant-Based Meat Alternatives (PBMAs) had a 42% increased risk of depression compared to those who did not. PBMAs are considered ultra-processed foods and may be associated with similar harms 

[–]chadwickofwv 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No, it's sacrificing your health to prevent a fake future.

[–]Brewdabier 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

And bring back DDT and other pesticides the FDA said was safe back then.

[–]chadwickofwv 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Do not bring back ddt. We do not need another "polio" crisis.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

DDT isn't regulated by the FDA. The FDA regulates drugs that are given to people.

[–]ZephirAWT[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Those who don't like cows like ingredients Guess which one is cheaper and less demanding for environment...