all posts post new thread

Nutrition 'The Game Changers' Documentary

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
It's more of a hypothetical scenario. But if we did, within a couple of years, the livestock would be gone, able land would now be in excess, so soil could be rested, regenerated, and used for directly feeding humans. Reforestation could begin. Wildlife habitat could be restored. In areas of the American West that were used for grazing but have been restored the difference is amazing. What was once barren and desert like turns back into healthy, natural landscape in a few years.

Climate change is about more than carbon. The emissions from livestock have a much more powerful greenhouse effect than carbon, but are also more short lived. Changing our food supply would have a quick and dramatic effect.

Changing the eating habits of a significant proportion of the world's population away from animal based to diets to plant based is like trying to steer the Titanic away from that iceberg. Based on my experience of the resistance people have, I'm very pessimistic that anything will change until we are truly forced too.
 
Not to sound too nit picky or standoffish, but if I can't have a steak because of climate change maybe do away with nascar and all the other "sports" like it. How much fuel and tires and oil are wasted in a single race? Multiply that by how many races are held each year from around the world. And that's just stock car races.
 
HUNTER1313 said:
Not to sound too nit picky or standoffish, but if I can't have a steak because of climate change maybe do away with nascar and all the other "sports" like it. How much fuel and tires and oil are wasted in a single race? Multiply that by how many races are held each year from around the world. And that's just stock car races.
Click to expand...
That’s not sUsTaInAbLe enough for The Powers That Be.
 
HUNTER1313 said:
Not to sound too nit picky or standoffish, but if I can't have a steak because of climate change maybe do away with nascar and all the other "sports" like it. How much fuel and tires and oil are wasted in a single race? Multiply that by how many races are held each year from around the world. And that's just stock car races.
Click to expand...

I believe its coming...
Not to get too far off topic, but it increasingly looks as though many of the models are being born out in real-time. Was 60 deg F here on Jan 10 in upstate NY.

Looking back at local weather records last Summer because I couldn't believe how high the overnight lows were becoming. For an entire month they were over 10 deg higher than they were 15 years ago. This is the kind of change that can have folks losing their appetite for anything liable to make it worse. We are close...
 
vegpedlr said:
It's more of a hypothetical scenario. But if we did, within a couple of years, the livestock would be gone, able land would now be in excess, so soil could be rested, regenerated, and used for directly feeding humans. Reforestation could begin. Wildlife habitat could be restored. In areas of the American West that were used for grazing but have been restored the difference is amazing. What was once barren and desert like turns back into healthy, natural landscape in a few years.
Click to expand...

This is indeed a hypothetical scenario. I would say a utopian one. The trouble with predictions like these is that they are impossible to verify.

I don't know very much about agriculture, but see enough when I go hunting on farmers' properties. I have made a few random observations. First - being vegan for ethical reasons is an oxymoron. Farmers specifically ask you to shoot animals they consider pests. An average Australian farmer shoots several hundred kangaroos a year. The same for deer and feral pigs. All these animals love farmed lands, and in order to produce crops you have to limit their numbers. So when you eat that slice of wholegrain organic bread or sprouted broccoli - remember that many animals died for these to be produced. Second - cows, for example, are very accomodating to the environment. For example, you can let them graze in semi-forests, and they will be fine. On the other hand, in order to cultivate crops on these lands you have to clear them of trees and prepare the soil accordingly. Pigs, goats and some breeds of sheep are even more adaptable and can survive virtually in any natural environment. Pigs are the legends of them all: you can feed them waste and old newspapers, and these animals will process it into a superior quality protein. Three - monocultures destroy the soil more than grazing animals. The interaction animals-grass-feces-soil-grass is more harmonious than soil-crops-soil-crops-soil-crops. Recent trend of rotational farming (permaculture) that tries to replicate natural environment is an attempt to overcome the drawbacks of agriculture. Apparently these methods are very efficient. There is a documentary "The Biggest Small Farm" on Netflix (something along these lines) that talks about it.
 
The inefficiency of animal agriculture means most crop land goes to feed livestock. Eliminate livestock, especially on the industrial level currently practiced, and you free up a tremendous amount of land that would no longer need to be cultivated. It could be put to other uses.

The ethical criticism of farming's collateral damage of animals is just silly. It in no way compares to the industrial scale production of billions of animals solely for the purposes of slaughter when a better alternative is available.
 
North Coast Miller said:
Over 1,600 gallons of freshwater per lb of beef...
Click to expand...

The Environmental Impact of Beef Production in the United States: 1977 Compared With 2007 - PubMed has it at < 500. The water footprint of poultry, pork and beef: A comparative study in different countries and production systems - ScienceDirect has different numbers but covers more feeding systems, worth a look.

Check out the water consumption for making a loaf of bread or growing a watermelon. Drinking Water & Ground Water Kids' Stuff > Water Triva Facts

Now laughable as a source, but I'm lazy - check out the water consumption used to make tofu and lentils at This Is How Much Water It Takes To Make Your Favorite Foods | HuffPost

While they are not part of a balanced diet, the amount of water used to make jeans is worth looking up. Probably true for other cotton clothes as well.

When 30M bison roamed the plains 150 years ago, we sadly didn't have anybody studying water.

Hey, I think feedlot finishing is cruel and ditto for the way many animals are raised. But I think we should be recognizing what is the food and what is the production, not merging them into one.
 
Does that water per lb thing take into account how much water is need to grow the food to feed the animals or just the immediate water consumption of said animals?

What about the water involved in sewerage for disposing of their effluvia?

I'm honestly not trying to make a point here, I'm just wondering.
 
Steve A said:
The Environmental Impact of Beef Production in the United States: 1977 Compared With 2007 - PubMed has it at < 500. The water footprint of poultry, pork and beef: A comparative study in different countries and production systems - ScienceDirect has different numbers but covers more feeding systems, worth a look.

Check out the water consumption for making a loaf of bread or growing a watermelon. Drinking Water & Ground Water Kids' Stuff > Water Triva Facts

Now laughable as a source, but I'm lazy - check out the water consumption used to make tofu and lentils at This Is How Much Water It Takes To Make Your Favorite Foods | HuffPost

While they are not part of a balanced diet, the amount of water used to make jeans is worth looking up. Probably true for other cotton clothes as well.

When 30M bison roamed the plains 150 years ago, we sadly didn't have anybody studying water.

Hey, I think feedlot finishing is cruel and ditto for the way many animals are raised. But I think we should be recognizing what is the food and what is the production, not merging them into one.
Click to expand...


Here's another good breakdown:
https://waterfootprint.org/en/water...int/water-footprint-crop-and-animal-products/

It would be interesting to see a breakdown of average energy/BTUs needed to put a variety of foods on your plate. Some items have much longer cook times or require more water to clean up per macro calorie.

Sounds like research prone to cherry picking...
 
Van Der Merve said:
Ah, the drama! Looks like few more years and cows will drink up all the water on the planet, no? No.

How much water is used to make a pound of beef? | BeefResearch.ca
Click to expand...


Now I realize everything has a water bill associated with it, but an outfit that is literally funded to promote beef is maybe not so impartial a source of info?

Canadian Beef Cattle Check-off

The BCRC receives funding through the research allocation of the Canadian Beef Cattle Check-Off (also referred to as the 'national check-off'), which is used to leverage additional industry and government funding including Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s Beef Cattle Industry Science Cluster.
Click to expand...
 
Aside from the water needed to make a pound of beef, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that it is more efficient to eat something that grows on the soil, rather than feeding that same thing to a cow and then eating the cow. If I'm not mistaken, about 85% of the energy is lost when we feed and eat the cow. And making tofu probably wastes the same amount of energy compared to eating the soy directly. So we won't save the world eating tofu.

If we all become vegetarian, the world could support maybe 20.000.000.000 humans instead of the 7 billion we are now. More of us will certainly make a more beautiful planet.
 
North Coast Miller said:
Sounds like research prone to cherry picking...
Click to expand...

Yeah. And double counting. And from the links you and I have provided, considerable variation. Also with water there is mass balance, so rather than gross water used to produce, there may be a better water-centric metric to use. Agree with you about the energy analysis too.
 
Last edited:
Oscar said:
Aside from the water needed to make a pound of beef, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that it is more efficient to eat something that grows on the soil, rather than feeding that same thing to a cow and then eating the cow.
Click to expand...

It would be, but that is not done to any significant extent. Cattle are fed either what is growing on the pasture, or byproducts of other agricultural activity, with the latter much more specific to feedlot (finishing) operations.

Oscar said:
If we all become vegetarian, the world could support maybe 20.000.000.000 humans instead of the 7 billion we are now. More of us will certainly make a more beautiful planet.
Click to expand...

Surely something to contemplate.
 
In my opinion there is a huge problem with food production that somehow gets overlooked again and again. Namely - waste.

A lot of an animal is thrown away. Many people don't eat liver, kidneys, brains, heart and even many meaty body parts. I am not even talking about food being thrown away after an average dinner. Damn, you could at least collect it and use to feed pigs, but no, it is simply wasted. Compost for a garden at best, common garbage at worst.

Addressing this is much easier than trying to estimate the effect of eating less meat or actually convincing someone to go vegan.
 
I wish people stopped the argument that if someone gets paid he is wrong. Address the facts, not the persona. Do you reckon climate scientists do their research for free? You reckon many will dare to risk a career for contradicting view?

Hell, Pavel is getting paid for his books, should I trust him?
 
Last edited:
Oscar said:
Aside from the water needed to make a pound of beef, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that it is more efficient to eat something that grows on the soil, rather than feeding that same thing to a cow and then eating the cow. If I'm not mistaken, about 85% of the energy is lost when we feed and eat the cow. And making tofu probably wastes the same amount of energy compared to eating the soy directly. So we won't save the world eating tofu.

If we all become vegetarian, the world could support maybe 20.000.000.000 humans instead of the 7 billion we are now. More of us will certainly make a more beautiful planet.
Click to expand...

Well, why don't we just eat wheat grains? Straight from the fertile soil, no? Ah, they have to be processed: milled, mixed with water and baked. All of which, by the way, involves water.

Better yet, why not eat grass? While going for a walk, for example? Straight from the soil.

As far as 20,000,000,000 prediction is concerned it is just another estimation not based on any practical data. I say everyone going carnivore will be better than clearing land of forests and killing scores of living things, from mammals to insects, and chasing utopian idea. 20 billion humans will definitely not make the planet more beautiful.
 
Annual-World-Population-since-10-thousand-BCE-for-OWID.png
Folks, thanks for being pretty civil when discussing this complex subject that causes lots of emotional reactions.

Here's my contribution - imagine if the earth's population continued to grow slowly and was 700 million instead of 7 billion?

https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/...Population-since-10-thousand-BCE-for-OWID.png

-S-
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom