2lbs of Beef Produce the Greenhouse Gas Emissions of a 3hr d

haffajappa

he still stands wrote:

it seems odd to me that people decry "mass yields" like it is a bad thing... there are 6 billion people on this planet and the amount of farmland on the earth is fixed (if you agree that deforestation is a bad idea). Increased production seems to be a good thing to me...

We're closer to 7 now i think, aren't we? I heard that the other day... but anyways..
Sorry, unless its sarcasm, but why is increased population a good thing?
Although, population isn't as big of a problem as consumption is... the problem being certain countries consuming as much or more than countries with even larger populations.

Lauri

I've never understood this argument. People emit greenhouses too. We exhale CO2 and fart methane. But you can't suggest cutting down the human population to directly reduce GHG emissions. The cows are here. What is the suggestion, just kill them all off now and extinquish the species? It doesn't make sense.

Lauri

I heart Scout Niblett wrote:

Plenty of folks are appalled to see a living room light left on but would never think to trade the cheeseburger for a grilled cheese.

But, like any other decision, environmental or otherwise, there are more factors and trade-offs involved. If you're really hungry, a grilled cheese with no protein is not going to help you much. Plus, where is the cheese coming from? Cows, last I heard. And believe it or not, a meatless diet is not the healthier option for many people. I reluctantly abandoned vegetarianism when my doctor told me I may be predisposed to insulin resistance and I had to consume more fat and less soy. There's cost as well, availability, and a whole host of other issues that play into a decision like this. I don't know why the author of this article thinks people wouldn't "think" to trade a cheeseburger for a grilled cheese...even if it were just an issue of taste...they're not the same thing so talking about trading them so readily is comparing apples and oranges...this is obviously not an economic study or article.

TravisTheSky

Lauri wrote:

I reluctantly abandoned vegetarianism when my doctor told me I may be predisposed to insulin resistance and I had to consume more fat and less soy.

In order to eat more fat you added MEAT?

Gosh, I hope there is a hell of a lot more to that story which you didn't include. Just a few of the wonderful vegetarian fats are chocolate, walnuts, peanut butter, sunflower seeds, olive oil, and flax/linseed, which is one of the richest sources of Omega-3 known to man.

Several months ago, I realised that I've been allergic to soy for nearly two years. I stopped consuming it. I did not run over to the Halal butcher and fill my face with flesh.

he still stands

haffajappa wrote:

he still stands wrote:

it seems odd to me that people decry "mass yields" like it is a bad thing... there are 6 billion people on this planet and the amount of farmland on the earth is fixed (if you agree that deforestation is a bad idea). Increased production seems to be a good thing to me...

We're closer to 7 now i think, aren't we? I heard that the other day... but anyways..
Sorry, unless its sarcasm, but why is increased population a good thing?
Although, population isn't as big of a problem as consumption is... the problem being certain countries consuming as much or more than countries with even larger populations.

I said increased crop yields are a good thing... not increased population. Food Inc. and others connote that phrase (mass yields) with an inflection of demonology and conspiracy, yet there are over 1 billion people on this planet that are hungry. Yes, I know the biggest problem is distribution, but an increased supply makes it cheaper for people on the fringe of the "hungry" to eat.

I don't understand your comment "population isn't as big of a problem as consumption is"... Don't you think consumption is the effect and population is the cause?

Byrnzie

Holy cow! :shock:

Byrnzie

he still stands wrote:

I don't understand your comment "population isn't as big of a problem as consumption is"... Don't you think consumption is the effect and population is the cause?

Perhaps we need to consider factors such as over-consumption and waste.

After all, there's a big difference between this:



and this:

he still stands

Sure, but how do you plan to fix that problem? Sin tax on cheeseburgers?

polaris_x

PJPOWER wrote:

Stop drinking the kookaid. Every farmer I talk to talks about how hard it is to yeild even 50% of what they could otherwise because of the "organic restrictions". It's just flat out impractical. Weeds take over the crops, insects eat the crops, and the produce doesn't last as long at market! I have seen no conclusive studies stating that an organic tomato is more nutricious, in fact, most studies say that they have the same nutrients...the only difference is how they are grown!
"Most experts agree, however, that the amount of pesticides found on fruits and vegetables poses a very small health risk."-MayoClinic http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/organi ... IONGROUP=2

the USDA only sets farming practices - it doesn't do any studies on nutrient content so, they wouldn't be the source for that ... although the body of evidence on this is limited and not very deep at this moment - in many studies - it shows organic produce to contain more nutrients than conventional produce ... the only issue is that nothing is conclusive for various reasons ...

Environment. Some people buy organic food for environmental reasons. Organic farming practices are designed to benefit the environment by reducing pollution and conserving water and soil.

as for pesticides - factor in their impact on the ecosystems such as water and fish and it takes on a much larger context than simply what is present in the food we eat ...

polaris_x

he still stands wrote:

I said increased crop yields are a good thing... not increased population. Food Inc. and others connote that phrase (mass yields) with an inflection of demonology and conspiracy, yet there are over 1 billion people on this planet that are hungry. Yes, I know the biggest problem is distribution, but an increased supply makes it cheaper for people on the fringe of the "hungry" to eat.

I don't understand your comment "population isn't as big of a problem as consumption is"... Don't you think consumption is the effect and population is the cause?

yields cannot be the variable by which you judge an agriculture system ... sustainability must be ... by focusing on maximizing yields - you simply sacrifice something else for one singular purpose ...

if we look at where the populations are that lack food (3rd world countries) - you'll find drought as a significant factor in their ability to grow food ... something that is related to deforestation and climate change ... nothing works in isolation - saying the solution to a food shortage is to grow more food is akin to saying we have a debt therefore let's print more money ... there are consequences

haffajappa

he still stands wrote:

haffajappa wrote:

he still stands wrote:

it seems odd to me that people decry "mass yields" like it is a bad thing... there are 6 billion people on this planet and the amount of farmland on the earth is fixed (if you agree that deforestation is a bad idea). Increased production seems to be a good thing to me...

We're closer to 7 now i think, aren't we? I heard that the other day... but anyways..
Sorry, unless its sarcasm, but why is increased population a good thing?
Although, population isn't as big of a problem as consumption is... the problem being certain countries consuming as much or more than countries with even larger populations.

I said increased crop yields are a good thing... not increased population. Food Inc. and others connote that phrase (mass yields) with an inflection of demonology and conspiracy, yet there are over 1 billion people on this planet that are hungry. Yes, I know the biggest problem is distribution, but an increased supply makes it cheaper for people on the fringe of the "hungry" to eat.

I don't understand your comment "population isn't as big of a problem as consumption is"... Don't you think consumption is the effect and population is the cause?

woops sorry! must have been tired thought production said population.

in regards to the second question,
the usa consumes more than china does, doesnt it?

haffajappa

Byrnzie wrote:

he still stands wrote:

I don't understand your comment "population isn't as big of a problem as consumption is"... Don't you think consumption is the effect and population is the cause?

Perhaps we need to consider factors such as over-consumption and waste.

After all, there's a big difference between this:



and this:

Bingo.
don't even need words to explain it.

haffajappa

polaris_x wrote:

he still stands wrote:

I said increased crop yields are a good thing... not increased population. Food Inc. and others connote that phrase (mass yields) with an inflection of demonology and conspiracy, yet there are over 1 billion people on this planet that are hungry. Yes, I know the biggest problem is distribution, but an increased supply makes it cheaper for people on the fringe of the "hungry" to eat.

I don't understand your comment "population isn't as big of a problem as consumption is"... Don't you think consumption is the effect and population is the cause?

yields cannot be the variable by which you judge an agriculture system ... sustainability must be ... by focusing on maximizing yields - you simply sacrifice something else for one singular purpose ...

if we look at where the populations are that lack food (3rd world countries) - you'll find drought as a significant factor in their ability to grow food ... something that is related to deforestation and climate change ... nothing works in isolation - saying the solution to a food shortage is to grow more food is akin to saying we have a debt therefore let's print more money ... there are consequences

that was kind of one of the themes in Ishmael wasn't it? more food = more people = more people to feed

polaris_x

haffajappa wrote:

that was kind of one of the themes in Ishmael wasn't it? more food = more people = more people to feed

it's been a while since i read that book ... in the end - it's a complex issue ... i do believe that the planet can sustain all life currently - we simply need to appreciate the concept of sustainability ... our current methods for doing practically everything is not sustainable ...

Kel Varnsen

polaris_x wrote:

PJPOWER wrote:

Stop drinking the kookaid. Every farmer I talk to talks about how hard it is to yeild even 50% of what they could otherwise because of the "organic restrictions". It's just flat out impractical. Weeds take over the crops, insects eat the crops, and the produce doesn't last as long at market! I have seen no conclusive studies stating that an organic tomato is more nutricious, in fact, most studies say that they have the same nutrients...the only difference is how they are grown!
"Most experts agree, however, that the amount of pesticides found on fruits and vegetables poses a very small health risk."-MayoClinic http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/organi ... IONGROUP=2

Environment. Some people buy organic food for environmental reasons. Organic farming practices are designed to benefit the environment by reducing pollution and conserving water and soil.

Actually I have read that since there is limited farm land to begin with and organic farming produces less food, then odds are if you are buying organic it is going to come from father away then if you just bought regular locally grown produce. Cracked.com of all places did an article that included the reasons why organic farming isn't better than regular farming.

http://www.cracked.com/article_17084_5-ways-people-are-trying-save-world-that-dont-work.html

polaris_x

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Actually I have read that since there is limited farm land to begin with and organic farming produces less food, then odds are if you are buying organic it is going to come from father away then if you just bought regular locally grown produce. Cracked.com of all places did an article that included the reasons why organic farming isn't better than regular farming.

http://www.cracked.com/article_17084_5-ways-people-are-trying-save-world-that-dont-work.html

it depends on where you live and the season ... for sure in the winter - if you want organics - it's coming from far away ... but then again - so, is a lot of our food at that stage ... i do choose local over organic for the most part ...

haffajappa

polaris_x wrote:

Kel Varnsen wrote:

Actually I have read that since there is limited farm land to begin with and organic farming produces less food, then odds are if you are buying organic it is going to come from father away then if you just bought regular locally grown produce. Cracked.com of all places did an article that included the reasons why organic farming isn't better than regular farming.

http://www.cracked.com/article_17084_5-ways-people-are-trying-save-world-that-dont-work.html

it depends on where you live and the season ... for sure in the winter - if you want organics - it's coming from far away ... but then again - so, is a lot of our food at that stage ... i do choose local over organic for the most part ...

I think its a VERY hard thing to do, living (or trying to live) sustainably. Being conscious about what you buy and where you buy it from, it can be very daunting. But at least - even if the method turns out in the end not so great - you are trying to live more practically and have a mindset which you try and make yourself aware of the current problems facing the planet and society. We may have to find new methods, but at least our minds are thinking in a positive (imo) way.

Or you can just scoff off the problems and pretend they're not happening, and continue to live in a detrimental way without at least trying to make things better. Some people are just stuck and find the easy way out.

polaris_x

haffajappa wrote:

I think its a VERY hard thing to do, living (or trying to live) sustainably. Being conscious about what you buy and where you buy it from, it can be very daunting. But at least - even if the method turns out in the end not so great - you are trying to live more practically and have a mindset which you try and make yourself aware of the current problems facing the planet and society. We may have to find new methods, but at least our minds are thinking in a positive (imo) way.

Or you can just scoff off the problems and pretend they're not happening, and continue to live in a detrimental way without at least trying to make things better. Some people are just stuck and find the easy way out.

for sure ... i by no means claim to live a sustainable lifestyle but it doesn't preclude me from trying ... nor should it anyone ...

he still stands

polaris_x wrote:

yields cannot be the variable by which you judge an agriculture system ... sustainability must be ... by focusing on maximizing yields - you simply sacrifice something else for one singular purpose ...

I don't know what this (variable by which you judge an ag system) means... certainly, higher yields are not mutually exclusive from "sustainability" and obviously both are extremely important.

polaris_x wrote:

if we look at where the populations are that lack food (3rd world countries) - you'll find drought as a significant factor in their ability to grow food ... something that is related to deforestation and climate change ... nothing works in isolation - saying the solution to a food shortage is to grow more food is akin to saying we have a debt therefore let's print more money ... there are consequences

okay but you can't say that all or even most hunger in the world is because of deforestation... even if it was what is the point? I'm certainly not advocating cutting down forests. Yes drought is a significant factor but it is most definitely not the entire story.

lack of food akin to national debt? I don't know... money can be printed endlessly and its value can fluctuate and the countries that own that debt can call it in and taxes can be raised to decrease the debt or lowered and increase the debt.... Whereas one bushel of grain will feed X people and two bushels of grain will feed (X * 2) people. There is a relatively small carryover in world food supply now (60 days, used to be 150 just 10 years ago) and you might see in a few years (probably during your lifetime) why it is important to grow more food, certainly not less with organic ag.

Lauri

TravisTheSky wrote:

Lauri wrote:

I reluctantly abandoned vegetarianism when my doctor told me I may be predisposed to insulin resistance and I had to consume more fat and less soy.

In order to eat more fat you added MEAT?

Gosh, I hope there is a hell of a lot more to that story which you didn't include. Just a few of the wonderful vegetarian fats are chocolate, walnuts, peanut butter, sunflower seeds, olive oil, and flax/linseed, which is one of the richest sources of Omega-3 known to man.

Several months ago, I realised that I've been allergic to soy for nearly two years. I stopped consuming it. I did not run over to the Halal butcher and fill my face with flesh.

Yes, I did. Mostly fish and buffalo. I eat chicken and beef, but if I can substitute them for fish or buffalo (it's illegal to give buffalo hormones and they are usually raised in a more sustainable fashion than cows, and the meat is leaner). I very rarely will eat bacon if that is what is available, mostly just because I do like the taste of it, but other than that I really dislike pork products and disagree with a lot of pork farming practices. I don't eat stuff like lamb, veal, etc.

I was eating all of the healthy plant fats you mention- I was an extremely healthy vegetarian if I do say so myself. I also took fish oil supplements. I mostly became a vegetarian just because I never cared much about meat, and I figured that given the environmental benefits, etc, it made sense. For over a year I never really missed meat at all. However the hormonal issues I have continued to get worse and I was gaining weight and was very lethargic and everything. I never attributed any of it to vegetarianism, until I started reading a lot about the condition I have and time and time again the advice seemed to be, "it's not a good idea to be a vegetarian." Besides the fat and soy issues, when you are a vegetarian, you do end up getting more calories from carbohydrates than you do if you are a meat eater, obviously. And obviously that's not a great idea if you are trying to avoid insulin resistance and other hormonal imbalances. Finally my endocrinologist just suggested I go back to eating meat so as to get more of my daily calories from protein and fat rather than carbs (and to avoid having to eat as much soy).

I usually eat meat once a day now. As soon as I did, I started losing weight I had gained as a veg and just feeling overall better and with much more energy. My blood glucose wasn't bad when I was a vegetarian, but it's even better now. My cholesterol is slightly higher, but the levels of both my good and bad cholesterol were so good to begin with, this isn't a problem- I'm still well below the "normal" range for the bad and above for the good. I also just have to eat fewer calories. There are a ton of efficient plant foods, don't get me wrong. But I don't get hungry anymore while at the same time consuming fewer calories each day. My mood also just improved a lot. It's funny my mom said that once I gave up vegetarianism, the "light" came back to my face (though don't get me wrong, I once, years ago, tried the first two weeks of the South Beach Diet and I was in a baaaad mood that whole 2 weeks. For me, I think I need a good mix of different foods to keep the balance).

I'm not saying that everyone has to eat meat to be healthy and I DON'T have any agenda to promote meat. I just think that different people process different foods differently and have different dietary needs. I firmly believe that being a vegetarian is not always the healthier option as a lot of people think. I think that it may be better for men to be vegetarians than women, both because of hormonal issues and the fact that we don't produce as much of our muscle as men. And I think in general, food is "marketed" in such a way that it distorts people's decisions in choosing it.

I have to say I take some offense to your description of meat eaters as running off the butcher and filling their faces with flesh. As I think I have described, meat eating does not equal gluttony. I am really quite disgusted with the "filling my face with flesh" comment. I think I am quite a healthy person with a good grasp on both general nutrition and my own personal health needs. I even love animals and feel much empathy for them, but I do also believe that humans are omnivores and we have our place in the food chain. I do disagree with a lot of live stock farming practices, but I also disagree with a lot plant farming practices as well, and I don't believe that organic farming or vegetarianism is the solution to all problems and may even cause others.