Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth

That first pie chart doesn't separate cows from deer they are all lumped together under "enteric fermentation".

Second pie chart shows rice production produces more methane than cows so it would have a bigger effect to stop eating rice than meat. Oops.
This has been mentioned before - its just an example of conformation bias.
I find projections of my opinion quite interesting - nowhere have I suggested we eat more meat or keep importing the stuff, but apparently this is the conclusion drawn.
My attempts to explain what is quite a complicated picture of interlinked agricultural system as clearly as possible is just obfuscation
 
This is not true. Land use and agriculture produce the vast majority of greenhouse gases. Transport and manufacturing are quite small proportions, as this graph shows.

View attachment 279981
Excellent - and where's the figures for how much GHG the pasture used to raise the beef sequesters please?
Do those include methane?
Is that graph yet another extrapolated from the 2016 Oxford study?
Answers:
They aren't included
Yes, with no mitigation as per more recent studies
Yes.

Well done.
 
You've selected a fuckload of lay press articled based on the findings of a 2016 study, you've basically just found as many incidences as you can of fits extrapolated findings appearing in the press and replicated them.

Precisely. The vegheads can post any number of agenda-driven pieces from partisan sources but anything contradictory has to be wholly unbiased and bulletproof! :D
 
"I haven't read your Oxford university research on enteric methane and instead, here's my opinion based on my feelings"

Excellent, well done.

The fact still remains that oilseed soy would not be produced were it not for the oil and not the byproduct, again whether you like it or not.
The fact also remains that no farmed livestock need soy anyway and could just as easily be produced without it, were it not so cheap because it is otherwise useless.

Fucking hell, you're one dense cunt. I didn't see your study, that's why I didn't read it, and my opinion is based on evidence I've read not my feelings.

Tell me - you thick fucking piece of shit - what do you think is the predominant economic driver of soy production? (a) soy oil for human consumption or (b) soy cake production for animal feed?
 
Excellent - and where's the figures for how much GHG the pasture used to raise the beef sequesters please?
Do those include methane?
Is that graph yet another extrapolated from the 2016 Oxford study?
Answers:
They aren't included
Yes, with no mitigation as per more recent studies
Yes.

Well done.
Calm down dear!

The main reason I posted was to show the small amounts of GHG from transportation, do you deny that?

And beef GHGs are sooo much higher than anything else, they would still be near the top even if you took pasture into account.

E2A If you read it, you will see it's from a 2018 study.
 
Calm down dear!

The main reason I posted was to show the small amounts of GHG from transportation, do you deny that?

And beef GHGs are sooo much higher than anything else, they would still be near the top even if you took pasture into account.
Depends where it comes from - Is the beef in question from Cumbria or Brazil? Transport from one - very small (hence my posts about local supply chains) is very small, the other much larger.
Has it been shipped (smaller) or airfreighted (much larger)?

Which is kind of what I've been saying in my posts
 
Fucking hell, you're one dense cunt. I didn't see your study, that's why I didn't read it, and my opinion is based on evidence I've read not my feelings.

Tell me - you thick fucking piece of shit - what do you think is the predominant economic driver of soy production? (a) soy oil for human consumption or (b) soy cake production for animal feed?
Oilseeds are produced for oil. Do you think they would still be produced if the oil was worthless? No, you'd grow something else.

Oilseed rape is pretty similar, although yields less cake - do you think it is grown for the oil or the cake? Do you eat veg oil given that so much of it is then used in animal feed - 45% oil is a decent yield from the seeds, which leaves 55% as cake, plus the swath as byproducts.
 
Oilseeds are produced for oil. Do you think they would still be produced if the oil was worthless? No, you'd grow something else.

Oilseed rape is pretty similar, although yields less cake - do you think it is grown for the oil or the cake? Do you eat veg oil given that so much of it is then used in animal feed - 45% oil is a decent yield from the seeds, which leaves 55% as cake, plus the swath as byproducts.

Nice dodge. What do you think is the bigger economic driver of soy production - feed for livestock or oil for human consumption?
 
Nice dodge. What do you think is the bigger economic driver of soy production - feed for livestock or oil for human consumption?
Oil - the producer will be paid, as with OSR based on the oil content of the seed by the processor. For example, in the UK, OSR under 40% will often be rejected or heavily penalised by the processor.
 
Oil - the producer will be paid, as with OSR based on the oil content of the seed by the processor. For example, in the UK, OSR under 40% will often be rejected or heavily penalised by the processor.

You're totally wrong

An argument could be made... that increases in the production of soy have primarily been driven not by the demand for animal feed, but by the demand for soy oil for human consumption. One might view soy cake as only a by-product of the production of soy oil, as its economic value is much lower (a kilogram of soy oil is about twice the value of a kilogram of soy cake). However, since the crushing of soybeans produces much less oil (20% by weight) than cake (80%), only a third of the overall value of a kilogram crushed soybeans is derived from the oil, as compared with two thirds from the cake. Soy oil is also one of the cheapest vegetable oils on the commodity market, whereas soy cake is the most valuable of all oilseed cakes due to its favourable amino acid profile and the low levels of anti-nutritive compounds it contains after heat treatment.


Also, your logic is moronic. Things can be more economically profitable as capital investments than their retail price.
 
This has been mentioned before - its just an example of conformation bias.
I find projections of my opinion quite interesting - nowhere have I suggested we eat more meat or keep importing the stuff, but apparently this is the conclusion drawn.
My attempts to explain what is quite a complicated picture of interlinked agricultural system as clearly as possible is just obfuscation
Do you agree that we should drastically reduce our consumption of red meat?
 
You're totally wrong




Also, your logic is moronic. Things can be more economically profitable as capital investments than their retail price.
Nowhere in that source does it explain how producers are paid - it talks of economic value, but in agriculture that doesn't always equate to how producers are paid. Lamb is pretty expensive in the supermarket, for example and until recently (the covid price boom notwithstanding) a lamb on a good day was worth about £70 to the producer.
As an oilseed producer, you are paid more per yield of the oilseed within the seed you've grown by the processor.

Also the paper you've just linked to states itself that the drivers are far from clear - I quote: There is some discussion as to the extent to which increases in the production of soy have been driven by the demand for animal feed or food for human consumption29,30,31
To which they conclude: It is therefore likely that the growth in soy production has primarily been driven by the demand of soy cake for feed.

And again, you could read my posts where I talk about how there is no need to use soy, ag is moving away from it due to bad press and indeed, farmers only buy it because its cheap - in terms of ruminants, good silage can achieve a similar % protien dry weight.

In fact, I've said repeatedly it isn't necessary.
Also, in terms of ruminants, it is going to make up a tiny fraction of their diet in this country.
 
My point is that food overall is responsible for 10% or less of overall emissions in developed countries, and if you were going to "spend" carbon on anything, keeping people fed is probably more worthwhile than a lot of the other stuff. Cropping is also responsible for emissions, so why single out meat?

My other point is that certain systems that produce meat help to sequester carbon - grazing livestock systems.

People do not avoid packaging - look in a supermarket, everything save one or two loose veg are packaged. It's bonkers. People certainly don't avoid pre-prepared foods which have loads more transport and industry involved. People do not appear to be avoiding flying either- look at the clamour for travel whenever restrictions have been eased a bit.

This is because people are sold a vastly overestimated impact of meat as a whole and think that somehow because they don't eat it, this might go some way towards mitigating taking a massive fucking plane all over the place - which is why I used Joachim as an example.

As I've said before, climate friendly diets will vary with locality - if you live in the UK, we are fucking good at growing grass, thanks to our climate, but pretty piss poor at growing milling wheat. Soya is starting to come out of some animal diets (as it should, none of the animals we farm need soy, we grew them perfectly well for thousands of years without it) - for example M&S won't allow soy in cattle feed for their dairy products (the farm at work now supplies them). Veg production here is problematic because it is often done in a way that adds to soil loss (which is the real issue, it is ultimately the soil microbes who sequester most of the carbon)

I am not saying that farming and especially not the food supply chain should change, it is an applied science and as science changes, so should it.
To me, the most sustainable diets are local ones. However, the supermarkets have made this very difficult. Local abattoirs are closing (and either way, they use central collecting points for all things which adds a huge number of miles and therefore fuel), there are numerous incidences of misleading packaging (union jacks on products imported and simply packed in the UK).
Cropping and livestock are integrated systems and rely on each other.
There are some things which could help and I consider them to be things like:
Regenerative ag (which will involve more animals on arable farms to bring fert by grazing in rotation with no transportation costs whatsoever) which may lead to some destocking of the marginal upland areas (there is an argument about cultures being removed if you do this and I hear it a lot from Welsh and Scottish hill farmers, the latter of whom seem to see it as an extension of the highland clearances, but that is a different topic).
A completely new look at pig and poultry (which provide 80% of the meat we eat anyway) - both of those creatures were originally domesticated to exist in small groups alongside humans and make use of scraps. There are some really interesting systems putting meat birds on ground after combining to eat the spilled wheat (which can run into the tons, by the way). Which, ironically used to happen post war, so nothing is new. Rather than centralising these things in numbers they should be more spread out (as it were), both have an important function in minimising waste.
Urban farming - I've read a few papers on this now and it does seem to have numerous benefits, often more efficient than mechanised horticulture (you can grow up as well as out because harvesting is done by hand), community benefits (social cohesion is mentioned in numerous studies).
Cutting down on waste - to me this is one of the biggest issues in food at the moment, and I don't think the responsibility lies with the consumer as much as we are led to believe, supermarkets should be penalised for food waste and that which is wasted and not suitable for feed (foot and mouth put paid to a lot of food recycling through animals - it is now illegal to feed any livestock anything which has been through a kitchen) . There are promising projects using food waste to grow soldier fly larvae (which are massively efficient) as a protein source (for inclusion in feed) which would make loads of sense for, say poultry which naturally eat a lot of invertebrates anyway if you let them.
Ten percent is ten percent. You can't do much about, say, a massive power station running on coal in Indiana but if everyone tweaked their buying habits that would make a small difference. Whether you like it or not, meat does cause more emissions than other foodstuffs (yes, yes I know it's less than we thought but it's still an impact.) I'm not talking about keeping a pig and eating it, I'm talking about people who eat frozen mince from Argentina, because it's available and not clearly labelled. I would love everyone to have a patch of land where they could grow their own food, but they don't. Sorry. They go to KFC instead.

When you say people aren't avoiding packaging, that's because the thing they want to buy is packaged, which I think was your further point. Trying to battle with toddlers in a supermarket while at the same time being a conscientious shopper ain't happening. Half the stuff should be banned. I'm talking about green beans from Peru here. I think we're in agreement that it's stupid and should be stopped. But just not buying as much meat is pretty easy.

In fact, I think we're almost in agreement on many things. In fact we probably attend the same conferences and you may even have lectured me in the past. But sometimes I will admit to being slack-jawed at the attitudes of some in the rural community when discussing meat consumption. In fact I attended a conference last year where one of the speakers spoke for at least fifteen minutes about how we need to persuade people not to go vegan, and to persuade non-meat-eaters to eat meat again. Which is understandable I suppose if you're a beef farmer, but doesn't feel much like progress!
 
Do you agree that we should drastically reduce our consumption of red meat?
Red meat? Only if not local, grazed systems hold the key to carbon sequestration (as in numerous sources I've posted). We don't eat much anyway - 80% of the UKs meat consumption is pig and poultry. As per my previous post, those systems need to be examined. We vastly overproduce lamb here because our climate is much more suited to it, and it should be made more use of - it isnt, primarily because its expensive.
 
Red meat? Only if not local, grazed systems hold the key to carbon sequestration (as in numerous sources I've posted). We don't eat much anyway - 80% of the UKs meat consumption is pig and poultry. As per my previous post, those systems need to be examined. We vastly overproduce lamb here because our climate is much more suited to it, and it should be made more use of - it isnt, primarily because its expensive.
It's a straightforward question, so a simple yes/no would have sufficed.

I'll try again:

Do you agree that we should drastically reduce our consumption of red meat? YES/NO
Do you agree that we should drastically reduce our consumption of all meat? YES/NO
 
But sometimes I will admit to being slack-jawed at the attitudes of some in the rural community when discussing meat consumption. In fact I attended a conference last year where one of the speakers spoke for at least fifteen minutes about how we need to persuade people not to go vegan, and to persuade non-meat-eaters to eat meat again. Which is understandable I suppose if you're a beef farmer, but doesn't feel much like progress!
Selfish, short term, ignorant idiocy is what that is.
 
Ten percent is ten percent. You can't do much about, say, a massive power station running on coal in Indiana but if everyone tweaked their buying habits that would make a small difference. Whether you like it or not, meat does cause more emissions than other foodstuffs (yes, yes I know it's less than we thought but it's still an impact.) I'm not talking about keeping a pig and eating it, I'm talking about people who eat frozen mince from Argentina, because it's available and not clearly labelled. I would love everyone to have a patch of land where they could grow their own food, but they don't. Sorry. They go to KFC instead.

When you say people aren't avoiding packaging, that's because the thing they want to buy is packaged, which I think was your further point. Trying to battle with toddlers in a supermarket while at the same time being a conscientious shopper ain't happening. Half the stuff should be banned. I'm talking about green beans from Peru here. I think we're in agreement that it's stupid and should be stopped. But just not buying as much meat is pretty easy.

In fact, I think we're almost in agreement on many things. In fact we probably attend the same conferences and you may even have lectured me in the past. But sometimes I will admit to being slack-jawed at the attitudes of some in the rural community when discussing meat consumption. In fact I attended a conference last year where one of the speakers spoke for at least fifteen minutes about how we need to persuade people not to go vegan, and to persuade non-meat-eaters to eat meat again. Which is understandable I suppose if you're a beef farmer, but doesn't feel much like progress!
Actually, you sort of can - theres an RHI initiative, I live somewhere that doesn't get mains gas and am looking at installing a biomass boiler to heat my house (heat pumps and solar were cripplingly expensive). That alone will remove about 80% of my fuel consumption from the grid.

I agree wholly about meat imports - short supply chains negate imports. I can see certain things that give a lot of value for weight being imported still though, just so our lives aren't too bland - spices etc. I also agree about supermarkets and responsible shopping - the thing about supermarkets is that they claim to do everything in the interests of the consumer because they collect data, so either consumers will have to demand less packaging (which they won't) or they have to be forced to remove it.

I agree about the conferences - I was just at a Westminster Food & Farming poilcy discussion and some lord or another was droning on about getting people to eat 20% less calories instead of 20% less meat because people are too fat and this would also cut down on their meat consumption. He likes veg, apparently and the unwashed just aren't eating enough veg to go with their meat. He also referred to his 200ac farm as a "smallholding". Ffs.

People on vege/vegan diets seems (last time I looked) to be fairly static, people seem to adopt them, and then give up after a while. Farmers bashing those people is utterly moronic as far as I'm concerned because their food is also grown by farmers.

Highly processed food and the food processors are a massive problem - they are massive conglomerates who are fully aware that you add value to food by processing it. They have suffered in the decrease in popularity of the turkey twizzler kind of creations and are gleefully looking to exploit the vege/vegan market with more ultra processed crap - they seem to have discovered that if you simply stick a green plant on the packaging, consumers thing it is both healthy and good for the environment, which is bollocks. They can also see synthetic "alternative meat" products, with development as a suitable way to remove those annoying farmers from the equation and have the entire production of food in their hands - which is fucking terrifying, unless you somehow trust Kraft and Nestle.
 
It's a straightforward question, so a simple yes/no would have sufficed.

I'll try again:

Do you agree that we should drastically reduce our consumption of red meat? YES/NO
Do you agree that we should drastically reduce our consumption of all meat? YES/NO
I just answered that in the post you quoted. It's there, read it.
Its not a yes/no situation as I've described at length.
Local red meat - no
Imported - yes
Pig and poultry - probably, within the UK. Although there is the argument that monogastrics don't emit methane.

Edited to add - this is for UK consumers. The answers would change in other countries depending on the types of crops local geography can support.
 
Last edited:
You're totally wrong




Also, your logic is moronic. Things can be more economically profitable as capital investments than their retail price.
So why bother going to the trouble and expense of extracting the oil then? You might as well as just feed the whole plant to the cows. Your argument makes no sense.
 
Actually, you sort of can - theres an RHI initiative, I live somewhere that doesn't get mains gas and am looking at installing a biomass boiler to heat my house (heat pumps and solar were cripplingly expensive). That alone will remove about 80% of my fuel consumption from the grid.

I agree wholly about meat imports - short supply chains negate imports. I can see certain things that give a lot of value for weight being imported still though, just so our lives aren't too bland - spices etc. I also agree about supermarkets and responsible shopping - the thing about supermarkets is that they claim to do everything in the interests of the consumer because they collect data, so either consumers will have to demand less packaging (which they won't) or they have to be forced to remove it.

I agree about the conferences - I was just at a Westminster Food & Farming poilcy discussion and some lord or another was droning on about getting people to eat 20% less calories instead of 20% less meat because people are too fat and this would also cut down on their meat consumption. He likes veg, apparently and the unwashed just aren't eating enough veg to go with their meat. He also referred to his 200ac farm as a "smallholding". Ffs.

People on vege/vegan diets seems (last time I looked) to be fairly static, people seem to adopt them, and then give up after a while. Farmers bashing those people is utterly moronic as far as I'm concerned because their food is also grown by farmers.

Highly processed food and the food processors are a massive problem - they are massive conglomerates who are fully aware that you add value to food by processing it. They have suffered in the decrease in popularity of the turkey twizzler kind of creations and are gleefully looking to exploit the vege/vegan market with more ultra processed crap - they seem to have discovered that if you simply stick a green plant on the packaging, consumers thing it is both healthy and good for the environment, which is bollocks. They can also see synthetic "alternative meat" products, with development as a suitable way to remove those annoying farmers from the equation and have the entire production of food in their hands - which is fucking terrifying, unless you somehow trust Kraft and Nestle.
You didn't go to the one where Patricia Hewitt referred to 'the landowning community'? I had a good old laugh at the thought of landowners forming a community. They'd eat their young!

I am guilty of buying ultra-processed vegan crap. Fair point. I also have non-veggie teenagers to feed and I probably take the path of least resistance there, too. Sometimes it would actually be easier if KFC didn't exist and it wasn't possible to buy fucking frozen lasagne from God-knows-where. Is it ethical to take choice away? I suppose that's a whole different argument. There tends to be a massive lack of imagination about what people can and can't afford, and if you have no cash, veggies are NOT top of your list - you need something calorific and satisfying. But as I say, whole different argument.
 
You didn't go to the one where Patricia Hewitt referred to 'the landowning community'? I had a good old laugh at the thought of landowners forming a community. They'd eat their young!

I am guilty of buying ultra-processed vegan crap. Fair point. I also have non-veggie teenagers to feed and I probably take the path of least resistance there, too. Sometimes it would actually be easier if KFC didn't exist and it wasn't possible to buy fucking frozen lasagne from God-knows-where. Is it ethical to take choice away? I suppose that's a whole different argument. There tends to be a massive lack of imagination about what people can and can't afford, and if you have no cash, veggies are NOT top of your list - you need something calorific and satisfying. But as I say, whole different argument.
I know this - its painfully apparent that within parts of ag, people making the recommendations have no idea how most people live.
I often hear that food needs to be more expensive - which as a producer of wheat say, might seem sensible as they are still getting 80s prices for wheat, but paying 2020's overheads. OSR was worth more in the 80s.

What they fail to grasp is that people can't afford for food to be more expensive until their overheads go down - when food was more expensive, rents were cheaper. All of this drives them into the arms of the processed food companies who can make food cheap by removing the food.

There's very little margin in some beans, for example - massive margin in a beanburger.
 
So why bother going to the trouble and expense of extracting the oil then? You might as well as just feed the whole plant to the cows. Your argument makes no sense.
Yep, just stick the whole thing through a forager, feed it wholecrop, job done.
I guess this is intrinsically the problem with trying to explain the vaguaries of an applied science.
 
I think that depends on who you're trying to explain it to. Some want to learn while some want to remain wilfully ignorant. Some are simply too thick to understand.
Which is a shame because whilst it’s always fun watching nutty Jeff and the vegheads getting incinerated on this thread, there’s occasionally some very interesting stuff here.
 
Back
Top Bottom