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

[lazythursday]

Given that most of our rivers are choking in pollution caused by animal slurry and chemical fertiliser run-off, the idea that there is some sort of bucolic symbiotic ecosystem taking place on our farms is a total nonsense.

 

[NoXion]

We already have a system for collecting human waste that's connected to pretty much every home. Why can't the nitrogen be extracted at the treatment plant?

 

[WouldBe]

Collecting it is the problem. Its almost as if animals living on the land is part of some sort of symbiotic ecosystem.

Only problem with that is training the cows to tip toe through the crops while pissing and not eating the crops as they do.

 

[maomao]

We already have a system for collecting human waste that's connected to pretty much every home. Why can't the nitrogen be extracted at the treatment plant?

Because it's mixed with all sorts of other shit like washing up water and reclaiming the nutrients isn't a straightforward matter. Urine can be diluted and applied directly. Faecal matter is more complicated and has less nutrients.

 

[maomao]

Did I say that?

Well symbiosis implies balance and we were talking about fertilisers. But apparently it was just an excuse for a dig at veggies.

 

[Saul Goodman]

Well symbiosis implies balance and we were talking about fertilisers. But apparently it was just an excuse for a dig at veggies.

If you're the voice of veggies, I don't need to do any digging. You're doing a perfectly fine job of making yourself look stupid.

 

[maomao]

If you're the voice of veggies, I don't need to do any digging. You're doing a perfectly fine job of making yourself look stupid.

I'm not a veggie, I'm just commenting that it's impossible to have a conversation about anything while you're only interested in a slanging match. Going on the internet every day just to slag off cyclists and vegans; you must have a thrilling home life.

 

[Saul Goodman]

I'm not a veggie, I'm just commenting that it's impossible to have a conversation about anything while you're only interested in a slanging match. Going on the internet every day just to slag off cyclists and vegans; you must have a thrilling home life.

I have a wonderful life, but thanks for caring. I'm currently sat in the back garden with a beer, waiting for the eighth coat of lacquer to dry on an oak table top... Living the dream.

 

[maomao]

I have a wonderful life, but thanks for caring. I'm currently sat in the back garden with a beer, waiting for the eighth coat of lacquer to dry on an oak table top... Living the dream.

So more or less watching paint dry and boasting about it. Thrilling.

 

[NoXion]

Because it's mixed with all sorts of other shit like washing up water and reclaiming the nutrients isn't a straightforward matter. Urine can be diluted and applied directly. Faecal matter is more complicated and has less nutrients.

I think re-tooling water treatment plants to reclaim and remove chemicals like nitrogen would be logistically easier than expecting millions of households to keep a piss bucket bucket handy, as well as the infrastructure needed to collect it. More hygienic too.

 

[Saul Goodman]

So more or less watching paint dry and boasting about it. Thrilling.

Pretty much, yeah

 

[Jeff Robinson]

 

[maomao]

I think re-tooling water treatment plants to reclaim and remove chemicals like nitrogen would be logistically easier than expecting millions of households to keep a piss bucket bucket handy, as well as the infrastructure needed to collect it. More hygienic too.

Possible but very energy and chemical intensive. In high density population areas no-mix toilets and parallel plumbing is probably a better solution. Urine is pretty much a whole fertiliser in the first place.

I'm afraid this isn't a 'peer-reviewed journal' (that only academics generally have access to more than the abstracts of) but an interesting article anyway:

'P' is for phosphate: Could urine solve a fertilizer shortage?

www.earthmagazine.org

 

[Funky_monks]

Collecting it is the problem. Its almost as if animals living on the land is part of some sort of symbiotic ecosystem.

Hence the renewed interest in "Holistic Ag" which, amongst other things has seen a bringing of livestock into arable rotations

 

[Funky_monks]

Given that most of our rivers are choking in pollution caused by animal slurry and chemical fertiliser run-off, the idea that there is some sort of bucolic symbiotic ecosystem taking place on our farms is a total nonsense.

Except, of course that there's been a spate of these being linked to councils discharging sewage illegally- it's been in the press as recently as this summer.

64 years worth of raw sewage dumped into rivers and streams by Severn Trent | ITV News

 

[danny la rouge]

I’ve been a veggie for nearly 40 years now. (I’m not vegan, although I do try to limit the amount of dairy I have). So that’s my cards on the table.

I find this thread infuriating and usually avoid it, because some people are obviously just here for the giggles. However, it is an important topic. We can’t save the climate through individual efforts - industry and governments have to be forced to act. However, we do need to think about the sustainable Earth we need to build for our future, and there just isn’t the land for 8 billion people who want to be heavy meat eaters like some in the West are.

The evidence suggests that hunter gatherers would have better been named gatherer hunters; meat was actually only a small part of their diet. If humans as a species want to survive we really do need to recalibrate our collective/average diet along those kind of lines. Lots of veg, some carbs, a little meat. That’s how to be healthy, so that’s sensibly the proportions we should produce food in. Possibly once fisheries have been repaired, most non plant protein should come from fish.

I’m the last person to lecture people on a healthy diet, but we can actually produce plenty of food for humanity. It only makes sense to produce it in the quantities needed.

 

[Funky_monks]

The evidence suggests that hunter gatherers would have better been named gatherer hunters; meat was actually only a small part of their diet. If humans as a species want to survive we really do need to recalibrate our collective/average diet along those kind of lines. Lots of veg, some carbs, a little meat. That’s how to be healthy, so that’s sensibly the proportions we should produce food in. Possibly once fisheries have been repaired, most non plant protein should come from fish.

The latest evidence doesn't really agree with this: Humans were apex predators for two million years, study finds: What did our ancestors eat during the stone age? Mostly meat

However, the presence of prehistoric shell middens would suggest a large part of foraged diet was also shellfish.

It seems that primitive agriculture emerged precisely because we ate a lot of the mega fauna and find few plants digestible, so we needed to refine them when we cultivate them (a good example is sea kale -> cabbage).

 

[danny la rouge]

The latest evidence doesn't really agree with this: Humans were apex predators for two million years, study finds: What did our ancestors eat during the stone age? Mostly meat

However, the presence of prehistoric shell middens would suggest a large part of foraged diet was also shellfish.

It seems that primitive agriculture emerged precisely because we ate a lot of the mega fauna and find few plants digestible, so we needed to refine them when we cultivate them (a good example is sea kale -> cabbage).

It’s a fair point that you can’t/shouldn’t compare modern gatherers with prehistoric hunter gatherers.

However, the point stands that we don’t have enough planet for 8 billion heavy meat eaters.

 

[Funky_monks]

It’s a fair point that you can’t/shouldn’t compare modern gatherers with prehistoric hunter gatherers.

However, the point stands that we don’t have enough planet for 8 billion heavy meat eaters.

At the risk of going in circles, you might be right, but the most sustainable diet depends on locality. In large parts of the UK, you are looking at ground suitable for sheep/cattle really. Cropping requires really good soils and can be extremely environmentally destructive.

I live in Herefordshire and I did mean to take some photos to illustrate this as we have a lot of horticulture going on here. If you saw the gradient of fields spuds were planted on and the resulting level of soil being washed away whenever it rains (after all, soils is what this is mostly about, really) you'd begin to question how good this sort of thing could possibly be. See also: the mass of huge polytunnels around here and the resulting plastic waste/pollution.

 

[Cid]

I have a wonderful life, but thanks for caring. I'm currently sat in the back garden with a beer, waiting for the eighth coat of lacquer to dry on an oak table top... Living the dream.

Anyone who uses 8 coats of lacquer needs to be taken out back and shot, it's for the best.

 

[Cid]

(urushi lacquer excepted of course)

 

[lazythursday]

Except, of course that there's been a spate of these being linked to councils discharging sewage illegally- it's been in the press as recently as this summer.

64 years worth of raw sewage dumped into rivers and streams by Severn Trent | ITV News

1) councils don't have anything to do with sewage
2) this is just whataboutism. Yes there's a problem with sewage discharges. But that doesn't mean there isn't also a huge issue with agricultural pollution - research by the Rivers Trust suggests its the biggest cause of pollution to rivers.

 

[Funky_monks]

1) councils don't have anything to do with sewage
2) this is just whataboutism. Yes there's a problem with sewage discharges. But that doesn't mean there isn't also a huge issue with agricultural pollution - research by the Rivers Trust suggests its the biggest cause of pollution to rivers.

When you measure the levels of nitrates/phosphates etc in rivers, you can't differentiate from whence it comes. What I'm illustrating is that it was previously unknown just how much water companies were dumping in rivers with most of the blame being targeted at agriculture.

I'm not for a minute suggesting that all farmers follow the rules all of the time, but there are very onerous regs about where and when you can fertilise and how muck must be stored (for example, nothing within 10m of any watercourse, no spreading when the ground is frosty etc etc). The penalty for breaking these means as well as legal implications, you'll be failing on your cross compliance, which will mean subs are docked, and you'll lose your Red Tractor status (or whatever other FABBL you have, RT is the least onerous). In some sectors (arable, pig and poultry, dairy) that means you'll have almost no market for your produce and therefore it can bankrupt you.

 

[lazythursday]

When you measure the levels of nitrates/phosphates etc in rivers, you can't differentiate from whence it comes. What I'm illustrating is that it was previously unknown just how much water companies were dumping in rivers with most of the blame being targeted at agriculture.

I'm not for a minute suggesting that all farmers follow the rules all of the time, but there are very onerous regs about where and when you can fertilise and how muck must be stored (for example, nothing within 10m of any watercourse, no spreading when the ground is frosty etc etc). The penalty for breaking these means as well as legal implications, you'll be failing on your cross compliance, which will mean subs are docked, and you'll lose your Red Tractor status (or whatever other FABBL you have, RT is the least onerous). In some sectors (arable, pig and poultry, dairy) that means you'll have almost no market for your produce and therefore it can bankrupt you.

but that's not actually true in practice, given that the EA fails to prosecute anyone: Revealed: no penalties issued under 'useless' English farm pollution laws

 

[Funky_monks]

but that's not actually true in practice, given that the EA fails to prosecute anyone: Revealed: no penalties issued under 'useless' English farm pollution laws

But the RPA definitely do dock people subs at the slightest excuse, (It has been suggested that its agents work on commission). Red Tractor do inspect regularly, and, as I said, losing RT can bankrupt you in certain sectors. Commodity production is high volume/low margin and therefore very easy to make financially disastrous losses.

 

[lazythursday]

But the RPA definitely do dock people subs at the slightest excuse, (It has been suggested that its agents work on commission). Red Tractor do inspect regularly, and, as I said, losing RT can bankrupt you in certain sectors.

I'm sure they do, and I'm sure there are lots of decent farmers trying to obey the rules. Hopefully there will be a lot more when the new agri-environment schemes come fully into effect in the next few years. I'm just objecting to the idea we have a rosy symbiotic farming system alluded to above which is clearly nonsense, and ignores the diversity of farming (good and bad) apart from anything else.

 

[Funky_monks]

I'm sure they do, and I'm sure there are lots of decent farmers trying to obey the rules. Hopefully there will be a lot more when the new agri-environment schemes come fully into effect in the next few years. I'm just objecting to the idea we have a rosy symbiotic farming system alluded to above which is clearly nonsense, and ignores the diversity of farming (good and bad) apart from anything else.

ELMS will be temporary, I believe. We already had environmental schemes (Mid and Higher Tier Payments). The thing that is mildly concerning is that the government is looking to transfer the burden of subsidy to the private sector - paving the way for industry to offset its emissions by funding schemes - there are already companies set up to do this : - The Environment Bank

As far as I'm concerned, offsetting is greenwashing. Everything is designed to let fossil fuel companies off the hook. Indeed, the term "carbon footprint" was thought up by an ad agency (who's name I forget) to focus the burden of mitigation on the individual and not corporations.

 

[lazythursday]

ELMS will be temporary, I believe. We already had environmental schemes (Mid and Higher Tier Payments). The thing that is mildly concerning is that the government is looking to transfer the burden of subsidy to the private sector - paving the way for industry to offset its emissions by funding schemes - there are already companies set up to do this : - The Environment Bank

As far as I'm concerned, offsetting is greenwashing. Everything is designed to let fossil fuel companies off the hook. Indeed, the term "carbon footprint" was thought up by an ad agency (who's name I forget) to focus the burden of mitigation on the individual and not corporations.

I'm not defending offsetting but it certainly isn't in the objectives of the schemes yet. The new farming subsidy regime looks like good news for nature to me, but I am far from an expert. And we do need to plant a lot of trees on our lower grade agricultural land to meet net zero targets (nothing to do with corporation offsetting).

 

[danny la rouge]

At the risk of going in circles, you might be right, but the most sustainable diet depends on locality. In large parts of the UK, you are looking at ground suitable for sheep/cattle really. Cropping requires really good soils and can be extremely environmentally destructive.

I live in Herefordshire and I did mean to take some photos to illustrate this as we have a lot of horticulture going on here. If you saw the gradient of fields spuds were planted on and the resulting level of soil being washed away whenever it rains (after all, soils is what this is mostly about, really) you'd begin to question how good this sort of thing could possibly be. See also: the mass of huge polytunnels around here and the resulting plastic waste/pollution.

Without a doubt farming needs to put its house very much in order. But that doesn’t mean to say it should just give up.

 

[Funky_monks]

I'm not defending offsetting but it certainly isn't in the objectives of the schemes yet. The new farming subsidy regime looks like good news for nature to me, but I am far from an expert. And we do need to plant a lot of trees on our lower grade agricultural land to meet net zero targets (nothing to do with corporation offsetting).

As elsewhere in this thread, tree planting is a busted flush, It just shows how slow policy moves in relation to the science, there was a huge study undertaken by Stirling University that showed that tree planting didn't sequester anything like as much carbon as thought (I've linked to it on this thread in the past) - permanent pasture, on the other hand, does. Most of the sequestration is done by soil organisms.

Think about it like this: You plant trees and the trees grow, sequestering carbon in the process (wood). If you log the trees and burn them (or do anything else with them that results in the carbon being "lost" to the atmosphere), that carbon is re-emitted. So, what you'd need to do is bury them somehow when they are mature.

This is precisely the problem with fossil fuels - the carbon was sequestered millions of years ago in swamps etc and it is being extracted and re-emitted.
Alternatives need to happen, and sadly, at the moment a lot of them pollute massively (see: lithium and batteries).