Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Bye bye MEAT! How will the post-meat future look?

How reluctant are you to give up your meat habit?


  • Total voters
    196
Status
Not open for further replies.
And we are burning more fossil fuels every year (with a little covid-related blip). It's not even that we've plateaued due to knowing the damage. It's still increasing. That's where the behavioural challenge wrt global warming is located, not agriculture. Within agriculture, welfare, food quality and security, sustainability and biodiversity are the big challenges.

This - focussing on non fossil fuel cyclical emissions is a massive red herring. Ruminants will exist whether we farm them or not, and unless we degrade their environment, in comparable biomasses. Cattle numbers globally are reducing and yet methane emissions are increasing - we know it is byproduct of fracking, we also know that warming causes certain natural habitats to release more, eg wetlands. Nobody is suggesting we drain all the marshes, why would we try to get rid of ruminants?
 
This - focussing on non fossil fuel cyclical emissions is a massive red herring. Ruminants will exist whether we farm them or not, and unless we degrade their environment, in comparable biomasses. Cattle numbers globally are reducing and yet methane emissions are increasing - we know it is byproduct of fracking, we also know that warming causes certain natural habitats to release more, eg wetlands. Nobody is suggesting we drain all the marshes, why would we try to get rid of ruminants?
Plus leakages from gas production, which we know are very certainly being underestimated and are not monitored adequately at all in places like Turkmenistan. Given that we know how the overall levels of methane in the atmosphere are changing, if emissions from gas have been badly underestimated, that has to mean that emissions from other sources have been overestimated.
 
Plus leakages from gas production, which we know are very certainly being underestimated and are not monitored adequately at all in places like Turkmenistan. Given that we know how the overall levels of methane in the atmosphere are changing, if emissions from gas have been badly underestimated, that has to mean that emissions from other sources have been overestimated.
For sure - I posted at least two studies about that earlier on the thread. It used to be that emissions attributed to agriculture in terms of methane were basically "everything we've not counted as coming from other sources" which is quite an assumption to make.
 
No, I mean harassing people so they lose their jobs without offering any kind of critique of capitalism, or an alternative for them. Or refusing to accept that some people cannot thrive on so restrictive a diet. Or generally being massively intolerant to the point of counter productive

And this relates to sharing a link about a documentary how?
 
Lacking in fibre that post, and protein and fat. Just a slight whiff of overprocessed bean curd and a bit of msg.
 
I'm just loving all the innovation in the plant-based food sector at the moment.

Food technology company Sophie’s BioNutrients has formulated a vegan ice cream using the company’s chlorella protein that can provide more vitamin B12 and iron than dairy milk...

Cultivated through fermentation, the ingredient has a clean taste rather than a seaweed-like flavor because it is produced in dark fermentation tanks that reduce the production of chlorophyll, making it the perfect nutritious base for ice cream.

 

Attachments

  • 1689611826730.png
    1689611826730.png
    1.6 MB · Views: 0
Zoonotic disease risks are another good reason to move away from animal farming fast:

In the UK, 2 more poultry workers have tested positive for the H5N1 bird flu strain as part of an ongoing asymptomatic testing programme being conducted by the British government.

 
Hate to break it to you, Jeff but birds are quite literally everywhere.

Ah so I guess confining large numbers of them in close proximity and having humans exposed to their blood and other bodily fluids raises no increased zoonotic disease risks and all the recent major outbreaks across UK farms are nothing to worry about then, because ‘birds are everywhere’.
 
Last edited:
Humans have been living next to livestock and suffering various diseases as a result for thousands of years. There are issues with the extremely narrow gene pool of livestock and their subsequent susceptibility to pandemics. Lots of the ways modern farming has gone have not been smart. We're probably safer from livestock-related diseases now than we were in the past, simply because far fewer people have routine contact with livestock, but yes we certainly can and should farm better. Many of the recent outbreaks have been the result of really poor farming practices - BSE is a good example of that.
 
Humans have been living next to livestock and suffering various diseases as a result for thousands of years. There are issues with the extremely narrow gene pool of livestock and their subsequent susceptibility to pandemics. Lots of the ways modern farming has gone have not been smart. We're probably safer from livestock-related diseases now than we were in the past, simply because far fewer people have routine contact with livestock, but yes we certainly can and should farm better. Many of the recent outbreaks have been the result of really poor farming practices - BSE is a good example of that.
There are other factors though including destruction of habitats, climate change (shifting ranges for example) and expansion into untouched areas that will increase liklihood of a crossover with pandemic potential. Agriculture is not the only guilty party in this regard but it contributes. It brings wild animals into contact with not only humans but domestic animals that can lead to cross species infections. The diseases can go back and forth across the species barrier with changes resulting that may increase the diseases pandemic potential.

As you say less people in direct contact is probably a good thing for safety as most zoonotic diseases don't transmit well in humans initially but where those increasingly likely pandemic potential crossover events happen modern society gives them a helping hand. It's more complicated than Funky_monks dismissive response above.
 
Another day, another major study for the regular folks on this thread to ignore or discredit. Enjoy!

Eating a vegan diet massively reduces the damage to the environment caused by food production, the most comprehensive analysis to date has concluded.

The research showed that vegan diets resulted in 75% less climate-heating emissions, water pollution and land use than diets in which more than 100g of meat a day was eaten. Vegan diets also cut the destruction of wildlife by 66% and water use by 54%, the study found.
The heavy impact of meat and dairy on the planet is well known, and people in rich nations will have to slash their meat consumption in order to end the climate crisis. But previous studies have used model diets and average values for the impact of each food type.

In contrast, the new study analysed the real diets of 55,000 people in the UK. It also used data from 38,000 farms in 119 countries to account for differences in the impact of particular foods that are produced in different ways and places. This significantly strengthens confidence in the conclusions.
However, it turned out that what was eaten was far more important in terms of environmental impacts than where and how it was produced. Previous research has shown that even the lowest-impact meat – organic pork – is responsible for eight times more climate damage than the highest-impact plant, oilseed.

 
Another day, another major study for the regular folks on this thread to ignore or discredit. Enjoy!




Did you read the study? The methodology is to do a survey of eating habits and then calculate the impact by using the estimates from Poore and Nemecek. So this study is really still just a repeat of the assertions of Poore and Nemecek!

1689925015241.png
 
Did you read the study? The methodology is to do a survey of eating habits and then calculate the impact by using the estimates from Poore and Nemecek. So this study is really still just a repeat of the assertions of Poore and Nemecek!

View attachment 384029
Which make it different to Poore and Nemeck. It also makes reference to the shortcomings of Poore and Nemeck and tries to take account of them. For example the oft mentioned on this thread treating all GHG as carbon dioxide equivalent. They attempt to get away from this by where possible (and it is not always) taking account of what emissions are common in particular sectors and adjusting as necessary. They also highlight the need for more research in that area.
 
Their calculation method is still fundamentally a case of applying the Poore and Nemecek estimates to the diets they have surveyed. The original work they have contributed is to investigate what a vegetarian versus meat-based diet involves, not to actually estimate the GHG emissions for a given item in that diet. To the extent that Poore and Nemecek have misstated the GHG impact, that criticism will therefore also apply to this study, albeit that they have played at the edges of those criticisms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom