It does matter when I actually want to understand what is being talked about and people are throwing around terms like reverse photosynthesis or reverse Krebs cycle one of which isn't a thing and the other's relevance has not been clarified.Nah, come on - its a conspiracy
Edit, also, plants a respiring all the time not just at night, so it's not a particularly useful term when you are managing bodies of water.
Bye bye MEAT! How will the post-meat future look?
- Thread starter MrCurry
- Start date
- Status
editor
hiraethified
Exactly.Regarding the Cambridge vegan thing - tbf as long as consideration has been given to those with specific needs (food allergies, ARFID and the like, who should have already been given consideration), I can’t see the problem with the campus making that choice. It’s not like meat eaters can’t eat vegan foods, or can’t purchase meat off site. It actually makes it better for veggies or vegans with food allergies/intolerances, as when there’s often only one or two options they tend to include common allergens, eg soya.
I think this is something that needs to change - the idea that if you sometimes eat meat, your meals MUST contain it. There are many meat eaters who are happy to eat delicious veggie food, and the ones who always refuse make me feel a bit
There are veggie festivals after all. You’re welcome to bring your own meat in but all food purchasable there is veggie or completely plant based.
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
TBF the food at most football grounds is a human rights violation so why should FGR be any different?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
From reading the article you linked to, they are effectively an invasive species in the area. You haven't provided an answer as to how to deal with such situations.
bcuster
Well-Known Member
I don't believe the problem could possibly be anywhere near as bad as described in the article. In fact, I don't believe the animals pose any real threat to humans at all. Certainly not a grave enough threat to warrant unleashing a squadron of Apache armored gunship helicopters on a mission of genocide...
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I'm also sceptical about their threat to humans. But what about all the other reasons they give?
bcuster
Well-Known Member
The only other threat I see mentioned in the article is "Cattle Ruin the Land" How so? By treading near creeks &b streams and leaving footprints? Bullshit, no pun intended...This is an excuse for a group of cowboy wannabees and weekend warrior reservists to get a chopper ride & shoot up a herd of innocent, defenseless beasts.
Bullets from drunk "sharpshooters" and emissions from thousands of gallons of wasted JP5 jet fuel are far more lethal threat to the scarce human population in the area than these animals could ever pose..
bcuster
Well-Known Member
they aren't a threat...
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
The cull is supported by the Center for Biological Diversity. I'm not sure this is quite as you characterise it here.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
For me, the evidential bar that needs to be cleared before ordering a cull should be pretty high. There needs to be compelling evidence of the need for the cull. But sometimes culls are needed. As I said, invariably due to human-made problems, but that doesn't necessarily change the need for one. And I'm not sure how else you would kill a bunch of cows ranging freely through woods. Is there a better way than shooting them from the air?
Of course the best way would have involved not letting them in there in the first place. But that ship has sailed.
Of course the best way would have involved not letting them in there in the first place. But that ship has sailed.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
So why are they being culled? Perceived threat?
Funky_monks
Neo-Rustic
All it means in the context in which it was originally being discussed is that plants give off o2 in the day and co2 at night.
It was part of a discussion on eutrophication.
Ergo, fish can find it challenging at night in terms of available dissolved o2 levels, especially in still or slow moving bodies of water.
bcuster
Well-Known Member
It's shootin' time for the airborne cowboys. No other valid reason that I can see..
I understand that. I don't know where the reverse Krebs cycle mentioned by littlebabyjesus fits in.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I was probably getting confused about what was being said. If what was being said was that both photosynthesis and respiration happen at the same time in plants, then I thought something more than that was being said, and was merely pointing out that these reaction cascades can often go in either direction. It's not so fanciful.
Turns out (I didn't know this before just now) that a process that is more accurately described as reverse photosynthesis does happen.
Appears that this requires energy, though, rather than releasing it.
Scientists discover ‘reverse photosynthesis’
Funky_monks
Neo-Rustic
Meanwhile, the science continues:
https://www.agronomy.org/news/science-news/understanding-climate-effects-grazing-agriculture/
“An important finding was that soil organisms absorbed methane from the atmosphere at all sites, with the native sites absorbing more methane than the non-native site,” Steiner says.
Cattle also give off methane as they digest grass, so it’s helpful that grasslands can absorb some of that methane back into the soil. Future research will have to study how the huge tracts of grasslands can offset the methane from grazing animals.
This is important because when studying methane produced by ruminants, it’s done in a closed environment, in a shed or with a "bag" over their muzzle, so no account is taken of what’s absorbed by soil microbes, it’s just seen as a straight forward emission.
https://www.agronomy.org/news/science-news/understanding-climate-effects-grazing-agriculture/
“An important finding was that soil organisms absorbed methane from the atmosphere at all sites, with the native sites absorbing more methane than the non-native site,” Steiner says.
Cattle also give off methane as they digest grass, so it’s helpful that grasslands can absorb some of that methane back into the soil. Future research will have to study how the huge tracts of grasslands can offset the methane from grazing animals.
This is important because when studying methane produced by ruminants, it’s done in a closed environment, in a shed or with a "bag" over their muzzle, so no account is taken of what’s absorbed by soil microbes, it’s just seen as a straight forward emission.
Cheers. Confusion breeds confusion. I'm only vaguely familiar with reverse Krebs and thought it was mainly in bacteria.
Link was interesting.
The post should of been in the anti-vax thread
Last edited:
butcher
boner at the ready
If you are actually interested in the subject, as opposed to rubbing one off on it, you might want to sign up for:
www.soci.org
Cultivated meat: from the field via cellular agriculture to the plate
• Current meat consumption is causing devastating damage to our planet • Producing meat takes up 80% of all agricultural land and also contributes to around a fifth of all human-produced greenhouse gases • Meat demand will continue to soar as the world's population reaches 10 billion, and our...
www.soci.org
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
New study, which according to the authors' knowledge "is the most extensive review ever performed on plant-based diets and sustainability."
It concludes:
The study finds clear cut evidence that plant-based diets reduce greenhouse gas emissions, land use and biodiversity loss. The evidence on water and energy use isn't as clear cut. However the review found that '100% of longitudinal and 80% of cross-sectional studies are consistent in that the vegetarian and Mediterranean patterns are associated with low water impacts' and that 'According to longitudinal studies, vegetarian and vegan diets perform better in terms of
energy use than an omnivorous diet, and a vegan diet may be more optimal than the vegetarian'.
It concludes:
The study finds clear cut evidence that plant-based diets reduce greenhouse gas emissions, land use and biodiversity loss. The evidence on water and energy use isn't as clear cut. However the review found that '100% of longitudinal and 80% of cross-sectional studies are consistent in that the vegetarian and Mediterranean patterns are associated with low water impacts' and that 'According to longitudinal studies, vegetarian and vegan diets perform better in terms of
energy use than an omnivorous diet, and a vegan diet may be more optimal than the vegetarian'.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
You'd never guess from that study that more than 80% of GHGE are the result of activities other than agriculture, forestry and land use, mainly the burning of fossil fuels for energy, transport, etc. Not a single mention of it.
That's actually a false statement by implication. If current dietary practices were changed dramatically tomorrow, global temperatures would still rise >1.5 C due to all the other human activity causing global warming.
That's actually a false statement by implication. If current dietary practices were changed dramatically tomorrow, global temperatures would still rise >1.5 C due to all the other human activity causing global warming.
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
Er, because it's about diets? Great whataboutism there. And greenhouse gases aren't the only way to harm the environment.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Of course it's whataboutism. If you bring up the subject of climate change in relation to changes in global diets, you need to set what those changes can achieve in context. Square root of fuck all if other, much more important changes aren't also made. It's a big omission, which leads to a very misleading statement being made.
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
I'm glad we agree it's whataboutism. Why not comment on burning fossil fuels on one of the countless other threads in this sub-forum rather than using it as distraction on this one? In related shocking news, reducing dependence on fossil fuels and animal products are not mutually exclusive goals.
Funky_monks
Neo-Rustic
But also, a lot of those studies include emissions from the supply chain, which is baffling as they can vary considerably in fuel use etc. No idea how you can standardise that. These are some of the same studies that have been discussed before.
Also, its a scoping literature review which identifies themes for further analysis.
It also seems to use mathematical modeling only and once more, doesn't discuss sequestration or the fact that the enteric methane cycle is a natural one and has been around as long as ruminants have existed.
Last edited:
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
Last September Advances in Nutrition - the second highest ranking journal on nutrition and dietetics - published a scoping review of the environmental impacts and nutrient composition of plant-based milks. In line with everything that's been published on the topic it concluded that 'plant-based milks were found to primarily have low GHGEs, land use, and water consumption in comparison to dairy milk, although almond milk had a very high range of water consumption values'. Within plant-milks each was found to have comparative environmental benefits and disadvantages. The lowest reported land use and water consumption was from soy milk.
On nutrition, the study found that plant-milks all lacked some of the nutrients found in dairy. Soy milk was closest nutritionally, because of it's similar protein content. There were, however some nutritional advantages of plant-based milks as well. Unlike dairy milk they contain fibre and (with the exception of coconut milk) contain almost no saturated fat. The sugar-free varieties of plant-milks also have that advantage over dairy milk. Many are fortified with similar levels of calcium and b12 already (e.g. alpro). The study notes that all of the nutrients found in dairy can be achieved in plant-milks through supplementation.
After reading the study I remain happy that my home plant-milk of choice is soy - with oat as my preference when having coffee out. I hope that plant-based milk products continue to develop their fortification to ensure that consumers who want to avoid the barbaric cruelty of the dairy industry can do so in a nutritionally optimal way (they can do already with a little planning).
On nutrition, the study found that plant-milks all lacked some of the nutrients found in dairy. Soy milk was closest nutritionally, because of it's similar protein content. There were, however some nutritional advantages of plant-based milks as well. Unlike dairy milk they contain fibre and (with the exception of coconut milk) contain almost no saturated fat. The sugar-free varieties of plant-milks also have that advantage over dairy milk. Many are fortified with similar levels of calcium and b12 already (e.g. alpro). The study notes that all of the nutrients found in dairy can be achieved in plant-milks through supplementation.
After reading the study I remain happy that my home plant-milk of choice is soy - with oat as my preference when having coffee out. I hope that plant-based milk products continue to develop their fortification to ensure that consumers who want to avoid the barbaric cruelty of the dairy industry can do so in a nutritionally optimal way (they can do already with a little planning).
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yeah, not surprising at all. Doesn't mean everything they publish is useless, but it is an illustration of how 'IT'S PEER REVIEWED SCIENCE' isn't quite the gold standard that some people seem to think it is. It's not a way to win an argument. To win an argument you need to engage with the material directly. The field of drug research is the starkest example of this - fewer than 50% of peer-reviewed studies are successfully replicated. It's a total scandal that doesn't get enough airtime.
- Status
