Meat eaters are destroying the planet, warns WWF report

[8ball]

If we eat less meat and more crops, then we will need to use more synthetic fertiliser. It's not rocket science.

I have a feeling it might be a little more complicated than that.

 

[Saul Goodman]

I have a feeling it might be a little more complicated than that.

More complicated than rocket science?

 

[8ball]

More complicated than rocket science?

Maybe I should have clipped off the second sentence.

I meant that at face value your post assumes, at the very least, that we have optimised our use of organic fertiliser sources.

 

[JimW]

It doesn't have to be instantaneous or 100%. If we eat less meat and more crops, then we will need to use more synthetic fertiliser. It's not rocket science. Have you seen what's involved in making fertilisers? And how bad it is for the environment?

That is what the permaculture lot try to address I believe, always thought they were fairly woo but several of the ideas have had mainstream impact and as i recall influenced the design of this World Bank project: Loess Plateau Watershed Rehabilitation Project which was pretty large scale

 

[Larry Noppius]

More complicated than rocket science?

Rocket science isn't all that complicated really. Rocket engineering on the other hand, well that's quite something else. But the science behind rocketry is really just applied Newtonian mechanics, not all that complicated.

 

[8ball]

So much for attempts to keep vaguely on topic.

 

[Funky_monks]

Yes, this is my main beef (no pun intended) with some of the arguments. For what it's worth, I do agree with the thrust that, all things being equal, if the general amount of meat eaten in developed economies is reduced (with the shortfall being made up for with the obvious healthy alternatives), AND if the number of vegans in such places (and likely others) increases, then there is a net environmental benefit. I'd also like the parts of the meat industry that get most stripped back to be the "worst" ones (in terms of animal welfare, environmental factors and health*).

If there are good arguments against this view, I'd be interested in hearing them.

* - while aware that some conflicts between these particular values may arise at some point



Oh, I barely understand why buildings don't fall down. We're all very inter-dependent these days.

It's a bit more complicated than that.
For example: the chicken industry often makes a big deal out of its GHG emissions being low compared to other meat production.
However, if you remove the methane cycle from this, the picture starts to look very different.
Ruminants are, on some forward thinking farms starting to return to arable rotations, mostly for economic reasons, as less fertiliser needs to be applied if this happens, it just coincidentally happens to be more sustainable.
There is also the matter of having put energy into producing plants, whether we should "waste" the energy used in producing parts unfit for human consumption (straw, most of a bean plant etc) or use them to grow protein in the form of animals.
There, is also the question of nutrition - for example, milk production uses sunlight (captured by grass) to produce a highly nutritious product.
Marginal land can produce sheep and goats and not much else.

Example: there was a time when immediately post harvest, chicken men would turn up and fold chicken on the fields to turn all the spilled grain (and if you've ever looked at a field of volunteer wheat and knew what you were looking at), youd realise a lot gets spilled. Why not turn it into protien and manure the field at the same time?

 

[NoXion]

That is what the permaculture lot try to address I believe, always thought they were fairly woo but several of the ideas have had mainstream impact and as i recall influenced the design of this World Bank project: Loess Plateau Watershed Rehabilitation Project which was pretty large scale

Some of the permaculture stuff sounds good to me. From what I understand it's basically an attempt at constructing a largely self-sustaining artificial ecosystem, as opposed to the endless monoculture that's popular on large-scale commercial farms. We really need to more widely employ alternatives to monoculture.

On the other hand, can't say I'm too keen on the other positions that appear to be popular with permaculture's proponents. I get the impression they mostly reject any genetic engineering - a foolish and self-defeating position - why limit your toolkit? I'm also very suspicious of the emphasis on smallness; there is no good reason for that, natural ecosystems aren't at all small, and neither is the collective belly of the billions of human beings on this planet. Permaculture without scaling-up sounds like it could be very labour-intensive, and I think that people deserve more glamorous life options than one spent grubbing in the dirt.

So despite my reservations, some ideas worth using there, I feel.

 

[8ball]

It's a bit more complicated than that.

I'm not sure you're engaging directly with the overall headline tenet.

I'm aware there are a lot of factors involved. Are you saying the picture is too complex to support even that premise?

For example, meat demand and production is increasing, and we know a certain amount of edible vegetable matter is wasted through poor practices. Even fixing that, combined with a few changes in meat consumption would seem to reduce environmental consequences with negligible negative consequences.

What I am talking about reducing here is things like destroying biodiversity in order to produce animal feed for economies experiencing burgeoning demand. Not about the fact that healthy farming practices can support meat production (which comes with an inherent savage energy multiplier).

This is all going to come down to numbers and is certainly complicated, hence my tentative premise, which is simply that putting a dent in the increasing demand for meat can put a dent in the impact generated by some of the worst practices.

 

[Funky_monks]

Some of the permaculture stuff sounds good to me. From what I understand it's basically an attempt at constructing a largely self-sustaining artificial ecosystem, as opposed to the endless monoculture that's popular on large-scale commercial farms. We really need to more widely employ alternatives to monoculture.

On the other hand, can't say I'm too keen on the other positions that appear to be popular with permaculture's proponents. I get the impression they mostly reject any genetic engineering - a foolish and self-defeating position - why limit your toolkit? I'm also very suspicious of the emphasis on smallness; there is no good reason for that, natural ecosystems aren't at all small, and neither is the collective belly of the billions of human beings on this planet. Permaculture without scaling-up sounds like it could be very labour-intensive, and I think that people deserve more glamorous life options than one spent grubbing in the dirt.

So despite my reservations, some ideas worth using there, I feel.

I've yet to see a permaculture layout that produces a meaningful surplus, which is fine, I suppose, if you'd like to see a return to an agrarian society and in countries like the UK some serious depopulation, but with a massive urban population who have no inclination to work the land?

 

[NoXion]

I've yet to see a permaculture layout that produces a meaningful surplus, which is fine, I suppose, if you'd like to see a return to an agrarian society and in countries like the UK some serious depopulation, but with a massive urban population who have no inclination to work the land?

Sheesh, that bad? Why is that, would you say?

 

[Funky_monks]

I'm not sure you're engaging directly with the overall headline tenet.

I'm aware there are a lot of factors involved. Are you saying the picture is too complex to support even that premise?

For example, meat demand and production is increasing, and we know a certain amount of edible vegetable matter is wasted through poor practices. Even fixing that, combined with a few changes in meat consumption would seen to reduce environmental consequences with negligible negative consequences.

What I am talking about here is things like destroying biodiversity in order to produce animal feed for economies experiencing burgeoning demand. Not about the fact that healthy practices can support meat production.

This is all going to come down to numbers and is certainly complicated, hence my tentative premise, which is simply that putting a dent in the increasing demand for meat can put a dent in the impact generated by some of the worst practices.

Its not just that veg matter is wasted through poor practices, it's that a large part of a lot of plants is simply not digestible by humans.
The least biodiverse farms are arable farms, by their nature.
Currently, farmers are incentivised to address this by planting margins etc as part of the stewardship payments - although not all choose to apply for this funding.

To me, a drive towards sustainability would reintegrate farming, particularly arable- livestock farms are already reliant on arable production for straw etc, but arable farmers are often very unwilling to have livestock on their farms (they like luxuries like "having a holiday").

Solutions are very likely to be at the very least regional, if not local.

 

[8ball]

Another simple proposition - are things too complex to say whether:

i) Whether China moving to a state where their per capita beef consumption is the same as the USA would have a negative environmental effect, given current production practices?

ii) Whether every family in the USA having one more meat-free meal a week (let's say making up the shortfall with green and root vegetable-based meals) would have a net environmental positive environmental effect, given current production practices?

Is this something we need an agronomist and ecologist to address? Because I don't think you would easily find an environmentalist who would disagree with either of the above propositions (this of course does not make them correct).

 

[Funky_monks]

Sheesh, that bad? Why is that, would you say?

For the most part, they have no interest in providing much of one - the idea behind them is feeding a small community and not producing a massive surplus to keep cities full of people fed.
They are set out in such a way that hampers mechanisation, which again, is fine and very non-polluting, but makes it very manpower heavy.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Where will all the animal manure come from to fertilise the crops, when we stop eating animals?

Global shit shortage. Tbf we can just use people shit surely.

Anyway since lockdown started my already relatively low meat consumption has dropped off a cliff, I think the only meat I've eaten in a fortnight has been when I've robbed fish fingers and turkey dinosaurs off my daughter's plate. Even my egg love has had to go largely unrequited, reckon I'm down to six a week. Been on the cheese like a fucker though. Spinach and feta pie for the fifth night on the bounce later

 

[8ball]

Solutions are very likely to be at the very least regional, if not local.

Agree with that. I've given two simple propositions above which I think hopefully minimise the complexities that arise from major changes.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Wait there I had one bacon butty a while back, that must be about a fortnight though

 

[Funky_monks]

Another simple proposition - are things too complex to say whether:

i) Whether China moving to a state where their per capita beef consumption is the same as the USA would have a negative environmental effect, given current production practices?

ii) Whether every family in the USA having one more meat-free meal a week (let's say making up the shortfall with green and root vegetable-based meals) would have a net environmental positive environmental effect, given current production practices?

Is this something we need an agronomist and ecologist to address? Because I don't think you would easily find an environmentalist who would disagree with either of the above propositions.

1) It depends how they do it - as far as I'm aware, China is in the process of improving unimaginably vast grasslands for this. It could be done sustainably, but I'm not sure that's their emphasis.

2) It depends on what meat they were eating. Fully ranched beef, probably not. Surplus game animals, probably not. Most other things, yes. The US is not the UK though, nor do we produce things in the same way.

 

[NoXion]

For the most part, they have no interest in providing much of one - the idea behind them is feeding a small community and not producing a massive surplus to keep cities full of people fed.
They are set out in such a way that hampers mechanisation, which again, is fine and very non-polluting, but makes it very manpower heavy.

Hmm. Sounds more like an ideological problem of the proponents than of the concept, but I could be wrong.

 

[Funky_monks]

Global shit shortage. Tbf we can just use people shit surely.

Anyway since lockdown started my already relatively low meat consumption has dropped off a cliff, I think the only meat I've eaten in a fortnight has been when I've robbed fish fingers and turkey dinosaurs off my daughter's plate. Even my egg love has had to go largely unrequited, reckon I'm down to six a week. Been on the cheese like a fucker though. Spinach and feta pie for the fifth night on the bounce later

Human slurry is already utilised in some systems. Different chemical profile to manure though (indeed, chicken, pig and cattle manure are all useful in different situations)

 

[Funky_monks]

Hmm. Sounds more like an ideological problem of the proponents than of the concept, but I could be wrong.

Look at how things are planted, even in those systems. The layout is not machinery friendly.

 

[Proper Tidy]

Human slurry is already utilised in some systems. Different chemical profile to manure though (indeed, chicken, pig and cattle manure are all useful in different situations)

Out of interest, what stuff is chicken shit good for, pig shit, cow shit etc? Would be interesting

 

[Proper Tidy]

Eg human shit makes great carrots or something

 

[JimW]

Some of the permaculture stuff sounds good to me. From what I understand it's basically an attempt at constructing a largely self-sustaining artificial ecosystem, as opposed to the endless monoculture that's popular on large-scale commercial farms. We really need to more widely employ alternatives to monoculture.

On the other hand, can't say I'm too keen on the other positions that appear to be popular with permaculture's proponents. I get the impression they mostly reject any genetic engineering - a foolish and self-defeating position - why limit your toolkit? I'm also very suspicious of the emphasis on smallness; there is no good reason for that, natural ecosystems aren't at all small, and neither is the collective belly of the billions of human beings on this planet. Permaculture without scaling-up sounds like it could be very labour-intensive, and I think that people deserve more glamorous life options than one spent grubbing in the dirt.

So despite my reservations, some ideas worth using there, I feel.

Yes, first encountered it via some off-putting crystal wavy types but seems there's some good ideas and questions of principles underpinning it.
The labour side of it is sort of interesting. I've been quite influenced by Hinton's discussion on agricultural reform in China, he was both pro collective and and early advocate of scale and mechanisation but not in the capitalist way it eventually arrived here. More about it reducing the amount of hard toil while still allowing farming to supply a living to the many who were fine with it then, prior to the mass exodus from the land over the past forty years which has been a mixed bag to say the least while also hollowing out communities and creating a lot of social dislocation. he wanted a diffuse economy with the co-ops also doing small sustainable industry etc, so actually much less intensive work for most though also not the post-reform capitalist type boom. genie's out the bottle now and that bird has flown. Missed chance for some genuine sustainable development.

 

[butcher]

I find it mildly amusing when people post up a whole load of lay press articles (not for the first time, might I add, they've been in other threads), the research behind which, by and large I've read, and expect essays dismantling the source material, when in fact, it's not the source material that's really in doubt most of the time, it's the wild inferences that some Guardian journalist has made based on wanting to publish a sensationalist article.
It does slightly worry me how out of touch with the principles of food production a lot of the population seem to be.

Without trying to appear condescending, this is the difference between someone who reads peer reviewed papers from reputable journals and cross checks the references; and those who accept the conclusions drawn from review papers seen through others lenses.

When I was in the lab, every paper was read with a critical mind rather than an accepting one.

You also touch on a primary problem that is significant to this discussion, the divorce of most modern cultures from the land, ie the disconnect between food purchases and food production.

 

[NoXion]

Global shit shortage. Tbf we can just use people shit surely.

Anyway since lockdown started my already relatively low meat consumption has dropped off a cliff, I think the only meat I've eaten in a fortnight has been when I've robbed fish fingers and turkey dinosaurs off my daughter's plate. Even my egg love has had to go largely unrequited, reckon I'm down to six a week. Been on the cheese like a fucker though. Spinach and feta pie for the fifth night on the bounce later

I'm still eating meat, but it's relatively low-grade stuff like mince and cured meats. Had a couple of Quorn lasagnas a week ago, but the regular stuff is back now the hoarding has died down. It's been ages since I've had a steak, they were an occasional eating-out treat before the lockdown.

I wonder if human waste can be used to produce biogas? Cities must produce megatons of shit.

 

[8ball]

1) It depends how they do it - as far as I'm aware, China is in the process of improving unimaginably vast grasslands for this. It could be done sustainably, but I'm not sure that's their emphasis.

2) It depends on what meat they were eating. Fully ranched beef, probably not. Surplus game animals, probably not. Most other things, yes. The US is not the UK though, nor do we produce things in the same way.

Ok, so practically speaking those two propositions look fairly sound, given no other changes.

And yes, the US is not the UK. So how about in the case of an exactly equivalent change in the UK? Ie. one extra meat-free meal a week - replaced as mentioned above, with no necessary proportional bias in which meat is dropped (or even, let's just say beef consumed in proportion with overall habits).

edit: I'd also be interested in what elements of a switch of a single person from an 'average' UK diet to a 'no meat' diet would push it into the environmentally negative column.

 

[Proper Tidy]

I'm still eating meat, but it's relatively low-grade stuff like mince and cured meats. Had a couple of Quorn lasagnas a week ago, but the regular stuff is back now the hoarding has died down. It's been ages since I've had a steak, they were an occasional eating-out treat before the lockdown.

I wonder if human waste can be used to produce biogas? Cities must produce megatons of shit.

There's a few places using human waste for heating and stuff isn't there...

I have been craving some fat dirty homemade burgers lately, might try and score some mince on the next shopping run

 

[8ball]

I have been craving some fat dirty homemade burgers lately, might try and score some mince on the next shopping run

My problem is that I don't enjoy cooking enough to make small amounts, so if I did that, I'd end up stuffing myself with burgers for several days.

 

[JimW]

We put in household biogas converters in some of our projects, only a few trial ones but it has been done large scale elsewhere where the temperatures suited better than our mountain location. There was human shit in with the pigs because people's sties were also the family toilet IIRC you could use the residue in the converter for fertiliser too and it was healthier than putting it on direct as more harmful bacteria had been removed.