WouldBe
Dislicksick
I didn't say they were your words but it's definitely in the link you quoted without stopping to think for even a second if that 73% could possibly be right.
Opinion: "The End of Meat Is Here" - NY Times
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
Um, I have been growing flowers and vegetables on my allotment for over 20 years - the last 8 or so without manure (because of herbicide issues). My soil is totally played out and will need a year of having a leguminous covercrop and a bloody great infusion of shit.* Flowers grow perfectly well, relying on photosynthesis for their needs, but calorific vegetable crops are en entirely different proposition, not least because I don't dig the flowers up every year to eat them. Calories in, calories out, the sunlight requirements and fertilser needs of annual crops are much greater than perennial ornamentals, trees, shrubs and such. Also, it isn't just about fertilser either. I could throw a granular chemical fert on the ground every year...but the soil structure and complex skein of micro-life is also damaged by continual digging, harvesting and replanting. It is a difficult and complicated issue but even my non-scientific brain can see the need for manure to provide, not just nutrients but also, moisture maintaining humus. It seems entirely obvious to me - if everyone ate a third less meat (at least) and dispensed with the ridiculous protein abundant diets we have become accustomed to, the earth has a carrying capacity to feed everyone, including maintaining a pastoral tradition where plants and animals have a symbiotic and harmonious co-existence. Intensive agriculture is as deleterious to topsoil (a finite and precious resource) and the wider environment as battery farming. Not least because of over-use of pesticides. It is a question of both scale and lack of diversity.These shitty black and white, binary arguments are always doomed to failure...and utterly without merit when there are abundant ways of ensuring food security.
* which I have finally got my hands on now that my neighbouring beef farmer has switched to no spray herbal leys. Thank fuckety fuck.
* which I have finally got my hands on now that my neighbouring beef farmer has switched to no spray herbal leys. Thank fuckety fuck.
Last edited:
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
73% of stats turn out on investigation to be bollocksI didn't say they were your words but it's definitely in the link you quoted without stopping to think for even a second if that 73% could possibly be right.
editor
hiraethified
The number comes from the University of Oxford's major study which was cited as "the most comprehensive database yet on the environmental impacts of nearly 40,000 farms, and 1,600 processors, packaging types, and retailers."I didn't say they were your words but it's definitely in the link you quoted without stopping to think for even a second if that 73% could possibly be right.
New estimates of the environmental cost of food | University of Oxford
Research published in the journal Science highlights the environmental impacts of thousands of food producers and their products, demonstrating the need for new technology to monitor agriculture, and the need for environmental labels on food products.
Now show everyone why you're so sure the scientists are wrong and be sure and support your assertions with credible studies and research.
Looking forward to it!
editor
hiraethified
No, why don't you link to the actual posts you claim are incorrect?See editors posts.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
Because I've already done so and commented on them in the past and I don't have the energy to keep repeating it ad nauseam every time you bring it back up again as 'evidence'.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
That quote isn't the same as your original quote. Both can't be right as they are different things so is there a cockup in the report? Or have you misquoted? And if so why?The number comes from the University of Oxford's major study which was cited as "the most comprehensive database yet on the environmental impacts of nearly 40,000 farms, and 1,600 processors, packaging types, and retailers."
New estimates of the environmental cost of food | University of Oxford
Research published in the journal Science highlights the environmental impacts of thousands of food producers and their products, demonstrating the need for new technology to monitor agriculture, and the need for environmental labels on food products.www.ox.ac.uk
Now show everyone why you're so sure the scientists are wrong and be sure and support your assertions with credible studies and research.
Looking forward to it!
editor
hiraethified
So you agree that "up to 73%" is entirety accurate, yes?That quote isn't the same as your original quote. Both can't be right as they are different things so is there a cockup in the report? Or have you misquoted? And if so why?
My original quote was a precis of the report, You understand how they work yes?
Funky_monks
Neo-Rustic
Shitting fuck, its only Poore and Nemeck (2018) again.Because I've already done so and commented on them in the past and I don't have the energy to keep repeating it ad nauseam every time you bring it back up again as 'evidence'.
Is there some sort of competition for how many times a person can bring up the same fucking study (often reported by different outlets) over and over and over.
Maybe I'll just merge my critique of it (peer reviewed) with the later ones from elsewhere in the literature and just repost it ad nauseam.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
No. 73% seems way too high.
I'm perfectly aware of how precis work but usually you don't change the meaning of the original.
editor
hiraethified
Be sure to give what you believe is the real figure and back that up with credible scientific research, otherwise you're just making shit up.
Karl Masks
Birds Angel Delight
How much travel are you prepared to allow when it comes to shipping food; do you imagine we eat only what grows here? In the EU? Worldwide shipping?
Infidel Castro
Producto Falso
This is happening anyway for fodder/feed for livestock and poultry is it not? It cuts both ways.
editor
hiraethified
Seriously. What the fuck are you on about now?
Karl Masks
Birds Angel Delight
do you have a hole in your head? Can't you even fucking read?
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Claim 1) a reduction in an individual's carbon footprint of 73% (post 1170); claim 2) a reduction in food emissions of 73% depending on where you live (post 1234). Do you recognise these claims?
Last edited:
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
It is better to keep silent and be thought a fool than pipe up as you have and prove you've a great void where your brains should be. We've all got holes in our head and if you don't there's something very wrong with you
Funky_monks
Neo-Rustic
Yes, that's entirely my point. Neither of these things are "cruelty free" except its one of the claims made by vegans.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
No because animals holistically return all their nutrients to the soil somehow and never mind the basic fact that primary consumers are an order of magnitude less efficient as a source of energy than producers, hence only one buzzard to every hundred bunny rabbits.
Also never mind the fact you can't compost unwanted bits of cow or pig because it would create a biohazard, so the entire animal and all its nutrients and minerals has to be taken away from the system and its soil.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
And could we please stop using 'peer reviewed' as synonymous with 'objective fact'. Because that's not what peer review means. It's like saying a novel is good because somebody proof read it.
Funky_monks
Neo-Rustic
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
I’ve lost all fish in my fish pond one very hot summer day due to sudden algae and that was with a pump working, it does happen.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
Fish famously an intrinsic part of a field ecosystem of course.
Do farmers produce that stuff in house from their own extraneous animal bits? No. Is it produced by composting? No. So that picture of a bag of fertiliser doesn't really disprove my assertion that nutrients in animal carcasses cannot be composted or returned to the soil by the farmers who created them.
Last edited:
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
I'm sure it does. 'Photosynthetic inversion' however, well if it does exist it was discovered by our own Funky_monks who then proceeded to tell nobody else about it, never mind publishing his work. There are zero google results for that phrase. Which in itself is kind of an achievement in this day and age.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
I googled photosynthesis inversion and found this immediately, perhaps this is what Funky_monks meant?
Funky_monks
Neo-Rustic
I've invented photosynthetic inversion at night?
Think it's on the GCSE syllabus, if not definitely A-level
Funky_monks
Neo-Rustic
You can also get pure bonmeal if it suits you.
What extraneous animal bits do you suppose farmers have lying about?
Me showing you the incredibly common fertiliser made from the only animal bits routinely wasted doesn't disprove your theory that unused animal parts can't be returned to the soil?
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
That's an article about a misconception of what photosynthesis is. It's easy, but wrong, to describe photosynthesis and respiration as directly opposite processes because the products of one are the reactants of the other (provided you're willing to reductively lump in lots of different molecules as 'glucose' as the GCSE syllabus requires us to do) and vice versa. Respiration and photosynthesis are both sequences of largely independent reactions, sequences which may not be completed in the absence of certain limiting factors but which may still be biologically useful. When you break these processes down into their component reaction stages it becomes clear that none of those stages has an opposite version in the other process.
How a misconception can murder pond life remains unclear.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
I've invented photosynthetic inversion at night?
Think it's on the GCSE syllabus, if not definitely A-level
You think wrong.
