ActuarialChef wrote: » Forgive me if I'm being dense. I do enjoy some meatless meals now and again. There is nothing wrong (to me) with eating a meatless meal. However, can you explain how you save energy preparing a meatless meal? I make a mean black bean burger, but it takes just as much energy to grill/pan sear it as it would to grill/pan sear a beef burger. My chickpea curry takes the same amount of energy to prepare as the same curry prepared with chicken. There are many positives to eating meatless now and again, especially for people with certain health conditions or those with familial histories of certain health conditions, but I think this type of post (one lacking support for its claims) does not promote the issue properly or effectively.
Though Wheatless Wednesday has fallen by the wayside, Meatless Tuesdays have recently been revived and replaced by Meatless Mondays, an effort founded by advertising executive Sid Lerner in association with Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. The campaign has turned into a global movement, with a new slogan: The day all health breaks loose.The newer version of the campaign supports health, nutrition, the environment and animal welfare. Monday is viewed as the day people are most likely to start new diets or give up bad habits, like smoking, making it ideal for a health campaign (the two M’s in Meatless Monday also have a nice ring to them).
rlbrue wrote: » Thanks @PSYCHOJOKER13 i makes fresh fruit smoothies for Monday's I do t drink a lot of pop but defiantly need to cut back on the energy drinks.
Confuzzled4ever wrote: » I would think the energy used to grow additional non meat food would impact those numbers... Veggies beans fruits pasta etc all take water, energy, time and resources to grow, harvest and turn into something edible.
janejellyroll wrote: » Confuzzled4ever wrote: » I would think the energy used to grow additional non meat food would impact those numbers... Veggies beans fruits pasta etc all take water, energy, time and resources to grow, harvest and turn into something edible. Since it takes a lot of grain to produce a pound of meat, it is more efficient for us to eat the grain or vegetable directly. It does take energy to grow and harvest plants. We can eat those plants or we can feed them to animals and eat the animals. If we eat the plants, it requires much less energy.
pearso21123 wrote: » janejellyroll wrote: » Confuzzled4ever wrote: » I would think the energy used to grow additional non meat food would impact those numbers... Veggies beans fruits pasta etc all take water, energy, time and resources to grow, harvest and turn into something edible. Since it takes a lot of grain to produce a pound of meat, it is more efficient for us to eat the grain or vegetable directly. It does take energy to grow and harvest plants. We can eat those plants or we can feed them to animals and eat the animals. If we eat the plants, it requires much less energy. True, but there are some animals that can make use of plant matter in areas that are not compatible with farming, so in theory eating those animals is actually more economical than eating the plants. However, that situation is pretty rare. I have no issues with eating meat or the energy it takes to raise animals for meat, but I do have a problem with the "standard" practices in today's factory farms, practices that would be considered animal abuse if normal people were the perpetrators. Farm animals have no protection under animal abuse laws, at least in the U.S. So, we raise our own meat. That way I know they were treated humanely and had a good life until they are butchered. I also know what went "in" as far as growth hormones and antibiotics, etc. Even though my family is highly carnivorous, I'm not adverse to meatless Mondays. But can somebody post some recipes? I'm not very good at vegetarian dishes. They never seem to have much flavor with just vegetables. My husband has to watch his salt intake so I can't use most broths, and the kids don't like onions or mushrooms. Thanks!
Kalikel wrote: » I use more water with veggies because I wash those pretty thoroughly. Meat just gets slapped in a pan. I like the idea of MM, but if the meat just gets moved from Monday to Tuesday, I'm not sure that I make any big effort toward helping the animals.
PSYCHOJOKER13 wrote: » I guess when you BELIEVE in what you do, its Easy. And when you Educate yourself on how Factor Farms operate, how could you Not Become vegan?
Kalikel wrote: » I use more water with veggies because I wash those pretty thoroughly. Meat just gets slapped in a pan.
janejellyroll wrote: » Kalikel wrote: » I use more water with veggies because I wash those pretty thoroughly. Meat just gets slapped in a pan. I like the idea of MM, but if the meat just gets moved from Monday to Tuesday, I'm not sure that I make any big effort toward helping the animals. The water savings isn't referring to the water used during food preparation, but the water that is consumed by the animal prior to slaughter (and the water used to grow the grains fed to the animals). I have never seen anything to back this up, but I find it hard to imagine that most people doing meatless Monday are eating double-portions of meat on Tuesdays to make up for it. Lots of my co-workers seem to use it as a chance to learn new vegetarian recipes. Overall, it does seem like it would lead to a reduction in meat consumption over time.
Kalikel wrote: » janejellyroll wrote: » Kalikel wrote: » I use more water with veggies because I wash those pretty thoroughly. Meat just gets slapped in a pan. I like the idea of MM, but if the meat just gets moved from Monday to Tuesday, I'm not sure that I make any big effort toward helping the animals. The water savings isn't referring to the water used during food preparation, but the water that is consumed by the animal prior to slaughter (and the water used to grow the grains fed to the animals). I have never seen anything to back this up, but I find it hard to imagine that most people doing meatless Monday are eating double-portions of meat on Tuesdays to make up for it. Lots of my co-workers seem to use it as a chance to learn new vegetarian recipes. Overall, it does seem like it would lead to a reduction in meat consumption over time. I guess if you eat meat every day and cut Monday out, you've done your bit. Personally, I don't eat meat every day, so I'd just be making one of those days Monday, lol. No big contribution on my part. The doubling-up on meat...that's not at all what I meant, lol. If people are using MM to work in more veggies, it's a very positive thing. Most people don't get enough veggies and get more protein than they need, so yay all of that! The water thing - veggies need water, too. They need water wile growing, some need mist and cooling systems during transport and storage, then people wash them at home. People who boil or steam them use water for that. Are we really sure that cows use more water than veggies? I'm really on board with MM (even if it means no change for me, lol). I'm just wondering if it's really saving what those logos suggest.
peleroja wrote: » Kalikel wrote: » janejellyroll wrote: » Kalikel wrote: » I use more water with veggies because I wash those pretty thoroughly. Meat just gets slapped in a pan. I like the idea of MM, but if the meat just gets moved from Monday to Tuesday, I'm not sure that I make any big effort toward helping the animals. The water savings isn't referring to the water used during food preparation, but the water that is consumed by the animal prior to slaughter (and the water used to grow the grains fed to the animals). I have never seen anything to back this up, but I find it hard to imagine that most people doing meatless Monday are eating double-portions of meat on Tuesdays to make up for it. Lots of my co-workers seem to use it as a chance to learn new vegetarian recipes. Overall, it does seem like it would lead to a reduction in meat consumption over time. I guess if you eat meat every day and cut Monday out, you've done your bit. Personally, I don't eat meat every day, so I'd just be making one of those days Monday, lol. No big contribution on my part. The doubling-up on meat...that's not at all what I meant, lol. If people are using MM to work in more veggies, it's a very positive thing. Most people don't get enough veggies and get more protein than they need, so yay all of that! The water thing - veggies need water, too. They need water wile growing, some need mist and cooling systems during transport and storage, then people wash them at home. People who boil or steam them use water for that. Are we really sure that cows use more water than veggies? I'm really on board with MM (even if it means no change for me, lol). I'm just wondering if it's really saving what those logos suggest. I haven't done the math, but to me it makes sense, as cows have to eat something plant-based (whether grass or corn or whatever), so cows are then eating a huge amount of vegetables which required water to grow. Know what I mean? I think the idea is that those vegetables could go a lot further feeding people if we ate them directly rather than feeding them to a cow first. I have read a couple articles on this which seem to support this (that meat requires a lot more resources to produce because each cow requires so much feed from birth to slaughter), but I'm no expert and I'm very much aware that data can be manipulated, so I'm not prepared to argue this or anything...just wanted to explain what the reasoning is.
Surprise and disbelief. That’s what often follows when people learn about the large water footprint of many meat products. Common responses include: “Really?” “That can’t be right.” “That’s ridiculous.” Shock is reasonable after discovering that the global average water footprint – or the total amount of water needed – to produce one pound of beef is 1,799 gallons of water; one pound of pork takes 576 gallons of water. As a comparison, the water footprint of soybeans is 216 gallons; corn is 108 gallons.
The first has to do with an animal's efficiency to turn its food into body mass known as feed conversion ratios (FCR) (i.e., identical units of feed to meat, so feed: meat). The range of FCRs is based on the type of animal, and according to Dr. Robert Lawrence of Johns Hopkins University, the ratios are approximately 7:1 for beef, 5:1 for pork and 2.5:1 for poultry. The larger the animal, the larger the percentage of that animal’s body mass is inedible material like bone, skin and tissue. This is why beef conversion ratios are the highest and it takes exponentially less water and energy inputs to produce grains, beans and vegetables than meat. To be clear, raising a beef cow takes more resources because a typical beef cow in the US eats thousands of pounds of the above-listed corn and soybeans during its lifetime.
Need2Exerc1se wrote: » peleroja wrote: » Kalikel wrote: » janejellyroll wrote: » Kalikel wrote: » I use more water with veggies because I wash those pretty thoroughly. Meat just gets slapped in a pan. I like the idea of MM, but if the meat just gets moved from Monday to Tuesday, I'm not sure that I make any big effort toward helping the animals. The water savings isn't referring to the water used during food preparation, but the water that is consumed by the animal prior to slaughter (and the water used to grow the grains fed to the animals). I have never seen anything to back this up, but I find it hard to imagine that most people doing meatless Monday are eating double-portions of meat on Tuesdays to make up for it. Lots of my co-workers seem to use it as a chance to learn new vegetarian recipes. Overall, it does seem like it would lead to a reduction in meat consumption over time. I guess if you eat meat every day and cut Monday out, you've done your bit. Personally, I don't eat meat every day, so I'd just be making one of those days Monday, lol. No big contribution on my part. The doubling-up on meat...that's not at all what I meant, lol. If people are using MM to work in more veggies, it's a very positive thing. Most people don't get enough veggies and get more protein than they need, so yay all of that! The water thing - veggies need water, too. They need water wile growing, some need mist and cooling systems during transport and storage, then people wash them at home. People who boil or steam them use water for that. Are we really sure that cows use more water than veggies? I'm really on board with MM (even if it means no change for me, lol). I'm just wondering if it's really saving what those logos suggest. I haven't done the math, but to me it makes sense, as cows have to eat something plant-based (whether grass or corn or whatever), so cows are then eating a huge amount of vegetables which required water to grow. Know what I mean? I think the idea is that those vegetables could go a lot further feeding people if we ate them directly rather than feeding them to a cow first. I have read a couple articles on this which seem to support this (that meat requires a lot more resources to produce because each cow requires so much feed from birth to slaughter), but I'm no expert and I'm very much aware that data can be manipulated, so I'm not prepared to argue this or anything...just wanted to explain what the reasoning is. That doesn't seem right to me. Grass and feed corn are not normally foods humans eat. That may be part of it, but I think they are also talking about water consumed by the cow and used during processing of the meat. It's silly anyway since humans eat a lot of meat that is not beef.
RodaRose wrote: » http://foodtank.com/news/2013/12/why-meat-eats-resources Surprise and disbelief. That’s what often follows when people learn about the large water footprint of many meat products. Common responses include: “Really?” “That can’t be right.” “That’s ridiculous.” Shock is reasonable after discovering that the global average water footprint – or the total amount of water needed – to produce one pound of beef is 1,799 gallons of water; one pound of pork takes 576 gallons of water. As a comparison, the water footprint of soybeans is 216 gallons; corn is 108 gallons. The first has to do with an animal's efficiency to turn its food into body mass known as feed conversion ratios (FCR) (i.e., identical units of feed to meat, so feed: meat). The range of FCRs is based on the type of animal, and according to Dr. Robert Lawrence of Johns Hopkins University, the ratios are approximately 7:1 for beef, 5:1 for pork and 2.5:1 for poultry. The larger the animal, the larger the percentage of that animal’s body mass is inedible material like bone, skin and tissue. This is why beef conversion ratios are the highest and it takes exponentially less water and energy inputs to produce grains, beans and vegetables than meat. To be clear, raising a beef cow takes more resources because a typical beef cow in the US eats thousands of pounds of the above-listed corn and soybeans during its lifetime.
