Carnivore Diet: The Antithesis to Veganism
Replies
-
laurenq1991 wrote: »If all you are only looking at is carbon emissions, then it may be true. If you look at the bigger picture, with responsibly grown cattle, I think there is less impact in certain areas. I truly doubt that barley farming has less impact on the environment (chemicals going into the water, soil health and quality, soil organisms, carbon sinks, etc) than ruminants grazing on natural pasture land.
This article briefly discusses a book I've read on it some interesting points.
https://www.albertafarmexpress.ca/2018/03/02/cattle-arent-actually-killing-the-planet-says-vegetarian-rancher/
I realize the world does not look like it did in the 1600s. But I do think food production could and should be changed. Cutting down rain forests to provide food for feed lots is just not smart. Destroying pasture land to grow feedlot crops is not smart either. Cattle do better in some areas than others. Raising them there makes sense.
Instead of fields of yellow canola (for a highly processed seed oil) or barley (for feedlots) near my home, I think more cattle ranches would be a smarter choice. Or even bison ranches.
I'm not saying that everyone should eat carnivore. I'm saying that cutting back on meat consumption in order to cut carbon emissions makes much less sense than using sustainable farming practices, and way less sense than reducing industrial, production, and transportation emissions. Going after cattle was a smart move by animal rights activists. IMO, it is the wrong thing to go after... Like going after pipelines to reverse global warming instead of going after reductions in the use of gas and oil by industry - the need for gas.... It makes about as much sense as reducing food production in an effort to get people to eat less.
I eat meat and don't feel bad about the fact that I am meant to eat meat. Domesticated cows may exist because of us, which is fine by me. I'll eat them along with bison and wild pacific salmon we caught while fishing and the geese my boys shot this hunting season. The meat we eat is from a small farm and from hunting. We butcher it. My meat consumption is relatively responsible and local. If you want to avoid eating meat, that is fine by me, it is your choice. You can eat more of the broccoli or Brussel sprouts that man somehow created from mustard plants.
We will need to respectfully disagree.
As another poster said, you buy your groceries and I'll buy (or butcher) mine.
Unfortunately though, that is just not factually true. Again, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth "The scientists also found that even the very lowest impact meat and dairy products still cause much more environmental harm than the least sustainable vegetable and cereal growing."
The rancher who wrote that book does not have any environmental science credentials.
The author of that book (avegetarian of years who knows the cattle industry) discussed the findings of other scientists and those in the industry. Sort of like how the guardian author quoted other people's opinions or work - not a scientist either.
7 -
Okay. So wild bison populations was about 60 million, give or take millions There may well be more cows now. My point was that there is supposed to be ruminants here. If there are more while being managed, cared for and protected by farmers and medicine, that makes sense to me.
It's a completely different environment than it was 300 years ago. The comparison between the North America of 1700 and the North America of today is irrelevant because it's not the same environment in any respect.Most of the vegetation around here was cut for farming, and not roads and human structures. Sure roads and cities take up space but it isn't much up here. I agree that leaving the vegetation, instead of plotting it under, would help manage emissions. Soil fauna and flora has a large impact on that in the prairies, and it is greatly depleted by agriculture.... Whether for human or animal. Grazing would help with that.
Yes, and as mentioned in the article, 83% of that land is used for animal agriculture. Can you find any evidence indicating that the majority of crops are NOT farmed for animal agriculture?
Growing crops to feed animals didn't just happen for no reason. It happened because we started farming so many animals that natural food sources such as grass could not feed them all. More calorie-dense food sources like corn had to be used instead. Don't you think that if all the meat we wanted to eat could be produced by allowing the animals to eat freely off the land, that corporations would have done that rather than paying for feed? It is an economically nonviable proposition.I know you are talking about agriculture here, but I think it is the lesser evil compared to industrial, production and transportation emissions.
But that's a distraction from the point. Nobody disagrees that industrial, production, and transportation emissions are bad and should also be addressed. But that isn't the discussion here. A significant percentage of emissions come from agriculture, and beef is the worst emitter of all. https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/meat-dairy-industry-greenhouse-gas-emissions-fossil-fuels-oil-pollution-iatp-grain-a8451871.html "If these industries continue down their current path, the authors of the report warned that the livestock sector could be responsible for 80 per cent of the allowable greenhouse gas budget by 2050." "When taken together, the world’s top five meat and dairy corporations are already responsible for more emissions than ExxonMobil, Shell or BP."And again, I think the animal activists tend to twist the facts so that it looks like it is the animals fault that the environment us impacted rather than it being the fault of people who made poor farming choices, among other poor choices that have not helped the environment.
When did I ever say it's the "fault" of the animals? Obviously they did not ask to be farmed. This discussion is entirely about human choices, namely the choice to eat a diet consisting entirely of animal products and largely beef. Not to mention the human choice to pretend that beef production isn't worse for the environment than pretty much any other food despite a mountain of evidence indicating that it is.I think many natural disasters are man made. Giant fires tend to come from natural fire prevention, then there is too much tinder and you get an inferno. Mudslides seem to happen most in areas that are built onto slopes where vegetation has been removed. Flooding tends to happen along rivers and coasts - on flood plains. These disasters are unfortunate but hardly due to global warming - more poor human planning.
Scientists disagree with you on that also. It is true that overdevelopment contributes to natural disasters having a bigger impact on humans. However, climate change is contributing to the worsening of natural disasters. For example here's an article I was just reading a few days ago on the California wildfires.
https://www.outsideonline.com/2367196/camp-fire-paradise-california-wildfire
"Last year’s grass boom happened because of the wettest winter the Sacramento area had seen in 122 years. The 2018 crop emerged thanks to one damp month. Coming on the heels of a winter that provided far-below-average snowpack, March and April were warm and relatively wet—peak growing season. The grasses rioted; last spring, the U.C. Davis team harvested a bit more than 5,500 pounds of grass per acre, almost twice the normal amount.
Then conditions worsened drastically. The last measurable rain was on May 25, and July was the warmest on record. The spring’s green grass turned brown and crispy. According to Brent Wachter, a Northern California forecaster who specializes in fire-related weather monitoring, the Sierra foothills became “a tall mat of woven fire starters.”
Yet once the Camp Fire was burning, no management could have prevented disaster. Paradise is ash because a mat of grass, dried out by climate change—167-plus days with no rain—caught fire during a sustained 40-mile-an-hour wind.
...forest management is part of the fix. As is rewriting building codes so that all new construction is fire wise, tightening and diversifying regulations on greenhouse emissions, and modernizing the insurance industry so that homeowners are incentivized to harden their houses against fires. Lighting more prescribed fires to decrease the intensity of the burns that do go rogue will also help. But even a vigorous combination of these measures would only slow the damage caused by megafires, not stop it. Like coastal cities facing rising seas, the reality is that 39 million people now live in a tinderbox that’s only getting more flammable."
There are similar articles on other natural disasters but this post would be way too long if I posted more examples.I have bever said to ignore the facts. But I don't think eating tofu or beans instead of fish or steak is the best answer. I respectfully disagree.
Then you're contradicting yourself because I posted a lot of scientific research indicating that this is the case. Meanwhile the only thing you posted is an interview with a rancher which cites no hard facts (even if the book cites research, the article you posted does not).The author of that book (avegetarian of years who knows the cattle industry) discussed the findings of other scientists and those in the industry. Sort of like how the guardian author quoted other people's opinions or work - not a scientist either.
It's possible (and likely) the author quoted outliers rather than the consensus opinion. But since the interview you posted does not quote any research, we will never know. The consensus opinion follows what I and others have posted. It's true that there are certain cattle farming practices that are less bad for the environment than others. But to say it's "good" for the environment is ridiculous, when you look at the amount cows eat and the emissions they produce.
12 -
wilson10102018 wrote: »I am always amazed that otherwise powerless people want to control what everyone in the World chooses to eat. Although, it is interesting to note the choices people have made after millions of personal decision points in an environment of billions of climate and demographic facts, but debate is utterly pointless.
When you get to the grocery, folks, put the stuff in your cart that you would like to eat. I'll do the same.
Everyone is allowed to eat what they want but it is irresponsible to claim that eating mostly beef is more sustainable than a grain based diet because you feel that this is true. Climate change is not trivial.15 -
Check mortality rates for communities with a limited diet range.
It’s more than anecdotal or abbreviated studies when we figure out that there are vitamins and minerals we absolutely need. The discovery of the cause of rickets is high up on that list.
You can personally re-learn the lessons of the past but these lessons tend to be self limiting.
Onset of symptoms may not be overnight but if you start getting unexplained bone pain and bleeding gums get thyself to a doctor.
I don’t buy that cattle are bad for the environment. I live smack dab in the middle of the prairies. Grasslands depend on renewal and they are helped along by close cropping and chopping of the roots by ruminants.
The historical pemmican out here on the prairies was made from dried meat, fat, and Saskatoon berries. An omnivore concoction.
4 -
laurenq1991 wrote: »Okay. So wild bison populations was about 60 million, give or take millions There may well be more cows now. My point was that there is supposed to be ruminants here. If there are more while being managed, cared for and protected by farmers and medicine, that makes sense to me.
It's a completely different environment than it was 300 years ago. The comparison between the North America of 1700 and the North America of today is irrelevant because it's not the same environment in any respect.Most of the vegetation around here was cut for farming, and not roads and human structures. Sure roads and cities take up space but it isn't much up here. I agree that leaving the vegetation, instead of plotting it under, would help manage emissions. Soil fauna and flora has a large impact on that in the prairies, and it is greatly depleted by agriculture.... Whether for human or animal. Grazing would help with that.
Yes, and as mentioned in the article, 83% of that land is used for animal agriculture. Can you find any evidence indicating that the majority of crops are NOT farmed for animal agriculture?
Growing crops to feed animals didn't just happen for no reason. It happened because we started farming so many animals that natural food sources such as grass could not feed them all. More calorie-dense food sources like corn had to be used instead. Don't you think that if all the meat we wanted to eat could be produced by allowing the animals to eat freely off the land, that corporations would have done that rather than paying for feed? It is an economically nonviable proposition.I know you are talking about agriculture here, but I think it is the lesser evil compared to industrial, production and transportation emissions.
But that's a distraction from the point. Nobody disagrees that industrial, production, and transportation emissions are bad and should also be addressed. But that isn't the discussion here. A significant percentage of emissions come from agriculture, and beef is the worst emitter of all. https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/meat-dairy-industry-greenhouse-gas-emissions-fossil-fuels-oil-pollution-iatp-grain-a8451871.html "If these industries continue down their current path, the authors of the report warned that the livestock sector could be responsible for 80 per cent of the allowable greenhouse gas budget by 2050." "When taken together, the world’s top five meat and dairy corporations are already responsible for more emissions than ExxonMobil, Shell or BP."And again, I think the animal activists tend to twist the facts so that it looks like it is the animals fault that the environment us impacted rather than it being the fault of people who made poor farming choices, among other poor choices that have not helped the environment.
When did I ever say it's the "fault" of the animals? Obviously they did not ask to be farmed. This discussion is entirely about human choices, namely the choice to eat a diet consisting entirely of animal products and largely beef. Not to mention the human choice to pretend that beef production isn't worse for the environment than pretty much any other food despite a mountain of evidence indicating that it is.I think many natural disasters are man made. Giant fires tend to come from natural fire prevention, then there is too much tinder and you get an inferno. Mudslides seem to happen most in areas that are built onto slopes where vegetation has been removed. Flooding tends to happen along rivers and coasts - on flood plains. These disasters are unfortunate but hardly due to global warming - more poor human planning.
Scientists disagree with you on that also. It is true that overdevelopment contributes to natural disasters having a bigger impact on humans. However, climate change is contributing to the worsening of natural disasters. For example here's an article I was just reading a few days ago on the California wildfires.
https://www.outsideonline.com/2367196/camp-fire-paradise-california-wildfire
"Last year’s grass boom happened because of the wettest winter the Sacramento area had seen in 122 years. The 2018 crop emerged thanks to one damp month. Coming on the heels of a winter that provided far-below-average snowpack, March and April were warm and relatively wet—peak growing season. The grasses rioted; last spring, the U.C. Davis team harvested a bit more than 5,500 pounds of grass per acre, almost twice the normal amount.
Then conditions worsened drastically. The last measurable rain was on May 25, and July was the warmest on record. The spring’s green grass turned brown and crispy. According to Brent Wachter, a Northern California forecaster who specializes in fire-related weather monitoring, the Sierra foothills became “a tall mat of woven fire starters.”
Yet once the Camp Fire was burning, no management could have prevented disaster. Paradise is ash because a mat of grass, dried out by climate change—167-plus days with no rain—caught fire during a sustained 40-mile-an-hour wind.
...forest management is part of the fix. As is rewriting building codes so that all new construction is fire wise, tightening and diversifying regulations on greenhouse emissions, and modernizing the insurance industry so that homeowners are incentivized to harden their houses against fires. Lighting more prescribed fires to decrease the intensity of the burns that do go rogue will also help. But even a vigorous combination of these measures would only slow the damage caused by megafires, not stop it. Like coastal cities facing rising seas, the reality is that 39 million people now live in a tinderbox that’s only getting more flammable."
There are similar articles on other natural disasters but this post would be way too long if I posted more examples.I have bever said to ignore the facts. But I don't think eating tofu or beans instead of fish or steak is the best answer. I respectfully disagree.
Then you're contradicting yourself because I posted a lot of scientific research indicating that this is the case. Meanwhile the only thing you posted is an interview with a rancher which cites no hard facts (even if the book cites research, the article you posted does not).The author of that book (avegetarian of years who knows the cattle industry) discussed the findings of other scientists and those in the industry. Sort of like how the guardian author quoted other people's opinions or work - not a scientist either.
It's possible (and likely) the author quoted outliers rather than the consensus opinion. But since the interview you posted does not quote any research, we will never know. The consensus opinion follows what I and others have posted. It's true that there are certain cattle farming practices that are less bad for the environment than others. But to say it's "good" for the environment is ridiculous, when you look at the amount cows eat and the emissions they produce.
I must not be making my thoughts clear. We seem to be discussing different things.
Yes, the 1600 or 1700s were different than now. They were in the little ice age at the time, following the mediviel warm period. The plants that grow here were roughly the same though.
When talking about agriculture, my point is to stop, or greatly reduce, growing feed crops instead of letting ruminants graze. Cows do not need to be corn or barley finished. And yes, I think in many places that cattle can be grazed. Feedlots (at least around here) are for finishing the animal. That's it.
It is not the fault if the animal in terms that if they were just grazed, their environmental impact would be reduced and soil in grasslands would be improved. Cow belching is not a giant problem... So there are approximately 33% more cows than there was bison - that is not a big cause of global warming.Plus methane emissions can be altered by diet; corn is not their natural food....
As for local unusual weather? Looking at one season or a year is pointless. Climate and weather are very different things. A few years of drier or wetter or warmer or colder weather may be annoying, but it is just weather. I do not argue that there is climate change and there may be greater storms, but your examples seem like weather to me.
I remember when Leonardo DiCaprio was filming near here. We were having chinooks, which are normal warm winds coming down the mountains. They can raise the te,operative from -20C to +15C in a matter of hours. He then went on about how it was global warming, and how bad it was... Riiiight. Last winter at Xmas it was -35C before the windchill and this year is a seasonal -8C. Just weather.
But please note that I know the climate is changing and I do believe that humans are playing a role. (A much bigger role than the cows are.) climates change though. Extreme changes are not good for whatever flora and fauna exist but it is going to change no matter what.
I accept that cows make carbon gases. I believe there are better ways to address reducing carbon emissions than avoiding a food that humans do well eating. I have not seen evidence that raising cows is bad but I think there is some evidence that the current way that many cows are raised is not smart. This is my main argument.
Just curious, are you vegan or a vegetarian?6 -
Check mortality rates for communities with a limited diet range.
It’s more than anecdotal or abbreviated studies when we figure out that there are vitamins and minerals we absolutely need. The discovery of the cause of rickets is high up on that list.
You can personally re-learn the lessons of the past but these lessons tend to be self limiting.
Onset of symptoms may not be overnight but if you start getting unexplained bone pain and bleeding gums get thyself to a doctor.
I don’t buy that cattle are bad for the environment. I live smack dab in the middle of the prairies. Grasslands depend on renewal and they are helped along by close cropping and chopping of the roots by ruminants.
The historical pemmican out here on the prairies was made from dried meat, fat, and Saskatoon berries. An omnivore concoction.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Rickets is unlikely in a carnivore diet since many animal products are high in vitamin D, and also is very rare in the general population. Many foods are now fortified with vitamin D for this reason (among other foods, milk and plant milk are directly fortified, and many meats are indirectly fortified by giving these vitamins to the animals). A well-planned carnivore diet that includes organ meats most likely will not cause any nutritional deficiencies. A bigger concern is the increased risk of cancer because higher red meat consumption is associated with a higher risk of cancer (it is classified as a probable carcinogen by the IARC), and higher consumption of whole grains, fruits, and vegetables, is associated with a lower risk of cancer. Overall a carnivore diet probably won't kill you in the short term, but there's no evidence that it's better than the balanced diet rich in plant foods that is recommended by most nutritionists.1 -
Yes, the 1600 or 1700s were different than now. They were in the little ice age at the time, following the mediviel warm period. The plants that grow here were roughly the same though.
So you don't think that human activity has significantly changed the environment through raising the average temperature by 1 degree C (probably more than that because global warming is greater near the poles), habitat destruction including cutting of old-growth forests and cutting through natural habitats with roadways, replacing naturally occurring species with domesticated and invasive species, massive amounts of pollution, etc?When talking about agriculture, my point is to stop, or greatly reduce, growing feed crops instead of letting ruminants graze. Cows do not need to be corn or barley finished. And yes, I think in many places that cattle can be grazed. Feedlots (at least around here) are for finishing the animal. That's it.
I know what your plan is and I'm saying it's economically unviable. If it was viable to feed that many cows on grassland, don't you think it would have been happening all along? Don't you think the companies would be thrilled to be able to feed their cows on an essentially free and self-renewing resource, rather than buying feed? Why do you think grass-fed beef is so much more expensive than grain-fed? Because the fact is if all cows were grass-fed we could produce a lot fewer cows and they would be a lot more expensive. Actually we probably should do this but not for the reasons you think, we should do it so people will stop buying as much beef because it would cost a lot more.It is not the fault if the animal in terms that if they were just grazed, their environmental impact would be reduced and soil in grasslands would be improved. Cow belching is not a giant problem... So there are approximately 33% more cows than there was bison - that is not a big cause of global warming.Plus methane emissions can be altered by diet; corn is not their natural food....
Even if emissions from the cows were reduced, it would still have a worse impact than the environmental impact of plant foods. As it said in the research cited by the article that I referenced several times, which you have not refuted with any actual scientific research.As for local unusual weather? Looking at one season or a year is pointless. Climate and weather are very different things. A few years of drier or wetter or warmer or colder weather may be annoying, but it is just weather. I do not argue that there is climate change and there may be greater storms, but your examples seem like weather to me.
I remember when Leonardo DiCaprio was filming near here. We were having chinooks, which are normal warm winds coming down the mountains. They can raise the te,operative from -20C to +15C in a matter of hours. He then went on about how it was global warming, and how bad it was... Riiiight. Last winter at Xmas it was -35C before the windchill and this year is a seasonal -8C. Just weather.
Clearly you haven't heard about the historic drought conditions in California that have been going on for years then. Scientists can link isolated weather events to a greater pattern of climate change, and that's exactly what they did in this situation and others (such as Hurricane Harvey). They have devoted their careers to the link between weather and overall climate. Leonardo DiCaprio is not a scientist and I don't listen to him either (or Al Gore).I have not seen evidence that raising cows is bad
Then you must not have read any of the articles citing research that I or other people posted in this thread about the subject.Just curious, are you vegan or a vegetarian?
Pescetarian. Not sure why that is relevant to a discussion about scientific facts though.
9 -
laurenq1991 wrote: »I know cows create methane but I'm not convinced that problem is worse than flying or trucking in rice or bananas, or the loss of carbon sinks by changing grasslands and forests to modern agriculture, or just the damage to the soil by turning it over every year.
Do you have any evidence to back up your assertions or is it just how you feel about it? I and other people posted evidence backing up what we have said.There used to be millions of bison here. The only reason they are mostly gone is because Europeans needed a way to control the indigenous people, and decimating their food supply was an easy way to do it. From what I have read, and I could be wrong, there is not more cows in North America today than there was bison a few hundred years ago. There's a lot more agriculture and industrialization though, and I think they should be considered more when pointing fingers on global warming contributors.
Well first of all that's wrong. Peak bison populations were around 60 million (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison#Hunting). The US has around 91 million cattle and Canada has around 12 million (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle#Population). And that's with current meat consumption levels, with only a tiny number of people doing the carnivore diet. Imagine how high it would be if a significant amount of people were on the diet. Also the environment is totally different now than it was back then. A lot of land is now not usable for cattle because people live there, have roads there, have other industries there, it is too polluted, etc. Back when the bison population was 60 million, basically the entire grasslands were free to them, and the human population and number of permanent human structures built was much lower. Back then there were some human emissions from fires and so on, but they were very small. The natural emissions from ruminants were balanced out by the large amount of vegetation (a lot of which has now been cut for buildings, roadways, etc.) so it was not a problem.
As I said, a lot of the agriculture happens in order to grow food FOR animals. If you read the Guardian article I posted you would see that experts estimate animal agriculture takes up 83 percent of all agricultural land use.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth ("The scientists also found that even the very lowest impact meat and dairy products still cause much more environmental harm than the least sustainable vegetable and cereal growing.")
Yes, industrialization also contributes to climate change, but that's a different issue, we're talking about animal agriculture here.A carnivorous diet is usually high in beef but it can include other animas like fish, pigs, deer, elk, eggs and dairy.
None of those foods are low-impact either.But please note that I am not saying it is the best diet for all, or even doable for all. I do think a more carnivorous diet (more animal heavy than plant heavy) may be more appropriate to certain areas. My area has fewer than 4 months of frost free days - we don't have the growing season for many fruits and veggies. That will be different than tropical and subtropical climates (where we get our produce shipped in from).
Again, "The scientists also found that even the very lowest impact meat and dairy products still cause much more environmental harm than the least sustainable vegetable and cereal growing."Should more people switch to carnivore? I don't know. I doubt it is usually needed. Should people limit or avoid meat? IMO, only for financial or ethical reasons. Most do well as omnivores and should probably continue eating that way. I eat that way, but with an animal heavy diet. I think omnivore is usually the way to go.
If you go on zerocarb on Reddit you will see most people on the carnivore diet think everyone should go on it. Also fixing climate change is not just an ethical reason, but also a reason of increasing your own personal chance of living a full lifespan, not losing everything in a natural disaster, etc.wilson10102018 wrote: »I am always amazed that otherwise powerless people want to control what everyone in the World chooses to eat. Although, it is interesting to note the choices people have made after millions of personal decision points in an environment of billions of climate and demographic facts, but debate is utterly pointless.
When you get to the grocery, folks, put the stuff in your cart that you would like to eat. I'll do the same.
So just totally ignore the facts on what needs to be done and then, when disaster inevitably strikes, complain "why me?!" and "why didn't anyone do anything about it?!" Judging by the natural disasters lately that's been working out really well.
Okay. So wild bison populations was about 60 million, give or take millions There may well be more cows now. My point was that there is supposed to be ruminants here. If there are more while being managed, cared for and protected by farmers and medicine, that makes sense to me.
Most of the vegetation around here was cut for farming, and not roads and human structures. Sure roads and cities take up space but it isn't much up here. I agree that leaving the vegetation, instead of plotting it under, would help manage emissions. Soil fauna and flora has a large impact on that in the prairies, and it is greatly depleted by agriculture.... Whether for human or animal. Grazing would help with that.
I know you are talking about agriculture here, but I think it is the lesser evil compared to industrial, production and transportation emissions.
I mentioned other animals because they tend to be easier on plants. Cattle often rip plants up whereas other grazers will eat off the tops of grasses to varying lengths which could improve grasslands habitat.
And again, I think the animal activists tend to twist the facts so that it looks like it is the animals fault that the environment us impacted rather than it being the fault of people who made poor farming choices, among other poor choices that have not helped the environment.
All carnivores do not think alike. Just because someone on reddit said everyone should eat this way does not mean every carnivore thinks that.
I think many natural disasters are man made. Giant fires tend to come from natural fire prevention, then there is too much tinder and you get an inferno. Mudslides seem to happen most in areas that are built onto slopes where vegetation has been removed. Flooding tends to happen along rivers and coasts - on flood plains. These disasters are unfortunate but hardly due to global warming - more poor human planning.
I have bever said to ignore the facts. But I don't think eating tofu or beans instead of fish or steak is the best answer. I respectfully disagree.
I feel like you're ignoring the fact that back in the 1700s when the Bison and antelopes freely grazed across the continent, there were less humans. A lot less humans. And there weren't cities and national parks and roads and train tracks and airports. And all those animals, in addition to roaming lands that are no longer unobstructed, were feeding this much smaller population of people.
Again, the sort of setup you are envisioning perhaps would be possible in the frozen plains of rural Canada, I'll take your word for that, but it would be a very geographically limited setup for a small population of people. The majority of the earth's population simply do not have access to affordable grass fed cattle, reasonably fresh organ meat, or the kind of open space that would be required to raise enough animals to be the only source of food without turning to corporate factory style animal production and slaughter.5 -
laurenq1991 wrote: »Yes, the 1600 or 1700s were different than now. They were in the little ice age at the time, following the mediviel warm period. The plants that grow here were roughly the same though.
So you don't think that human activity has significantly changed the environment through raising the average temperature by 1 degree C (probably more than that because global warming is greater near the poles), habitat destruction including cutting of old-growth forests and cutting through natural habitats with roadways, replacing naturally occurring species with domesticated and invasive species, massive amounts of pollution, etc?When talking about agriculture, my point is to stop, or greatly reduce, growing feed crops instead of letting ruminants graze. Cows do not need to be corn or barley finished. And yes, I think in many places that cattle can be grazed. Feedlots (at least around here) are for finishing the animal. That's it.
I know what your plan is and I'm saying it's economically unviable. If it was viable to feed that many cows on grassland, don't you think it would have been happening all along? Don't you think the companies would be thrilled to be able to feed their cows on an essentially free and self-renewing resource, rather than buying feed? Why do you think grass-fed beef is so much more expensive than grain-fed? Because the fact is if all cows were grass-fed we could produce a lot fewer cows and they would be a lot more expensive. Actually we probably should do this but not for the reasons you think, we should do it so people will stop buying as much beef because it would cost a lot more.It is not the fault if the animal in terms that if they were just grazed, their environmental impact would be reduced and soil in grasslands would be improved. Cow belching is not a giant problem... So there are approximately 33% more cows than there was bison - that is not a big cause of global warming.Plus methane emissions can be altered by diet; corn is not their natural food....
Even if emissions from the cows were reduced, it would still have a worse impact than the environmental impact of plant foods. As it said in the research cited by the article that I referenced several times, which you have not refuted with any actual scientific research.As for local unusual weather? Looking at one season or a year is pointless. Climate and weather are very different things. A few years of drier or wetter or warmer or colder weather may be annoying, but it is just weather. I do not argue that there is climate change and there may be greater storms, but your examples seem like weather to me.
I remember when Leonardo DiCaprio was filming near here. We were having chinooks, which are normal warm winds coming down the mountains. They can raise the te,operative from -20C to +15C in a matter of hours. He then went on about how it was global warming, and how bad it was... Riiiight. Last winter at Xmas it was -35C before the windchill and this year is a seasonal -8C. Just weather.
Clearly you haven't heard about the historic drought conditions in California that have been going on for years then. Scientists can link isolated weather events to a greater pattern of climate change, and that's exactly what they did in this situation and others (such as Hurricane Harvey). They have devoted their careers to the link between weather and overall climate. Leonardo DiCaprio is not a scientist and I don't listen to him either (or Al Gore).I have not seen evidence that raising cows is bad
Then you must not have read any of the articles citing research that I or other people posted in this thread about the subject.Just curious, are you vegan or a vegetarian?
Pescetarian. Not sure why that is relevant to a discussion about scientific facts though.
You are generalizing. Hugely. There are no old growth forests here. We have grasslands and forests that typically burn every 100-200years. There are 4 million people in Alberta, which I am guessing is close to the size of California. More than was here 300 years ago, sure, but we don't have the same problems as the more populated areas. We have space for cattle.
I agree that roads and buildings do break up the natural landscape. My FIL's place floods every few years due to raised roads and poor culverts that can't handle more rain than normal. It's a man made problem.
My point about grazing the cows is that almost all cows up here ARE grass fed the first year or so of life. It is already being done. Just don't finish them/ fatten them all in feedlots at the end. Perhaps cattle is raised entirely in feedlots in California. That's not how it is done here. It must be economic if it is being done already....
Thearticleyoupostedjust shows that feedlot cows and their processing, makes methane. It does not disprove what I have said which is that intact soil can capture that carbon, create a richer habitat and stronger ecosystem, nor that cows fed foods other than corn gave fewer emissions. I read it and noticed it did not address what I am saying. Do you have anything to share on that?
As to historic drought in California, it's a shame. Sorry you are experiencing it but it is only historic in terms of how long weather has been measured and records werekept.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/25/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more-than-200-years-scientists-say/
As to the vegetarian question, I was just wondering if you had already written off beef. I guess so. I don't often see such vehement arguments from people who eat meat.6 -
laurenq1991 wrote: »Yes, the 1600 or 1700s were different than now. They were in the little ice age at the time, following the mediviel warm period. The plants that grow here were roughly the same though.
So you don't think that human activity has significantly changed the environment through raising the average temperature by 1 degree C (probably more than that because global warming is greater near the poles), habitat destruction including cutting of old-growth forests and cutting through natural habitats with roadways, replacing naturally occurring species with domesticated and invasive species, massive amounts of pollution, etc?When talking about agriculture, my point is to stop, or greatly reduce, growing feed crops instead of letting ruminants graze. Cows do not need to be corn or barley finished. And yes, I think in many places that cattle can be grazed. Feedlots (at least around here) are for finishing the animal. That's it.
I know what your plan is and I'm saying it's economically unviable. If it was viable to feed that many cows on grassland, don't you think it would have been happening all along? Don't you think the companies would be thrilled to be able to feed their cows on an essentially free and self-renewing resource, rather than buying feed? Why do you think grass-fed beef is so much more expensive than grain-fed? Because the fact is if all cows were grass-fed we could produce a lot fewer cows and they would be a lot more expensive. Actually we probably should do this but not for the reasons you think, we should do it so people will stop buying as much beef because it would cost a lot more.It is not the fault if the animal in terms that if they were just grazed, their environmental impact would be reduced and soil in grasslands would be improved. Cow belching is not a giant problem... So there are approximately 33% more cows than there was bison - that is not a big cause of global warming.Plus methane emissions can be altered by diet; corn is not their natural food....
Even if emissions from the cows were reduced, it would still have a worse impact than the environmental impact of plant foods. As it said in the research cited by the article that I referenced several times, which you have not refuted with any actual scientific research.As for local unusual weather? Looking at one season or a year is pointless. Climate and weather are very different things. A few years of drier or wetter or warmer or colder weather may be annoying, but it is just weather. I do not argue that there is climate change and there may be greater storms, but your examples seem like weather to me.
I remember when Leonardo DiCaprio was filming near here. We were having chinooks, which are normal warm winds coming down the mountains. They can raise the te,operative from -20C to +15C in a matter of hours. He then went on about how it was global warming, and how bad it was... Riiiight. Last winter at Xmas it was -35C before the windchill and this year is a seasonal -8C. Just weather.
Clearly you haven't heard about the historic drought conditions in California that have been going on for years then. Scientists can link isolated weather events to a greater pattern of climate change, and that's exactly what they did in this situation and others (such as Hurricane Harvey). They have devoted their careers to the link between weather and overall climate. Leonardo DiCaprio is not a scientist and I don't listen to him either (or Al Gore).I have not seen evidence that raising cows is bad
Then you must not have read any of the articles citing research that I or other people posted in this thread about the subject.Just curious, are you vegan or a vegetarian?
Pescetarian. Not sure why that is relevant to a discussion about scientific facts though.
You are generalizing. Hugely. There are no old growth forests here. We have grasslands and forests that typically burn every 100-200years. There are 4 million people in Alberta, which I am guessing is close to the size of California. More than was here 300 years ago, sure, but we don't have the same problems as the more populated areas. We have space for cattle.
I agree that roads and buildings do break up the natural landscape. My FIL's place floods every few years due to raised roads and poor culverts that can't handle more rain than normal. It's a man made problem.
My point about grazing the cows is that almost all cows up here ARE grass fed the first year or so of life. It is already being done. Just don't finish them/ fatten them all in feedlots at the end. Perhaps cattle is raised entirely in feedlots in California. That's not how it is done here. It must be economic if it is being done already....
Thearticleyoupostedjust shows that feedlot cows and their processing, makes methane. It does not disprove what I have said which is that intact soil can capture that carbon, create a richer habitat and stronger ecosystem, nor that cows fed foods other than corn gave fewer emissions. I read it and noticed it did not address what I am saying. Do you have anything to share on that?
As to historic drought in California, it's a shame. Sorry you are experiencing it but it is only historic in terms of how long weather has been measured and records werekept.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/25/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more-than-200-years-scientists-say/
As to the vegetarian question, I was just wondering if you had already written off beef. I guess so. I don't often see such vehement arguments from people who eat meat.
I eat meat, including beef, and I still acknowledge it is horrible for the environment. I just limit beef to special occasions like you would do with something like lobster. Grass fed cows create more methane than grain fed because grass it tougher to digest and requires more help from methane producing bacteria.
7 -
laurenq1991 wrote: »I know cows create methane but I'm not convinced that problem is worse than flying or trucking in rice or bananas, or the loss of carbon sinks by changing grasslands and forests to modern agriculture, or just the damage to the soil by turning it over every year.
Do you have any evidence to back up your assertions or is it just how you feel about it? I and other people posted evidence backing up what we have said.There used to be millions of bison here. The only reason they are mostly gone is because Europeans needed a way to control the indigenous people, and decimating their food supply was an easy way to do it. From what I have read, and I could be wrong, there is not more cows in North America today than there was bison a few hundred years ago. There's a lot more agriculture and industrialization though, and I think they should be considered more when pointing fingers on global warming contributors.
Well first of all that's wrong. Peak bison populations were around 60 million (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison#Hunting). The US has around 91 million cattle and Canada has around 12 million (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle#Population). And that's with current meat consumption levels, with only a tiny number of people doing the carnivore diet. Imagine how high it would be if a significant amount of people were on the diet. Also the environment is totally different now than it was back then. A lot of land is now not usable for cattle because people live there, have roads there, have other industries there, it is too polluted, etc. Back when the bison population was 60 million, basically the entire grasslands were free to them, and the human population and number of permanent human structures built was much lower. Back then there were some human emissions from fires and so on, but they were very small. The natural emissions from ruminants were balanced out by the large amount of vegetation (a lot of which has now been cut for buildings, roadways, etc.) so it was not a problem.
As I said, a lot of the agriculture happens in order to grow food FOR animals. If you read the Guardian article I posted you would see that experts estimate animal agriculture takes up 83 percent of all agricultural land use.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth ("The scientists also found that even the very lowest impact meat and dairy products still cause much more environmental harm than the least sustainable vegetable and cereal growing.")
Yes, industrialization also contributes to climate change, but that's a different issue, we're talking about animal agriculture here.A carnivorous diet is usually high in beef but it can include other animas like fish, pigs, deer, elk, eggs and dairy.
None of those foods are low-impact either.But please note that I am not saying it is the best diet for all, or even doable for all. I do think a more carnivorous diet (more animal heavy than plant heavy) may be more appropriate to certain areas. My area has fewer than 4 months of frost free days - we don't have the growing season for many fruits and veggies. That will be different than tropical and subtropical climates (where we get our produce shipped in from).
Again, "The scientists also found that even the very lowest impact meat and dairy products still cause much more environmental harm than the least sustainable vegetable and cereal growing."Should more people switch to carnivore? I don't know. I doubt it is usually needed. Should people limit or avoid meat? IMO, only for financial or ethical reasons. Most do well as omnivores and should probably continue eating that way. I eat that way, but with an animal heavy diet. I think omnivore is usually the way to go.
If you go on zerocarb on Reddit you will see most people on the carnivore diet think everyone should go on it. Also fixing climate change is not just an ethical reason, but also a reason of increasing your own personal chance of living a full lifespan, not losing everything in a natural disaster, etc.wilson10102018 wrote: »I am always amazed that otherwise powerless people want to control what everyone in the World chooses to eat. Although, it is interesting to note the choices people have made after millions of personal decision points in an environment of billions of climate and demographic facts, but debate is utterly pointless.
When you get to the grocery, folks, put the stuff in your cart that you would like to eat. I'll do the same.
So just totally ignore the facts on what needs to be done and then, when disaster inevitably strikes, complain "why me?!" and "why didn't anyone do anything about it?!" Judging by the natural disasters lately that's been working out really well.
Okay. So wild bison populations was about 60 million, give or take millions There may well be more cows now. My point was that there is supposed to be ruminants here. If there are more while being managed, cared for and protected by farmers and medicine, that makes sense to me.
Most of the vegetation around here was cut for farming, and not roads and human structures. Sure roads and cities take up space but it isn't much up here. I agree that leaving the vegetation, instead of plotting it under, would help manage emissions. Soil fauna and flora has a large impact on that in the prairies, and it is greatly depleted by agriculture.... Whether for human or animal. Grazing would help with that.
I know you are talking about agriculture here, but I think it is the lesser evil compared to industrial, production and transportation emissions.
I mentioned other animals because they tend to be easier on plants. Cattle often rip plants up whereas other grazers will eat off the tops of grasses to varying lengths which could improve grasslands habitat.
And again, I think the animal activists tend to twist the facts so that it looks like it is the animals fault that the environment us impacted rather than it being the fault of people who made poor farming choices, among other poor choices that have not helped the environment.
All carnivores do not think alike. Just because someone on reddit said everyone should eat this way does not mean every carnivore thinks that.
I think many natural disasters are man made. Giant fires tend to come from natural fire prevention, then there is too much tinder and you get an inferno. Mudslides seem to happen most in areas that are built onto slopes where vegetation has been removed. Flooding tends to happen along rivers and coasts - on flood plains. These disasters are unfortunate but hardly due to global warming - more poor human planning.
I have bever said to ignore the facts. But I don't think eating tofu or beans instead of fish or steak is the best answer. I respectfully disagree.
I feel like you're ignoring the fact that back in the 1700s when the Bison and antelopes freely grazed across the continent, there were less humans. A lot less humans. And there weren't cities and national parks and roads and train tracks and airports. And all those animals, in addition to roaming lands that are no longer unobstructed, were feeding this much smaller population of people.
Again, the sort of setup you are envisioning perhaps would be possible in the frozen plains of rural Canada, I'll take your word for that, but it would be a very geographically limited setup for a small population of people. The majority of the earth's population simply do not have access to affordable grass fed cattle, reasonably fresh organ meat, or the kind of open space that would be required to raise enough animals to be the only source of food without turning to corporate factory style animal production and slaughter.
That's sort of my point. It makes environmental sense to eat local. Those living on the coast will eat more fish than me. Albertans will eat more beef than those living in tropical or subtropical areas. those in tropical areas will eat less lamb or olives than those in the Mediterranean areas. Someone eating less beef in Alberta is an ineffective way to protest clear cutting for cattle in Brazil. Kwim?2 -
laurenq1991 wrote: »Check mortality rates for communities with a limited diet range.
It’s more than anecdotal or abbreviated studies when we figure out that there are vitamins and minerals we absolutely need. The discovery of the cause of rickets is high up on that list.
You can personally re-learn the lessons of the past but these lessons tend to be self limiting.
Onset of symptoms may not be overnight but if you start getting unexplained bone pain and bleeding gums get thyself to a doctor.
I don’t buy that cattle are bad for the environment. I live smack dab in the middle of the prairies. Grasslands depend on renewal and they are helped along by close cropping and chopping of the roots by ruminants.
The historical pemmican out here on the prairies was made from dried meat, fat, and Saskatoon berries. An omnivore concoction.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Rickets is unlikely in a carnivore diet since many animal products are high in vitamin D, and also is very rare in the general population. Many foods are now fortified with vitamin D for this reason (among other foods, milk and plant milk are directly fortified, and many meats are indirectly fortified by giving these vitamins to the animals). A well-planned carnivore diet that includes organ meats most likely will not cause any nutritional deficiencies. A bigger concern is the increased risk of cancer because higher red meat consumption is associated with a higher risk of cancer (it is classified as a probable carcinogen by the IARC), and higher consumption of whole grains, fruits, and vegetables, is associated with a lower risk of cancer. Overall a carnivore diet probably won't kill you in the short term, but there's no evidence that it's better than the balanced diet rich in plant foods that is recommended by most nutritionists.
Only processed meats have a link to cancer and possibly raising your risk of colon cancer from 5 to 6%.
Red meat has not been shown to be cause cancer at all... And they've looked.4 -
You are generalizing. Hugely. There are no old growth forests here. We have grasslands and forests that typically burn every 100-200years. There are 4 million people in Alberta, which I am guessing is close to the size of California. More than was here 300 years ago, sure, but we don't have the same problems as the more populated areas. We have space for cattle.
Even if that is the case, where is the evidence that grass-fed beef produces fewer emissions than, say, legumes? Because I posted evidence stating that even the most environmentally consciously raised meat still has more impact than plant foods, and you haven't posted any evidence to the contrary.My point about grazing the cows is that almost all cows up here ARE grass fed the first year or so of life. It is already being done. Just don't finish them/ fatten them all in feedlots at the end. Perhaps cattle is raised entirely in feedlots in California. That's not how it is done here. It must be economic if it is being done already....
Well there must be a reason for feedlots and that reason is cost. You can grass-finish them but the fact is it will make beef more expensive, fewer cows will be produced, and less beef will be available...otherwise there would be no point in putting the effort to farm crops to feed cows when they could just eat freely accessible grass that grows everywhere and replenishes itself each year.Thearticleyoupostedjust shows that feedlot cows and their processing, makes methane. It does not disprove what I have said which is that intact soil can capture that carbon, create a richer habitat and stronger ecosystem, nor that cows fed foods other than corn gave fewer emissions. I read it and noticed it did not address what I am saying. Do you have anything to share on that?
The article said "The scientists also found that even the very lowest impact meat and dairy products still cause much more environmental harm than the least sustainable vegetable and cereal growing." and "For example, beef cattle raised on deforested land result in 12 times more greenhouse gases and use 50 times more land than those grazing rich natural pasture. But the comparison of beef with plant protein such as peas is stark, with even the lowest impact beef responsible for six times more greenhouse gases and 36 times more land." "Rich natural pasture" seems to be the kind of soil you are referring to, as opposed to "deforested land."As to historic drought in California, it's a shame. Sorry you are experiencing it but it is only historic in terms of how long weather has been measured and records werekept.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/25/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more-than-200-years-scientists-say/
I don't live in California, it was just an example of natural disasters worsened by climate change since it happened recently. The longer droughts happened centuries ago and it says right in the article that you posted: "Bill Patzert, a research scientist and oceanographer at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, says that the West is in a 20-year drought that began in 2000. He cites the fact that a phenomenon known as a “negative Pacific decadal oscillation” is underway — and that historically has been linked to extreme high-pressure ridges that block storms.
Such events, which cause pools of warm water in the North Pacific Ocean and cool water along the California coast, are not the result of global warming, Patzert said. But climate change caused by the burning of fossil fuels has been linked to longer heat waves. That wild card wasn’t around years ago.
“Long before the Industrial Revolution, we were vulnerable to long extended periods of drought. And now we have another experiment with all this CO2 in the atmosphere where there are potentially even more wild swings in there,” said Graham Kent, a University of Nevada geophysicist who has studied submerged ancient trees in Fallen Leaf Lake near Lake Tahoe." So basically the oscillation caused the drought, but the oscillation itself is more extreme due to climate change.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/science/climate-change-intensifies-california-drought-scientists-say.html
Also as an aside, it says right in that article: "Although many Californians think that population growth is the main driver of water demand statewide, it actually is agriculture. In an average year, farmers use 80 percent of the water consumed by people and businesses — 34 million of 43 million acre-feet diverted from rivers, lakes and groundwater, according to the state Department of Water Resources." And since we know animal agriculture takes up a lot of the land and water use, that's another impact.As to the vegetarian question, I was just wondering if you had already written off beef. I guess so. I don't often see such vehement arguments from people who eat meat.
It's a fact-based argument and so far you have not provided one piece of hard data to refute anything I've said, and my own personal life has nothing to do with it. But the reason why people who eat meat usually aren't the ones making these arguments, is because people who accept the truth of how dietary choices affect carbon footprint oftentimes change their diet accordingly. Otherwise, they would be a hypocrite and people would call them out for that, right? If you're trying to say I have some kind of "vegetarian agenda" that is incorrect. I actually don't really care that much about the ethics of killing animals for food. I think hunting is perfectly natural and while I don't think factory farms are great, I probably wouldn't give up meat for that reason alone. Climate change is my main concern and particularly its impact on me, loved ones, and future generations. So it is kind of a selfish reason in a way, maybe not the "bleeding heart" thing you were expecting. But honestly it does annoy me that my future might be compromised because other people insist on eating unsustainable foods such as beef, taking long-distance flights, living in huge houses, etc. when none of these things are actually necessary for survival. Beef and chicken aren't even that nutritious compared to fish and shellfish (except for organ meats but not many people eat those).Only processed meats have a link to cancer and possibly raising your risk of colon cancer from 5 to 6%.
Red meat has not been shown to be cause cancer at all... And they've looked.
https://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/ "Probably carcinogenic" is exactly what I said in my previous post...if someone wants to take a chance on "probably" they can go ahead.
2 -
laurenq1991 wrote: »I know cows create methane but I'm not convinced that problem is worse than flying or trucking in rice or bananas, or the loss of carbon sinks by changing grasslands and forests to modern agriculture, or just the damage to the soil by turning it over every year.
Do you have any evidence to back up your assertions or is it just how you feel about it? I and other people posted evidence backing up what we have said.There used to be millions of bison here. The only reason they are mostly gone is because Europeans needed a way to control the indigenous people, and decimating their food supply was an easy way to do it. From what I have read, and I could be wrong, there is not more cows in North America today than there was bison a few hundred years ago. There's a lot more agriculture and industrialization though, and I think they should be considered more when pointing fingers on global warming contributors.
Well first of all that's wrong. Peak bison populations were around 60 million (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison#Hunting). The US has around 91 million cattle and Canada has around 12 million (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle#Population). And that's with current meat consumption levels, with only a tiny number of people doing the carnivore diet. Imagine how high it would be if a significant amount of people were on the diet. Also the environment is totally different now than it was back then. A lot of land is now not usable for cattle because people live there, have roads there, have other industries there, it is too polluted, etc. Back when the bison population was 60 million, basically the entire grasslands were free to them, and the human population and number of permanent human structures built was much lower. Back then there were some human emissions from fires and so on, but they were very small. The natural emissions from ruminants were balanced out by the large amount of vegetation (a lot of which has now been cut for buildings, roadways, etc.) so it was not a problem.
As I said, a lot of the agriculture happens in order to grow food FOR animals. If you read the Guardian article I posted you would see that experts estimate animal agriculture takes up 83 percent of all agricultural land use.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth ("The scientists also found that even the very lowest impact meat and dairy products still cause much more environmental harm than the least sustainable vegetable and cereal growing.")
Yes, industrialization also contributes to climate change, but that's a different issue, we're talking about animal agriculture here.A carnivorous diet is usually high in beef but it can include other animas like fish, pigs, deer, elk, eggs and dairy.
None of those foods are low-impact either.But please note that I am not saying it is the best diet for all, or even doable for all. I do think a more carnivorous diet (more animal heavy than plant heavy) may be more appropriate to certain areas. My area has fewer than 4 months of frost free days - we don't have the growing season for many fruits and veggies. That will be different than tropical and subtropical climates (where we get our produce shipped in from).
Again, "The scientists also found that even the very lowest impact meat and dairy products still cause much more environmental harm than the least sustainable vegetable and cereal growing."Should more people switch to carnivore? I don't know. I doubt it is usually needed. Should people limit or avoid meat? IMO, only for financial or ethical reasons. Most do well as omnivores and should probably continue eating that way. I eat that way, but with an animal heavy diet. I think omnivore is usually the way to go.
If you go on zerocarb on Reddit you will see most people on the carnivore diet think everyone should go on it. Also fixing climate change is not just an ethical reason, but also a reason of increasing your own personal chance of living a full lifespan, not losing everything in a natural disaster, etc.wilson10102018 wrote: »I am always amazed that otherwise powerless people want to control what everyone in the World chooses to eat. Although, it is interesting to note the choices people have made after millions of personal decision points in an environment of billions of climate and demographic facts, but debate is utterly pointless.
When you get to the grocery, folks, put the stuff in your cart that you would like to eat. I'll do the same.
So just totally ignore the facts on what needs to be done and then, when disaster inevitably strikes, complain "why me?!" and "why didn't anyone do anything about it?!" Judging by the natural disasters lately that's been working out really well.
Okay. So wild bison populations was about 60 million, give or take millions There may well be more cows now. My point was that there is supposed to be ruminants here. If there are more while being managed, cared for and protected by farmers and medicine, that makes sense to me.
Most of the vegetation around here was cut for farming, and not roads and human structures. Sure roads and cities take up space but it isn't much up here. I agree that leaving the vegetation, instead of plotting it under, would help manage emissions. Soil fauna and flora has a large impact on that in the prairies, and it is greatly depleted by agriculture.... Whether for human or animal. Grazing would help with that.
I know you are talking about agriculture here, but I think it is the lesser evil compared to industrial, production and transportation emissions.
I mentioned other animals because they tend to be easier on plants. Cattle often rip plants up whereas other grazers will eat off the tops of grasses to varying lengths which could improve grasslands habitat.
And again, I think the animal activists tend to twist the facts so that it looks like it is the animals fault that the environment us impacted rather than it being the fault of people who made poor farming choices, among other poor choices that have not helped the environment.
All carnivores do not think alike. Just because someone on reddit said everyone should eat this way does not mean every carnivore thinks that.
I think many natural disasters are man made. Giant fires tend to come from natural fire prevention, then there is too much tinder and you get an inferno. Mudslides seem to happen most in areas that are built onto slopes where vegetation has been removed. Flooding tends to happen along rivers and coasts - on flood plains. These disasters are unfortunate but hardly due to global warming - more poor human planning.
I have bever said to ignore the facts. But I don't think eating tofu or beans instead of fish or steak is the best answer. I respectfully disagree.
I feel like you're ignoring the fact that back in the 1700s when the Bison and antelopes freely grazed across the continent, there were less humans. A lot less humans. And there weren't cities and national parks and roads and train tracks and airports. And all those animals, in addition to roaming lands that are no longer unobstructed, were feeding this much smaller population of people.
Again, the sort of setup you are envisioning perhaps would be possible in the frozen plains of rural Canada, I'll take your word for that, but it would be a very geographically limited setup for a small population of people. The majority of the earth's population simply do not have access to affordable grass fed cattle, reasonably fresh organ meat, or the kind of open space that would be required to raise enough animals to be the only source of food without turning to corporate factory style animal production and slaughter.
That's sort of my point. It makes environmental sense to eat local. Those living on the coast will eat more fish than me. Albertans will eat more beef than those living in tropical or subtropical areas. those in tropical areas will eat less lamb or olives than those in the Mediterranean areas. Someone eating less beef in Alberta is an ineffective way to protest clear cutting for cattle in Brazil. Kwim?
Sure. I just don't see how it ties in to supporting a carnivore diet. How many people in the world, when eating strictly local and affordable, would have access to enough nutritious animal products to follow a carnivore diet? In my opinion at least, eating local requires eating an at least omnivorous diet. And for people living in heavily populated (especially urban) regions, I would think it would be very difficult to get affordable "local" meat products at all. It just seems like a niche diet if you are talking about practicality or sustainability. I'm sure there are individuals or select areas where it is practical and sustainable, and you and your corner of the world may be one of them, but I think those are very specific individuals and areas.7 -
Oops. Scurvy.4
-
Reading this thread is like seeing a messy accident on the side of the road. Ugly, but compelling.
Nothing can be accomplished on either side other than virtue signalling and trolling. 20 billion hotdogs (actual number) are going to be consumed in the US next year regardless of whether it is Darla or its Craig who is right about anthropomorphic global warming. No one is ever convinced to change their mind by this virtue signalling/trolling cycle. And, how would it matter if they did. Every environmental activist who's name you would recognize has a carbon footprint equal to about 8000 of us peons. (They didn't have enough room for parking all the private jets at COP24).9 -
laurenq1991 wrote: »Check mortality rates for communities with a limited diet range.
It’s more than anecdotal or abbreviated studies when we figure out that there are vitamins and minerals we absolutely need. The discovery of the cause of rickets is high up on that list.
You can personally re-learn the lessons of the past but these lessons tend to be self limiting.
Onset of symptoms may not be overnight but if you start getting unexplained bone pain and bleeding gums get thyself to a doctor.
I don’t buy that cattle are bad for the environment. I live smack dab in the middle of the prairies. Grasslands depend on renewal and they are helped along by close cropping and chopping of the roots by ruminants.
The historical pemmican out here on the prairies was made from dried meat, fat, and Saskatoon berries. An omnivore concoction.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Rickets is unlikely in a carnivore diet since many animal products are high in vitamin D, and also is very rare in the general population. Many foods are now fortified with vitamin D for this reason (among other foods, milk and plant milk are directly fortified, and many meats are indirectly fortified by giving these vitamins to the animals). A well-planned carnivore diet that includes organ meats most likely will not cause any nutritional deficiencies. A bigger concern is the increased risk of cancer because higher red meat consumption is associated with a higher risk of cancer (it is classified as a probable carcinogen by the IARC), and higher consumption of whole grains, fruits, and vegetables, is associated with a lower risk of cancer. Overall a carnivore diet probably won't kill you in the short term, but there's no evidence that it's better than the balanced diet rich in plant foods that is recommended by most nutritionists.
Only processed meats have a link to cancer and possibly raising your risk of colon cancer from 5 to 6%.
Red meat has not been shown to be cause cancer at all... And they've looked.
Wrong again
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4698595/
3 -
laurenq1991 wrote: »I know what your plan is and I'm saying it's economically unviable. If it was viable to feed that many cows on grassland, don't you think it would have been happening all along? Don't you think the companies would be thrilled to be able to feed their cows on an essentially free and self-renewing resource, rather than buying feed? Why do you think grass-fed beef is so much more expensive than grain-fed?
Grain finished (calves are typically pastured) cattle require less space and grow faster so require less turn around time and get fatter (which is generally what the market wants). That's why.
I think you are obviously correct that we would produce less beef and it would cost more if it were an all grass-fed system, and therefore the price would go up (and presumably the demand would go down). As it is, subsidies for grains used for animal fed subsidizes the cost of meat.
Wondering if there could be agreement by both sides of this argument for (1) ending subsidies, and (2) avoiding non grass fed, and (3) doing something to greater regulate/phase out/cause to be unpopular grain fed (I don't really think this last is realistic, but I'm open to suggestions).
If so, and nvmomketo is right, no problem, we have all grass-fed beef and the system works better. If you are right, beef gets much more scarce, the price skyrockets, and demand goes down (perhaps other than for the most committed carnivores, who are choosing to pay for their choices which better include the externalities than before, although you can argue not entirely).
I'm not sure why there couldn't be some compromise (at least of the current discussion) along these lines.2 -
For the purpose of the discussion, I think that compromise is great.
In practice? Eh, I have issues pricing staple foods out of reach for certain income levels. It's a real conundrum.
Then again, bringing this back to the topic of the thread, I don't see people with lower incomes ever willingly choosing to be carnivores simply because they probably couldn't afford to be so.6 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »In practice? Eh, I have issues pricing staple foods out of reach for certain income levels. It's a real conundrum.
Yeah, agree -- this is why I got all wishy-washy when it came to what to do re grain fed and left it open to suggestion. (My personal choice is to buy locally and grass fed (which here costs more) and eat less meat. But I am not willing to lobby to support laws to force others to do so, for me it's a luxury I can afford and not everyone can. I do think we should end the related subsidies in general.)Then again, bringing this back to the topic of the thread, I don't see people with lower incomes ever willingly choosing to be carnivores simply because they probably couldn't afford to be so.
Agree with this too. I also don't think carnivore is ever going to catch on in any significant numbers, whatever some reddit group thinks should happen.1 -
laurenq1991 wrote: »I know cows create methane but I'm not convinced that problem is worse than flying or trucking in rice or bananas, or the loss of carbon sinks by changing grasslands and forests to modern agriculture, or just the damage to the soil by turning it over every year.
Do you have any evidence to back up your assertions or is it just how you feel about it? I and other people posted evidence backing up what we have said.There used to be millions of bison here. The only reason they are mostly gone is because Europeans needed a way to control the indigenous people, and decimating their food supply was an easy way to do it. From what I have read, and I could be wrong, there is not more cows in North America today than there was bison a few hundred years ago. There's a lot more agriculture and industrialization though, and I think they should be considered more when pointing fingers on global warming contributors.
Well first of all that's wrong. Peak bison populations were around 60 million (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison#Hunting). The US has around 91 million cattle and Canada has around 12 million (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle#Population). And that's with current meat consumption levels, with only a tiny number of people doing the carnivore diet. Imagine how high it would be if a significant amount of people were on the diet. Also the environment is totally different now than it was back then. A lot of land is now not usable for cattle because people live there, have roads there, have other industries there, it is too polluted, etc. Back when the bison population was 60 million, basically the entire grasslands were free to them, and the human population and number of permanent human structures built was much lower. Back then there were some human emissions from fires and so on, but they were very small. The natural emissions from ruminants were balanced out by the large amount of vegetation (a lot of which has now been cut for buildings, roadways, etc.) so it was not a problem.
As I said, a lot of the agriculture happens in order to grow food FOR animals. If you read the Guardian article I posted you would see that experts estimate animal agriculture takes up 83 percent of all agricultural land use.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth ("The scientists also found that even the very lowest impact meat and dairy products still cause much more environmental harm than the least sustainable vegetable and cereal growing.")
Yes, industrialization also contributes to climate change, but that's a different issue, we're talking about animal agriculture here.A carnivorous diet is usually high in beef but it can include other animas like fish, pigs, deer, elk, eggs and dairy.
None of those foods are low-impact either.But please note that I am not saying it is the best diet for all, or even doable for all. I do think a more carnivorous diet (more animal heavy than plant heavy) may be more appropriate to certain areas. My area has fewer than 4 months of frost free days - we don't have the growing season for many fruits and veggies. That will be different than tropical and subtropical climates (where we get our produce shipped in from).
Again, "The scientists also found that even the very lowest impact meat and dairy products still cause much more environmental harm than the least sustainable vegetable and cereal growing."Should more people switch to carnivore? I don't know. I doubt it is usually needed. Should people limit or avoid meat? IMO, only for financial or ethical reasons. Most do well as omnivores and should probably continue eating that way. I eat that way, but with an animal heavy diet. I think omnivore is usually the way to go.
If you go on zerocarb on Reddit you will see most people on the carnivore diet think everyone should go on it. Also fixing climate change is not just an ethical reason, but also a reason of increasing your own personal chance of living a full lifespan, not losing everything in a natural disaster, etc.wilson10102018 wrote: »I am always amazed that otherwise powerless people want to control what everyone in the World chooses to eat. Although, it is interesting to note the choices people have made after millions of personal decision points in an environment of billions of climate and demographic facts, but debate is utterly pointless.
When you get to the grocery, folks, put the stuff in your cart that you would like to eat. I'll do the same.
So just totally ignore the facts on what needs to be done and then, when disaster inevitably strikes, complain "why me?!" and "why didn't anyone do anything about it?!" Judging by the natural disasters lately that's been working out really well.
Okay. So wild bison populations was about 60 million, give or take millions There may well be more cows now. My point was that there is supposed to be ruminants here. If there are more while being managed, cared for and protected by farmers and medicine, that makes sense to me.
Most of the vegetation around here was cut for farming, and not roads and human structures. Sure roads and cities take up space but it isn't much up here. I agree that leaving the vegetation, instead of plotting it under, would help manage emissions. Soil fauna and flora has a large impact on that in the prairies, and it is greatly depleted by agriculture.... Whether for human or animal. Grazing would help with that.
I know you are talking about agriculture here, but I think it is the lesser evil compared to industrial, production and transportation emissions.
I mentioned other animals because they tend to be easier on plants. Cattle often rip plants up whereas other grazers will eat off the tops of grasses to varying lengths which could improve grasslands habitat.
And again, I think the animal activists tend to twist the facts so that it looks like it is the animals fault that the environment us impacted rather than it being the fault of people who made poor farming choices, among other poor choices that have not helped the environment.
All carnivores do not think alike. Just because someone on reddit said everyone should eat this way does not mean every carnivore thinks that.
I think many natural disasters are man made. Giant fires tend to come from natural fire prevention, then there is too much tinder and you get an inferno. Mudslides seem to happen most in areas that are built onto slopes where vegetation has been removed. Flooding tends to happen along rivers and coasts - on flood plains. These disasters are unfortunate but hardly due to global warming - more poor human planning.
I have bever said to ignore the facts. But I don't think eating tofu or beans instead of fish or steak is the best answer. I respectfully disagree.
I feel like you're ignoring the fact that back in the 1700s when the Bison and antelopes freely grazed across the continent, there were less humans. A lot less humans. And there weren't cities and national parks and roads and train tracks and airports. And all those animals, in addition to roaming lands that are no longer unobstructed, were feeding this much smaller population of people.
Again, the sort of setup you are envisioning perhaps would be possible in the frozen plains of rural Canada, I'll take your word for that, but it would be a very geographically limited setup for a small population of people. The majority of the earth's population simply do not have access to affordable grass fed cattle, reasonably fresh organ meat, or the kind of open space that would be required to raise enough animals to be the only source of food without turning to corporate factory style animal production and slaughter.
That's sort of my point. It makes environmental sense to eat local. Those living on the coast will eat more fish than me. Albertans will eat more beef than those living in tropical or subtropical areas. those in tropical areas will eat less lamb or olives than those in the Mediterranean areas. Someone eating less beef in Alberta is an ineffective way to protest clear cutting for cattle in Brazil. Kwim?
Sure. I just don't see how it ties in to supporting a carnivore diet. How many people in the world, when eating strictly local and affordable, would have access to enough nutritious animal products to follow a carnivore diet? In my opinion at least, eating local requires eating an at least omnivorous diet. And for people living in heavily populated (especially urban) regions, I would think it would be very difficult to get affordable "local" meat products at all. It just seems like a niche diet if you are talking about practicality or sustainability. I'm sure there are individuals or select areas where it is practical and sustainable, and you and your corner of the world may be one of them, but I think those are very specific individuals and areas.
I was not so much arguing for carnivore, but rather against the idea that it is bad for environmental reasons.
And yes, only specific pockets in the worlds are suited to raising cattle or other ruminants, so eating a diet based on that may not be practical. That was one of my points.
I do think most people do best as omnivores. It's easy and can be quite healthy. I do not think that the few people who eat carnivore, usually out of a medical necessity, should be encouraged to stop because of global warming. I am healthier when I basically avoid plants. I've discovered that my arthritis and inflammation improves dramatically. I would eat more plants if it did not make me feel less well. I don't eat carnivore because I love the food and variety... it's pretty boring. 11 -
johnslater461 wrote: »laurenq1991 wrote: »Check mortality rates for communities with a limited diet range.
It’s more than anecdotal or abbreviated studies when we figure out that there are vitamins and minerals we absolutely need. The discovery of the cause of rickets is high up on that list.
You can personally re-learn the lessons of the past but these lessons tend to be self limiting.
Onset of symptoms may not be overnight but if you start getting unexplained bone pain and bleeding gums get thyself to a doctor.
I don’t buy that cattle are bad for the environment. I live smack dab in the middle of the prairies. Grasslands depend on renewal and they are helped along by close cropping and chopping of the roots by ruminants.
The historical pemmican out here on the prairies was made from dried meat, fat, and Saskatoon berries. An omnivore concoction.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Rickets is unlikely in a carnivore diet since many animal products are high in vitamin D, and also is very rare in the general population. Many foods are now fortified with vitamin D for this reason (among other foods, milk and plant milk are directly fortified, and many meats are indirectly fortified by giving these vitamins to the animals). A well-planned carnivore diet that includes organ meats most likely will not cause any nutritional deficiencies. A bigger concern is the increased risk of cancer because higher red meat consumption is associated with a higher risk of cancer (it is classified as a probable carcinogen by the IARC), and higher consumption of whole grains, fruits, and vegetables, is associated with a lower risk of cancer. Overall a carnivore diet probably won't kill you in the short term, but there's no evidence that it's better than the balanced diet rich in plant foods that is recommended by most nutritionists.
Only processed meats have a link to cancer and possibly raising your risk of colon cancer from 5 to 6%.
Red meat has not been shown to be cause cancer at all... And they've looked.
Wrong again
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4698595/
The average risk for CRC is 5%. So a 20-30% increase in risk would make it 6-6.5%. Its simple math that is twisted by researchers to make it sound worse. So she was right.
Add in the fact that this is based off ten epidemiological studies which makes them more limited.5 -
laurenq1991 wrote: »You are generalizing. Hugely. There are no old growth forests here. We have grasslands and forests that typically burn every 100-200years. There are 4 million people in Alberta, which I am guessing is close to the size of California. More than was here 300 years ago, sure, but we don't have the same problems as the more populated areas. We have space for cattle.
Even if that is the case, where is the evidence that grass-fed beef produces fewer emissions than, say, legumes? Because I posted evidence stating that even the most environmentally consciously raised meat still has more impact than plant foods, and you haven't posted any evidence to the contrary.My point about grazing the cows is that almost all cows up here ARE grass fed the first year or so of life. It is already being done. Just don't finish them/ fatten them all in feedlots at the end. Perhaps cattle is raised entirely in feedlots in California. That's not how it is done here. It must be economic if it is being done already....
Well there must be a reason for feedlots and that reason is cost. You can grass-finish them but the fact is it will make beef more expensive, fewer cows will be produced, and less beef will be available...otherwise there would be no point in putting the effort to farm crops to feed cows when they could just eat freely accessible grass that grows everywhere and replenishes itself each year.Thearticleyoupostedjust shows that feedlot cows and their processing, makes methane. It does not disprove what I have said which is that intact soil can capture that carbon, create a richer habitat and stronger ecosystem, nor that cows fed foods other than corn gave fewer emissions. I read it and noticed it did not address what I am saying. Do you have anything to share on that?
The article said "The scientists also found that even the very lowest impact meat and dairy products still cause much more environmental harm than the least sustainable vegetable and cereal growing." and "For example, beef cattle raised on deforested land result in 12 times more greenhouse gases and use 50 times more land than those grazing rich natural pasture. But the comparison of beef with plant protein such as peas is stark, with even the lowest impact beef responsible for six times more greenhouse gases and 36 times more land." "Rich natural pasture" seems to be the kind of soil you are referring to, as opposed to "deforested land."As to historic drought in California, it's a shame. Sorry you are experiencing it but it is only historic in terms of how long weather has been measured and records werekept.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/25/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more-than-200-years-scientists-say/
I don't live in California, it was just an example of natural disasters worsened by climate change since it happened recently. The longer droughts happened centuries ago and it says right in the article that you posted: "Bill Patzert, a research scientist and oceanographer at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, says that the West is in a 20-year drought that began in 2000. He cites the fact that a phenomenon known as a “negative Pacific decadal oscillation” is underway — and that historically has been linked to extreme high-pressure ridges that block storms.
Such events, which cause pools of warm water in the North Pacific Ocean and cool water along the California coast, are not the result of global warming, Patzert said. But climate change caused by the burning of fossil fuels has been linked to longer heat waves. That wild card wasn’t around years ago.
“Long before the Industrial Revolution, we were vulnerable to long extended periods of drought. And now we have another experiment with all this CO2 in the atmosphere where there are potentially even more wild swings in there,” said Graham Kent, a University of Nevada geophysicist who has studied submerged ancient trees in Fallen Leaf Lake near Lake Tahoe." So basically the oscillation caused the drought, but the oscillation itself is more extreme due to climate change.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/science/climate-change-intensifies-california-drought-scientists-say.html
Also as an aside, it says right in that article: "Although many Californians think that population growth is the main driver of water demand statewide, it actually is agriculture. In an average year, farmers use 80 percent of the water consumed by people and businesses — 34 million of 43 million acre-feet diverted from rivers, lakes and groundwater, according to the state Department of Water Resources." And since we know animal agriculture takes up a lot of the land and water use, that's another impact.As to the vegetarian question, I was just wondering if you had already written off beef. I guess so. I don't often see such vehement arguments from people who eat meat.
It's a fact-based argument and so far you have not provided one piece of hard data to refute anything I've said, and my own personal life has nothing to do with it. But the reason why people who eat meat usually aren't the ones making these arguments, is because people who accept the truth of how dietary choices affect carbon footprint oftentimes change their diet accordingly. Otherwise, they would be a hypocrite and people would call them out for that, right? If you're trying to say I have some kind of "vegetarian agenda" that is incorrect. I actually don't really care that much about the ethics of killing animals for food. I think hunting is perfectly natural and while I don't think factory farms are great, I probably wouldn't give up meat for that reason alone. Climate change is my main concern and particularly its impact on me, loved ones, and future generations. So it is kind of a selfish reason in a way, maybe not the "bleeding heart" thing you were expecting. But honestly it does annoy me that my future might be compromised because other people insist on eating unsustainable foods such as beef, taking long-distance flights, living in huge houses, etc. when none of these things are actually necessary for survival. Beef and chicken aren't even that nutritious compared to fish and shellfish (except for organ meats but not many people eat those).Only processed meats have a link to cancer and possibly raising your risk of colon cancer from 5 to 6%.
Red meat has not been shown to be cause cancer at all... And they've looked.
https://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/ "Probably carcinogenic" is exactly what I said in my previous post...if someone wants to take a chance on "probably" they can go ahead.
Anyways, I'll stop after this. We have become horribly derailed.
I eat carnivore because my joints do not function well when I eat plants. It's quite painful. Plant based foods also cause my BG and insulin to be les stable, I get more headaches, my pimples and roseaca acts up, it stimulates my appetite making weight management harder, but mainly it is so I can function without a lot of pain killers.
I do not eat this way to hurt the environment or as a "who cares" sort of stance. I do it for medical reasons. I know that food has a carbon footprint. I will not sacrifice my quality of life on science that I find dubious that says my local, pasture fed cow for the year is worse for the environment than someone eating processed foods, fruit, veggies or shellfish that are flown or trucked in from far away using agricultural practices that may be questionable.
I have only flown a couple of times, I carpool, I keep my house at a temperature that requires a sweater, I do large laundry loads and hang up a fair bit to dry, most of my house is dark after 4:30 because we only turn on the lights in the room we are in, I buy bulk to prevent waste and skip bottled water, we rarely buy anything new, I shower in low pressure to use less water and using cleaning products that are not as bad for the water supply, but I eat one cows very 18 months or so to help with my health hike skipping most plant foods.... I just don't see that as a big problem. We should just agree to disagree. Best wishes.
8 -
laurenq1991 wrote: »You are generalizing. Hugely. There are no old growth forests here. We have grasslands and forests that typically burn every 100-200years. There are 4 million people in Alberta, which I am guessing is close to the size of California. More than was here 300 years ago, sure, but we don't have the same problems as the more populated areas. We have space for cattle.
Even if that is the case, where is the evidence that grass-fed beef produces fewer emissions than, say, legumes? Because I posted evidence stating that even the most environmentally consciously raised meat still has more impact than plant foods, and you haven't posted any evidence to the contrary.My point about grazing the cows is that almost all cows up here ARE grass fed the first year or so of life. It is already being done. Just don't finish them/ fatten them all in feedlots at the end. Perhaps cattle is raised entirely in feedlots in California. That's not how it is done here. It must be economic if it is being done already....
Well there must be a reason for feedlots and that reason is cost. You can grass-finish them but the fact is it will make beef more expensive, fewer cows will be produced, and less beef will be available...otherwise there would be no point in putting the effort to farm crops to feed cows when they could just eat freely accessible grass that grows everywhere and replenishes itself each year.Thearticleyoupostedjust shows that feedlot cows and their processing, makes methane. It does not disprove what I have said which is that intact soil can capture that carbon, create a richer habitat and stronger ecosystem, nor that cows fed foods other than corn gave fewer emissions. I read it and noticed it did not address what I am saying. Do you have anything to share on that?
The article said "The scientists also found that even the very lowest impact meat and dairy products still cause much more environmental harm than the least sustainable vegetable and cereal growing." and "For example, beef cattle raised on deforested land result in 12 times more greenhouse gases and use 50 times more land than those grazing rich natural pasture. But the comparison of beef with plant protein such as peas is stark, with even the lowest impact beef responsible for six times more greenhouse gases and 36 times more land." "Rich natural pasture" seems to be the kind of soil you are referring to, as opposed to "deforested land."As to historic drought in California, it's a shame. Sorry you are experiencing it but it is only historic in terms of how long weather has been measured and records werekept.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/25/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more-than-200-years-scientists-say/
I don't live in California, it was just an example of natural disasters worsened by climate change since it happened recently. The longer droughts happened centuries ago and it says right in the article that you posted: "Bill Patzert, a research scientist and oceanographer at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, says that the West is in a 20-year drought that began in 2000. He cites the fact that a phenomenon known as a “negative Pacific decadal oscillation” is underway — and that historically has been linked to extreme high-pressure ridges that block storms.
Such events, which cause pools of warm water in the North Pacific Ocean and cool water along the California coast, are not the result of global warming, Patzert said. But climate change caused by the burning of fossil fuels has been linked to longer heat waves. That wild card wasn’t around years ago.
“Long before the Industrial Revolution, we were vulnerable to long extended periods of drought. And now we have another experiment with all this CO2 in the atmosphere where there are potentially even more wild swings in there,” said Graham Kent, a University of Nevada geophysicist who has studied submerged ancient trees in Fallen Leaf Lake near Lake Tahoe." So basically the oscillation caused the drought, but the oscillation itself is more extreme due to climate change.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/science/climate-change-intensifies-california-drought-scientists-say.html
Also as an aside, it says right in that article: "Although many Californians think that population growth is the main driver of water demand statewide, it actually is agriculture. In an average year, farmers use 80 percent of the water consumed by people and businesses — 34 million of 43 million acre-feet diverted from rivers, lakes and groundwater, according to the state Department of Water Resources." And since we know animal agriculture takes up a lot of the land and water use, that's another impact.As to the vegetarian question, I was just wondering if you had already written off beef. I guess so. I don't often see such vehement arguments from people who eat meat.
It's a fact-based argument and so far you have not provided one piece of hard data to refute anything I've said, and my own personal life has nothing to do with it. But the reason why people who eat meat usually aren't the ones making these arguments, is because people who accept the truth of how dietary choices affect carbon footprint oftentimes change their diet accordingly. Otherwise, they would be a hypocrite and people would call them out for that, right? If you're trying to say I have some kind of "vegetarian agenda" that is incorrect. I actually don't really care that much about the ethics of killing animals for food. I think hunting is perfectly natural and while I don't think factory farms are great, I probably wouldn't give up meat for that reason alone. Climate change is my main concern and particularly its impact on me, loved ones, and future generations. So it is kind of a selfish reason in a way, maybe not the "bleeding heart" thing you were expecting. But honestly it does annoy me that my future might be compromised because other people insist on eating unsustainable foods such as beef, taking long-distance flights, living in huge houses, etc. when none of these things are actually necessary for survival. Beef and chicken aren't even that nutritious compared to fish and shellfish (except for organ meats but not many people eat those).Only processed meats have a link to cancer and possibly raising your risk of colon cancer from 5 to 6%.
Red meat has not been shown to be cause cancer at all... And they've looked.
https://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/ "Probably carcinogenic" is exactly what I said in my previous post...if someone wants to take a chance on "probably" they can go ahead.
Anyways, I'll stop after this. We have become horribly derailed.
I eat carnivore because my joints do not function well when I eat plants. It's quite painful. Plant based foods also cause my BG and insulin to be les stable, I get more headaches, my pimples and roseaca acts up, it stimulates my appetite making weight management harder, but mainly it is so I can function without a lot of pain killers.
I do not eat this way to hurt the environment or as a "who cares" sort of stance. I do it for medical reasons. I know that food has a carbon footprint. I will not sacrifice my quality of life on science that I find dubious that says my local, pasture fed cow for the year is worse for the environment than someone eating processed foods, fruit, veggies or shellfish that are flown or trucked in from far away using agricultural practices that may be questionable.
I have only flown a couple of times, I carpool, I keep my house at a temperature that requires a sweater, I do large laundry loads and hang up a fair bit to dry, most of my house is dark after 4:30 because we only turn on the lights in the room we are in, I buy bulk to prevent waste and skip bottled water, we rarely buy anything new, I shower in low pressure to use less water and using cleaning products that are not as bad for the water supply, but I eat one cows very 18 months or so to help with my health hike skipping most plant foods.... I just don't see that as a big problem. We should just agree to disagree. Best wishes.
Sure, I have no problem with YOU eating mostly meat. But it's just not feasible for a large part of the population to switch to this, and that suggestion is the source of the pushback you're getting, not for your personal choices.
I wish more people would implement your energy conservation practices 4 -
wilson10102018 wrote: »Reading this thread is like seeing a messy accident on the side of the road. Ugly, but compelling.
Nothing can be accomplished on either side other than virtue signalling and trolling. 20 billion hotdogs (actual number) are going to be consumed in the US next year regardless of whether it is Darla or its Craig who is right about anthropomorphic global warming. No one is ever convinced to change their mind by this virtue signalling/trolling cycle. And, how would it matter if they did. Every environmental activist who's name you would recognize has a carbon footprint equal to about 8000 of us peons. (They didn't have enough room for parking all the private jets at COP24).
Posting facts backed up by scientific research is virtue signalling and trolling?
Red meat and dairy consumption is actually down in the West, while sales of plant-based alternatives are skyrocketing. Even a lot of people who aren't vegetarian or vegan are reducing. In Europe plant-based diets are way more popular than in the US, partially due to concerns about climate change. Programs are also being created to resell or donate food that would be wasted, and food waste is a concern almost nobody thought of ten years ago. My husband and I didn't even know about the environmental impact of certain foods until I came across this information at a climate change march by someone who was "virtue signalling and trolling" as you put it.
I also think environmental activists taking private jets to conferences is ridiculous and makes them hypocrites, especially in the age of teleconferencing. But their own personal failings do not change the facts, and in fact it makes it even more important that we try to change the wasteful culture instead of continuing it.
So what do you propose we should do? Say nothing lest someone think we are "virtue signalling and trolling" and allow the temperature to rise 7 degrees C by 2100?5 -
Anyways, I'll stop after this. We have become horribly derailed.
I eat carnivore because my joints do not function well when I eat plants. It's quite painful. Plant based foods also cause my BG and insulin to be les stable, I get more headaches, my pimples and roseaca acts up, it stimulates my appetite making weight management harder, but mainly it is so I can function without a lot of pain killers.
I do not eat this way to hurt the environment or as a "who cares" sort of stance. I do it for medical reasons. I know that food has a carbon footprint. I will not sacrifice my quality of life on science that I find dubious that says my local, pasture fed cow for the year is worse for the environment than someone eating processed foods, fruit, veggies or shellfish that are flown or trucked in from far away using agricultural practices that may be questionable.
I have only flown a couple of times, I carpool, I keep my house at a temperature that requires a sweater, I do large laundry loads and hang up a fair bit to dry, most of my house is dark after 4:30 because we only turn on the lights in the room we are in, I buy bulk to prevent waste and skip bottled water, we rarely buy anything new, I shower in low pressure to use less water and using cleaning products that are not as bad for the water supply, but I eat one cows very 18 months or so to help with my health hike skipping most plant foods.... I just don't see that as a big problem. We should just agree to disagree. Best wishes.
As I said earlier in the thread, it's possible that a small minority of the population may have serious health issues that require them to eat mostly or only meat. But those people are outliers. What I take issue with is the claim that this way of eating causes fewer emissions than the typical diet recommended by nutritionists, because all evidence I can find indicates that this is false. So far nobody has posted any actual scientific research refuting the research I and other people posted.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »For the purpose of the discussion, I think that compromise is great.
In practice? Eh, I have issues pricing staple foods out of reach for certain income levels. It's a real conundrum.
Then again, bringing this back to the topic of the thread, I don't see people with lower incomes ever willingly choosing to be carnivores simply because they probably couldn't afford to be so.
I read the other day that about 75% of the dairy industry's profits come from Uncle Sam, which seems to indicate that dairy would cost four times the price it does now if it was not subsidized. It's a difficult issue because these subsidies were created during the Great Depression and they had value for emergency purposes, but I disagree with the idea of the government influencing what people can eat and what is most valuable to farm, and I think maybe the subsidies should be more equalized than they are now. But plenty of people in America already have enough problems paying for groceries, and if they took the subsidies away at this point it would lead to big problems. Most people in America probably have never even seen grass-fed beef for sale in the store, let alone purchased it, because as it is it would be way out of their price range.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »laurenq1991 wrote: »You are generalizing. Hugely. There are no old growth forests here. We have grasslands and forests that typically burn every 100-200years. There are 4 million people in Alberta, which I am guessing is close to the size of California. More than was here 300 years ago, sure, but we don't have the same problems as the more populated areas. We have space for cattle.
Even if that is the case, where is the evidence that grass-fed beef produces fewer emissions than, say, legumes? Because I posted evidence stating that even the most environmentally consciously raised meat still has more impact than plant foods, and you haven't posted any evidence to the contrary.My point about grazing the cows is that almost all cows up here ARE grass fed the first year or so of life. It is already being done. Just don't finish them/ fatten them all in feedlots at the end. Perhaps cattle is raised entirely in feedlots in California. That's not how it is done here. It must be economic if it is being done already....
Well there must be a reason for feedlots and that reason is cost. You can grass-finish them but the fact is it will make beef more expensive, fewer cows will be produced, and less beef will be available...otherwise there would be no point in putting the effort to farm crops to feed cows when they could just eat freely accessible grass that grows everywhere and replenishes itself each year.Thearticleyoupostedjust shows that feedlot cows and their processing, makes methane. It does not disprove what I have said which is that intact soil can capture that carbon, create a richer habitat and stronger ecosystem, nor that cows fed foods other than corn gave fewer emissions. I read it and noticed it did not address what I am saying. Do you have anything to share on that?
The article said "The scientists also found that even the very lowest impact meat and dairy products still cause much more environmental harm than the least sustainable vegetable and cereal growing." and "For example, beef cattle raised on deforested land result in 12 times more greenhouse gases and use 50 times more land than those grazing rich natural pasture. But the comparison of beef with plant protein such as peas is stark, with even the lowest impact beef responsible for six times more greenhouse gases and 36 times more land." "Rich natural pasture" seems to be the kind of soil you are referring to, as opposed to "deforested land."As to historic drought in California, it's a shame. Sorry you are experiencing it but it is only historic in terms of how long weather has been measured and records werekept.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/25/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more-than-200-years-scientists-say/
I don't live in California, it was just an example of natural disasters worsened by climate change since it happened recently. The longer droughts happened centuries ago and it says right in the article that you posted: "Bill Patzert, a research scientist and oceanographer at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, says that the West is in a 20-year drought that began in 2000. He cites the fact that a phenomenon known as a “negative Pacific decadal oscillation” is underway — and that historically has been linked to extreme high-pressure ridges that block storms.
Such events, which cause pools of warm water in the North Pacific Ocean and cool water along the California coast, are not the result of global warming, Patzert said. But climate change caused by the burning of fossil fuels has been linked to longer heat waves. That wild card wasn’t around years ago.
“Long before the Industrial Revolution, we were vulnerable to long extended periods of drought. And now we have another experiment with all this CO2 in the atmosphere where there are potentially even more wild swings in there,” said Graham Kent, a University of Nevada geophysicist who has studied submerged ancient trees in Fallen Leaf Lake near Lake Tahoe." So basically the oscillation caused the drought, but the oscillation itself is more extreme due to climate change.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/21/science/climate-change-intensifies-california-drought-scientists-say.html
Also as an aside, it says right in that article: "Although many Californians think that population growth is the main driver of water demand statewide, it actually is agriculture. In an average year, farmers use 80 percent of the water consumed by people and businesses — 34 million of 43 million acre-feet diverted from rivers, lakes and groundwater, according to the state Department of Water Resources." And since we know animal agriculture takes up a lot of the land and water use, that's another impact.As to the vegetarian question, I was just wondering if you had already written off beef. I guess so. I don't often see such vehement arguments from people who eat meat.
It's a fact-based argument and so far you have not provided one piece of hard data to refute anything I've said, and my own personal life has nothing to do with it. But the reason why people who eat meat usually aren't the ones making these arguments, is because people who accept the truth of how dietary choices affect carbon footprint oftentimes change their diet accordingly. Otherwise, they would be a hypocrite and people would call them out for that, right? If you're trying to say I have some kind of "vegetarian agenda" that is incorrect. I actually don't really care that much about the ethics of killing animals for food. I think hunting is perfectly natural and while I don't think factory farms are great, I probably wouldn't give up meat for that reason alone. Climate change is my main concern and particularly its impact on me, loved ones, and future generations. So it is kind of a selfish reason in a way, maybe not the "bleeding heart" thing you were expecting. But honestly it does annoy me that my future might be compromised because other people insist on eating unsustainable foods such as beef, taking long-distance flights, living in huge houses, etc. when none of these things are actually necessary for survival. Beef and chicken aren't even that nutritious compared to fish and shellfish (except for organ meats but not many people eat those).Only processed meats have a link to cancer and possibly raising your risk of colon cancer from 5 to 6%.
Red meat has not been shown to be cause cancer at all... And they've looked.
https://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/ "Probably carcinogenic" is exactly what I said in my previous post...if someone wants to take a chance on "probably" they can go ahead.
Anyways, I'll stop after this. We have become horribly derailed.
I eat carnivore because my joints do not function well when I eat plants. It's quite painful. Plant based foods also cause my BG and insulin to be les stable, I get more headaches, my pimples and roseaca acts up, it stimulates my appetite making weight management harder, but mainly it is so I can function without a lot of pain killers.
I do not eat this way to hurt the environment or as a "who cares" sort of stance. I do it for medical reasons. I know that food has a carbon footprint. I will not sacrifice my quality of life on science that I find dubious that says my local, pasture fed cow for the year is worse for the environment than someone eating processed foods, fruit, veggies or shellfish that are flown or trucked in from far away using agricultural practices that may be questionable.
I have only flown a couple of times, I carpool, I keep my house at a temperature that requires a sweater, I do large laundry loads and hang up a fair bit to dry, most of my house is dark after 4:30 because we only turn on the lights in the room we are in, I buy bulk to prevent waste and skip bottled water, we rarely buy anything new, I shower in low pressure to use less water and using cleaning products that are not as bad for the water supply, but I eat one cows very 18 months or so to help with my health hike skipping most plant foods.... I just don't see that as a big problem. We should just agree to disagree. Best wishes.
Sure, I have no problem with YOU eating mostly meat. But it's just not feasible for a large part of the population to switch to this, and that suggestion is the source of the pushback you're getting, not for your personal choices.
I wish more people would implement your energy conservation practices
You are right. Most cannot switch to carnivore or we'd have a problem pretty quick. I doubt there will ever be more than a small minority who eat that way. It's definitely smaller than the vegan and vegetarian populations.0 -
laurenq1991 wrote: »Most people in America probably have never even seen grass-fed beef for sale in the store, let alone purchased it, because as it is it would be way out of their price range.
I'm not sure that's true.
It's in my grocery, using ground beef as an easy comparison, the grass fed (fat percentage not stated or 85% fat) is about 2x the cost of 80% fat ground beef, but very similar in cost to 95% fat ground beef. The grass fed at the farmers market is only marginally more than that at the grocery store (it's local and organic).
At this specific grocery store, there are various fruit and vegetable options that are pre-cut and are about 2x or more the cost of the non pre-cut, and there are egg options that are free range or what not (I don't trust any of these labels at groceries), and people buy the more expensive ones quite often.
So the idea that most have never "seen" these options or cannot possibly afford them seems questionable. Food is actually a much lower percentage of total household budget than it used to be.
That said, I wouldn't eliminate the cheaper options, although I would eliminate the subsidies.
I don't see the point in going after the so-called "carnivores," since they are a tiny percentage of the population. If you are actually bothered by meat consumption or farming where huge amounts of agriculture is devoted to feeding animals, it's the regular meat eaters who are the issue.1 -
I'm not sure that's true.
It's in my grocery, using ground beef as an easy comparison, the grass fed (fat percentage not stated or 85% fat) is about 2x the cost of 80% fat ground beef, but very similar in cost to 95% fat ground beef. The grass fed at the farmers market is only marginally more than that at the grocery store (it's local and organic).
At this specific grocery store, there are various fruit and vegetable options that are pre-cut and are about 2x or more the cost of the non pre-cut, and there are egg options that are free range or what not (I don't trust any of these labels at groceries), and people buy the more expensive ones quite often.
So the idea that most have never "seen" these options or cannot possibly afford them seems questionable. Food is actually a much lower percentage of total household budget than it used to be.
Is it grass-fed and grass-finished, or grass-fed and grain-finished? I know grass-fed butter and cheese are about 2x the price of regular butter and cheese, and the "ethical" eggs are also about 2x the price of the regular ones. I'm not sure that supermarkets in the inner city or certain small towns would necessarily have these options. Does Walmart? Maybe it's just the specific area I live in (NYC region) because food is pretty expensive here and a lot of neighborhoods don't even have complete supermarkets. I hear about people getting five dozen eggs for $5 and blocks of cheddar cheese for $1 in some parts of the country and that is definitely not the case here even if you're buying the cheaper brands.I don't see the point in going after the so-called "carnivores," since they are a tiny percentage of the population. If you are actually bothered by meat consumption or farming where huge amounts of agriculture is devoted to feeding animals, it's the regular meat eaters who are the issue.
It's getting more popular over time though (honestly I've always thought 90% of meat was kind of gross so I can't really understand why someone would want to eat like this, but I guess some people love meat). It's also indicative of a growing sub-population of people who are vilifying carbs. Not just carnivores but also a lot of the low-carb and keto adherents are eating way more meat than even the average American (and the average American eats a lot!) and using questionable reasoning about why this is necessary. When meanwhile experts say we need to be doing the exact opposite and eating way less meat than we are now.
0 -
johnslater461 wrote: »laurenq1991 wrote: »Check mortality rates for communities with a limited diet range.
It’s more than anecdotal or abbreviated studies when we figure out that there are vitamins and minerals we absolutely need. The discovery of the cause of rickets is high up on that list.
You can personally re-learn the lessons of the past but these lessons tend to be self limiting.
Onset of symptoms may not be overnight but if you start getting unexplained bone pain and bleeding gums get thyself to a doctor.
I don’t buy that cattle are bad for the environment. I live smack dab in the middle of the prairies. Grasslands depend on renewal and they are helped along by close cropping and chopping of the roots by ruminants.
The historical pemmican out here on the prairies was made from dried meat, fat, and Saskatoon berries. An omnivore concoction.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Rickets is unlikely in a carnivore diet since many animal products are high in vitamin D, and also is very rare in the general population. Many foods are now fortified with vitamin D for this reason (among other foods, milk and plant milk are directly fortified, and many meats are indirectly fortified by giving these vitamins to the animals). A well-planned carnivore diet that includes organ meats most likely will not cause any nutritional deficiencies. A bigger concern is the increased risk of cancer because higher red meat consumption is associated with a higher risk of cancer (it is classified as a probable carcinogen by the IARC), and higher consumption of whole grains, fruits, and vegetables, is associated with a lower risk of cancer. Overall a carnivore diet probably won't kill you in the short term, but there's no evidence that it's better than the balanced diet rich in plant foods that is recommended by most nutritionists.
Only processed meats have a link to cancer and possibly raising your risk of colon cancer from 5 to 6%.
Red meat has not been shown to be cause cancer at all... And they've looked.
Wrong again
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4698595/
The average risk for CRC is 5%. So a 20-30% increase in risk would make it 6-6.5%. Its simple math that is twisted by researchers to make it sound worse. So she was right.
Add in the fact that this is based off ten epidemiological studies which makes them more limited.
It's called relative risk. And the risk increase was found in red meat (not just processed)
So once again she was demonstrably wrong
2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions