U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-07-2018, 10:37 AM
 
Location: East of the Sun, West of the Moon
14,933 posts, read 16,534,340 times
Reputation: 28710

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by good_deal_maker View Post
Now we can make artificial caviar, meat and cutlets from soybeans. We can gradually move forward to artificial food.
Artificial food for artificial people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by good_deal_maker View Post
In that case there will be more forests and less carbon dioxide from thousands of cows and bulls grown to become steaks.
We will have to continue cutting down forests and make soybeans the largest plant biomass on the land to fulfill that fantasy.

I am not opposed to the basic concept of substituting some plant based foods for meat, but doubling down on monoculture, as Werone points out, is trading one devil for another.

The natural world thrives on diversity, and our food production should look to that lesson from nature, not create Planet Soybean.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-07-2018, 10:48 AM
 
Location: The Driftless Area, WI
1,654 posts, read 630,747 times
Reputation: 3310
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post
Food production relies on this - and on the Red Tide currently eating up an entire coast of Florida....

How long has the Alabama football team been known as The Crimson Tide? It's not a new phenomenon and has nothing to do with agricultural practices.


This whole thread is full of fantasies, wish fulfillment dreams and outright false info.


While a forest or a well watered, tall grass prairie may (or may not) have a higher calorie content than a mono-culture row crop field, most of it can't be utilized by H. sapiens. Eating meat is much more efficient nutritionally than trying to harness the Sun's energy by eating plants. We just can't digest them well.



Vegans more healthy? I wonder what Caesar's legions or the first pioneers here would say about that? They were scared to death of the much bigger, stronger & healthier Germans & Indians they encountered. Caesar documents that fear explicitly in his "Gallic Wars" history. Those two groups, BTW, rarely ate anything other than meat.


Why do vegans think they are being humane when tearing the limbs off living creatures, or when devouring the unborn children of those creatures, or when uprooting & chopping up those creatures to obtain nutrition? Double standard.


Cattle are often raised using three "chemicals"-- antibiotics, estrogen ("growth hormone") and a beta-agonist, chemically similar to albuterol, a well known, safe asthma medication. (BTW- there's 16x more estrogen in a serving of potatoes than in a serving of beef) These three additives add 50-100 lb to a beef carcass, or ~ $100 profit/head for the rancher-- that's the difference between profit and break even for him. Why should he continue in business just to break even in a good year at the risk of going broke in a bad year? Food security, anyone?


There is nothing "un-sustainable" about modern ag practices. As someone mentioned above, we get nitrogen from the air. The atm is 70% nitrogen. We get minerals from rocks. Any shortage of rocks?


Pesticides do not increase ag yield-- they guarantee a consistent ag yield. Ever watch "Little House on the Prairie?" They had some problems with pests & failed crops in the old days.


Citified TreeHuggers really oughta spend a little time on a farm.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2018, 12:41 PM
 
Location: Pacific Northwest
127 posts, read 43,203 times
Reputation: 515
My close friend is a vegan and has taken sustainability as the main point of why he's vegan (vs most doing it based on animal rights and chemicals).

He grows all his food on a pretty modest patio and has converted a room into a greenhouse for his leafy greens. Everything that doesn't get eaten fresh is persevered in some way to make it stretch out further and he uses every single part of the vegetables. He has noted that most vegetarians and vegans don't consider the amount of land their grocery store produce took up or how most places incorrectly label items. He also pointed out that most farmers who fertilize do so with unknown waste products which could include who knows what kind of animal byproducts. Plus the entire point is to be responsible and mindful of what you eat and you can't do that walking blindly into a Walmart or Whole Foods and taking their word that the food really comes from where they say and how you expect it to be properly grown.

I'm not a vegetarian or vegan, but I believe in humane treatment of all animals during their life and it's no question that better cared for animals provide better energy for me when I finally consume it. As such I buy my meat from a farm directly and someday I plan on at least supplementing my families diet with my own grown food. To rely on a cooperation or business to feed me both affordably and with my health sand the health of the food in their interest is silly and not realistic. Sustainability in food is pretty much non-exsistant in the food industry and the farms are where it all begins to go downhill. The best way to save and ensure your eating 100% ethical food is to do it yourself which more people seem to be doing in cities so perhaps that'll help more realize how much waste there is regarding food in grocery stores particularly fruits and vegetables.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2018, 01:40 PM
 
8,519 posts, read 2,392,842 times
Reputation: 8127
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post
How long has the Alabama football team been known as The Crimson Tide? It's not a new phenomenon and has nothing to do with agricultural practices.

This whole thread is full of fantasies, wish fulfillment dreams and outright false info.
While a forest or a well watered, tall grass prairie may (or may not) have a higher calorie content than a mono-culture row crop field, most of it can't be utilized by H. sapiens. Eating meat is much more efficient nutritionally than trying to harness the Sun's energy by eating plants. We just can't digest them well.

Citified TreeHuggers really oughta spend a little time on a farm.
Speaking of fantasies:
"former sports editor of the Birmingham Age-Herald, is credited with coining the phrase "Crimson Tide" in an article describing the 1907 Iron Bowl played in Birmingham with Auburn a heavy favorite to win. The game was played in a sea of red mud which stained the Alabama white jerseys crimson"

So there is your "red tide" fantasy.....burst. But my guess if that you don't learn from facts since it's much easier to know everything....and disagree with science, biology and even common sense....

Red Tide was never big up in Alabama anyway.....so it's doubly far out that you made such a wild "guess". May I asked exactly where you pulled that particular "reasoning" out from? I'm interested in how propaganda like that spreads...really!

"Eating meat is much more efficient nutritionally than trying to harness the Sun's energy by eating plants"

This is a complete falsehood when it comes to actual science and the modern world. You are "correct" in the sense of eating a Mastadon or Bison may have been beneficial to small populations....wild animals which didn't need to be fed crops to grow.

Modern man has little in common with our ancestors - those fatty meats cause us to develop gout, die young of clogged arteries and become obese.

Do you really think the US Obesity problems isn't linked to heavy consumption of meats?

We could delve into the details of how plant based proteins need a bit of diversity (supplements of vitamins, amino acids or the like) to be "complete" , but this has been going for a long time. That's why your breakfast cereals are "fortified".

But back to "feeding the world" and "energy-in vs. energy out". All things being equal, that beef protein uses 6 to 15X as much energy as the pinto beans, soy-based products, wheat and other sources of protein.

And we are not talking a small difference - we are talking BIG time extra energy and land use.


SUMMARY - AND CONCLUSION - In most all cases of modern civilization, eating lower on the food chain will result in vast energy savings as well as greatly reduced pollution of land, water and air. Period.

Therefore, the premise of the OP is false. Being a Vegetarians (not Vegan, but Vegetarian) is the single simplest thing one can do to change the food equation. Even those who eat meat and stick with the chicken, turkey and fish are helping greatly....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2018, 01:42 PM
 
314 posts, read 245,259 times
Reputation: 549
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto View Post

There is nothing "un-sustainable" about modern ag practices. As someone mentioned above, we get nitrogen from the air. The atm is 70% nitrogen. We get minerals from rocks. Any shortage of rocks?
I agree with the majority of your post, but it's worth pointing out that while Nitrogen may come from the air it does require Natural Gas to complete the reaction. It's something like 33,000 cubic feet of Natural Gas to create 1 ton of anhydrous ammonia. As long as natural gas is cheap and plentiful, not an issue. That's the reason fertilizer prices are tightly correlated with energy prices.

Phosphorus comes from phosphate, which is only mined a few places in the world. In the US, we only have mines in Florida. Those mines are estimated to have 25 years of supply left. The rest of the worlds phosphorus is in the western Sahara and Morocco.

In my opinion, the issue with Ag sustainability is the growing resistance of plants and insects to herbicides and pesticides. We are losing our ability to control them, and it's not far fetched to say that the tillage intensive methods used 50+ years ago will be necessary again soon.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2018, 01:49 PM
 
314 posts, read 245,259 times
Reputation: 549
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri View Post

But back to "feeding the world" and "energy-in vs. energy out". All things being equal, that beef protein uses 6 to 15X as much energy as the pinto beans, soy-based products, wheat and other sources of protein.

And we are not talking a small difference - we are talking BIG time extra energy and land use.
The chart shows land use, and is misleading. Land that is used for cattle and sheep is for the most part not capable of producing crops like pulses, soybeans, etc. It is usually to dry/hilly/wet to profitably farm. That is why animals are raised on it. Those animals convert grass to protein. That's protein you would not have gotten otherwise.

I struggle to see how you can derive comparative energy use from this chart.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2018, 02:21 PM
 
3,032 posts, read 1,211,010 times
Reputation: 5999
Quote:
Originally Posted by TWG1572 View Post
The chart shows land use, and is misleading. Land that is used for cattle and sheep is for the most part not capable of producing crops like pulses, soybeans, etc. It is usually to dry/hilly/wet to profitably farm. That is why animals are raised on it. Those animals convert grass to protein. That's protein you would not have gotten otherwise.

I struggle to see how you can derive comparative energy use from this chart.
It is comparable. Most of the meat we eat now is grain fed in a factory farm, so we’re not looking at the amount of pasture it takes for a cow or chicken. Instead we’re looking at how much land it takes to grow enough feed for that same cow or chicken. That feed is coming from land that could be used to feed people instead of a cow or chicken. The cow/mutton obviously uses the most land. It is pretty easy to cut down your beef intake. In comparison, a chicken really doesn’t take up that much energy and is comparable to fresh produce.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2018, 02:33 PM
 
314 posts, read 245,259 times
Reputation: 549
Quote:
Originally Posted by RamenAddict View Post
It is comparable. Most of the meat we eat now is grain fed in a factory farm, so we’re not looking at the amount of pasture it takes for a cow or chicken. Instead we’re looking at how much land it takes to grow enough feed for that same cow or chicken. That feed is coming from land that could be used to feed people instead of a cow or chicken. The cow/mutton obviously uses the most land. It is pretty easy to cut down your beef intake. In comparison, a chicken really doesn’t take up that much energy and is comparable to fresh produce.
I highlighted a sentence of yours. That is what I disagree with. The range land in much of the western US is not suitable for crops. If it doesn't raise sheep or cattle, there is nothing else it can be used for that will produce human feed. I don't disagree that a prime acre of farmland in Iowa can produce more plant protein than animal protein. In most cases, that's whats happening.

As far as the grain fed factory farms thing, that's 100% true for pork and chicken. Cattle and sheep spend a significant part of their life cycle on grass. Much of that grass is grown on acres that can not be used to produce human food.

We keep throwing around energy and land use interchangeably. They are not the same thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2018, 03:32 PM
 
8,519 posts, read 2,392,842 times
Reputation: 8127
Quote:
Originally Posted by TWG1572 View Post
The chart shows land use, and is misleading. Land that is used for cattle and sheep is for the most part not capable of producing crops like pulses, soybeans, etc. It is usually to dry/hilly/wet to profitably farm. That is why animals are raised on it. Those animals convert grass to protein. That's protein you would not have gotten otherwise.

I struggle to see how you can derive comparative energy use from this chart.
My information is based on both study - and being in the business of energy from 1979 until the present. I was also a veggie since 1971, although I didn't - at that time - know much of the science behind it.

There was a book published in the 70's called "The Energy Primer" which laid out all facets of energy and various uses and efficiencies. I was struck by the chart on calories in vs. calories out.

The vast majority of your beef is part of a simple equation. It is not grass fed or even range fed. It is feedlot beef, which means "factory farmed".

The land use is just one indication. As I posted earlier, depending on the exact calcs you use - beef takes 10 to 16X as much plant protein (usually soy) to create 1 lb of meat protein.
https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/ne...stock-industry

Depending on the meat type, from 80 to 99% of it is raised in factory farms....beef tends toward the lower end of that range (80 percent), but that still means a VAST percentage of your meat and meat-based dishes and proteins are a simple trade of

Soy in (along with the vast chemicals and helpers to increase this yield)
Beef out (8% or so of the Soy in).....

Of course, you get 100% of the added waste (poop, methane, processing, etc.) for the remainder....

Not sure why this subject is even up for debate - whether it's 10 to 1 or 16 to 1 - doesn't change the basic calc.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...mpact-on-earth

" new research shows that without meat and dairy consumption, global farmland use could be reduced by more than 75% – an area equivalent to the US, China, European Union and Australia combined – and still feed the world. Loss of wild areas to agriculture is the leading cause of the current mass extinction of wildlife."

If you love the planet and natural world...and are not in complete poverty...the best thing you can do is keep this in mind with your buying and eating habits. Period.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-07-2018, 03:44 PM
 
8,519 posts, read 2,392,842 times
Reputation: 8127
Quote:
Originally Posted by TWG1572 View Post
I highlighted a sentence of yours. That is what I disagree with. The range land in much of the western US is not suitable for crops. If it doesn't raise sheep or cattle, there is nothing else it can be used for that will produce human feed. I don't disagree that a prime acre of farmland in Iowa can produce more plant protein than animal protein. In most cases, that's whats happening.

As far as the grain fed factory farms thing, that's 100% true for pork and chicken. Cattle and sheep spend a significant part of their life cycle on grass. Much of that grass is grown on acres that can not be used to produce human food.

We keep throwing around energy and land use interchangeably. They are not the same thing.
So you don't believe the known fact that 80% of beef is raised on feedlots?

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...olidation.html

"the feedlots are massive. Some of them as large as 100,000 head of cattle at one location. And they've been driven by one thing, and one thing only, and that is efficiency"

"Every hour I was on this feedlot, another tanker truck came in filled with liquefied fat. Another one with liquefied protein. Every hour there was another truck with 50,000 pounds of corn. You see all the feedstuff coming into the city, and you see the waste going out. The wastes, by and large, are manure, trucks coming in from farms carrying it away. But a lot of this was pooled in these lagoons, which were just full of this.

I haven't even mentioned the smell. I mean, it is overwhelming, the smell of these places. ... You get used to it, after a couple of hours, but initially, it is [overwhelming]. And it's not the smell of a cow on a farm. This is the smell of the bus station men's room. It's fierce. And you wear it in your clothing for days afterward."

No "home home on the range"...in these places.......no cowboys or Marlboro Men.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top