If the world goes completely vegan

White Clover · 22-11-2020 12:10pm

Vieira82 wrote: »

The transition to veganism will be progressive and slow paced. I've talked extensively with friends about this. I think for Ireland specifically the "radical" first step is the government offer subsidies for non-animal based farming. Those farmers that do the transition could do one of two things:

- Sustain the animals until end of life (this would be a part of the gov subsidy)
- Animals sent to sanctuaries that should have a state support if they take a quota of farm animals in one go

This obviously is still too radical despite the fact it's simply diverting some of the subsidies for beef and dairy to diversify agriculture in Ireland.

In other parts of Europe there is a diverse agriculture system so it's easier to do this and progressively end the bulk of animal agriculture I don't think it will all be done in one go, it will be progressively in at least a two decade scenario.

Also and at the same time it's important to ensure monocrops are culled in favor or plural crops that will ensure the land self-regenerates as much as possible without human or artificial interference

I also don't think it will ever happen that animal farming will be 100% banned in the short term but the less demand for meat and dairy the more factory farming will tend to diminish.

Eventually as society progress I'd say in 100 years time at least and with animal farming practically obsolete we could then see legislation banning any kind of animal consumption happening effectively veganism becoming law.

So in my opinion the most important thing at the moment is to make society understand as much as possible how unethical and unsustainable animal farming is and bet on demand continuing to go down. Most regular people don't even dream on how animals are produced and what happens at abbatoirs and places where the animals are kept...

Sorry, but this is pie in the sky stuff, unless of course you can gift us a continental climate. We'll all be happy then!

Faith · 22-11-2020 12:15pm

Pkiernan wrote: »

To get back on topic, I believed that long-term veganism is predicted to reduce human fertility, and so if the whole human population were to go vegan the planet may be better off.

Please provide good quality evidence to support this claim.

White Clover wrote: »

the promotion of a plant based diet is so dangerous.

Please provide good quality evidence to support this claim.

Gerry T · 22-11-2020 12:16pm

I recently read that the amount of fresh water on the planet is the same today as it was millions of yr's ago and its something like 2.5% of all water. (Not an exact percent, but you get the idea). As the population grows toward 10b there isn't enough fresh water to produce food, so high water using food production (animals) will become more expensive to produce as the water becomes a more scarse resource. So turning vegan won't be a choice for many people in the future.
I'm a happy meat eater by the way !

Vieira82 · 22-11-2020 12:24pm

White Clover wrote: »

Sorry, but this is pie in the sky stuff, unless of course you can gift us a continental climate. We'll all be happy then!

It's not, there's plenty of people doing non-animal based agriculture already on their own accord, it is possible and there is technology to do so. Historically, Irelands dependency on animal based agricultural is very very recent, and even before the "potato revolution" there was a diverse agricultural in the island with a colder climate. Keep in mind that temperatures are rising because of climate change meaning that idea we live in a wasteland is more defased from reality...

OF course I'm not telling you to have a Banana plantation in Ireland but it's a matter of investing in what we can produce and export to counter balance the amount of food we have to import as we don't produce it... that's a starting point...

White Clover · 22-11-2020 12:34pm

Faith wrote: »

Please provide good quality evidence to support this claim.

Please provide good quality evidence to support this claim.

Small edit to my post just to be clear.

https://www.no-tillfarmer.com/articles/9040-carbon-loss-proportional-to-tillage-intensity?v=preview

White Clover · 22-11-2020 12:38pm

Vieira82 wrote: »

It's not, there's plenty of people doing non-animal based agriculture already on their own accord, it is possible and there is technology to do so. Historically, Irelands dependency on animal based agricultural is very very recent, and even before the "potato revolution" there was a diverse agricultural in the island with a colder climate. Keep in mind that temperatures are rising because of climate change meaning that idea we live in a wasteland is more defased from reality...

OF course I'm not telling you to have a Banana plantation in Ireland but it's a matter of investing in what we can produce and export to counter balance the amount of food we have to import as we don't produce it... that's a starting point...

A colder climate in Ireland would have benefits, ie less threat of Aphids and other diseases at this time of year especially.
But, in the face of a warming climate, (wetter too) and a tightening of chemical spray use, the successful growing of tillage crops in Ireland hangs in the balance. It's future is in no way secure.

NcdJd · 22-11-2020 12:47pm

McGaggs wrote: »

Land would be monoculture, producing food crops. It doesn't matter what we do, producing food is not good for the environment.

Nail on the head there McGaggs. Turning Vegan will not stop environmental damage caused by food production. You are just replacing one food production type by another. Veganism to me has nothing to do with saving the planet and it's biodiversity, anyone who adds this argument does not understand how food is produced in my books.

Bigbooty · 22-11-2020 12:57pm

You're all ignoring how much potential vertical farming has. It's the future of plant based agriculture..99% reduction in land use and 95% water use efficiency. Big tech is putting billions into this technology. There was a Forbes article that showed how the equivalent of 2 acres of land produces 720 acres of food.

Gary kk · 22-11-2020 1:03pm

Bigbooty wrote: »

You're all ignoring how much potential vertical farming has. It's the future of plant based agriculture..99% reduction in land use and 95% water use efficiency. Big tech is putting billions into this technology. There was a Forbes article that showed how the equivalent of 2 acres of land produces 720 acres of food.

Factory farming at it's best. Don't get me wrong it is an interesting project. I'm just not so sure about the safety issues like contaminated water.

auspicious · 22-11-2020 1:24pm

Gerry T wrote: »

I recently read that the amount of fresh water on the planet is the same today as it was millions of yr's ago and its something like 2.5% of all water. (Not an exact percent, but you get the idea). As the population grows toward 10b there isn't enough fresh water to produce food, so high water using food production (animals) will become more expensive to produce as the water becomes a more scarse resource. So turning vegan won't be a choice for many people in the future.
I'm a happy meat eater by the way !

The average water footprint per calorie for beef is twenty times larger than for cereals and starchy roots. When we look at the water requirements for protein, it has been found that the water footprint per gram of protein for milk, eggs and chicken meat is about 1.5 times larger than for pulses. For beef, the water footprint per gram of protein is 6 times larger than for pulses. In the case of fat, butter has a relatively small water footprint per gram of fat, even lower than for oil crops. All other animal products, however, have larger water footprints per gram of fat when compared to oil crops. From a freshwater resource perspective, it is more efficient to obtain calories, protein and fat through crop products than animal products.

Vegetables 26 litres required per gram of protein
Bovine meat 112 litres per gram of protein.

https://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-footprint/water-footprint-crop-and-animal-products/#:~:text=Global%20animal%20production%20requires%20about,the%20feed%20for%20the%20animals.

Humans account for 0.01 percent of the planet's biomass. Human activity has reduced the biomass of marine live and terrestrial mammals by 6 times and the biomass of plant matter by half.

Humans account for 36% of mammalian biomass.
Livestock biomass ( pigs and cows mostly) 60%.
And wildlife mammalian biomass is now a paltry 4%.

Gary kk · 22-11-2020 1:33pm

auspicious wrote: »

The average water footprint per calorie for beef is twenty times larger than for cereals and starchy roots. When we look at the water requirements for protein, it has been found that the water footprint per gram of protein for milk, eggs and chicken meat is about 1.5 times larger than for pulses. For beef, the water footprint per gram of protein is 6 times larger than for pulses. In the case of fat, butter has a relatively small water footprint per gram of fat, even lower than for oil crops. All other animal products, however, have larger water footprints per gram of fat when compared to oil crops. From a freshwater resource perspective, it is more efficient to obtain calories, protein and fat through crop products than animal products.

Vegetables 26 litres required per gram of protein
Bovine meat 112 litres per gram of protein.

https://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-footprint/water-footprint-crop-and-animal-products/#:~:text=Global%20animal%20production%20requires%20about,the%20feed%20for%20the%20animals.

Humans account for 0.01 percent of the planet's biomass. Human activity has reduced the biomass of marine live and terrestrial mammals by 6 times and the biomass of plant matter by half.

Humans account for 36% of mammalian biomass.
Livestock biomass ( pigs and cows mostly) 60%.
And wildlife mammalian biomass is now a paltry 4%.

I was thinking feck that, surly cattle don't drink that much. Then I saw the yellow highlighting were it says 98% is for growing the food for the cattle. Would that include the rain water on grass?

auspicious · 22-11-2020 1:41pm

Gary kk wrote: »

I was thinking feck that surly cattle don't drink that much. Then I saw the yellow highlighting were it says 98% is for growing the food for the cattle. Would that include the rain water on grass?

Rain water is fresh water, so yes even when it's on the grass in the fields between the winding hedgerows as far as the eye can see. Thankfully there are few trees in the way to obscure the view.

White Clover · 22-11-2020 1:49pm

auspicious wrote: »

The average water footprint per calorie for beef is twenty times larger than for cereals and starchy roots. When we look at the water requirements for protein, it has been found that the water footprint per gram of protein for milk, eggs and chicken meat is about 1.5 times larger than for pulses. For beef, the water footprint per gram of protein is 6 times larger than for pulses. In the case of fat, butter has a relatively small water footprint per gram of fat, even lower than for oil crops. All other animal products, however, have larger water footprints per gram of fat when compared to oil crops. From a freshwater resource perspective, it is more efficient to obtain calories, protein and fat through crop products than animal products.

Vegetables 26 litres required per gram of protein
Bovine meat 112 litres per gram of protein.

https://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-footprint/water-footprint-crop-and-animal-products/#:~:text=Global%20animal%20production%20requires%20about,the%20feed%20for%20the%20animals.

Humans account for 0.01 percent of the planet's biomass. Human activity has reduced the biomass of marine live and terrestrial mammals by 6 times and the biomass of plant matter by half.

Humans account for 36% of mammalian biomass.
Livestock biomass ( pigs and cows mostly) 60%.
And wildlife mammalian biomass is now a paltry 4%.

I'm not going to go through all the figures.
We have a damp climate here in Ireland, suitable for growing grass, but little else. That's why we can produce so much meat, quite extensively and free range.
However, it would be economic suicide if we tried to grow the same area in crops. We simply do not have the climate for it. The pressure from pests and diseases would be astronomical.

22-11-2020 1:51pm

White Clover wrote: »

I'm not going to go through all the figures.
We have a damp climate here in Ireland, suitable for growing grass, but little else. That's why we can produce so much meat, quite extensively and free range.
However, it would be economic suicide if we tried to grow the same area in crops. We simply do not have the climate for it. The pressure from pests and diseases would be astronomical.

What’s your obsession with what’s happening in Ireland ?

Gary kk · 22-11-2020 1:52pm

auspicious wrote: »

Rain water is fresh water, so yes even when it's on the grass in the fields between the winding hedgerows as far as the eye can see. Thankfully there are few trees in the way to obscure the view.

I guess it depends were you live I used to get worked up by a lack of tress comments but I could be lucky as there are some large forestry with mixed trees beside me as well as having many of the local farmers allowing trees to mature in the hedge rows. I guess it's like someone not hearing birds while out for a walk because they have ear buds in.

looksee · 22-11-2020 1:54pm

Bigbooty wrote: »

You're all ignoring how much potential vertical farming has. It's the future of plant based agriculture..99% reduction in land use and 95% water use efficiency. Big tech is putting billions into this technology. There was a Forbes article that showed how the equivalent of 2 acres of land produces 720 acres of food.

Its very hard to persuade the cows to stand sideways though.

White Clover · 22-11-2020 1:56pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What’s your obsession with what’s happening in Ireland ?

Off topic, but, this is boards.ie, an Irish discussion forum. Ireland is number one for me. As far as I know the vast vast majority of posters are posting from Ireland. People in other countries are well able to look after there own patch.
Back on topic now.

22-11-2020 2:01pm

White Clover wrote: »

Off topic, but, this is boards.ie, an Irish discussion forum. Ireland is number one for me. As far as I know the vast vast majority of posters are posting from Ireland. People in other countries are well able to look after there own patch.
Back on topic now.

I was on topic.

Maybe have another look at the thread title.

gozunda · 22-11-2020 2:25pm

auspicious wrote: »

The average water footprint per calorie for beef is twenty times larger than for cereals and starchy roots. When we look at the water requirements for protein, it has been found that the water footprint per gram of protein for milk, eggs and chicken meat is about 1.5 times larger than for pulses. For beef, the water footprint per gram of protein is 6 times larger than for pulses. In the case of fat, butter has a relatively small water footprint per gram of fat, even lower than for oil crops. All other animal products, however, have larger water footprints per gram of fat when compared to oil crops. From a freshwater resource perspective, it is more efficient to obtain calories, protein and fat through crop products than animal products.

Vegetables 26 litres required per gram of protein
Bovine meat 112 litres per gram of protein.

https://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-footprint/water-footprint-crop-and-animal-products/#:~:text=Global%20animal%20production%20requires%20about,the%20feed%20for%20the%20animals.
...

Unfortunately once again totally misrepresentitive of actual figures for agriculture here

And that is the single biggest problem with basing information on gross global averages and trying to use that as propaganda against farming

For example - you give a figure for a water of Bovine meat 112 litres per gram of protein*

That works out at an incredible 112,000 litres of water for per Kg of beef production.

*For example* The true figure in Ireland is that only 169 lites of water per kg comes which from blue water sources (ie piped water) whilst the remainder of approx 8,222 litres per kg comes from green water sources (ie direct rainfall).

Even ignoring the fact that only a tiny fraction of water use comes from piped sources - your globalised figures don't even come close for total water use here. With just 8,391 litres from all sources being required for beef production.

In detail - Irish milk and beef frainfall do require water - with much of it being supplied from the natural world by direct rainfall. Grass in Ireland has a dry matter content of approx 16-18% depending on whether the grass is on its first or second grazing ground. So during much of the year 82-84% of water use for cattle comes from this direct rainfall

just to reiterate that. With regard to actual water use for beef cattle in Ireland - only 169 lites of water per kg comes from blue water sources (ie fresh water) whilst the remainder of approx 8,222 litres per kg comes from green water sources ( ie water coming direcly from rainfall falling on pasture) and stored in the soil and evaporated, transpired or incorporated by plants and then eaten by livestock.

The project demonstrated that intensification of Irish animal production systems through high utilisation of rain water resources for the production of milk, beef and sheep meat are sustainable from a water use perspective.

Rain water for the production of grass made up 85% of the total water footprint in dairy systems,
88% in beef systems and 87% in sheep production systems. This is a key competitive advantage for Irish agriculture in terms of sustainable food production since the majority of these products are exported to less water rich regions.

Utilising green water resources that are plentiful in Ireland for the production of milk, beef
and sheep meat indicates that recent intensification measures in Food Harvest 2020 and Food Wise 2025 are sustainable from a water use perspective.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.teagasc.ie/media/website/publications/2018/6190_TechnologyUpdae_JohnUpton_WaterConservation.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwif4OKY5bvhAhUoSBUIHUOhDosQFjANegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw0tHNJ7PwynTsJHBR51aOTC

Note: Green water is the water transpired by the plant that comes from rainfall and water from rainfall stored in soil. Blue water is the water in our surface and groundwater reservoirs and comes from piped sources

Pkiernan · 22-11-2020 3:00pm

Bigbooty wrote: »

What the actual. Are you a reproductive medicine consultant? Seriously this is some Alex Jones level nonsense. You've absolutely no evidence.

Why are you being so aggressive ?

I'm not knocking veganism in any way, shape of form.
It would be, on balance, good for the planet.

auspicious · 22-11-2020 3:13pm

gozunda wrote: »

Unfortunately once again totally misrepresentitive of actual figures for agriculture here

And that is the single biggest problem with basing information on gross global averages and trying to use that as propaganda against farming

For example - you give a figure for a water of Bovine meat 112 litres per gram of protein*

That works out at an incredible 112,000 litres of water for per Kg of beef production.

The true figure in Ireland is that only 169 lites of water per kg comes which from blue water sources (ie piped water) whilst the remainder of approx 8,222 litres per kg comes from green water sources (ie direct rainfall).

Even ignoring the fact that only a tiny fraction of water use comes from piped sources - your globalised figures don't even come close for total water use here. With just 8,391 litres from all sources being required for beef production.

In detail - Irish milk and beef frainfall do require water - with much of it being supplied from the natural world by direct rainfall. Grass in Ireland has a dry matter content of approx 16-18% depending on whether the grass is on its first or second grazing ground. So during much of the year 82-84% of water use for cattle comes from this direct rainfall

just to reiterate that. With regard to actual water use for beef cattle in Ireland - only 169 lites of water per kg comes from blue water sources (ie fresh water) whilst the remainder of approx 8,222 litres per kg comes from green water sources ( ie water coming direcly from rainfall falling on pasture) and stored in the soil and evaporated, transpired or incorporated by plants and then eaten by livestock.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.teagasc.ie/media/website/publications/2018/6190_TechnologyUpdae_JohnUpton_WaterConservation.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwif4OKY5bvhAhUoSBUIHUOhDosQFjANegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw0tHNJ7PwynTsJHBR51aOTC

Note: Green water is the water transpired by the plant that comes from rainfall and water from rainfall stored in soil. Blue water is the water in our surface and groundwater reservoirs and comes from piped sources

Not misrepresentitive as at no time did I mention Ireland.
Not propaganda. Just simple global statistics.
Ireland is a small part of the bigger picture.

Markcheese · 22-11-2020 3:14pm

If it happened tomorrow , chaos , absolute chaos ...
That's farming , farm services .. banking , meat plants,dairy plants , haulage , machinery services , exporters and importers all feiced ..so basically an economic meltdown and vast reciession ..

Of course it isn't and couldn't just happen tomorrow ..
Also ,Ireland at least it's farming areas aren't particularly short of water , so if you reduce animal water consumption In Ireland ,you do nothing for places that do have a water shortage .. ( now water pollution is a whole other story )
Also also , I could start talking about solar panel ,or silicone chip manufacture and how much water it uses ( pretty vast quantities) , not many will swear off tech ,put their phones down ,plug out of the modern world ..

Faith · 22-11-2020 3:15pm

Mod note: This is clearly a can of worms that the OP didn't anticipate when they started this thread in here. Maybe it was the wrong place to post, but that is no excuse for rudeness and hostility from anyone. If you can't post in a respectful and polite manner, then consider not responding to the topic. Personal attacks will not be tolerated. We will start handing out bans if we see any further uncivil responses - this goes for all posters.

auspicious · 22-11-2020 3:18pm

Faith wrote: »

Mod note: This is clearly a can of worms that the OP didn't anticipate when they started this thread in here.

Welcome to the Vegan and Vegetarian forum.

gozunda · 22-11-2020 3:34pm

auspicious wrote: »

Not misrepresentitive as at no time did I mention Ireland.
Not propaganda. Just simple global statistics.
Ireland is a small part of the bigger picture.

It's misrepresentitive and grossly inaccurate as data from countries such as US farming massively skews the data on water usage etc. I used Ireland as an example to highlight this. This means such average figures are not representative for the majority of countries.

auspicious · 22-11-2020 3:39pm

gozunda wrote: »

It's misrepresentitive and grossly inaccurate as data from countries such as US farming massively skews the data on water usage etc. I used Ireland as an example to highlight this. This means such average figures are not representative for the majority of countries.

Global. Global. Averages.
All countries sit on the globe.
Glo-bal.

gozunda · 22-11-2020 3:46pm

auspicious wrote: »

Global. Global. Averages.
All countries sit on the globe.
Glo-bal.

Yes I'm aware of the term "global. That was my point. Doesn't make the use of such figures any more representative or even useful. That's all.

El Tarangu · 22-11-2020 5:04pm

auspicious wrote: »

Welcome to the Vegan and Vegetarian forum.

They should rename this forum "Farming and Forestry Off-Topic chit-chat"

Gary kk · 22-11-2020 5:14pm

El Tarangu wrote: »

They should rename this forum "Farming and Forestry Off-Topic chit-chat"

Probable wouldn't go down well but we could set up a vote

Unearthly · 22-11-2020 5:35pm

gozunda wrote: »

Yes I'm aware of the term "global. That was my point. Doesn't make the use of such figures any more representative. That's all.

You're having an absolute nightmare here. Global averages were posted in a topic about the globe and you responded saying misinformation that irish stats are this and that.

You are now trying to move the goalposts and cherry picking by taking out the US stats.

In a debate you should have the courtesy to retract and move on instead of digging a bigger hole for yourself

gozunda · 22-11-2020 6:17pm

Unearthly wrote: »

You're having an absolute nightmare here. Global averages were posted in a topic about the globe and you responded saying misinformation that irish stats are this and that.You are now trying to move the goalposts and cherry picking by taking out the US stats.In a debate you should have the courtesy to retract and move on instead of digging a bigger hole for yourself

Unearthly. Whats with the aggressive tone? There's no "nightmare" etc It's a discussion. I did not say anything was "misinformation" btw - I labelled it misrepresentitive - as that is what it is. I've clearly called out global averages on such things as water use are absolutely meaningless. To highlight this I used Ireland as an example

And yes US stats tend to skew all such calculations. Thats in a nutshell.

Markcheese · 22-11-2020 7:31pm

Gary kk wrote: »

Probable wouldn't go down well but we could set up a vote

Well it's nice to go somewhere for a good bitch fest ,
Although I'm not a farmer , not sure about others ..

El Tarangu · 22-11-2020 7:32pm

White Clover wrote: »

Food produced from grazing livestock such as dairy, beef and sheep is good for the environment. Pasture grazing captures large amounts of carbon and stores it securely in the ground.

This model only works if you you decide to ignore the methane emissions coming from livestock - methane is a far, far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

On the other hand, when ground is tilled to plant crops, carbon is released.

40% of the world's grain production is fed to livestock - apart from all of cow farts, there is enormous environmental devastation brought about by the production of this grain (think rainforest destruction in South America).

That is why, the promotion of a plant based diet is so dangerous to the environment.

This is why, if you choose to ignore the elements that don't suit your agenda, you can put two and two together and end up with five.

Markcheese · 22-11-2020 7:44pm

My own view is it's unlikely we'll all go vegan , ever ..
But that'd not to say far more people won't go vegan .. and those who don't will probably eat a lot less meat and dairy ect .. probably because the demands on farmers will be greater ,so the prices will be higher ..
Actually this provides a huge opportunity for irish agriculture, to deintensify , have higher welfare and environmental standards and serious amounts of carbon sequestration .. all while making a few Bob ..
All that's what I'd hope ðŸ˜႒

Unearthly · 22-11-2020 7:47pm

Markcheese wrote: »

My own view is it's unlikely we'll all go vegan , ever ..
But that'd not to say far more people won't go vegan .. and those who don't will probably eat a lot less meat and dairy ect .. probably because the demands on farmers will be greater ,so the prices will be higher ..
Actually this provides a huge opportunity for irish agriculture, to deintensify , have higher welfare and environmental standards and serious amounts of carbon sequestration .. all while making a few Bob ..
All that's what I'd hope ðŸ˜႒

Another thing that would happen if the world went vegan is you'd have to change your username

El Tarangu · 22-11-2020 8:04pm

Markcheese wrote: »

My own view is it's unlikely we'll all go vegan , ever ..
But that'd not to say far more people won't go vegan .. and those who don't will probably eat a lot less meat and dairy ect .. probably because the demands on farmers will be greater ,so the prices will be higher ..
Actually this provides a huge opportunity for irish agriculture, to deintensify , have higher welfare and environmental standards and serious amounts of carbon sequestration .. all while making a few Bob ..
All that's what I'd hope ðŸ˜႒

I don't think the entire world will go vegan either. But it doesn't require the whole world to go vegan to shift create a shift in agricultural production - at the moment we see more and more people are interested in going vegetarian, or even just reducing their meat consumption. If these trends continue, will urban dwellers be happy for their taxes to continue subsidising meat production at the current rate? (Subsidies account for up to 90% of cattle producers income, in some instances)

I presume that's why so many farmers spend so much time trolling the Vegan & Vegetarian forum on boards - they see that, if trends continue the way they've been going, that the gravy-train (pardon the pun) of free money coming from the EU might not go on much longer.

auspicious · 22-11-2020 8:11pm

listermint wrote: »

Wtf did I just read..... ... ???!

Sorry I missed this post.
I was referring to another thread post on this forum where a particular farmer viewed cattle as 'employees'. They have to earn their living.

Bigbooty · 22-11-2020 8:12pm

If anyone's interested in environmentalism project drawdown is a research driven non profit organisation working towards climate solutions. I think it's particularly relevant to this thread.

White Clover · 22-11-2020 10:37pm

El Tarangu wrote: »

This model only works if you you decide to ignore the methane emissions coming from livestock - methane is a far, far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

40% of the world's grain production is fed to livestock - apart from all of cow farts, there is enormous environmental devastation brought about by the production of this grain (think rainforest destruction in South America).

This is why, if you choose to ignore the elements that don't suit your agenda, you can put two and two together and end up with five.

Please quit posting untruths and inaccurate information. It gets tiresome having to correct all the false information presented here.
Someone commented that farmers shouldn't be posting on these threads. We wouldn't be here if the information posted was truthful and honest.

Quote:
This study determines that 86% of livestock feed is not suitable for human consumption. If not consumed by livestock, crop residues and by-products could quickly become an environmental burden as the human population grows and consumes more and more processed food. Animals also consume food that could potentially be eaten by people. Grains account for 13% of the global livestock dry matter intake

http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/home/en/news_archive/2017_More_Fuel_for_the_Food_Feed.html

_Brian · 22-11-2020 10:45pm

White Clover wrote: »

Please quit posting untruths and inaccurate information. It gets tiresome having to correct all the false information presented here.
Someone commented that farmers shouldn't be posting on these threads. We wouldn't be here if the information posted was truthful and honest.

Quote:
This study determines that 86% of livestock feed is not suitable for human consumption. If not consumed by livestock, crop residues and by-products could quickly become an environmental burden as the human population grows and consumes more and more processed food. Animals also consume food that could potentially be eaten by people. Grains account for 13% of the global livestock dry matter intake

http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/home/en/news_archive/2017_More_Fuel_for_the_Food_Feed.html

Diversity, diversity, diversity.
That’s what the planet developed based on, this includes literally everything.

This rule essentially covers every aspect of the world including what we farm and what we eat.

The notions that we can start eliminating massive food groups from our diet on a large scale is madness and it’s un natural. Similarly not every meal needs to be meat either.

This whole notion of making everyone the same and eating the same is silly and petty. We need farming, and we need animal farming, but we need the right animal farming. We need farming that works with the land, improving soils and biodiversity, locking up co2 while providing animals with a rich life, and better food for humans. Less better foods from animals certainly, but not no food from animals.

Faith · 22-11-2020 10:57pm

White Clover wrote: »

Please quit posting untruths and inaccurate information. It gets tiresome having to correct all the false information presented here.
Someone commented that farmers shouldn't be posting on these threads. We wouldn't be here if the information posted was truthful and honest.

Mod note: White Clover, I find the tone of your post to be unnecessarily aggressive. I would draw your attention the following portion of the forum charter:

This is a forum that caters specifically for vegans and vegetarians, or anyone who prefers to avoid all or certain animal products in their diet. This means that, while others are welcome to post here, the protected view is that of vegans and vegetarians. If you contribute to a thread you are expected to be willing to learn about the issues involved and listen to what is said by members of the community/ies involved.

El Tarangu · 22-11-2020 11:10pm

White Clover wrote: »

Please quit posting untruths and inaccurate information. It gets tiresome having to correct all the false information presented here.
Someone commented that farmers shouldn't be posting on these threads. We wouldn't be here if the information posted was truthful and honest.

Quote:
This study determines that 86% of livestock feed is not suitable for human consumption. If not consumed by livestock, crop residues and by-products could quickly become an environmental burden as the human population grows and consumes more and more processed food. Animals also consume food that could potentially be eaten by people. Grains account for 13% of the global livestock dry matter intake

http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/home/en/news_archive/2017_More_Fuel_for_the_Food_Feed.html

Hang on, you said:

On the other hand, when ground is tilled to plant crops, carbon is released

.

This is true. Nothing in your quote above contradicts the fact that 40% of the world's grain production is fed to livestock. We wouldn't need so much land under cultivation, and the attendant "crop residues and by-products" if animals weren't being raised for slaughter - why would farmers continue to plant it, if there weren't billions of animals to feed it to?

Again - your analysis takes no account of the methane that animals produce, the fact that fact that they do indeed consume enormous amounts of grain themselves, or the destruction of carbon sinks (clearing of forests) to produce this feed.

Here is another quote from the FAO:

"The meat industry has a marked impact on a general global scale on water, soils, extinction of plants and animals, and consumption of natural resources, and it has a strong impact on global warming”
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/climatechange/doc/FAO%20report%20executive%20summary.pdf

which may even be understating the issue a good deal:

"In the third chapter of the FAO report [1] it is estimated that 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions are caused by the livestock industry. The amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) released to the atmosphere is estimated at approximately 7516 million tons per year [1,3]. According to Goodland and Anhang [5] this estimate is too low. According to their calculations the global livestock industry is responsible for at least 51% of the greenhouse gases emitted to the atmosphere and the amount of carbon dioxide is estimated at 32,564 million tons. This large difference stems partly from the FAO using outdated sources from the years 1964–2001. Nevertheless, even if greenhouse gas emissions are estimated at only 18%, the livestock industry is still the second-largest polluter after the electricity industry, and more polluting than the transportation industry, which contributes approximately 13%"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6518108/#:~:text=Livestock%20emit%20almost%2064%25%20of,40%25%20of%20methane%20emissions%20worldwide.

White Clover · 22-11-2020 11:23pm

El Tarangu wrote: »

Hang on, you said:

.

This is true. Nothing in your quote above contradicts the fact that 40% of the world's grain production is fed to livestock. We wouldn't need so much land under cultivation, and the attendant "crop residues and by-products" if animals weren't being raised for slaughter - why would farmers continue to plant it, if there weren't billions of animals to feed it to?

Again - your analysis takes no account of the methane that animals produce, the fact that fact that they do indeed consume enormous amounts of grain themselves, or the destruction of carbon sinks (clearing of forests) to produce this feed.

Here is another quote from the FAO:

"The meat industry has a marked impact on a general global scale on water, soils, extinction of plants and animals, and consumption of natural resources, and it has a strong impact on global warming”
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/climatechange/doc/FAO%20report%20executive%20summary.pdf

which may even be understating the issue a good deal:

"In the third chapter of the FAO report [1] it is estimated that 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions are caused by the livestock industry. The amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) released to the atmosphere is estimated at approximately 7516 million tons per year [1,3]. According to Goodland and Anhang [5] this estimate is too low. According to their calculations the global livestock industry is responsible for at least 51% of the greenhouse gases emitted to the atmosphere and the amount of carbon dioxide is estimated at 32,564 million tons. This large difference stems partly from the FAO using outdated sources from the years 1964–2001. Nevertheless, even if greenhouse gas emissions are estimated at only 18%, the livestock industry is still the second-largest polluter after the electricity industry, and more polluting than the transportation industry, which contributes approximately 13%"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6518108/#:~:text=Livestock%20emit%20almost%2064%25%20of,40%25%20of%20methane%20emissions%20worldwide.

Your information above is from 2006, it has been disproved a long time ago. My original point still stands.

Thelonious Monk · 22-11-2020 11:25pm

I've seen farmers on here saying "the crops grown aren't suitable for human consumption" a few times. It's grown to feed animals not humans! That land could either be left alone to be wild or could be used to grow human food.

Gary kk · 22-11-2020 11:25pm

Look kinda off topic but can we agree to official EU stats in future. It's to easy to find information that confirms bias but may be lacking in facts. That works for both sides

El Tarangu · 22-11-2020 11:25pm

White Clover wrote: »

Your information above is from 2006, it has been disproved a long time ago. My original point still stands.

The second paper is from 2019; also, I'm not sure if you understand how the scientific method works.

White Clover · 22-11-2020 11:35pm

El Tarangu wrote: »

The second paper is from 2019; also, I'm not sure if you understand how the scientific method works.

Its a survey of 361 students:)

El Tarangu · 22-11-2020 11:42pm

White Clover wrote: »

Its a survey of 361 students:)

Here is the IPCC calling on people to eat less meat:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02409-7

Only 100 experts in that one, sorry - hope that suffices.

Gary kk · 22-11-2020 11:42pm

Also I thought it was 9 to 12 % ghg from livestock

Markcheese · 23-11-2020 12:01am

Grasslands and grazing systems can ( not always) also be enormous carbon sinks,
Plus plantation forestry can ( again not always ) can be net carbon emitters ,
(I'd love to see more forestry and agro forestry )
Equating feed lot beef to grazed system doesn't take much notice of the differences Involvled ,

If the world goes completely vegan

Comments