Jameis Winston under investigation for allegedly groping...

[DreadNaught]

You do realize it takes 12-15 pounds of grain/soy/corn to produce 1 pound of meat, right? As in, you require 12-15 times the fertilizer use, land use, and pesticide run off to produce meat foods?

Or you could raise grass fed cows and free range chickens. No fertilizer (cows got that covered), no pesticides, no feed required. You just need land and water.

The vast majority of the beef and chicken I consume is purchased in bulk from local organic farms that are free range and grass fed. Not so much for the environmental concerns, but b/c I like knowing the source.

Buying whole, or even half cow comes out cheaper then going to the grocery store. So there really is no downside imo.

I've read articles about them growing meat in labs. I'd be down to eat some science meat!!

[real bucs fan]

To feed 8 billion people?

There are millions of acres of land across the world with nothing on them. It could be done. Same with farming I suppose, but ranching tastes better, produces food that is more nutrient dense, and produces leather for clothing. You also can harvest milk and/or eggs until you decide it's time for the meat.

Livestock systems already occupy 45% of the Earths land. Think about that. As well livestock makes up over 50% of the earths total biomass...

[real bucs fan]

Or you could raise grass fed cows and free range chickens. No fertilizer (cows got that covered), no pesticides, no feed required. You just need land and water.

The vast majority of the beef and chicken I consume is purchased in bulk from local organic farms that are free range and grass fed. Not so much for the environmental concerns, but b/c I like knowing the source.

Buying whole, or even half cow comes out cheaper then going to the grocery store. So there really is no downside imo.

I've read articles about them growing meat in labs. I'd be down to eat some science meat!!

It's our best hope. Once lab meat becomes cheaper than farmed meat, you'll see it replace all the meat consumed in fast food type restaurants almost immediately which will be massive.

[Sammich]

Or you could raise grass fed cows and free range chickens. No fertilizer (cows got that covered), no pesticides, no feed required. You just need land and water.

The vast majority of the beef and chicken I consume is purchased in bulk from local organic farms that are free range and grass fed. Not so much for the environmental concerns, but b/c I like knowing the source.

Buying whole, or even half cow comes out cheaper then going to the grocery store. So there really is no downside imo.

I've read articles about them growing meat in labs. I'd be down to eat some science meat!!

Grass fed beef if really good for you. Did you know that grass fed beef has almost as much omega fatty acids (the heart healthy stuff) as fish does? And without the risk of mercury poisoning.

[Jason Bourne]

The vast majority of the beef and chicken I consume is purchased in bulk from local organic farms that are free range and grass fed. Not so much for the environmental concerns, but b/c I like knowing the source.

Buying whole, or even half cow comes out cheaper then going to the grocery store. So there really is no downside imo.

I've read articles about them growing meat in labs. I'd be down to eat some science meat!!

It's our best hope. Once lab meat becomes cheaper than farmed meat, you'll see it replace all the meat consumed in fast food type restaurants almost immediately which will be massive.

[real bucs fan]

It's our best hope. Once lab meat becomes cheaper than farmed meat, you'll see it replace all the meat consumed in fast food type restaurants almost immediately which will be massive.

You're the one who puts meat in their mouth

[Jason Bourne]

You're the one who puts meat in their mouth

meat not ****

tofu is disgusting

[Sammich]

There are millions of acres of land across the world with nothing on them. It could be done. Same with farming I suppose, but ranching tastes better, produces food that is more nutrient dense, and produces leather for clothing. You also can harvest milk and/or eggs until you decide it's time for the meat.

Livestock systems already occupy 45% of the Earths land. Think about that. As well livestock makes up over 50% of the earths total biomass...

Between human habitation, jungles, forests, and huge expanses of nothing I find it hard to believe that livestock occupies almost half of Earth's land. I live in Houston- one of the biggest cities in North America. I could drive for an hour, pull over on the side of the road, and start firing a machine gun in spinning in circles. I would hit nothing.

As far as the biomass- as long as there are enough forested regions to compensate the oxygen usage it's irrelevant. Cows and chickens aren't going to hurt anything.

[real bucs fan]

Livestock systems already occupy 45% of the Earths land. Think about that. As well livestock makes up over 50% of the earths total biomass...

Between human habitation, jungles, forests, and huge expanses of nothing I find it hard to believe that livestock occupies almost half of Earth's land. I live in Houston- one of the biggest cities in North America. I could drive for an hour, pull over on the side of the road, and start firing a machine gun in spinning in circles. I would hit nothing.

As far as the biomass- as long as there are enough forested regions to compensate the oxygen usage it's irrelevant. Cows and chickens aren't going to hurt anything.

Livestock systems, which is a combination of all the land the livestock occupies as well as the land the feed for the livestock occupies, does indeed occupy 45% of the earths land according to the International Livestock Research Institute.

[real bucs fan]

You're the one who puts meat in their mouth

meat not ****

tofu is disgusting

There's for sure pig **** and ass being eaten every time you have a hotdog.

[Jason Bourne]

meat not ****

tofu is disgusting

There's for sure pig **** and ass being eaten every time you have a hotdog.

Link ?

[Super K]

Between human habitation, jungles, forests, and huge expanses of nothing I find it hard to believe that livestock occupies almost half of Earth's land. I live in Houston- one of the biggest cities in North America. I could drive for an hour, pull over on the side of the road, and start firing a machine gun in spinning in circles. I would hit nothing.

As far as the biomass- as long as there are enough forested regions to compensate the oxygen usage it's irrelevant. Cows and chickens aren't going to hurt anything.

Livestock systems, which is a combination of all the land the livestock occupies as well as the land the feed for the livestock occupies, does indeed occupy 45% of the earths land according to the International Livestock Research Institute.

Yeah I'm gonna call bullshit on that...

Not on YOU..on whomever said it..

[Sammich]

Between human habitation, jungles, forests, and huge expanses of nothing I find it hard to believe that livestock occupies almost half of Earth's land. I live in Houston- one of the biggest cities in North America. I could drive for an hour, pull over on the side of the road, and start firing a machine gun in spinning in circles. I would hit nothing.

As far as the biomass- as long as there are enough forested regions to compensate the oxygen usage it's irrelevant. Cows and chickens aren't going to hurt anything.

Livestock systems, which is a combination of all the land the livestock occupies as well as the land the feed for the livestock occupies, does indeed occupy 45% of the earths land according to the International Livestock Research Institute.

The International Livestock Research Institute is based in Africa and all of their studies are based on parts of Africa and parts of SE Asia. Perhaps that 45% number is true in areas they study, but it isn't worldwide. It isn't even continent wide. I doubt it is even country wide.

[real bucs fan]

Livestock systems, which is a combination of all the land the livestock occupies as well as the land the feed for the livestock occupies, does indeed occupy 45% of the earths land according to the International Livestock Research Institute.

The International Livestock Research Institute is based in Africa and all of their studies are based on parts of Africa and parts of SE Asia. Perhaps that 45% number is true in areas they study, but it isn't worldwide. It isn't even continent wide. I doubt it is even country wide.

The ILRI number was for Worldwide. But if you're interested, the US Department of Agriculture has a similar figure for the United States.

[NYBF]

There's for sure pig **** and ass being eaten every time you have a hotdog.

Link ?

[Jason Bourne]

lol

[beardmcdoug]

dudes... I was vegetarian for a couple years... eat meat now... I don't give a **** one way or the other, and I love to rag on RBF, but let's not be stupid. There is no arguing that it requires more energy/resources to grow animals than just growing crops. An animal is not a 100% efficient machine - it produces waste while it grows. Eating plants directly, instead of turning them into meat first, is the "better" thing to do for the environment (it's more efficient, requires less land, requires less overall fertilization, produces less pollution, and requires less energy) - there's no arguing that.

[Jason Bourne]

[Buc2]

dudes... I was vegetarian for a couple years... eat meat now... I don't give a **** one way or the other, and I love to rag on RBF, but let's not be stupid. There is no arguing that it requires more energy/resources to grow animals than just growing crops. An animal is not a 100% efficient machine - it produces waste while it grows. Eating plants directly, instead of turning them into meat first, is the "better" thing to do for the environment (it's more efficient, requires less land, requires less overall fertilization, produces less pollution, and requires less energy) - there's no arguing that.

**** you and your logic!

[DreadNaught]

dudes... I was vegetarian for a couple years... eat meat now... I don't give a **** one way or the other, and I love to rag on RBF, but let's not be stupid. There is no arguing that it requires more energy/resources to grow animals than just growing crops. An animal is not a 100% efficient machine - it produces waste while it grows. Eating plants directly, instead of turning them into meat first, is the "better" thing to do for the environment (it's more efficient, requires less land, requires less overall fertilization, produces less pollution, and requires less energy) - there's no arguing that.

Maybe the government will ban all meat so we can be vegans.

They're already poisoning the water will estrogen that turns the frogs gay!!

[Caradoc]

LOL. People arguing with Vegans. Might as well argue with Bootz or RBF.

Hey, wait...

[Caradoc]

dudes... I was vegetarian for a couple years... eat meat now... I don't give a **** one way or the other, and I love to rag on RBF, but let's not be stupid. There is no arguing that it requires more energy/resources to grow animals than just growing crops. An animal is not a 100% efficient machine - it produces waste while it grows. Eating plants directly, instead of turning them into meat first, is the "better" thing to do for the environment (it's more efficient, requires less land, requires less overall fertilization, produces less pollution, and requires less energy) - there's no arguing that.

Things are rarely as simple as they seem. There was a great study on this last year that I can't find, but the takeaway was that vegan was one of the worst diets in terms of sustainability and an omnivorous one was best. I can't find that study right now unfortunately. Part has to do with transport, and waste, other parts have to do with what land is actually useful for - not all land is appropriate for growing food crops but is ideal for cattle, for example

But here are some others that hit on this.

From CNN:
https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/06/health/v ... index.html

Ultimately, we cannot say that eating a vegan or vegetarian or meat diet is any better for the environment...
it's not just meat that increase greenhouse gases. Rice -- produced on 163m hectares, around 12% of the global arable area -- has one of the greatest plant carbon footprints because it produces a lot of methane...

More detailed:
https://www.sciencealert.com/vegetarian ... tudy-finds

Advocates of vegetarianism – including everybody's favourite Governator – regularly point out how how harmful human consumption of meat is to the environment, but is opting for a fully vegetable-based, meat-free diet a viable way to cut down on energy use and greenhouse gas emissions?

Nope – according to a new study by scientists in the US – or, at least, it's not that simple. Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) say that adopting the US Department of Agriculture's (USDA) current recommendations that people incorporate more fruits, vegetables, dairy and seafood in their diet would actually be worse for the environment than what Americans currently eat...
"Eating lettuce is over three times worse in greenhouse gas emissions than eating bacon," said Paul Fischbeck, one of the researchers. "Lots of common vegetables require more resources per calorie than you would think. Eggplant, celery and cucumbers look particularly bad when compared to pork or chicken."

"If you stop eating beef, you can't replace a kilogram of it, which has 2,280 calories, with a kilogram of broccoli, at 340 calories. You have to replace it with 6.7 kilograms of broccoli," Tamar Haspel wrote last year for the Washington Post. "Calories are the great equaliser, and it makes sense to use them as the basis of the calculation."

Inevitably, producing far greater amounts of foods like broccoli to compensate for the calories lost from meat and other high-energy food sources involves larger amounts of energy, water and emissions than any simple kilo-for-kilo comparison of environmental footprint allows. Take a look at the graphic here to see how the impact of foods is reordered when they're ranked by calorie content as opposed to by weight.

[beardmcdoug]

dudes... I was vegetarian for a couple years... eat meat now... I don't give a **** one way or the other, and I love to rag on RBF, but let's not be stupid. There is no arguing that it requires more energy/resources to grow animals than just growing crops. An animal is not a 100% efficient machine - it produces waste while it grows. Eating plants directly, instead of turning them into meat first, is the "better" thing to do for the environment (it's more efficient, requires less land, requires less overall fertilization, produces less pollution, and requires less energy) - there's no arguing that.

Things are rarely as simple as they seem. There was a great study on this last year that I can't find, but the takeaway was that vegan was one of the worst diets in terms of sustainability and an omnivorous one was best. I can't find that study right now unfortunately. Part has to do with transport, and waste, other parts have to do with what land is actually useful for - not all land is appropriate for growing food crops but is ideal for cattle, for example

But here are some others that hit on this.

From CNN:
https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/06/health/v ... index.html

Ultimately, we cannot say that eating a vegan or vegetarian or meat diet is any better for the environment...
it's not just meat that increase greenhouse gases. Rice -- produced on 163m hectares, around 12% of the global arable area -- has one of the greatest plant carbon footprints because it produces a lot of methane...

More detailed:
https://www.sciencealert.com/vegetarian ... tudy-finds

Advocates of vegetarianism – including everybody's favourite Governator – regularly point out how how harmful human consumption of meat is to the environment, but is opting for a fully vegetable-based, meat-free diet a viable way to cut down on energy use and greenhouse gas emissions?

Nope – according to a new study by scientists in the US – or, at least, it's not that simple. Researchers at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) say that adopting the US Department of Agriculture's (USDA) current recommendations that people incorporate more fruits, vegetables, dairy and seafood in their diet would actually be worse for the environment than what Americans currently eat...
"Eating lettuce is over three times worse in greenhouse gas emissions than eating bacon," said Paul Fischbeck, one of the researchers. "Lots of common vegetables require more resources per calorie than you would think. Eggplant, celery and cucumbers look particularly bad when compared to pork or chicken."

"If you stop eating beef, you can't replace a kilogram of it, which has 2,280 calories, with a kilogram of broccoli, at 340 calories. You have to replace it with 6.7 kilograms of broccoli," Tamar Haspel wrote last year for the Washington Post. "Calories are the great equaliser, and it makes sense to use them as the basis of the calculation."

Inevitably, producing far greater amounts of foods like broccoli to compensate for the calories lost from meat and other high-energy food sources involves larger amounts of energy, water and emissions than any simple kilo-for-kilo comparison of environmental footprint allows. Take a look at the graphic here to see how the impact of foods is reordered when they're ranked by calorie content as opposed to by weight.

that's fine, I understand what you're saying, but it's a general rule and it stands

[real bucs fan]

on a per calorie basis vs lettuce. Use your brains. These are how dumb sites manipulate science.

[PrimeMinister]

It's our best hope. Once lab meat becomes cheaper than farmed meat, you'll see it replace all the meat consumed in fast food type restaurants almost immediately which will be massive.

[real bucs fan]

At least admitting you only eat it for taste is intellectually honest.

[Sammich]

on a per calorie basis vs lettuce. Use your brains. These are how dumb sites manipulate science.

If humans need X number of calories to live and you're comparing food sources for humans than you have to compare them calorie to calorie. You can't just compare 1kg of food A vs 1kg of food B.

That's what I meant earlier in the thread when I said nutrient dense.

[real bucs fan]

on a per calorie basis vs lettuce. Use your brains. These are how dumb sites manipulate science.

If humans need X number of calories to live and you're comparing food sources for humans than you have to compare them calorie to calorie. You can't just compare 1kg of food A vs 1kg of food B.

That's what I meant earlier in the thread when I said nutrient dense.

Contrary to popular belief, vegans aren't replacing bacon with lettuce. Try beans.

[Caradoc]

that's fine, I understand what you're saying, but it's a general rule and it stands

The problem is, it really doesn't stand. If there's a benefit, it's barely noticeable

on a per calorie basis vs lettuce. Use your brains. These are how dumb sites manipulate science.

No, this is how science works. Many of the things we say are "common sense" actually don't hold up to scrutiny. (And there is nothing inappropriate about comparing lettuce to bacon, unless you want to pretend people don't eat salads as a food source.)

The problem with the Vegan = more efficient argument is that it oversimplifies to the point of uselessness.

Some of the glaring problems with the oversimplification:

Not all land is equally usable for different crops. It's not like we are trading 1 acre of avocados for one acre of meat.
It doesn't account for fertilizer which is used more for food vegetables than in overall meat 'production'.
We aren't trading "grain into humans for food" for "grain into cows for food". Much of what cattle eat isn't edible for humans and the land they graze on isn't suitable for growing food crops.
Processing and distrubition is much less efficient for fruits and vegetables. To use the meat/broccoli stats above, if I am shipping calories from production (say Texas) to consumption (say New York) the equivalent to shipping 10 tons of beef is shipping almost 70 tons of Broccoli. And it's not just more weight, but more volume and more packaging.
There is also no accounting for the "renewable" dairy products like eggs and milk.

There is much more, but I should know better than argue with a vegan. It's a cult, not a scientific rationale.

[real bucs fan]

Good article with lots of great info: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/arch ... ef/535536/

Recently Harwatt and a team of scientists from Oregon State University, Bard College, and Loma Linda University calculated just what would happen if every American made one dietary change: substituting beans for beef. They found that if everyone were willing and able to do that—hypothetically—the U.S. could still come close to meeting its 2020 greenhouse-gas emission goals, pledged by President Barack Obama in 2009.

That is, even if nothing about our energy infrastructure or transportation system changed—and even if people kept eating chicken and pork and eggs and cheese—this one dietary change could achieve somewhere between 46 and 74 percent of the reductions needed to meet the target.

This inefficient process happens on a massive scale. Brazil, the world’s largest exporter of red meat, holds around 212 million cattle. (In June, the U.S. temporarily suspended imports of beef from Brazil due to abscesses, collections of pus, in the meat.) According to the United Nations, 33 percent of arable land on Earth is used to grow feed for livestock. Even more, 26 percent of the ice-free terrestrial surface of Earth is used for grazing livestock. In all, almost a third of the land on Earth is used to produce meat and animal products.

If Americans traded their beef for beans, the researchers found, that would free up 42 percent of U.S. crop land.