University bans all beef from campus...........
Discussion
turbobloke said:
grumbledoak said:
Evanivitch said:
The facts are very simple, you need more land and energy to grow, manage and consume animal products from cradle to plate. There will be exceptions, but those exceptions won't allow us to feed an ever growing population with a animal-product rich diet.
Nothing will allow us to feed an ever growing population.What assumptions would you use?
Digga said:
Here is an excellent alternative view of how different types of agriculture impact on the environment: https://medium.com/@drewfrench/grass-fed-beef-the-...
It raises many issues conveniently ignored by those advocating a diet free of meat.
ETA it is worth rembmering that the reason the Great Plains of the USA are so fertile is because the soil benefits from millions of years of buffalo s
t. That is what the ecosystem there was before intensive agriculture.
Tim Searchinger, in a paper in Nature recently, showed that, on impact in terms of carbon, protein from beef is 73 times greater than that from soya. It raises many issues conveniently ignored by those advocating a diet free of meat.
ETA it is worth rembmering that the reason the Great Plains of the USA are so fertile is because the soil benefits from millions of years of buffalo s
t. That is what the ecosystem there was before intensive agriculture.Edited by Digga on Friday 16th August 13:30
His suggestion was that there was little support for the accepted demonisation of the impact of transport. The main conclusion was that beef is highly inefficient in its use of land. Soya, not without its problems, is much more efficient.
Derek Smith said:
Tim Searchinger, in a paper in Nature recently, showed that, on impact in terms of carbon, protein from beef is 73 times greater than that from soya.
His suggestion was that there was little support for the accepted demonisation of the impact of transport. The main conclusion was that beef is highly inefficient in its use of land. Soya, not without its problems, is much more efficient.
An interesting paper for sure and illustrative of the need to avoid genaralised factoids. I'm not saying it's guilty, just the opposite!His suggestion was that there was little support for the accepted demonisation of the impact of transport. The main conclusion was that beef is highly inefficient in its use of land. Soya, not without its problems, is much more efficient.
It sets out a new bookkeeping method for 'counting carbons' regarding land use changes but from my reading it doesn't consider albedo. The authors point out that e.g. biodiversity isn't covered (a paper needs a specific remit) but albedo on a global scale is important in terms of the energy balance that climate scientists have admitted they can't balance and don't fully understand as yet. Nevertheless the science is settled.
) will sue for breach of competition law...... Writhing said:
It makes me wonder who will attend this place and what they’ll be like after being there for 3 years.
Goldsmiths was the place where the Student Union had a "no white males" event IIRC.That said, what a union thinks and what students think are often different. I couldn't tell you what my student union had to say about anything, occupied as I was with studying and partying.
turbobloke said:
An interesting paper for sure and illustrative of the need to avoid genaralised factoids. I'm not saying it's guilty, just the opposite!
It sets out a new bookkeeping method for 'counting carbons' regarding land use changes but from my reading it doesn't consider albedo. The authors point out that e.g. biodiversity isn't covered (a paper needs a specific remit) but albedo on a global scale is important in terms of the energy balance that climate scientists have admitted they can't balance and don't fully understand as yet. Nevertheless the science is settled.
Using different criteria will change the conclusion of course, but that goes both ways. There has to be a limit. As long as the criteria are revealed, one can come to one's own opinion.It sets out a new bookkeeping method for 'counting carbons' regarding land use changes but from my reading it doesn't consider albedo. The authors point out that e.g. biodiversity isn't covered (a paper needs a specific remit) but albedo on a global scale is important in terms of the energy balance that climate scientists have admitted they can't balance and don't fully understand as yet. Nevertheless the science is settled.
73 is a big number, although it merely confirms what is generally accepted. It's lots whichever you opt for.
I found the bit on transport interesting.
I've had the occasional vegan/vegetarian meal and often found them tasty. But it's difficult for me as I have an allergy to certain beans.
I had a vegan lunch. It was a BLT sandwich.
turbobloke said:
Derek Smith said:
Tim Searchinger, in a paper in Nature recently, showed that, on impact in terms of carbon, protein from beef is 73 times greater than that from soya.
His suggestion was that there was little support for the accepted demonisation of the impact of transport. The main conclusion was that beef is highly inefficient in its use of land. Soya, not without its problems, is much more efficient.
An interesting paper for sure and illustrative of the need to avoid genaralised factoids. I'm not saying it's guilty, just the opposite!His suggestion was that there was little support for the accepted demonisation of the impact of transport. The main conclusion was that beef is highly inefficient in its use of land. Soya, not without its problems, is much more efficient.
It sets out a new bookkeeping method for 'counting carbons' regarding land use changes but from my reading it doesn't consider albedo. The authors point out that e.g. biodiversity isn't covered (a paper needs a specific remit) but albedo on a global scale is important in terms of the energy balance that climate scientists have admitted they can't balance and don't fully understand as yet. Nevertheless the science is settled.
It’s not like we’re somehow making more carbon atoms and co2 molecules.
What is out there already is irrelevant.
Same with water. Who cares if they ‘use’ twice as much orcwhatever to make beef?
If it’s raining all the time who cares? They just borrow water between the grass and the rivers/aquifers their piss runs into.
In a closed system, is counting carbon and water important?
Mr Whippy said:
Unless you’re burning carbon from fossil fuels, isn’t the carbon cycle wrt animals kinda ‘baked in’ now any way?
It’s not like we’re somehow making more carbon atoms and co2 molecules.
What is out there already is irrelevant.
Same with water. Who cares if they ‘use’ twice as much or whatever to make beef?
If it’s raining all the time who cares? They just borrow water between the grass and the rivers/aquifers their piss runs into.
In a closed system, is counting carbon and water important?
The problem with water isn't that it'll one day run out if you use too much-like you say, it recycles itself. But rather there is a limit to how much fresh water can be supplied to a given area through irrigation and plumbing and rainfall, and how quickly it regenerates itself. (like how England has hosepipe bans not because the rain will run out, but because of short-term water levels)It’s not like we’re somehow making more carbon atoms and co2 molecules.
What is out there already is irrelevant.
Same with water. Who cares if they ‘use’ twice as much or whatever to make beef?
If it’s raining all the time who cares? They just borrow water between the grass and the rivers/aquifers their piss runs into.
In a closed system, is counting carbon and water important?
So growing a certain crop which requires a lot of water puts a strain on the infrastructure. Growing a crop with water to then feed to an animal which also drinks water requires yet more fresh water. Once you're maxing out your irrigation capacity, that's it. Not really a problem in Scotland, but in dryer climates it is- so if you're maxing out your water supply producing beef, that means you're not making other more water efficient foodstuffs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_scarcity
glazbagun said:
The problem with water isn't that it'll one day run out if you use too much-like you say, it recycles itself. But rather there is a limit to how much fresh water can be supplied to a given area through irrigation and plumbing and rainfall, and how quickly it regenerates itself. (like how England has hosepipe bans not because the rain will run out, but because of short-term water levels)
So growing a certain crop which requires a lot of water puts a strain on the infrastructure. Growing a crop with water to then feed to an animal which also drinks water requires yet more fresh water. Once you're maxing out your irrigation capacity, that's it. Not really a problem in Scotland, but in dryer climates it is- so if you're maxing out your water supply producing beef, that means you're not making other more water efficient foodstuffs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_scarcity
”so if you're maxing out your water supply producing beef, that means you're not making other more water efficient foodstuffs.”So growing a certain crop which requires a lot of water puts a strain on the infrastructure. Growing a crop with water to then feed to an animal which also drinks water requires yet more fresh water. Once you're maxing out your irrigation capacity, that's it. Not really a problem in Scotland, but in dryer climates it is- so if you're maxing out your water supply producing beef, that means you're not making other more water efficient foodstuffs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_scarcity
Which no one wants.
I’m another one who don’t see water being used on rearing animal as a problem. If it’s there and can be made to work (by design / tech / wells / whatever) then so what? If there’s not enough water they won’t rear animals.
Saying it would make more soya or whatever is no good if no one would be growing soya in that particular field through lack of demand. In other words if they weren’t rearing cattle it doesn’t mean they would be growing soya.
CoolHands said:
glazbagun said:
The problem with water isn't that it'll one day run out if you use too much-like you say, it recycles itself. But rather there is a limit to how much fresh water can be supplied to a given area through irrigation and plumbing and rainfall, and how quickly it regenerates itself. (like how England has hosepipe bans not because the rain will run out, but because of short-term water levels)
So growing a certain crop which requires a lot of water puts a strain on the infrastructure. Growing a crop with water to then feed to an animal which also drinks water requires yet more fresh water. Once you're maxing out your irrigation capacity, that's it. Not really a problem in Scotland, but in dryer climates it is- so if you're maxing out your water supply producing beef, that means you're not making other more water efficient foodstuffs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_scarcity
”so if you're maxing out your water supply producing beef, that means you're not making other more water efficient foodstuffs.”So growing a certain crop which requires a lot of water puts a strain on the infrastructure. Growing a crop with water to then feed to an animal which also drinks water requires yet more fresh water. Once you're maxing out your irrigation capacity, that's it. Not really a problem in Scotland, but in dryer climates it is- so if you're maxing out your water supply producing beef, that means you're not making other more water efficient foodstuffs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_scarcity
Which no one wants.
I’m another one who don’t see water being used on rearing animal as a problem. If it’s there and can be made to work (by design / tech / wells / whatever) then so what? If there’s not enough water they won’t rear animals.
Saying it would make more soya or whatever is no good if no one would be growing soya in that particular field through lack of demand. In other words if they weren’t rearing cattle it doesn’t mean they would be growing soya.
I did the calculations a few years ago for the rain catchment of a set of our farm buildings here in central Scotland.
We were, and continue to flush millions of litres of rainwater straight into drains that run into local watercourses.
Article in the Scottish Farmer about the latest UN report.
We were, and continue to flush millions of litres of rainwater straight into drains that run into local watercourses.
Article in the Scottish Farmer about the latest UN report.
Right so if water shortage is a load of nonsense, what about the methane argument? With apparently 1.4 billion cattle already in the world, how much is that figure going to increase by, and what additional contribution to global warming gases will they make.
Apparently land fill adds methane too. Will higher increase of uneaten veg products be worse if we did swap from meat to veg. As I suggest less beef is likely to be wasted compared with veg products which regularly go out of date etc.
Apparently land fill adds methane too. Will higher increase of uneaten veg products be worse if we did swap from meat to veg. As I suggest less beef is likely to be wasted compared with veg products which regularly go out of date etc.
Take a look at the Wikipedia page on the methane cycle. There is a table listing comparative studies of methane sources. Methane produced from ruminant farming is more or less equal to that produced by rice growing in paddy fields, which also emit other greenhouse gases for good measure.
Methane, if I remember correctly, is something like 40 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Will the university ban rice cakes?
Methane, if I remember correctly, is something like 40 times more powerful a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Will the university ban rice cakes?
Water scarcity is a huge problem where it is scarce, obviously.
Methane does break down easily, but atmospheric levels are, for reasons not yet understood, rising.
Stepping back from knee-jerk reactions from daft Universities and poor reporting from media outlets, it seems pretty straightforward that agriculture should be carried out in the way best suited to the land involved and the environment and be sustainable.
In the uplands of the UK and in areas that do not benefit from Gate 1, 2 or 3 land, grazing continues to be best use IMO.
There is a lot of scope to discuss the best use of current arable land. The University of Sheffield has done some interesting work on land usage.
Methane does break down easily, but atmospheric levels are, for reasons not yet understood, rising.
Stepping back from knee-jerk reactions from daft Universities and poor reporting from media outlets, it seems pretty straightforward that agriculture should be carried out in the way best suited to the land involved and the environment and be sustainable.
In the uplands of the UK and in areas that do not benefit from Gate 1, 2 or 3 land, grazing continues to be best use IMO.
There is a lot of scope to discuss the best use of current arable land. The University of Sheffield has done some interesting work on land usage.
CoolHands said:
Right so if water shortage is a load of nonsense, what about the methane argument? With apparently 1.4 billion cattle already in the world, how much is that figure going to increase by, and what additional contribution to global warming gases will they make.
Apparently land fill adds methane too. Will higher increase of uneaten veg products be worse if we did swap from meat to veg. As I suggest less beef is likely to be wasted compared with veg products which regularly go out of date etc.
Rice growing is definitely a significant source of methane, but not an insurmountable challenge. Infact, without even realising it Chinese farmers have already greatly reduced their methane emissions by changing their flood/drain cycles. If this is represented across all regions we will see a significant drop. Some side effects of this are known but research continues.Apparently land fill adds methane too. Will higher increase of uneaten veg products be worse if we did swap from meat to veg. As I suggest less beef is likely to be wasted compared with veg products which regularly go out of date etc.
Bridgend Council have an energy from bio-waste facility that takes in food waste from all across south Wales (food waste bins are widely used in Wales, but not in North of England). This uses anaerobic digesters to produce methane which is burned and energy returned to the grid. In future we may see biogas used in the grid but for now it's extremely limited and infrastructure limited.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff