Page 3 of 6

Re: Eating Less Meat

PostPosted: Mon Dec 03, 2018 10:04 pm
by paulK
Fartvs Antiqvvs wrote:
Greeners wrote:Hi
Simple question.
If everyone stopped eating meat, what effect would it have on Global Warning


No simple answer to that, I fear Greeners. :shock:


Even more so because was told that if everyone in the world stopped eating meat half of the population would die of starvation because there would not be enough land to produce the food required. If true that would add a whole new dynamic.

Re: Eating Less Meat

PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2018 8:14 am
by cookiemonster
paulK wrote:
Fartvs Antiqvvs wrote:
Greeners wrote:Hi
Simple question.
If everyone stopped eating meat, what effect would it have on Global Warning


No simple answer to that, I fear Greeners. :shock:


Even more so because was told that if everyone in the world stopped eating meat half of the population would die of starvation because there would not be enough land to produce the food required. If true that would add a whole new dynamic.


Given it is less efficient to derive calories from meat than non-meat this cannot be true.

Re: Eating Less Meat

PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2018 6:06 pm
by Tommo
cookiemonster wrote:
paulK wrote:
Fartvs Antiqvvs wrote:
Greeners wrote:Hi
Simple question.
If everyone stopped eating meat, what effect would it have on Global Warning


No simple answer to that, I fear Greeners. :shock:


Even more so because was told that if everyone in the world stopped eating meat half of the population would die of starvation because there would not be enough land to produce the food required. If true that would add a whole new dynamic.


Given it is less efficient to derive calories from meat than non-meat this cannot be true.


It can't be although animals do produce fertiliser pretty effectively and they do encourage a micro-biological diversity that I believe is useful to soil maintenance. We probably will always need a mix but shouldn't be growing so many crops for animal feed.

Re: Eating Less Meat

PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2018 6:55 pm
by paulK
cookiemonster wrote:
paulK wrote:
Fartvs Antiqvvs wrote:
Greeners wrote:Hi
Simple question.
If everyone stopped eating meat, what effect would it have on Global Warning


No simple answer to that, I fear Greeners. :shock:


Even more so because was told that if everyone in the world stopped eating meat half of the population would die of starvation because there would not be enough land to produce the food required. If true that would add a whole new dynamic.


Given it is less efficient to derive calories from meat than non-meat this cannot be true.


But from what I understand it would be the lack of suitable arable/agricultural land to support sufficient production.

Then again, i suppose we could make lots of fertilizers (not sure of the impact of that)

Or else create lots of synthetic stuff? (not sure how that would affect health)

Not sure how genetic modification affects the environment.

Plus, could the third world afford to eat?

Complicated :?

Re: Eating Less Meat

PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2018 7:40 pm
by fgr__loyal
Currently the vegan diet doesn't bother me, but for the fans it's about what happens on the pitch and if Vince's ideas start to negatively affect performance then I think it should be stopped immediately.

Re: Eating Less Meat

PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2018 8:12 pm
by Silver Surfer
fgr__loyal wrote:Currently the vegan diet doesn't bother me, but for the fans it's about what happens on the pitch and if Vince's ideas start to negatively affect performance then I think it should be stopped immediately.

DV's ideas have got us promoted to the EFL. That's already beyond our wildest dreams.

Re: Eating Less Meat

PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2018 7:56 am
by Timb
So "20 a day is actually good for your health" is still the prevalent view.

There's a long way to go before people take the issue seriously.

No doubt there will be very clever social media and other PR machines in play funded by the meat industry to counter any and all of the scientific evidence.

And the same to bring the issues to people's attention.

No one could ever accuse DV of preaching to the converted....

Re: Eating Less Meat

PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2018 8:30 am
by cookiemonster
paulK wrote:
cookiemonster wrote:
paulK wrote:
Fartvs Antiqvvs wrote:
Greeners wrote:Hi
Simple question.
If everyone stopped eating meat, what effect would it have on Global Warning


No simple answer to that, I fear Greeners. :shock:


Even more so because was told that if everyone in the world stopped eating meat half of the population would die of starvation because there would not be enough land to produce the food required. If true that would add a whole new dynamic.


Given it is less efficient to derive calories from meat than non-meat this cannot be true.


But from what I understand it would be the lack of suitable arable/agricultural land to support sufficient production.

Then again, i suppose we could make lots of fertilizers (not sure of the impact of that)

Or else create lots of synthetic stuff? (not sure how that would affect health)

Not sure how genetic modification affects the environment.

Plus, could the third world afford to eat?

Complicated :?


Not really. If the land currently given over to raising animals for meat (grazing + growing feedstuffs) was used for growing crops for human consumption instead, we would have sufficient.

Re: Eating Less Meat

PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2018 9:48 am
by Greeners
Hi
cookiemonster wrote:
Not really. If the land currently given over to raising animals for meat (grazing + growing feedstuffs) was used for growing crops for human consumption instead, we would have sufficient.


Unless you are prepared to advocate the wholesale slaughter of those animals (with, presumably, no economic use made of their carcasses) then the land on which they currently graze will not be available for other food production. They will also continue to produce their greenhouse gasses. (Burps not farts by the way)

Re: Eating Less Meat

PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2018 1:38 pm
by cookiemonster
Greeners wrote:Hi
cookiemonster wrote:
Not really. If the land currently given over to raising animals for meat (grazing + growing feedstuffs) was used for growing crops for human consumption instead, we would have sufficient.


Unless you are prepared to advocate the wholesale slaughter of those animals (with, presumably, no economic use made of their carcasses) then the land on which they currently graze will not be available for other food production. They will also continue to produce their greenhouse gasses. (Burps not farts by the way)


Ermm... if they are being raised for meat then I'm sorry to break this to you but they will end up slaughtered anyway. As will their offspring. And their offspring. And so on.

Of course the transition would be made gradually: stop breeding the animals, numbers would decline and the land could be given over to arable crops bit by bit.

Re: Eating Less Meat

PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2018 8:17 pm
by Electric Chair
Hi Guys, there’s a few misunderstandings here about the impact of meat production, the land it needs and emissions it produces. Good point made about population. But the fact is our current food system is killing us and the planet, not just 50 billion farm animals a year. Good article today that joins these threads up, and points to what we need to do.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ows-report

Great stat on Beef in the US diet, providing 3% of calories but producing half of food raletd emissions......,that’s how inefficient it is to feed ourselves this way.

Cheers.

Re: Eating Less Meat

PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2018 8:53 pm
by Pitchfork
Pertinent thread initiated by Timb.

There should not be any 'Keep Calm and Carry On' in regard to the world's consumption of meat ( especially red meat), a change in dietary habits needs to happen. Undoubtedly homo sapiens is slowly waking up to climate change, but governments must be far more pro-active - no way is this the nanny state.

Here is another telling quote from the excellent article:

"The world’s science academies concluded last week that the global food system was “broken”, leaving billions of people either underfed or overweight and driving dangerous global warming. Another new report concluded that the global food system required “radical transformation” if climate change and development goals were to be met, including “widespread dietary change”.

Re: Eating Less Meat

PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2018 8:55 pm
by stanman
Presentation by Helen Taylor on FGR/Veganism/Green Issues etc.
Nothing new for most fans but a nice presentation at this recent symposium in Brighton.

https://brighton.meaningconference.co.uk/videos/helen-taylor.php

Re: Eating Less Meat

PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2018 12:35 pm
by Lady Magpie
That was very good Helen and well presented, I know standing up in front of people can be tricky, I did 5 years of after dinner speaking, in a comic way, and that first one was very hard. Well done and I enjoyed that.

Re: Eating Less Meat

PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:30 pm
by NewForestRover
That was excellent.

I think that listening to a presentation of something you believe in makes you so proud to be a Rovers fan and part of it all.

Re: Eating Less Meat

PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2018 6:20 pm
by John Whiffen
What a professional performance, she spoke with conviction and understanding.

Excellent 25 minutes

Re: Eating Less Meat

PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2018 10:03 pm
by The Old TomCat
paulK wrote:
cookiemonster wrote:
paulK wrote:
Fartvs Antiqvvs wrote:
Greeners wrote:Hi
Simple question.
If everyone stopped eating meat, what effect would it have on Global Warning


No simple answer to that, I fear Greeners. :shock:


Even more so because was told that if everyone in the world stopped eating meat half of the population would die of starvation because there would not be enough land to produce the food required. If true that would add a whole new dynamic.


Given it is less efficient to derive calories from meat than non-meat this cannot be true.


But from what I understand it would be the lack of suitable arable/agricultural land to support sufficient production.

Then again, i suppose we could make lots of fertilizers (not sure of the impact of that)

Or else create lots of synthetic stuff? (not sure how that would affect health)

Not sure how genetic modification affects the environment.

Plus, could the third world afford to eat?

Complicated :?


A friend of mine following thread asked me to post following:

"Please could you pass on a correction that it is not the animal grazing land which is the concern but the land used for their feed. A third (33%) of all crops in the world feed animals, which results in less food for humans (http://www.fao.org/animal-production/en/). This is especially the case for soya which is a higher percentage still. Even if no grazing land was used for crops, the global food supply would increase considerably, in the region of 15-20%. You actually start to reforest areas of rainforest destroyed for animal grazing without impacting on food supply.

Personally, I don’t eat meat for this reason; it is an inefficient use of a scarce resource. Thus it makes no sense from neither an economic or environmental perspective. But as I love meat, I would readily eat lab grown steaks and burgers etc, as these are produced without needing to raise and feed an animal."

Re: Eating Less Meat

PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:49 am
by paulK
Timb wrote:So "20 a day is actually good for your health" is still the prevalent view.

There's a long way to go before people take the issue seriously.

No doubt there will be very clever social media and other PR machines in play funded by the meat industry to counter any and all of the scientific evidence.

And the same to bring the issues to people's attention.

No one could ever accuse DV of preaching to the converted....


It is a wrong assumption that just because somebody eats meat they are in the same category as someone who thinks 20 a day is OK.

We've eaten meat for thousands and thousands of years. There is nothing wrong with eating meat. Just the amount and production methods.

And changing will have side effects that no one is discussing or thinks isn't a problem only to discover it is. The wack-a-mole effect.

Re: Eating Less Meat

PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 1:50 am
by paulK
Pitchfork wrote:Pertinent thread initiated by Timb.

There should not be any 'Keep Calm and Carry On' in regard to the world's consumption of meat ( especially red meat), a change in dietary habits needs to happen. Undoubtedly homo sapiens is slowly waking up to climate change, but governments must be far more pro-active - no way is this the nanny state.

Here is another telling quote from the excellent article:

"The world’s science academies concluded last week that the global food system was “broken”, leaving billions of people either underfed or overweight and driving dangerous global warming. Another new report concluded that the global food system required “radical transformation” if climate change and development goals were to be met, including “widespread dietary change”.


+1

Re: Eating Less Meat

PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:39 am
by Timb
I think you're missing the point PK.

The 20 a day analogy relates to the initial reaction last century to the view that smoking was bad for you. The same reaction is prevalent now in relation to this situation. Hopefully it won't take 50 years foe action. In this case, including guidance from the government.

I'm not sure where you're getting information fed to you regarding "side effects" of eating Less Meat.

It wasn't so long ago that the south European diet with very little meat and dairy was hailed as the the healthiest diet in Europe.