ecolo-vegetarian meat alternatives, big polluter!

[Exnihiloest]

...
There are actually a lot of misleading approximations in this article ...

And a lot of misleading and very real deceptions among environmentalists.

"Lies, lies, and statistics

“Among the anti-meat statistics, we also find, in various variations, the idea that it would take 20 kilos of grain to produce a kilo of beef. An assertion that rests on a false assumption: that all animals are raised in feedlots. But in the UK, for example, cows and sheep spend most of their lives in meadows grazing. In winter, when the grass stops growing, most of the food is used as fodder. (beet greens) or agricultural waste (straw) to feed the animals. Cereals are an exceptional addition for the few weeks it takes to "finish" the animal before it leaves for the slaughterhouse. In other words , this guilty figure is only representative of the worst-case scenario - animals confined to factory farming, which the majority of European consumers reject for a host of reasons unrelated to the question of food profitability. "

[Exnihiloest]

...
Common sense is enough to understand the cheating of this article!

And the facts are enough to understand environmental cheating.

"Cows, eco-vandals?
Another of the biggest controversies (and misconceptions) about meat production is its supposed contribution to global warming, a subject that has been prized by the media since the publication in 2006 of an FAO report denouncing "the shadow cast Of cattle on the planet. A document where we find this mind-boggling figure: 18% of greenhouse gases are produced by farm animals, which puts them before the road sector in terms of emissions. I don't mind being naive, but I thought the cause of global warming was our appetite for fossil fuels. Is it possible that animal husbandry - an activity that preceded the advent of the industrial revolution thousands of years ago - is such a serious problem?

Over the past decade, this report has contributed to the quasi-religious dogma of reducing meat consumption as a weapon against global warming. "

At this point of manipulation, you really have to like having your head in the sand to swallow the environmentalists.

[sen-no-sen]

And a lot of misleading and very real deceptions among environmentalists.


“Among the anti-meat statistics, we also find, in various variations, the idea that it would take 20 kilos of grain to produce a kilo of beef. An assertion that rests on a false assumption: that all animals are raised in feedlots.

The idea that it would take 20 kilograms of grain to make 1 kg of beef is actually false. In reality it is much more, not necessarily grain, but mainly herbs from pastures.
I know of no metabolism capable of producing 1 kg of muscles for only 20 kg ingested ...

The fact is that when there are pastures there are fewer forests and by extension less biodiversity.
Reducing the consumption of meat means increasing the area of ​​forest and, by extension, other forms of life.

[Exnihiloest]

...
The idea that it would take 20 kilograms of grain to make 1 kg of beef is actually false. In reality it is much more, not necessarily grain, but mainly herbs from pastures.
I know of no metabolism capable of producing 1 kg of muscles for only 20 kg ingested ...

The fact is that when there are pastures there are fewer forests and by extension less biodiversity.
...

Except that the argument you give is no longer that of environmentalists, which confirms the deception. It feels like you're hanging on to the branches but in a pasture, it's difficult, huh?

There are fewer forests and by extension less biodiversity because there are more of us, we have to feed everyone, people buy meat because it's good too, and no one wants to go broke with food or return to live on the land on his plot (which would be impossible today).

[sen-no-sen]

Except that the argument you give is no longer that of environmentalists, which confirms the deception. It feels like you're hanging on to the branches but in a pasture, it's difficult, huh?

Who are the environmentalists? Scientists specializing in ecosystem interactions, ecological sores, fachos adepts of resources at the source, zadists, mothers of families who worry about the future of their children ???



A cow (600 / 700kg) is a minimum of 70 kg of grass per day and 120 liters of water per day.
We are therefore very far from only 20 kilos of cereals or other to make 1kilos of meat!
In addition to make a beef it takes on average 2 years before slaughter, or 730 days, for the rest just multiply ...

There are fewer forests and by extension less biodiversity because there are more of us, we have to feed everyone, people buy meat because it's good too, and no one wants to go broke with food or return to live on the land on his plot (which would be impossible today).

And precisely to feed everyone, it is necessary to rationalize the spaces dedicated to crops, which necessarily induces a significant drop in the allocation of land to non-essential food sources (such as beef).
The consumption of meat, a fortiori red is consubstantial with the increase of the standards of life, and if one does not want to be ruined for the food it is necessary to privilege the vegetarianism, which already many poor people do, without having waited for vegans.

incidentally:

Carbon footprint of a Frenchman in 2010.

These broadcasts correspond to everything that had to be broadcast before a French person could have access to the products or services he consumes. We note that food weighs more than heating or traveling, and that in the latter the meat represents a small half. With cheese and dairy products, the cattle population represents around 50%. NB: for electronic products, it is their manufacture, not their use.

Source: Carbone 4, 2012

Evolution of meat consumption per person in France (in kg per year) on 2 centuries.

We can easily see that this consumption has multiplied by 5 in two centuries, and more or less follows the evolution of energy consumption per person.

Source: Bernard Sauvant, INRA
https://jancovici.com/publications-et-co/articles-de-presse/ah-la-vache/

[sicetaitsimple]

A cow (600 / 700kg) is a minimum of 70 kg of grass per day and 120 liters of water per day.
We are therefore very far from only 20 kilos of cereals or other to make 1kilos of meat!
In addition to make a beef it takes on average 2 years before slaughter, or 730 days, for the rest just multiply ...

Without wanting to interfere too much in your debate with Exnihiloest, I still think that you are making some "tendentious" approximations:

- the "70kg of grass" per day, I am thinking of the kg of "raw" grass that a cow grazes when she is in her meadow. In short, it is not dry matter. And at the start of the grazing season with fresh grass, she might even eat a lot more. In short, it seems reasonable to me (at a minimum) to reason in dry matter.

- maybe you like raygrass in salads, me not. Comparing kg of cereals and kg of meadow grass (even in dry matter!) is not really relevant (whether on its direct food value for man, for work and energy in all their forms required to grow and harvest, for environmental impact, ... etc ... etc ...). I do not judge what is better or worse, I just say that it is not relevant.

- Regarding the water, I take your value of 120l / d, it is certainly an order of magnitude. Then I just point out that on these 120l 20 to 30 will certainly become milk (in the case of dairy cows) and that moreover I have rarely seen a cow refrain from peeing until it returns to the stable and that 'therefore this water will go back to the ground to a large extent?

[sicetaitsimple]

A cow (600 / 700kg) is a minimum of 70 kg of grass per day and 120 liters of water per day.
We are therefore very far from only 20 kilos of cereals or other to make 1kilos of meat!
In addition to make a beef it takes on average 2 years before slaughter, or 730 days, for the rest just multiply ...

Without wanting to interfere too much in your debate with Exnihiloest, I still think that you are making some "tendentious" approximations:

- the "70kg of grass" per day, I am thinking of the kg of "raw" grass that a cow grazes when she is in her meadow. In short, it is not dry matter. And at the start of the grazing season with fresh grass, she might even eat a lot more. In short, it seems reasonable to me (at a minimum) to reason in dry matter.

- maybe you like raygrass in salads, me not. Comparing kg of cereals and kg of meadow grass (even in dry matter!) is not really relevant (either on its direct food value and his appetite for man, for work and energy in all their forms required to grow and harvest, for environmental impact, ... etc ... etc ...). I do not judge what is better or worse, I just say that it is not relevant.

- Regarding the water, I take your value of 120l / d, it is certainly an order of magnitude. Then I just point out that on these 120l 20 to 30 will certainly become milk (in the case of dairy cows) and that moreover I have rarely seen a cow refrain from peeing until it returns to the stable and that 'therefore this water will go back to the ground to a large extent?

[sicetaitsimple]

Sorry for the duplicate.

[sicetaitsimple]

Just a complementary point compared to your curve on meat consumption in France, which ends in 2000. It seems that the trend has reversed over the last ten years, -12% in 10 years:

http://www.lefigaro.fr/conso/2018/09/06 ... viande.php

[sen-no-sen]

Without wanting to interfere too much in your debate with Exnihiloest, I still think that you are making some "tendentious" approximations:

Not at all.
There is nothing biased, the idea is simple, consuming vegetarian products is more rational than consuming red meat.
The cultivated area / time ratio is much better for plant products than for meat.

maybe you like raygrass in salads, me not. Comparing kg of cereals and kg of meadow grass (even in dry matter!) is not really relevant (either on its direct food value and its appetite for man, for work and energy in all their forms required to grow and harvest, for environmental impact, ... etc ... etc ...). I do not judge what is better or worse, I just say that it is not relevant.

I believe that you make this comparison alone ... I cited the error of reasoning that to make 1kg of beef you would need 20kg of cereals, something taken from the article cited above. You therefore lend me a reasoning that I did not hold.

concerning water, I take your value of 120l / d, it is certainly an order of magnitude. Then I just point out that on these 120l 20 to 30 will certainly become milk (in the case of dairy cows) and that moreover I have rarely seen a cow refrain from peeing until it returns to the stable and that 'therefore this water will go back to the ground to a large extent?

For a male to make milk will be difficult, but even very well. The center of the subject is not there, it is in the efficiency ratio between surface allocated to breeding VS surface allocated to agriculture in a world to 7 billion people.

Just a complementary point compared to your curve on meat consumption in France, which ends in 2000. It seems that the trend has reversed over the last ten years, -12% in 10 years:

Normal we are in crisis since 2008 ... = drop in purchasing power.