Shun meat, says UN climate chief

SunnyJim · Post by **SunnyJim** » 08 Sep 2008, 16:03

We too are animals....

I take your point though. However many vegetarians I know (vegans actually, because what is the point in being a vegetarian?) drink soya milk, eat tofu, have soya spread on their bread etc etc.

Personally I'm happy with a bit of butter, the odd rabbit or free range chicken and lamb for special occasions. I eat alot of bread, vegetables, salads, eggs etc.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 08 Sep 2008, 16:20

SunnyJim wrote:We too are animals....

True! Strange how many billions don't agree though.

Soya, occasionally useful though it is for vegans, isn't actually necessary and I frequently deliberately avoid products containing it. It's even harder to avoid than dairy products. Having given up cow's milk years ago (years before becoming vegan) I never needed a substitute in the form of soya 'milk'. Having said that, soft tofu is really useful.

Ho hum.

My main objection to eating dead animals is primarily the sheer vast quantity and ubiquity of it, leading to obscene degradation and suffering in many trillions of sentient beings. If people only ate the meat they raised and killed themselves, I'd be a little more forgiving (unless you're called Palin, that is).

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 08 Sep 2008, 16:30

Anybody heard the theory that unfermented soya, although it has protein in, has it in a form that's almost completely useless to people?

SunnyJim · Post by **SunnyJim** » 08 Sep 2008, 16:32

My concern is stimulating the local food economy, and eating locally for me invovles eating meat. If I lived on the east side of this fair isle, then maybe a more vegetarian diet would make sense, but where I am the grass grows well. Most of the food I eat comes from within a 25 mile radius of home. I buy lamb from a friend at work who rears them <snigger> on his smallholding. I keep (or rather kept since the fox visited recently) chickens, and grow veg where I can.

The thought of being told to stop eating meat for the sake of the climate, by a man who has probably flown more in the last year that I have in my life is a bit galling to say the least. It is such a simplistic message. If you live in a marginal area (welsh mountains) the best thing you could do for the climate would probably be to eat only lamb and leeks.....

goslow · Post by **goslow** » 08 Sep 2008, 16:41

yeah lets face it the staples of a proper veggie diet, lentils, chickpeas aren't grown here, their shipped from who knows where, at very least from southern Europe. We ship in our animal feed (soya) from Brazil, so what is the difference in terms of transport related emissions? As for emissions of the other sort, who knows!

Vortex · Post by **Vortex** » 08 Sep 2008, 16:43

We too are animals....

Or maybe the next step ... inadvertently stuck in animals' bodies and with some primitive animal responses which need tidying up?

SunnyJim · Post by **SunnyJim** » 08 Sep 2008, 16:46

goslow wrote:yeah lets face it the staples of a proper veggie diet, lentils, chickpeas aren't grown here, their shipped from who knows where, at very least from southern Europe. We ship in our animal feed (soya) from Brazil, so what is the difference in terms of transport related emissions? As for emissions of the other sort, who knows!

Only intensively reared animals <guffaw>.....

Round our way the grass makes both hay and silage which feed them through the winter. No self respecting small farmer would buy feed!!!!

goslow · Post by **goslow** » 08 Sep 2008, 17:17

Well, there are definately lots of feed-reared cattle on this planet, and chickens and pigs can't eat grass! This is how that particular veggie argument has at least some merit.

That costing the earth programme a while back gave a really interesting discussion about the ranking of animals in terms of environmental impacts. Chickens were though the best since they are not far 1:1 in food energy input: food energy out. Cows were the worst for "energy efficiency" but if you make them completely grass fed its not half as bad.

SunnyJim · Post by **SunnyJim** » 08 Sep 2008, 17:55

goslow wrote:discussion about the ranking of animals in terms of environmental impacts

Did they find that man was worse than the cow?

rushdy · Post by **rushdy** » 09 Sep 2008, 00:22

RenewableCandy wrote:Anybody heard the theory that unfermented soya, although it has protein in, has it in a form that's almost completely useless to people?

Yes, and I can well believe it too. It's just the tip of the iceberg really. Soy is a very nasty substance that screws with digestion, mineral absorption, endocrine function, increases requirements for certain vitamins, and does nothing to decrease your risk of cancer. It can be a food, but only when properly fermented (a long and complicated process) as was traditionally done before the great processed food companies began ramming it down peoples throats. Interestingly enough, soy is eaten only in small amounts in Asian countries rather than as a meat substitute.

I could go on all day!

Soy burgers and god knows what else are just another part of the cheapening of the food supply. Where in an overpopulated world, we have become battery people - fed on the cheapest, nastiest, substandard food ever imagined.

As for eating meat, I fully intend to continue doing so as it is an important source of nutrients, especially organ meats. Fish too as most of our soil has been run down by agribusiness, and at least all of the trace elements can still be found in the sea.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not some sort of rabid carnivore - I eat plenty of good quality fruits and vegetables. I'm just not convinced it's possible to really thrive without some animal products as part of your diet.

If you want to eliminate an unnecessary part of your diet that provides absolutely no benefit, and damages the environment as well as takes a tremendous toll on health - start with sugar.

Bandidoz · Post by **Bandidoz** » 09 Sep 2008, 02:45

SunnyJim wrote:Yup. Best give up the meat and eat soya instead....

That place was on Panorama the other night - which I think is repeated later this week.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 09 Sep 2008, 04:29

goslow wrote:Well, there are definately lots of feed-reared cattle on this planet, and chickens and pigs can't eat grass! This is how that particular veggie argument has at least some merit.

That costing the earth programme a while back gave a really interesting discussion about the ranking of animals in terms of environmental impacts. Chickens were though the best since they are not far 1:1 in food energy input: food energy out. Cows were the worst for "energy efficiency" but if you make them completely grass fed its not half as bad.

Chickens and pigs can eat grass: that's the reason for keeping chickens on free range. The sort of chickens that might approach a 1:1 conversion rate are the ones that are confined to sheds in conditions where they can't move around; the sort of conditions that Huge Ferny-Whitestraw and Jamie Whatsisname were campaigning against. I think the best conversion rate is about 3:1; 1:1 would be impossible (Laws of Thermodynamics).

Pigs are descendants of wild boar which do very well on whatever they find on the woodland floor, including grass. I've kept pigs outdoors on feed with no soya in it using peas and/or beans and whey and cheese waste instead. I could get them up to 140lbs killing weight in 16 weeks just as commercial pig farmers do. I preferred to feed them less, letting them forage more, and get them off a 24 weeks.

With PO, all meat will become more expensive and people will eat less of it. It will also become less intensively reared as that involves more energy input. My cattle are reared on rough grazing on common land, land that is not much use for human food production, and don't get up to killing weight until they are over 3 years old, as opposed to 18 months for commercial cattle. To get cattle off at 18 months requires a lot of supplementary feeding which costs energy and consequently money.

Carry on eating meat but go for local, extensively reared meat which will be more expensive but you can eat less of it. And eat more local fruit and vegetables. You will need less of high quality foods because you will get your nutrition from less of it and you will enjoy it more.

SunnyJim · Post by **SunnyJim** » 09 Sep 2008, 08:04

Hear hear Ken.

Local is best... chickens we buy cost £12 per bird. More expensive, and we eat them less, but bloody tasty and live in excellent conditions. We've visited the farm. They live in natural sized flocks (say 15 birds to a coup) and have good size forage areas.

Why do I spend £12 on a bird? Because I'm worth it

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 09 Sep 2008, 11:23

rushdy wrote:I'm just not convinced it's possible to really thrive without some animal products as part of your diet.

Oh. That's told me, hasn't it?

screamifyouwanttogofaster · Post by **screamifyouwanttogofaster** » 09 Sep 2008, 19:59

I'm convinced I can't thrive without some meat in my diet. But if others say they are thriving, I'll take their word for it

. I'd rather eat locally produced meat than beans and pulses imported from overseas though.

rushdy wrote: If you want to eliminate an unnecessary part of your diet that provides absolutely no benefit, and damages the environment as well as takes a tremendous toll on health - start with sugar.

Hear hear! Ban cake and chocolate!