Author Topic: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?  (Read 2990 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5033
Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
« Reply #30 on: January 30, 2019, 01:40:58 PM »
Makes sense. The more biomass, the more carbon.

What continues to not make sense to me is growing fuels to fight climate change. It's something we could've done if we never dug up fuels in the first place, but now we need ways of capturing carbon that don't end with releasing all of it again (in addition to the emissions from the energy used on the process).

Regenerative grazing is a thing... big and getting bigger.  When university research farms get the numbers and techniques, we (farmers) can maximise efficiency... and profit, whilst creating delicious protein from sunlight and rain and help turn the carbon cycle around.

It will never happen with annual, broadacre agriculture.
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Online bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2255
Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
« Reply #31 on: January 30, 2019, 02:45:14 PM »
Bachfiend: I ran your sig line, “Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?” through Google Translate and it came out “Will you give her her book back?” I am mystified as to what this signifies as a sig line.

It seemed like a good idea at the time.  I don’t like the use of ‘they’ to refer to a single person.  If I don’t know the gender of the person, I don’t like using ‘he’ as the default pronoun, so I just repeat the person’s moniker whenever necessary.  It’s repetitive, but not as repetitive as in German, which as you note has no problem having three ‘ihr’s in a row, each meaning something different.  Another example is ‘die Wäsche waschen‘ meaning ‘to wash clothes.’

There’s a habit in English to avoid repetition, which often obscures meaning.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9308
  • I'd rather be paddling
Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
« Reply #32 on: January 30, 2019, 05:07:16 PM »
Bachfiend: I ran your sig line, “Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?” through Google Translate and it came out “Will you give her her book back?” I am mystified as to what this signifies as a sig line.

It seemed like a good idea at the time.  I don’t like the use of ‘they’ to refer to a single person.  If I don’t know the gender of the person, I don’t like using ‘he’ as the default pronoun, so I just repeat the person’s moniker whenever necessary.  It’s repetitive, but not as repetitive as in German, which as you note has no problem having three ‘ihr’s in a row, each meaning something different.  Another example is ‘die Wäsche waschen‘ meaning ‘to wash clothes.’

There’s a habit in English to avoid repetition, which often obscures meaning.

Okay, so the quote has no real meaning in itself except to show how German handles pronouns differently than English. I suspect the point is lost on nearly all the folks in this forum. But I get it now. Personally, I think the whole pronoun thing is a tempest in a teapot. I addresss people with the pronoun of their choice if I know it, and otherwise use whatever feels best or least awkward. I try to avoid using “he” where the gender of the individual is unspecified, but sometimes I’m just too lazy to use a more complex construction.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Online bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2255
Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
« Reply #33 on: January 31, 2019, 06:58:49 PM »
Bachfiend: I ran your sig line, “Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?” through Google Translate and it came out “Will you give her her book back?” I am mystified as to what this signifies as a sig line.

It seemed like a good idea at the time.  I don’t like the use of ‘they’ to refer to a single person.  If I don’t know the gender of the person, I don’t like using ‘he’ as the default pronoun, so I just repeat the person’s moniker whenever necessary.  It’s repetitive, but not as repetitive as in German, which as you note has no problem having three ‘ihr’s in a row, each meaning something different.  Another example is ‘die Wäsche waschen‘ meaning ‘to wash clothes.’

There’s a habit in English to avoid repetition, which often obscures meaning.

Okay, so the quote has no real meaning in itself except to show how German handles pronouns differently than English. I suspect the point is lost on nearly all the folks in this forum. But I get it now. Personally, I think the whole pronoun thing is a tempest in a teapot. I addresss people with the pronoun of their choice if I know it, and otherwise use whatever feels best or least awkward. I try to avoid using “he” where the gender of the individual is unspecified, but sometimes I’m just too lazy to use a more complex construction.

English is relatively ungendered compared to other languages.  German is very gendered.  I recently read a Hitler biography.  Hitler’s last dog ‚ein Hund’ (which is masculine), Blondi, was ‚eine Schäferhündin‘ (which is feminine). But then the first pronoun used was the dative case of ‚es‘ (it) because the last noun used was ‚das Tier‘ (the animal, which is neuter).

I really can’t see why it would be considered offensive to use ‘he’ or ‘she’ to refer to a person when you know the person’s gender.  If English had gendered 2nd person singular pronouns, it would be very offensive to use the wrong pronoun for a person you’re talking to (similar to the offence you’d cause in German if you addressed someone with the familiar ‘du’ instead of the formal ‘Sie’).  But it doesn’t.

Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline John Albert

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6966
Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
« Reply #34 on: January 31, 2019, 07:30:56 PM »
Yes, long-lived plants with deep roots can sequester carbon. Animals do not.

Online bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2255
Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
« Reply #35 on: January 31, 2019, 08:37:07 PM »
Yes, long-lived plants with deep roots can sequester carbon. Animals do not.

Exactly.  Regerative grazing gives all indications of just being a fad, going along with organic farming:

https://seedthecommons.org/a-call-to-counter-the-false-solution-of-regenerative-grazing/

Grasses don’t have deep root systems, unlike trees, which have to support the weight of the trees’ trunks and foliage.

There are strategies that will increase soil carbon and sequestrate carbon, such as biochar, but they’re not small scale.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline lonely moa

  • A rather tough old bird.
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5033
Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
« Reply #36 on: January 31, 2019, 11:43:51 PM »
Lucerne and other perennial pasture species typically have root systems 2-3 metres (ore more) deep.  Deep enough  permanently sequester carbon via soil bacteria.  I have noticed the entire root systems of pines, firs aneucalpts uprooted in storms on my property, typically.5-1.0 metres in depth.
 
I won’t engage in a citation war, but the research for carbon sequestration and the efficacy of regenerative grazing is convincing. Silva culture will not solve the problem... or feed humans.
"Pull the goalie", Malcolm Gladwell.

Online bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2255
Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
« Reply #37 on: February 01, 2019, 05:05:26 AM »
Lucerne and other perennial pasture species typically have root systems 2-3 metres (ore more) deep.  Deep enough  permanently sequester carbon via soil bacteria.  I have noticed the entire root systems of pines, firs aneucalpts uprooted in storms on my property, typically.5-1.0 metres in depth.
 
I won’t engage in a citation war, but the research for carbon sequestration and the efficacy of regenerative grazing is convincing. Silva culture will not solve the problem... or feed humans.

Yes, it will, if you can grow forests because you’re more efficient at getting food calories per unit area.  If you need to use a smaller area of farm land to feed the population.

It takes around ten times as much energy to produce a calorie from animals than from plants.  The extra land used for regenerative grazing or organic farming could produce more food from conventional agriculture.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12233
Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
« Reply #38 on: February 01, 2019, 11:14:35 AM »

It takes around ten times as much energy to produce a calorie from animals than from plants.

Citation needed. That number is not correct.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline John Albert

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6966
Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
« Reply #39 on: February 01, 2019, 02:49:46 PM »
Lucerne and other perennial pasture species typically have root systems 2-3 metres (ore more) deep.  Deep enough  permanently sequester carbon via soil bacteria.  I have noticed the entire root systems of pines, firs aneucalpts uprooted in storms on my property, typically.5-1.0 metres in depth.

The depth of tree roots is certainly a factor, but it's irrelevant to the larger point that animals and feed plants do not sequester carbon.

You keep glibly boasting that carbon is sequestered within your herds of livestock. When the error of that statement is pointed out, you go on to make these obtuse deflections. That appears to indicate that you don't understand the concept of carbon sequestration, and really aren't interested in learning about it unless you can claim it as a benefit of your own cattle ranching lifestyle.
 
 
I won’t engage in a citation war

That's good, because 'citation wars' don't prove anything unless you have the time, inclination, and technical ability to engage in a deep dive into the relative qualities of the studies.


the research for carbon sequestration and the efficacy of regenerative grazing is convincing.

None of the research I've seen has been convincing to me. But as I pointed out before, you're sure to find it convincing if you're already convinced.


Silva culture will not solve the problem... or feed humans.

I'm assuming that by "Silva culture" you mean silviculture?

Whether it will "solve the problem" depends on which problem you're trying to solve. Planting forests of large trees is a reasonable strategy to sequester carbon. It won't feed humans, but that is an entirely different problem.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2019, 03:29:55 PM by John Albert »

Online bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2255
Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
« Reply #40 on: February 01, 2019, 03:40:45 PM »

It takes around ten times as much energy to produce a calorie from animals than from plants.

Citation needed. That number is not correct.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

83% of farmland is used for livestock, which produces 18% of food calories (1% of food calories is produced from 4.6% of farmland used for livestock).  Therefore, 17% of farmland is used for crops, which produces 82% of food calories (1% of food calories is produced by 0.21% of farmland used for crops).  Assuming energy consumption is proportional to the solar energy falling on each unit area of farmland, then it takes 22 times as much energy to produce a food calorie from plant-based foods than from animal based foods.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth

I might be wrong regarding the actual number of energy calories necessary to produce one calorie of plant-based food compared to animal-based food.  It looks as though it’s actually worse.

I think the 10 to 1 ratio comes from a rough estimate of how efficient herbivores are in converting plant energy into meat and milk, which we then eat.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12233
Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
« Reply #41 on: February 01, 2019, 04:41:05 PM »

It takes around ten times as much energy to produce a calorie from animals than from plants.

Citation needed. That number is not correct.

83% of farmland is used for livestock, which produces 18% of food calories (1% of food calories is produced from 4.6% of farmland used for livestock).  Therefore, 17% of farmland is used for crops, which produces 82% of food calories (1% of food calories is produced by 0.21% of farmland used for crops).  Assuming energy consumption is proportional to the solar energy falling on each unit area of farmland, then it takes 22 times as much energy to produce a food calorie from plant-based foods than from animal based foods.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth

I might be wrong regarding the actual number of energy calories necessary to produce one calorie of plant-based food compared to animal-based food.  It looks as though it’s actually worse.

Wait, what? You're saying this:
Quote
It takes around ten times as much energy to produce a calorie from animals than from plants.
Was referring to the amount of solar energy hitting the ground on the various farmlands?


Quote

I think the 10 to 1 ratio comes from a rough estimate of how efficient herbivores are in converting plant energy into meat and milk, which we then eat.

I think the 10 to 1 ratio was pulled out of your ass.

Neither your source, nor the source they used for their that from supported your claim.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Online bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2255
Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
« Reply #42 on: February 01, 2019, 05:02:48 PM »

It takes around ten times as much energy to produce a calorie from animals than from plants.

Citation needed. That number is not correct.

83% of farmland is used for livestock, which produces 18% of food calories (1% of food calories is produced from 4.6% of farmland used for livestock).  Therefore, 17% of farmland is used for crops, which produces 82% of food calories (1% of food calories is produced by 0.21% of farmland used for crops).  Assuming energy consumption is proportional to the solar energy falling on each unit area of farmland, then it takes 22 times as much energy to produce a food calorie from plant-based foods than from animal based foods.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth

I might be wrong regarding the actual number of energy calories necessary to produce one calorie of plant-based food compared to animal-based food.  It looks as though it’s actually worse.

Wait, what? You're saying this:
Quote
It takes around ten times as much energy to produce a calorie from animals than from plants.
Was referring to the amount of solar energy hitting the ground on the various farmlands?


Quote

I think the 10 to 1 ratio comes from a rough estimate of how efficient herbivores are in converting plant energy into meat and milk, which we then eat.

I think the 10 to 1 ratio was pulled out of your ass.

Neither your source, nor the source they used for their that from supported your claim.

So what do you think the real figure is?  Do you think that an animal-based food calorie takes more or less energy to produce than a plant-based food calorie?

You asked for a citation.  I did a quick and dirty Google search (which you could have done) and randomly clicked on one, not having much time.  If you don’t like my citation, you can go and look for your own.

Solar energy provides around 6000 times as much energy as humans currently produce and consume.  Plants are about 2% efficient in converting solar energy into plant matter.  Which means that new plant matter each year takes about 12 times as much energy as human energy production and consumption, so it’s reasonable equating energy involved in producing food calories to land area.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12233
Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
« Reply #43 on: February 01, 2019, 05:22:07 PM »

It takes around ten times as much energy to produce a calorie from animals than from plants.

Citation needed. That number is not correct.

83% of farmland is used for livestock, which produces 18% of food calories (1% of food calories is produced from 4.6% of farmland used for livestock).  Therefore, 17% of farmland is used for crops, which produces 82% of food calories (1% of food calories is produced by 0.21% of farmland used for crops).  Assuming energy consumption is proportional to the solar energy falling on each unit area of farmland, then it takes 22 times as much energy to produce a food calorie from plant-based foods than from animal based foods.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth

I might be wrong regarding the actual number of energy calories necessary to produce one calorie of plant-based food compared to animal-based food.  It looks as though it’s actually worse.

Wait, what? You're saying this:
Quote
It takes around ten times as much energy to produce a calorie from animals than from plants.
Was referring to the amount of solar energy hitting the ground on the various farmlands?


Quote

I think the 10 to 1 ratio comes from a rough estimate of how efficient herbivores are in converting plant energy into meat and milk, which we then eat.

I think the 10 to 1 ratio was pulled out of your ass.

Neither your source, nor the source they used for their that from supported your claim.

So what do you think the real figure is? 

I don't know.
Quote
Do you think that an animal-based food calorie takes more or less energy to produce than a plant-based food calorie?

I don't know. It's a more complicated question and there are numerous variables. I'm guessing grass-fed animal production may use less, grain finished animal production may use more.
Quote
You asked for a citation.  I did a quick and dirty Google search (which you could have done) and randomly clicked on one, not having much time.  If you don’t like my citation, you can go and look for your own.

So you posted the number, then looked for a source to support it. Got it. I've looked too, and haven't found a calorie for calorie comparison. (Neither have you.)
Quote
Solar energy provides around 6000 times as much energy as humans currently produce and consume.  Plants are about 2% efficient in converting solar energy into plant matter.  Which means that new plant matter each year takes about 12 times as much energy as human energy production and consumption, so it’s reasonable equating energy involved in producing food calories to land area.

No, that's misleading and you're only going there because you make up some stats and were called on it.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Online bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2255
Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
« Reply #44 on: February 01, 2019, 07:12:53 PM »
CarbShark,

Everything we eat comes from the energy from the sun.  The sun’s energy powers the conversion of atmospheric CO2 into the carbon contained in food.  Which then produces free energy when it’s oxidised back to CO2.

How many food calories would you get from animal-based food if you took all the food calories from plant-based food and fed it to our tame herbivores, which is what would happen if we had to convert current agricultural land to grazing land?

I’ve provided real figures showing that 83% of farmland is used for livestock and produces 18% of food calories, and 17% of farmland is used for growing crops and produces 82% of food calories.  The figures suggest that the answer to the above question is around 4.5% instead of 10%, but still in the same order of magnitude.

You reckon, without any evidence (because you don’t know), that my 10 to 1 efficiency of plant-based over animal-based food is wrong.   If you ‘know’ my 10:1 ratio is wrong, then you should have a gut feeling as to what it is.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück?