Skeptics Guide to the Universe Forums

General Discussions => Health, Fitness, Nutrition, and Medicine => Topic started by: Quetzalcoatl on January 07, 2019, 10:45:16 AM

Title: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on January 07, 2019, 10:45:16 AM
When it comes to eating, in recent months or so, I have really reduced my meat consumption. In particular red meat. It's not at zero, and it probably won't get there at this point at least, but at least it's something. I do this both for health and environmental/climate reasons, as well as for ethical reasons.

One meat replacement that is very popular here is halloumi, a cheese from Cyprus, from the milk of sheep and goats. I read somewhere that Swedish people are among the most halloumi-eating people in the world, and it might well be true. Go to a hamburger place here, and their vegetarian option is often halloumi.

However, I wonder if halloumi is very good, or at least better than meat. From an ethical point, sure. It is less unethical to take milk from the animals than to kill them. But from environmental/climate and health perspectives? Sure, from health, it is a salty cheese, so no extra salt needed I guess. But fact remains that halloumi comes from red meat animals, who contribute to climate change in a negative way.

So from the perspectives of health and the environment/climate, is halloumi an improvement or not? What do you think? Should it be preferred over meat, or is it a toss-up?
Title: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: CarbShark on January 07, 2019, 11:15:03 AM
The only red-meat animals that contribute significantly to climate change are humans.  Don’t eat them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: Noisy Rhysling on January 07, 2019, 11:30:13 AM
The only red-meat animals that contribute significantly to climate change are humans.  Don’t eat them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's rather narrow-minded.


 ;)
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: Ah.hell on January 07, 2019, 11:32:22 AM
However, I wonder if halloumi is very good, or at least better than meat. From an ethical point, sure. It is less unethical to take milk from the animals than to kill them. But from environmental/climate and health perspectives?
Even this is debatable and depends.  Beef cattle humanely raised on a pasture and never having come into contact with a feed lot could easily be less ethically problematic that a dairy animal depending on the lifestyle of said dairy animal.   Though, I'm unaware of sheep and goats being treating nearly as badly as swine or cattle can be. 
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: Captain Video on January 07, 2019, 02:36:50 PM
Thats one of the cheeses they serve at greek restaurants, fried at the table with flaming brandy and yell OPA! yum. If I absolutely had to give up steak that dish would be a fair substitute but not enough to make me want to give up steak.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: daniel1948 on January 07, 2019, 03:21:19 PM
I’ve never had halloumi. I never heard of it until now. But generally cheese is very high in fat, making it unhealthy if eaten in large amounts. And you say this one is very salty, so that’s another mark against it. From an environmental pov, milk has a smaller environmental footprint than red meat, other things being equal. From an ethical pov, dairy animals are killed after they’be passed their prime production age, and the calves or kids are killed, except for the few kept as breeders or milkers.

Cheese tastes good, and I eat it. I would not see it as a meat substitute. Eggs are a good meat substitute if you are not bothered by the conditions under which the chickens live, and the fact that egg layers also are killed after they pass prime production age. Otherwise beans combined with whole grains are the best non-animal protein source. Healthiest, lowest environmental impact, and no slaughter of animals is involved. There are many different kinds of beans and they are delicious. I think I’ll make some for lunch.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: bachfiend on January 07, 2019, 06:41:46 PM
I’ve never had halloumi. I never heard of it until now. But generally cheese is very high in fat, making it unhealthy if eaten in large amounts. And you say this one is very salty, so that’s another mark against it. From an environmental pov, milk has a smaller environmental footprint than red meat, other things being equal. From an ethical pov, dairy animals are killed after they’be passed their prime production age, and the calves or kids are killed, except for the few kept as breeders or milkers.

Cheese tastes good, and I eat it. I would not see it as a meat substitute. Eggs are a good meat substitute if you are not bothered by the conditions under which the chickens live, and the fact that egg layers also are killed after they pass prime production age. Otherwise beans combined with whole grains are the best non-animal protein source. Healthiest, lowest environmental impact, and no slaughter of animals is involved. There are many different kinds of beans and they are delicious. I think I’ll make some for lunch.

Eggs have the fig leaf of being able to buy free range ones (whether the hens are happier is another matter).  Almost half the chicks are killed almost immediately after hatching owing to the honourable profession of chicken sexing (males are useless for egg laying).  I feed my dog chicken hearts and chicken gizzards, which she loves, so she’s eating stuff that would otherwise be discarded.  It’s somewhat surprising how easy it is to buy plenty of chicken hearts in supermarkets.  People must be eating a lot of chicken (I haven’t had any since I went ovolacto-vegetarian over 40 years ago).
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: arthwollipot on January 07, 2019, 08:49:10 PM
I’ve never had halloumi. I never heard of it until now. But generally cheese is very high in fat, making it unhealthy if eaten in large amounts. And you say this one is very salty, so that’s another mark against it. From an environmental pov, milk has a smaller environmental footprint than red meat, other things being equal. From an ethical pov, dairy animals are killed after they’be passed their prime production age, and the calves or kids are killed, except for the few kept as breeders or milkers.

Cheese tastes good, and I eat it. I would not see it as a meat substitute. Eggs are a good meat substitute if you are not bothered by the conditions under which the chickens live, and the fact that egg layers also are killed after they pass prime production age. Otherwise beans combined with whole grains are the best non-animal protein source. Healthiest, lowest environmental impact, and no slaughter of animals is involved. There are many different kinds of beans and they are delicious. I think I’ll make some for lunch.

Halloumi's great. It's usually served lightly fried in olive oil. If you like cheese, then I think you ought to get yourself some just for the experience. The squeakiness puts some people off, but for a proper cheese lover like you and me, that's part of its appeal.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: John Albert on January 07, 2019, 10:06:42 PM
Thats one of the cheeses they serve at greek restaurants, fried at the table with flaming brandy and yell OPA! yum. If I absolutely had to give up steak that dish would be a fair substitute but not enough to make me want to give up steak.

I've only had flaming saganaki in the Chicago area, and I think the stuff they use is usually kasseri.

I don't think I've ever tried halloumi.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: Quetzalcoatl on January 08, 2019, 02:23:29 PM
If you like cheese, especially if you like Greek cheeses like feta and mozzarella, you should definitely give halloumi a try!
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: daniel1948 on January 08, 2019, 04:03:05 PM
I’ve never had halloumi. I never heard of it until now. But generally cheese is very high in fat, making it unhealthy if eaten in large amounts. And you say this one is very salty, so that’s another mark against it. From an environmental pov, milk has a smaller environmental footprint than red meat, other things being equal. From an ethical pov, dairy animals are killed after they’be passed their prime production age, and the calves or kids are killed, except for the few kept as breeders or milkers.

Cheese tastes good, and I eat it. I would not see it as a meat substitute. Eggs are a good meat substitute if you are not bothered by the conditions under which the chickens live, and the fact that egg layers also are killed after they pass prime production age. Otherwise beans combined with whole grains are the best non-animal protein source. Healthiest, lowest environmental impact, and no slaughter of animals is involved. There are many different kinds of beans and they are delicious. I think I’ll make some for lunch.

Eggs have the fig leaf of being able to buy free range ones (whether the hens are happier is another matter).  Almost half the chicks are killed almost immediately after hatching owing to the honourable profession of chicken sexing (males are useless for egg laying).  I feed my dog chicken hearts and chicken gizzards, which she loves, so she’s eating stuff that would otherwise be discarded.  It’s somewhat surprising how easy it is to buy plenty of chicken hearts in supermarkets.  People must be eating a lot of chicken (I haven’t had any since I went ovolacto-vegetarian over 40 years ago).

Another podcast said that there are more chickens in the world than all other vertebrates put together, or some such amazing statistic, I don’t remember exactly. The point was that people eat a shit-ton of chicken. I eat eggs occasionally, not very many.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: daniel1948 on January 08, 2019, 04:07:34 PM
I’ve never had halloumi. I never heard of it until now. But generally cheese is very high in fat, making it unhealthy if eaten in large amounts. And you say this one is very salty, so that’s another mark against it. From an environmental pov, milk has a smaller environmental footprint than red meat, other things being equal. From an ethical pov, dairy animals are killed after they’be passed their prime production age, and the calves or kids are killed, except for the few kept as breeders or milkers.

Cheese tastes good, and I eat it. I would not see it as a meat substitute. Eggs are a good meat substitute if you are not bothered by the conditions under which the chickens live, and the fact that egg layers also are killed after they pass prime production age. Otherwise beans combined with whole grains are the best non-animal protein source. Healthiest, lowest environmental impact, and no slaughter of animals is involved. There are many different kinds of beans and they are delicious. I think I’ll make some for lunch.

Halloumi's great. It's usually served lightly fried in olive oil. If you like cheese, then I think you ought to get yourself some just for the experience. The squeakiness puts some people off, but for a proper cheese lover like you and me, that's part of its appeal.

I like cheese, but I would not call myself a cheese lover. I like the hard cheeses. I’ll eat cottage cheese (non-fat) occasionally. It’s a healthy food that I don’t like enough for it to tempt me into overeating. I cannot stand smelly cheeses. I never buy mozzarella because if I’m going to have cheese, because there are others I like more.

It would surprise me if I could get halloumi here.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: John Albert on January 12, 2019, 07:14:39 PM
If you like cheese, especially if you like Greek cheeses like feta and mozzarella, you should definitely give halloumi a try!

I will certainly do that.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: lonely moa on January 23, 2019, 12:28:08 PM
I eat a lot of cheese, but of course, like a few others on this forum, I have seen through the curtains about the deleterious nature of fat consumption.  Fat is fantastic fuel.

Large herbivores, btw, are the only significant method currently available for sequestering carbon.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: 2397 on January 23, 2019, 12:51:13 PM
Including ents.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: Ah.hell on January 23, 2019, 12:58:01 PM
I eat a lot of cheese, but of course, like a few others on this forum, I have seen through the curtains about the deleterious nature of fat consumption.  Fat is fantastic fuel.

Large herbivores, btw, are the only significant method currently available for sequestering carbon.
Hmmm....

How so?  What about trees and other vegetation? Does it matter if they produce a bunch of methane?

As to the OP is there a reason that halloumi would be preferable to other cheeses especially other goat/sheep cheese?
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: lonely moa on January 23, 2019, 06:12:59 PM
I eat a lot of cheese, but of course, like a few others on this forum, I have seen through the curtains about the deleterious nature of fat consumption.  Fat is fantastic fuel.

Large herbivores, btw, are the only significant method currently available for sequestering carbon.
Hmmm....

How so?  What about trees and other vegetation? Does it matter if they produce a bunch of methane?

As to the OP is there a reason that halloumi would be preferable to other cheeses especially other goat/sheep cheese?

Carbon is sequestered by bacteria living in the soil, deep rooting herbs and grasses feed them; that's basically the programme.  Trees store carbon in their woody bits, mostly, and it is released bin with fire or decay.  Carbon needs to be stored we'll under the surface.  Methane from enteric fermentation is basically a wash.  It is the feeding that raises the carbon footprint.  Billions of herbivores have been grazing for millions of years and have been very helpful keeping CO2 at sustainable levels.

Haloumi is an easy cheese to make one's self.  Incredibly tasty fried in olive oil or butter.  Cheap, too.  Thumbs up  for haloumi. 
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: John Albert on January 23, 2019, 06:25:30 PM
Large herbivores, btw, are the only significant method currently available for sequestering carbon.

Nonsense. Animals do not sequester carbon. We produce carbon dioxide during respiration and expel it into the atmosphere through our exhalations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: CarbShark on January 23, 2019, 06:53:28 PM
Large herbivores, btw, are the only significant method currently available for sequestering carbon.

Nonsense. Animals do not sequester carbon. We produce carbon dioxide during respiration and expel it into the atmosphere through our exhalations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration

Animals consume plants (mostly carbon) and excrete waste (mostly carbon) which gets broken down and absorbed in soil. Some is not sequestered and feeds new plants, but some is buried and/or washed to sea, where it forms sediment that can be effectively sequestered for millions of years (see coal). 


Carbon sequestration a positive aspect of beef cattle grazing grasslands — Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources (http://www.dasnr.okstate.edu/Members/donald-stotts-40okstate.edu/carbon-sequestration-a-positive-aspect-of-beef-cattle-grazing-grasslands)
Quote
Research by R. Lal published in 2011 indicated if soil organic carbon in agricultural ecosystems and grasslands could be increased 10 percent globally during the 21st century, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide could be reduced by 100 parts per million.
“In addition to the potential for grazing to increase the capacity of soil carbon sequestration in certain cases, grazing beef cattle and other ruminants such as sheep and goats provide economic, societal and environmental value from available pasture and grassland resources,” Place said.

I think that's the process Moa was referring to. You're just looking at respiration.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: bachfiend on January 23, 2019, 08:52:58 PM
Large herbivores, btw, are the only significant method currently available for sequestering carbon.

Nonsense. Animals do not sequester carbon. We produce carbon dioxide during respiration and expel it into the atmosphere through our exhalations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration

Animals consume plants (mostly carbon) and excrete waste (mostly carbon) which gets broken down and absorbed in soil. Some is not sequestered and feeds new plants, but some is buried and/or washed to sea, where it forms sediment that can be effectively sequestered for millions of years (see coal). 


Carbon sequestration a positive aspect of beef cattle grazing grasslands — Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources (http://www.dasnr.okstate.edu/Members/donald-stotts-40okstate.edu/carbon-sequestration-a-positive-aspect-of-beef-cattle-grazing-grasslands)
Quote
Research by R. Lal published in 2011 indicated if soil organic carbon in agricultural ecosystems and grasslands could be increased 10 percent globally during the 21st century, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide could be reduced by 100 parts per million.
“In addition to the potential for grazing to increase the capacity of soil carbon sequestration in certain cases, grazing beef cattle and other ruminants such as sheep and goats provide economic, societal and environmental value from available pasture and grassland resources,” Place said.

I think that's the process Moa was referring to. You're just looking at respiration.

You’ve set new lows for your ‘references.’  It’s nothing more than a press release.  I found the abstract for the paper by R Lal (2011) which lists the strategies as ‘adopt conservation tillage, cover cropping, manuring, agroforestry, biochar and other amendments’ and ‘adoption of no-till farming with mulch, use of cover crops, integrated nutrient management including biofertilisers, water conservation, and harvesting, and improving soil structure and tilth.’

It’s not just dealing with grazing.

And ‘could’ reduce atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppmv in the 21st century doesn’t mean ‘will.’  At current rates, atmospheric CO2 will increase by around 200 ppmv in the remainder of the century at least.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: CarbShark on January 23, 2019, 10:27:48 PM
  I found the abstract for the paper by R Lal (2011) ....


I don’t believe you found the abstract. If you had you’d post a link to it as any normal rational person would.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: bachfiend on January 23, 2019, 11:17:10 PM
  I found the abstract for the paper by R Lal (2011) ....


I don’t believe you found the abstract. If you had you’d post a link to it as any normal rational person would.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306919210001454

As I’ve written before, I don’t know how to cite links on my iPad.  I have to laboriously type them out.

I’ve now provided a link. 

Apologise for your libel.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: John Albert on January 24, 2019, 07:27:47 PM
Animals consume plants (mostly carbon) and excrete waste (mostly carbon) which gets broken down and absorbed in soil. Some is not sequestered and feeds new plants, but some is buried and/or washed to sea, where it forms sediment that can be effectively sequestered for millions of years (see coal).

Nonsense. The vast majority of carbon excreted by animals is not 'sequestered.' It continues to circulate among the life cycles of plants and animals. That is not sequestration.


Animals consume plants (mostly carbon) and excrete waste (mostly carbon) which gets broken down and absorbed in soil. Some is not sequestered and feeds new plants, but some is buried and/or washed to sea, where it forms sediment that can be effectively sequestered for millions of years (see coal). 


Carbon sequestration a positive aspect of beef cattle grazing grasslands — Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources (http://www.dasnr.okstate.edu/Members/donald-stotts-40okstate.edu/carbon-sequestration-a-positive-aspect-of-beef-cattle-grazing-grasslands)
Quote
Research by R. Lal published in 2011 indicated if soil organic carbon in agricultural ecosystems and grasslands could be increased 10 percent globally during the 21st century, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide could be reduced by 100 parts per million.
“In addition to the potential for grazing to increase the capacity of soil carbon sequestration in certain cases, grazing beef cattle and other ruminants such as sheep and goats provide economic, societal and environmental value from available pasture and grassland resources,” Place said.

I think that's the process Moa was referring to. You're just looking at respiration.

That's nonsense too. The grazing animals drop their feces in the pastures, which fertilizes the grasses that other grazing cattle eat. Thus, the organic carbon does not remain locked up or sequestered within the soil. It gets taken up by plants, which are then consumed by the livestock.

Meanwhile, the massive livestock populations are constantly removing oxygen from the atmosphere and replacing it with carbon dioxide.

Livestock do not sequester carbon.

You really ought to read the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration) about carbon sequestration, because you obviously don't understand what carbon sequestration is.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: CarbShark on January 24, 2019, 07:41:46 PM
  I found the abstract for the paper by R Lal (2011) ....


I don’t believe you found the abstract. If you had you’d post a link to it as any normal rational person would.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306919210001454

As I’ve written before, I don’t know how to cite links on my iPad.  I have to laboriously type them out.

 

Still? It's 2019, man.

Go to the page you want to link to. Go to the address field. touch-and-hold the address. The select/select-all options should appear. Choose select all. From the options that appear select "Copy".

No go to your tapatalk page (or the Forum Webpage if that's what you're doing). Start one of your inane and repetitive posts. Touch-and-hold in the text where you want your link to appear. Select paste from the options that appear.

Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: bachfiend on January 24, 2019, 08:05:25 PM
  I found the abstract for the paper by R Lal (2011) ....


I don’t believe you found the abstract. If you had you’d post a link to it as any normal rational person would.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306919210001454

As I’ve written before, I don’t know how to cite links on my iPad.  I have to laboriously type them out.

 

Still? It's 2019, man.

Go to the page you want to link to. Go to the address field. touch-and-hold the address. The select/select-all options should appear. Choose select all. From the options that appear select "Copy".

No go to your tapatalk page (or the Forum Webpage if that's what you're doing). Start one of your inane and repetitive posts. Touch-and-hold in the text where you want your link to appear. Select paste from the options that appear.

I see.  I’ll keep a copy of this.  Apple is usually pretty intuitive.  This isn’t.  I’ll probably need to follow the directions several times before I’ve mastered it.

You still haven’t apologised for your libel.  If you think that a ‘normal rational person’ would have provided a link, then you’re stating that I’m not normal nor rational.

I chose not to provide a link, because I didn’t think it was necessary.  Your so-called reference was little more than a press release, with the paper by Lal only mentioned, giving the year of publication only (did you even try to find it and read it for yourself?). I didn’t provide a link, because you didn’t feel the need to provide a link to it either.

I used it as an illustration of your habit in providing references which actually don’t support what you’re claiming they say.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: CarbShark on January 24, 2019, 08:17:06 PM

You still haven’t apologised

Don’t hold your breath


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: bachfiend on January 24, 2019, 08:56:12 PM

You still haven’t apologised

Don’t hold your breath


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wasn’t ‘really’ expecting you to apologise.  I don’t regard your opinions of any value, as you probably do for me. I have little more than contempt for you.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: daniel1948 on January 29, 2019, 07:43:33 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.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: lonely moa on January 30, 2019, 03:05:45 AM
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110803083502.htm

Just sayin'. 
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: 2397 on January 30, 2019, 07:31:48 AM
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).
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: lonely moa 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.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: bachfiend 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.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: daniel1948 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.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: bachfiend 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.

Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: John Albert on January 31, 2019, 07:30:56 PM
Yes, long-lived plants with deep roots can sequester carbon. Animals do not.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: bachfiend 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.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: lonely moa 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.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: bachfiend 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.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: CarbShark 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
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: John Albert 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.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: bachfiend 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.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: CarbShark 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.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: bachfiend 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.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: CarbShark 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.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: bachfiend 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.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: CarbShark on February 01, 2019, 07:33:40 PM
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.

Can you honestly say that's what you meant when you said: "It takes around ten times as much energy to produce a calorie from animals than from plants." ?

If so, it's a nonsense point and it's not supported by the source you linked to.

Quote
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?

This is a nonsense point. Your hypothetical has no relationship to your claim or the topic. And no one is saying we should convert current agricultural land to grazing land. This is pure obfuscating nonsense. (Obfuscating the fact that you made up numbers with no connection to reality.)

Quote
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.

Except those numbers don't account for a lot of things. Some farmland is used to grow tobacco, some cotton, some corn for ethanol. Some grazing land is underused, some is used to raise sheep for wool, some is allowed to go ferrel.
Quote
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.

I think your corrected number (4.5%) is probably closer, but still misleading. Most of the land used to feed cattle is not suitable for farming. It's not like you can turn the dry and rocky planes of west Texas or the mountain praries of Montanna into acres and acres of wheat and corn.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: bachfiend on February 01, 2019, 07:37:12 PM
CarbShark,

Another citation, which is just considering the use of fossil fuels in production, and looking at food nitrogen in protein instead of calories.  It does vary according to the type of food.  The article does state that it does take, overall, 11 times as much energy from fossil fuel to produce animal-based protein as it does to produce plant-based protein, which is close to my 10 to 1.  And plant-based foods contain more carbohydrates, so the disadvantage would be even greater.

https://watermark.silverchair.com/660.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAkAwggI8BgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggItMIICKQIBADCCAiIGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMGfi4yRmVhg36a8h4AgEQgIIB80DP4GcSmOiJawrZ341UETj4Oaiyrb7UqG1iFLMPijvwWLxv_uj3-8gIyMrB3g18CBLx2fmwOZSn9G2gELflJk-fjZ93aQslR9-cXox8FvrVWNeytIIoe3FIO_7F1X3po6YQNg9kD7jfSoWpoGlSqb0islaZ4_kDJrLpdjkix-XISJ7HyfbA991WQjfFJBnxVn3jTbDEHXNL7h8Z359TNLQurkXm-JxIqqhV74Bwi-PP4W5iqnXoBUrh0lh93Jn2A_xyCyizCytjbUgVNw8yb-vgyiTKBCl4WVFMRuSg43-Ei100zAMV7Z4j2lFoNM7qrV9k_Ll5_kQUGqgC2VtWuy5tQ3S-nfBrgfuiko02_6IClxT8lA73-jphb5V6pbfGu2exFZtsntYk76EuDK-NDKX0v79JCN2-i484h8Pc9DuOZ-k8DIWpDSGdlY7BCgayYC-Eh27etNZV7fs0dD3zcex1z4oU1W82EGdz6JSDy40TO0pbiWGXsor9zhufhKYzr8yJvdIzbERXLANFYeN1LS5fxepeZDiFAIj3u0ozePMdSz_M1rG0OnTeoEvf7E1coO4K82yUr5SqgOCDVtsTsy1gpxBpJMJ4NYFeCVEWqMl6vdsN3Vc9UzHBOgLJIksreLKJ4BESWs4ftgVRHClyfR_VJQ4
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: CarbShark on February 01, 2019, 08:01:22 PM
CarbShark,

Another citation, which is just considering the use of fossil fuels in production, and looking at food nitrogen in protein instead of calories.  It does vary according to the type of food.  The article does state that it does take, overall, 11 times as much energy from fossil fuel to produce animal-based protein as it does to produce plant-based protein, which is close to my 10 to 1.  And plant-based foods contain more carbohydrates, so the disadvantage would be even greater.

https://watermark.silverchair.com/660.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAkAwggI8BgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggItMIICKQIBADCCAiIGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMGfi4yRmVhg36a8h4AgEQgIIB80DP4GcSmOiJawrZ341UETj4Oaiyrb7UqG1iFLMPijvwWLxv_uj3-8gIyMrB3g18CBLx2fmwOZSn9G2gELflJk-fjZ93aQslR9-cXox8FvrVWNeytIIoe3FIO_7F1X3po6YQNg9kD7jfSoWpoGlSqb0islaZ4_kDJrLpdjkix-XISJ7HyfbA991WQjfFJBnxVn3jTbDEHXNL7h8Z359TNLQurkXm-JxIqqhV74Bwi-PP4W5iqnXoBUrh0lh93Jn2A_xyCyizCytjbUgVNw8yb-vgyiTKBCl4WVFMRuSg43-Ei100zAMV7Z4j2lFoNM7qrV9k_Ll5_kQUGqgC2VtWuy5tQ3S-nfBrgfuiko02_6IClxT8lA73-jphb5V6pbfGu2exFZtsntYk76EuDK-NDKX0v79JCN2-i484h8Pc9DuOZ-k8DIWpDSGdlY7BCgayYC-Eh27etNZV7fs0dD3zcex1z4oU1W82EGdz6JSDy40TO0pbiWGXsor9zhufhKYzr8yJvdIzbERXLANFYeN1LS5fxepeZDiFAIj3u0ozePMdSz_M1rG0OnTeoEvf7E1coO4K82yUr5SqgOCDVtsTsy1gpxBpJMJ4NYFeCVEWqMl6vdsN3Vc9UzHBOgLJIksreLKJ4BESWs4ftgVRHClyfR_VJQ4

That link is dead.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: bachfiend on February 01, 2019, 08:27:58 PM
CarbShark,

Another citation, which is just considering the use of fossil fuels in production, and looking at food nitrogen in protein instead of calories.  It does vary according to the type of food.  The article does state that it does take, overall, 11 times as much energy from fossil fuel to produce animal-based protein as it does to produce plant-based protein, which is close to my 10 to 1.  And plant-based foods contain more carbohydrates, so the disadvantage would be even greater.

https://watermark.silverchair.com/660.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAkAwggI8BgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggItMIICKQIBADCCAiIGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMGfi4yRmVhg36a8h4AgEQgIIB80DP4GcSmOiJawrZ341UETj4Oaiyrb7UqG1iFLMPijvwWLxv_uj3-8gIyMrB3g18CBLx2fmwOZSn9G2gELflJk-fjZ93aQslR9-cXox8FvrVWNeytIIoe3FIO_7F1X3po6YQNg9kD7jfSoWpoGlSqb0islaZ4_kDJrLpdjkix-XISJ7HyfbA991WQjfFJBnxVn3jTbDEHXNL7h8Z359TNLQurkXm-JxIqqhV74Bwi-PP4W5iqnXoBUrh0lh93Jn2A_xyCyizCytjbUgVNw8yb-vgyiTKBCl4WVFMRuSg43-Ei100zAMV7Z4j2lFoNM7qrV9k_Ll5_kQUGqgC2VtWuy5tQ3S-nfBrgfuiko02_6IClxT8lA73-jphb5V6pbfGu2exFZtsntYk76EuDK-NDKX0v79JCN2-i484h8Pc9DuOZ-k8DIWpDSGdlY7BCgayYC-Eh27etNZV7fs0dD3zcex1z4oU1W82EGdz6JSDy40TO0pbiWGXsor9zhufhKYzr8yJvdIzbERXLANFYeN1LS5fxepeZDiFAIj3u0ozePMdSz_M1rG0OnTeoEvf7E1coO4K82yUr5SqgOCDVtsTsy1gpxBpJMJ4NYFeCVEWqMl6vdsN3Vc9UzHBOgLJIksreLKJ4BESWs4ftgVRHClyfR_VJQ4

That link is dead.

Try this one:

https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/78/3/660S/4690010
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: CarbShark on February 02, 2019, 11:43:00 AM
Another citation, which is just considering the use of fossil fuels in production, and looking at food nitrogen in protein instead of calories.  It does vary according to the type of food.  The article does state that it does take, overall, 11 times as much energy from fossil fuel to produce animal-based protein as it does to produce plant-based protein, which is close to my 10 to 1.  And plant-based foods contain more carbohydrates, so the disadvantage would be even greater.

https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/78/3/660S/4690010

So, still not a calorie per calorie comparison of meat vs. plant. It's a comparison of protein content between corn and beef. Yes corn does contain carbohydrate, but beef also contains fat and is fairly calorie dense, so no, you can't extrapolate between protein output and the calorie for calorie number you made up.

I think you should admit you were talking out of your ass and that there is no data to support your claim.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: bachfiend on February 02, 2019, 03:58:20 PM
Another citation, which is just considering the use of fossil fuels in production, and looking at food nitrogen in protein instead of calories.  It does vary according to the type of food.  The article does state that it does take, overall, 11 times as much energy from fossil fuel to produce animal-based protein as it does to produce plant-based protein, which is close to my 10 to 1.  And plant-based foods contain more carbohydrates, so the disadvantage would be even greater.

https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/78/3/660S/4690010

So, still not a calorie per calorie comparison of meat vs. plant. It's a comparison of protein content between corn and beef. Yes corn does contain carbohydrate, but beef also contains fat and is fairly calorie dense, so no, you can't extrapolate between protein output and the calorie for calorie number you made up.

I think you should admit you were talking out of your ass and that there is no data to support your claim.

No, I’m not.  I read somewhere, sometime that plant-based foods require around 1/10th the energy required to produce a calorie of food energy as does animal-based food.  It does of course vary according to the the type of plant-based or animal-based food is under consideration.  Some are better, some are worse.  It also depends on the farming methods being employed.  Organic farming is worse efficiency-wise compared to conventional farming.

It’s a ballpark figure, not meant to be 100% accurate.  It’s roughly right, and the figures from land use and solar input and fossil fuel use with regard to protein content are in agreement with the ballpark figure.

You have a citation fetish.  If I told you that the sun rises in the east each morning or that Paris is the capital of France, you’d probably insist that I provide citations, and if I can’t provide them immediately, then it means the sun doesn’t rise in the east and Paris isn’t the capital of France.

There are some things that are true, regardless of whether I can provide citations that satisfy you.  One fact remains - plant-based foods require less, much less land and energy to produce than animal-based food.

I accept that your low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet is a perfectly acceptable diet.  But I don’t accept that it’s the best or healthiest diet (the long term observational data are lacking), so it really can’t be the recommended diet for everyone.  But if you’re basing your diet mainly on animal-based food, then it’s not sustainable (there are apparently vegan ketogenic diets), and if everyone went on it, we’d need several Earths to feed the population.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: daniel1948 on February 02, 2019, 04:33:39 PM
The 10:1 figure is for cows. I think pigs are 5:1 and chickens are 3:1. I don’t remember where dairy falls in that. Bugs have the best ratio of all. That’s for converting plant protein to animal protein. I’ve never seen figures for calories, but the conservation of energy and the inability for any system to be 100% efficient, and the fact that animals are quite inefficient, means that conversion rates for calories will be poor. But where it really gets scary is water use, where for cows it’s something like 100:1. I don’t know the number for other animals. Pigs have the additional issue of producing the most horrid, foul-smelling shit of any animal.

Because animals need to eat plants, they will always be grossly more inefficient at producing nutrition for people than if we ate the plants ourselves. The only time it makes any kind of environmental sense to eat meat is when the animals are raised on pasture on land that cannot be used to grow food suitable for human consumption. I.e., land that can produce grass or hay but not grains or beans or fruits or vegetables. And that’s assuming the animals are not fed any corn or grains. And it’s also assuming that you don’t care about the cruelty of the slaughterhouse and the way the animals are raised.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: bachfiend on February 02, 2019, 05:16:32 PM
The 10:1 figure is for cows. I think pigs are 5:1 and chickens are 3:1. I don’t remember where dairy falls in that. Bugs have the best ratio of all. That’s for converting plant protein to animal protein. I’ve never seen figures for calories, but the conservation of energy and the inability for any system to be 100% efficient, and the fact that animals are quite inefficient, means that conversion rates for calories will be poor. But where it really gets scary is water use, where for cows it’s something like 100:1. I don’t know the number for other animals. Pigs have the additional issue of producing the most horrid, foul-smelling shit of any animal.

Because animals need to eat plants, they will always be grossly more inefficient at producing nutrition for people than if we ate the plants ourselves. The only time it makes any kind of environmental sense to eat meat is when the animals are raised on pasture on land that cannot be used to grow food suitable for human consumption. I.e., land that can produce grass or hay but not grains or beans or fruits or vegetables. And that’s assuming the animals are not fed any corn or grains. And it’s also assuming that you don’t care about the cruelty of the slaughterhouse and the way the animals are raised.

Australia runs a lot of cattle in northern Australia, because the land isn’t suitable for agriculture.  There’s a lot of cattle because there’s a lot of land.  But the density of the cattle is very low, and mustering them takes a lot of effort.  The meat produced isn’t very good, virtually only used for rubbish foods such as hamburgers.  The locals when they want beef get it from the south, with the cattle raised on land which was also suitable for agriculture.

Land not suitable for agriculture isn’t going to be able to run many cattle.  And as you note, if you have to feed up the cattle before slaughter with food humans could have eaten, you’ve lost much of the benefit.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: CarbShark on February 02, 2019, 05:27:51 PM
The 10:1 figure is for cows. I think pigs are 5:1 and chickens are 3:1. I don’t remember where dairy falls in that. Bugs have the best ratio of all. That’s for converting plant protein to animal protein. I’ve never seen figures for calories, but the conservation of energy and the inability for any system to be 100% efficient, and the fact that animals are quite inefficient, means that conversion rates for calories will be poor. But where it really gets scary is water use, where for cows it’s something like 100:1. I don’t know the number for other animals.

Citation needed. What are you comparing with those numbers?

Not all crops produce the same amount of calories for the same energy input. And is that pastured beef or grain fed?

Quote
Because animals need to eat plants, they will always be grossly more inefficient at producing nutrition for people than if we ate the plants ourselves. The only time it makes any kind of environmental sense to eat meat is when the animals are raised on pasture on land that cannot be used to grow food suitable for human consumption. I.e., land that can produce grass or hay but not grains or beans or fruits or vegetables. And that’s assuming the animals are not fed any corn or grains. And it’s also assuming that you don’t care about the cruelty of the slaughterhouse and the way the animals are raised.

Pigs, sheep, goats and poultry can also be fed food waste.

Pastured beef and other ruminants is better for many reasons.

Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: daniel1948 on February 02, 2019, 06:30:57 PM
Pigs, sheep, goats and poultry can also be fed food waste.

Can be, yes. And in the days of small family farms, families kept a pig for just that reason. But that’s not done on an industrial scale, and could not be for reasons of sanitation. So if you have the space, and of course provided that you can stand the smell, or you have enough land that you can keep the pig far enough from your house, you could do this.

None of this is relevant to the question of how to feed seven and a half billion people in a manner that does not turn the Earth into Venus.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: CarbShark on February 02, 2019, 07:08:35 PM
Pigs, sheep, goats and poultry can also be fed food waste.

Can be, yes. And in the days of small family farms, families kept a pig for just that reason. But that’s not done on an industrial scale, and could not be for reasons of sanitation. So if you have the space, and of course provided that you can stand the smell, or you have enough land that you can keep the pig far enough from your house, you could do this.

Actually, there are efforts now to collect food waste from throughout the chain and repurpose it as feed on an industrial scale.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: bachfiend on February 02, 2019, 07:08:49 PM
CarbShark,

You’re quibbling about the exact figure that animal-based food is more inefficient in producing nutrition - whether calories, protein, vitamins, fats, carbohydrates, or whatever - than plant-based foods.  It varies according to the animal and the method of raising them.  No one disputes that.

Agreed - pigs, sheep, goats and poultry can be fed food waste.  But not economically.  Unless you have the food processing factories on the farms.  Transporting food to the cities, and then collecting the waste and sending it back to the farm would take a lot of effort, time and energy.

You’re not going to feed an increasing world population on a largely animal-based food diet, let alone your low carbohydrate/high fat ketogenic diet.  They’re not sustainable.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: CarbShark on February 02, 2019, 07:22:57 PM
None of this is relevant to the question of how to feed seven and a half billion people in a manner that does not turn the Earth into Venus.

We actually have a pretty large capacity to grow more food. The real issue is making it economical to distribute globally.

To key expand global agricultural production is water. The difference between arable and non-arable land is water. Nothing else.

If want to save the world (I'm talking to you, Elon Musk) you would do two things: Develop an efficient large scale desalination system to turn seawater into fresh water; Use your boring machines to cut 10s of thousands of miles of tunnels to carry pumped water throughout the west (in the US) and the same in other dry areas throughout the world. 

The outback could become a lush garden.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: bachfiend on February 02, 2019, 07:36:49 PM
None of this is relevant to the question of how to feed seven and a half billion people in a manner that does not turn the Earth into Venus.

We actually have a pretty large capacity to grow more food. The real issue is making it economical to distribute globally.

To key expand global agricultural production is water. The difference between arable and non-arable land is water. Nothing else.

If want to save the world (I'm talking to you, Elon Musk) you would do two things: Develop an efficient large scale desalination system to turn seawater into fresh water; Use your boring machines to cut 10s of thousands of miles of tunnels to carry pumped water throughout the west (in the US) and the same in other dry areas throughout the world. 

The outback could become a lush garden.

A lot of food is wasted.

http://wrap.s3.amazonaws.com/the-food-we-waste.pdf

Reducing the amount of food wasted would feed a lot of people (and also take away the possibility of converting food waste into animal feed industrially).

I’m bemused that food waste is so high.  The only food waste I produce are banana skins.  Everything else I eat, including carrot skins (and the leftover pith after making my daily carrot juice) and apple cores.

What do you mean by ‘outback?’  The only use I know of it is the Australian desert and semidesert, which could never been transformed into a lush garden with increased water.  The soil is just too poor, requirering a lot of fertiliser to grow crops.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: CarbShark on February 02, 2019, 09:19:49 PM
What do you mean by ‘outback?’  The only use I know of it is the Australian desert and semidesert, which could never been transformed into a lush garden with increased water.  The soil is just too poor, requirering a lot of fertiliser to grow crops.


Yes. The only reason the soil is poor is because too little grows there. The only reason too little grows there is because there's not enough water.

To turn the outback into a lush garden, just add water.  Growth would start with brush and grasses that would feed ruminants, and gradually build up top soil to develop pastures.

But, as you say, with fertilizer, you could grow crops right away. Fertilizer is easy.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: bachfiend on February 02, 2019, 09:48:02 PM
What do you mean by ‘outback?’  The only use I know of it is the Australian desert and semidesert, which could never been transformed into a lush garden with increased water.  The soil is just too poor, requirering a lot of fertiliser to grow crops.


Yes. The only reason the soil is poor is because too little grows there. The only reason too little grows there is because there's not enough water.

To turn the outback into a lush garden, just add water.  Growth would start with brush and grasses that would feed ruminants, and gradually build up top soil to develop pastures.

But, as you say, with fertilizer, you could grow crops right away. Fertilizer is easy.

Another reason why the Australian soil is so poor is that Australia is a very old continent.  All the nutrients, and the soil itself, has been washed out over the millennia.  The Sahara was fertile thousands of years ago.  Australia hasn’t been fertile for tens of thousands of years.

We’ve got plenty of water in the Ord River scheme in the Kimberly.  Even after decades and a lot of investment it’s still not paying its way.  It’s a great place for a holiday though.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: CarbShark on February 02, 2019, 09:56:22 PM
What do you mean by ‘outback?’  The only use I know of it is the Australian desert and semidesert, which could never been transformed into a lush garden with increased water.  The soil is just too poor, requirering a lot of fertiliser to grow crops.


Yes. The only reason the soil is poor is because too little grows there. The only reason too little grows there is because there's not enough water.

To turn the outback into a lush garden, just add water.  Growth would start with brush and grasses that would feed ruminants, and gradually build up top soil to develop pastures.

But, as you say, with fertilizer, you could grow crops right away. Fertilizer is easy.

Another reason why the Australian soil is so poor is that Australia is a very old continent.  All the nutrients, and the soil itself, has been washed out over the millennia.  The Sahara was fertile thousands of years ago.  Australia hasn’t been fertile for tens of thousands of years.

We’ve got plenty of water in the Ord River scheme in the Kimberly.  Even after decades and a lot of investment it’s still not paying its way.  It’s a great place for a holiday though.

They're growing a lot of food now in the Kimberley, thanks to that scheme. Nothing wrong with that soil.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: bachfiend on February 02, 2019, 10:30:30 PM
What do you mean by ‘outback?’  The only use I know of it is the Australian desert and semidesert, which could never been transformed into a lush garden with increased water.  The soil is just too poor, requirering a lot of fertiliser to grow crops.


Yes. The only reason the soil is poor is because too little grows there. The only reason too little grows there is because there's not enough water.

To turn the outback into a lush garden, just add water.  Growth would start with brush and grasses that would feed ruminants, and gradually build up top soil to develop pastures.

But, as you say, with fertilizer, you could grow crops right away. Fertilizer is easy.

Another reason why the Australian soil is so poor is that Australia is a very old continent.  All the nutrients, and the soil itself, has been washed out over the millennia.  The Sahara was fertile thousands of years ago.  Australia hasn’t been fertile for tens of thousands of years.

We’ve got plenty of water in the Ord River scheme in the Kimberly.  Even after decades and a lot of investment it’s still not paying its way.  It’s a great place for a holiday though.

They're growing a lot of food now in the Kimberley, thanks to that scheme. Nothing wrong with that soil.

No, it isn’t.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ord_River
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: CarbShark on February 02, 2019, 11:41:21 PM
That page supports my argument. They’re growing food on once fallow land. The food may not pay for construction of the dam but that is not relevant. It’s a government project, not a business. It doesn’t have to show a profit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: bachfiend on February 03, 2019, 04:48:17 AM
That page supports my argument. They’re growing food on once fallow land. The food may not pay for construction of the dam but that is not relevant. It’s a government project, not a business. It doesn’t have to show a profit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Very little at enormous cost, and a far way from even breaking even.  And the most profitable crop isn’t food, it’s sandlewood.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: 2397 on February 03, 2019, 07:45:53 AM
None of this is relevant to the question of how to feed seven and a half billion people in a manner that does not turn the Earth into Venus.

We actually have a pretty large capacity to grow more food. The real issue is making it economical to distribute globally.

To key expand global agricultural production is water. The difference between arable and non-arable land is water. Nothing else.

If want to save the world (I'm talking to you, Elon Musk) you would do two things: Develop an efficient large scale desalination system to turn seawater into fresh water; Use your boring machines to cut 10s of thousands of miles of tunnels to carry pumped water throughout the west (in the US) and the same in other dry areas throughout the world. 

The outback could become a lush garden.

I thought that not destroying civilization while we produce all this food was the key point Daniel was making. It doesn't matter how much more food we could produce, unless we can do it while polluting less in total than we do today.
Title: Re: Is halloumi preferable to meat when it comes to health and climate change?
Post by: daniel1948 on February 03, 2019, 09:27:52 AM
None of this is relevant to the question of how to feed seven and a half billion people in a manner that does not turn the Earth into Venus.

We actually have a pretty large capacity to grow more food. The real issue is making it economical to distribute globally.

To key expand global agricultural production is water. The difference between arable and non-arable land is water. Nothing else.

If want to save the world (I'm talking to you, Elon Musk) you would do two things: Develop an efficient large scale desalination system to turn seawater into fresh water; Use your boring machines to cut 10s of thousands of miles of tunnels to carry pumped water throughout the west (in the US) and the same in other dry areas throughout the world. 

The outback could become a lush garden.

I thought that not destroying civilization while we produce all this food was the key point Daniel was making. It doesn't matter how much more food we could produce, unless we can do it while polluting less in total than we do today.

Exactly. Thank you.