Eating meat and its environmental impact

[SirAlec]

I find the whole must eat meat macho crap very tedious. Does something really have to die everytime you are peckish?

Ive cut down massively on red meat, in fact I'd had so many poorly cooked steaks the last couple of years I was glad to see the back of them. Gave up fish a couple of years ago but I was never really that fussed and shows like blue planet have made the decision easy. I only eat chicken regularly.

My decision was based on environmental reasons, I do still expect the animals I eat to be treated humainly etc. My mother in law is a bat **** crazy vegan though who tries to shame people when they eat meat which I hate. (not sure if I hate vegans or just my mother in law)

People just need to cut down and be responsible.

[Spiral]

Quorn southern style nuggets are better than real chicken nuggets because they don't go soggy. You'll want to cut out salt from other areas of your diet, like, (switch a sandwich for an apple and a banana from time to time) because they're quite salty, but they taste amazing for veggie food.

Being hostile towards a person who wants to eat a healthier diet and do a tiny, tiny little bit for the environment is right up there with the very dumbest things I've come across. It's not the fault of a vegetarian that you're so insecure you need to slide a smooth, steaming hot pork sausage down your throat to feel like a 'man'.

[deanothedino]

If you eat a plant based whole food diet you'll live longer. Beyond that you're trading life expectancy for your chosen poisons - be that alcohol, meat or whatever. The more animal and animal fats you can replace in your diet the better.

The environmental benefits are huge too

This is possibly the most nonsense ever written on this board and considering some people's opinions here that says a lot.

Humans are not, and never have been, herbivores. Beyond that, vegetable oils are absolutely awful for you from a health perspective.

[Lowbankclaret]

Quorn southern style nuggets are better than real chicken nuggets because they don't go soggy. You'll want to cut out salt from other areas of your diet, like, (switch a sandwich for an apple and a banana from time to time) because they're quite salty, but they taste amazing for veggie food.

Being hostile towards a person who wants to eat a healthier diet and do a tiny, tiny little bit for the environment is right up there with the very dumbest things I've come across. It's not the fault of a vegetarian that you're so insecure you need to slide a smooth, steaming hot pork sausage down your throat to feel like a 'man'.

What a load of twaddle.

Everyone can eat what they like.

Problem is it’s normally vegans etc who try to dictate to others.

Quorn and chicken nuggets both taste like shite

Some people think they are eating healthy when in fact they are not.

I eat meat because I like it. Nothing to do with being manly.

But unlike most people I can rear an animal, kill it, prep it and eat it without feeling like it’s a sin. But I absolutely expect it to have been looked after in a humane way.

[Spiral]

Everyone can eat what they like.

Whoa there, cowboy! Show me where I've said they can't.

[bfcjg]

Cows are delicious, sums it up for me.

[CaptJohn]

According to some views on here I must be an eco terrorist par excellence!

I eat red meat, albeit in modest quantities but my heinous crime is when I was sailing in the bad old days and inadvertently assisted in the import of many tons of Palm oil into the UK

I never realised what I was doing and can I get a reduced sentence please?

[Damo]

If God didn't want us to eat animals, then why did he make them so tasty

[Lowbankclaret]

Whoa there, cowboy! Show me where I've said they can't.

Sorry that’s my stance. Not a pointed comment.

[cricketfieldclarets]

Would cut back for health reasons and have thought about it. Although after a heavy session last night two bacon butties, 16 chicken wings and a mixed lamb and chicken shashlik ****** all over lettuce soup.

Nothing worse than **** meat though. Better not bothering.

Curries, pies and stews can be far better veg only. Swap chicken in a curry for potatoes and its actually better.

Going to cut it out entirely in january just as a test to see how i feel. Meat definitely makes you lethargic if you eat too much of it. Think back to caveman times. They probably caught and ate meat once a week. We arent meant to eat as much meat as we do.

I would never cut it out entirely as a) we are meant to eat it. And b) i love it. But definitely dont need 3 meat based meals a day.

[Walton]

If you eat a plant based whole food diet you'll live longer. Beyond that you're trading life expectancy for your chosen poisons - be that alcohol, meat or whatever. The more animal and animal fats you can replace in your diet the better.

The environmental benefits are huge too

Animal fats are actually great for you

http://www.mercola.com/nutritionplan/beginner_fats.htm

[Spiral]

If God didn't want us to eat animals, then why did he make them so tasty

Sean Dyc..., I mean...evolution didn't 'impart' (ignoring the linguistic nonsense of evolution being a thing "done" to a thing) upon Homo Sapiens a taste for animals, per se. It 'imparted' upon Home Sapiens a craving for salt and fat which, rather conveniently is quite abundant in animal flesh. It also 'imparted' upon us, amongst the pursuance of other nutrients, a desire for carbohydrates and sugars (which is why you order chips with your kebab and douse them with ketchup), but all in accordance with a diet required to keep a Human being alive long enough to make another one. Such dietary requirements are but in accordance with evolution...itself a consequence of our environment; an environment in which-as cricketfieldclarets has alluded to above-salt and fat was typically scarce pre-civilisation.

Long story short, most people are overdoing this whole fatty/salty animal flesh thing. It's why so many people have stupidly high blood pressure.

[SirAlec]

No one here is saying humans are herbivores, but I think we can all agree we are omnivores. A healthy balance for the sake of the environment and our own health is the reason I've chosen to cut down myself.

I find it really sad that a large percentage of the population have absolutely no regard for the world we live in, especially as most of those people have children and grandchildren that will have to live in it when they are gone.

I read recently that scientist believe the human population will level off at 9 billion (nothing like you get in dramatic movies set in the future), and despite all the doom and gloom of the media poverty across the world is actually the lowest it has ever been since they started working this stuff out back in the 70s and is still falling. Hopefully technology will speed things up even more, maybe even in our lifetimes it might be a thing of the past.

[dsr]

But why is there such a powerful environmental impact of wiping out loads of animals? Quite apart from whether David Attenborough would really approve of improving the planet by having fewer animals, I can't understand where the carbon goes.

This is the point.

1. The amount of carbon in the world is fixed. No more is being made, none of it is being destroyed. Is that right?

2. That being so, I can see why burning fossil fuels creates greenhouse gas. We're taking carbon out of the ground where it is harmlessly and inertly stored and releasing it into the air. It may not all stay in the air, but it joins the carbon "life cycle" and is available to make CO2.

3. Cows are different. The life cycle of a carbon atom: it grows in grass, a cow eats it, the cow expels it, the grass captures it again out of the air or out of the fertilizer. It's a permanent cycle, ultimately zero sum.

If every cow that ever lives contributes to the increase in greenhouse gases, where does all that carbon come from? Without cows, would we just have longer grass, or would the grass have died anyway and expelled the CO2 into the air just the same?

[deanothedino]

Sean Dyc..., I mean...evolution didn't 'impart' (ignoring the linguistic nonsense of evolution being a thing "done" to a thing) upon Homo Sapiens a taste for animals, per se. It 'imparted' upon Home Sapiens a craving for salt and fat which, rather conveniently is quite abundant in animal flesh. It also 'imparted' upon us, amongst the pursuance of other nutrients, a desire for carbohydrates and sugars (which is why you order chips with your kebab and douse them with ketchup), but all in accordance with a diet required to keep a Human being alive long enough to make another one. Such dietary requirements are but in accordance with evolution...itself a consequence of our environment; an environment in which-as cricketfieldclarets has alluded to above-salt and fat was typically scarce pre-civilisation.

Long story short, most people are overdoing this whole fatty/salty animal flesh thing. It's why so many people have stupidly high blood pressure.

Fat is a dietary requirement. It isn’t due to some evolution of us farming animals. If you do not eat fats you will die. If you do not eat protein, you will die. If you do not eat carbohydrates, you’ll be fine. It’s no coincidence that the two things you absolutely require are most easily found in meat.

This thread has reminded me about Lewis Hamilton going vegan to save the environment. He drives an F1 car and flies everywhere by private jet, he isn’t saving anything. Nobody who goes vegan is going to save the world as long as you live in your brick house, on your tarmaced street, typing on your plastic keyboard.

Eat for your health, which means a balanced diet that’s compromised of meat, veg, fruit and nuts. (And not processed carbs, grains, vegetable oils)

[Spiral]

Fat is a dietary requirement. It isn’t due to some evolution of us farming animals. If you do not eat fats you will die. If you do not eat protein, you will die. If you do not eat carbohydrates, you’ll be fine. It’s no coincidence that the two things you absolutely require are most easily found in meat.

This thread has reminded me about Lewis Hamilton going vegan to save the environment. He drives an F1 car and flies everywhere by private jet, he isn’t saving anything. Nobody who goes vegan is going to save the world as long as you live in your brick house, on your tarmaced street, typing on your plastic keyboard.

Eat for your health, which means a balanced diet that’s compromised of meat, veg, fruit and nuts. (And not processed carbs, grains, vegetable oils)

Wait...you're telling me if I don't eat fat or protein I will die? Holy $hit, it's just as well I can metabolise legumes! I'm one luck son of a bitch!

[deanothedino]

Wait...you're telling me if I don't eat fat or protein I will die? Holy $hit, it's just as well I can metabolise legumes! I'm one luck son of a bitch!

Legumes are a good source of protein.

[If it be your will]

.

[Spiral]

1. The amount of carbon in the world is fixed. No more is being made, none of it is being destroyed. Is that right?

2. That being so, I can see why burning fossil fuels creates greenhouse gas. We're taking carbon out of the ground where it is harmlessly and inertly stored and releasing it into the air. It may not all stay in the air, but it joins the carbon "life cycle" and is available to make CO2.

3. Cows are different. The life cycle of a carbon atom: it grows in grass, a cow eats it, the cow expels it, the grass captures it again out of the air or out of the fertilizer. It's a permanent cycle, ultimately zero sum.

Sweet Jesus. You have an incredibly romantic vision of animal agriculture.

1. Correct.

2. Releasing solid-state inert carbon into the atmosphere by burning it (lorries: agriculture transportation on an industrial scale-largely to meet fast-food needs) produces a tremendous greenhouse effect. I can't quite believe I'm explaining this is 2017.

3. They aren't eating grass. On the industrial-scale levels to which most environmentalists object, the cows are eating grain. This grain requires water and land which could otherwise be used more efficiently to produce food intended for direct human consumption. It's a profoundly inefficient use of land and thus, axiomatically, resources.

There's a whole other thread to be had on methane production.

[Spiral]

Legumes are a good source of protein.

Really? Can I get fat from legumes, too?

[dsr]

You have an incredibly romantic vision of animal agriculture.

1. Correct.

2. Releasing solid-state inert carbon into the atmosphere by burning it (lorries-agriculture transportation on an industrial scale-largely to meet fast-food needs) produces a greenhouse effect. I can't quite believe I'm explaining this is 2017.

3. They aren't eating grass. On the industrial-scale levels to which most environmentalists object, the cows are eating grain. This grain requires water and land which could otherwise be used more efficiently to produce food intended for direct human consumption.

What you say about point 2 is the same as what I said, except for the sidetrack about food transport which I don't follow. I talk about taking inertly stored carbon out of the ground and releasing it into the air; you talk about releasing inert carbon into the atmosphere. They're the same thing.

Point three, though - how is that relevant to the production of greenhouse gases? If the cow doesn't exist, there is more grain for human consumption. That's fine, I can agree that. (Though the world has enough food to go round, it's just not fairly shared out.) But does that necessarily mean that there are fewer greenhouse gases? And if so, why?

[deanothedino]

Really? Can I get fat from legumes, too?

Very little, as I’m sure you know.

It’s great you believe being vegetarian is healthier for you but it’d be really far better for you if you realised that it isn’t and a balanced diet would serve you far better.

Do you live just off legumes?

[deanothedino]

What you say about point 2 is the same as what I said, except for the sidetrack about food transport which I don't follow. I talk about taking inertly stored carbon out of the ground and releasing it into the air; you talk about releasing inert carbon into the atmosphere. They're the same thing.

Point three, though - how is that relevant to the production of greenhouse gases? If the cow doesn't exist, there is more grain for human consumption. That's fine, I can agree that. (Though the world has enough food to go round, it's just not fairly shared out.) But does that necessarily mean that there are fewer greenhouse gases? And if so, why?

No commercial food production is environmentally friendly. Growing large quantities of grain isn’t good for the environment.

I’m sure spiral only eats what he grows on his allotment though and carries it home in his bare hands while he walks barefoot.

[If it be your will]

.

[If it be your will]

.

[Spiral]

What you say about point 2 is the same as what I said, except for the sidetrack about food transport which I don't follow. I talk about taking inertly stored carbon out of the ground and releasing it into the air; you talk about releasing inert carbon into the atmosphere. They're the same thing.

Point three, though - how is that relevant to the production of greenhouse gases? If the cow doesn't exist, there is more grain for human consumption. That's fine, I can agree that. (Though the world has enough food to go round, it's just not fairly shared out.) But does that necessarily mean that there are fewer greenhouse gases? And if so, why?

I apologise if I was presumptuous. I should have known better than to interpret your comments re. the carbon cycle as a romantic, wholesome interpretation of the climate science towards which you have historically been 'sceptical'.

Point three, feeding cows grain as opposed to natural grazing increases the production of cows per unit of land, thus increasing methane production and so transportation costs. You need to understand that the 'environmentalists' problem with industrial animal agriculture is volume. Unsustainable, at that.

Cows are also inoculated from disease arising from grain consumption (unnatural in bovine species) which is causing problems with antibiotic resistance. You don't need a wild imagination to see how this is problematic for humans.

[dsr]

You set yourself a difficult task in trying to prove the meat industry is environmentally benign.

I'm not trying to prove anything, let alone anything as wide ranging as that. All I'm trying to get to is why does animal farming cause greenhouse gases, when all it does is shift carbon from one transient state to another. I don't know the answer, and I want to find out.

Your mention of methane is a hint in that direction. Are you saying that because of methane production, there is the same amount of carbon in the atmosphere but more of it is methane instead of (presumably) carbon dioxide? Or does it mean that there is more carbon in the atmosphere than there would have been, and without the animals more of this carbon would be in some form of solid state on the ground?

[Spiral]

It’s great you believe being vegetarian is healthier for you but it’d be really far better for you if you realised that it isn’t and a balanced diet would serve you far better.

It's just as well I'm not a vegan/vegetarian, then.

[dsr]

I apologise if I was presumptuous. I should have known better than to interpret your comments re. the carbon cycle as a romantic, wholesome interpretation of the climate science towards which you have historically been 'sceptical'.

Point three, feeding cows grain as opposed to natural grazing increases the production of cows per unit of land, thus increasing methane production and so transportation costs. You need to understand that the 'environmentalists' problem with industrial animal agriculture is volume. Unsustainable, at that.

Cows are also inoculated from disease arising from grain consumption (unnatural in bovine species) which is causing problems with antibiotic resistance. You don't need a wild imagination to see how this is problematic for humans.

I'm 100% with you on the antibiotics. They should barely be fed to animals at all, certainly not as a matter of routine. In many countries (eg. USA) they're too free with them to people as well.

My climate scepticism is because I'm not convinced about greenhouse gases causing climate change. I don't dispute that burning fossil fuels puts more carbon into the atmosphere, but I'm not convinced of the effects because I don't trust the statisticians behind the results. The theoretical science makes more sense than the statistics.

[deanothedino]

It's just as well I'm not a vegan/vegetarian, then.

Guess you realise that what you said earlier isn’t the case then.

“...a person who wants to eat a healthier diet...”

[If it be your will]

.

[Spiral]

Then with respect, dsr, this is the point where we need to agree to disagree, and recognise that we're never, ever, going to see each others' point of view. I put faith in the scientific process. You obviously don't.

But it's good to see that that this thread has come full circle; that we're back on the environmental argument for reducing meat consumption as opposed to the rotten and thinly-veiled homophobic themes of the virtues of sticking a hot pork sausage down your throat lest others perceive you as being a homosexual.

[deanothedino]

It's a fair question. There is much more methane as a result of animal farming than there would otherwise be and, per carbon atom, CH4 is far more potent than CO2.

Also, the amount of calories produced per acre is much lower for meat than plants ( http://www.waldeneffect.org/blog/Calori ... ous_foods/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ) which drives deforestation by increasing the amount of land required. The lack of trees (for ranching and growing animal feeds) means less CO2 is taken up.

Like all greenhouse gases aren’t equal, all calories aren’t equal. You can’t evaluate land usage for food production based on calorific yield.

Ultimately humans are bad for the planet, whether they eat meat or not.

[If it be your will]

.

[Spiral]

Guess you realise that what you said earlier isn’t the case then.

“...a person who wants to eat a healthier diet...”

Do I object to an omnivorous diet? No.

Do I object to a herbivorous diet? No.

Could my diet be healthier? Yes. (I'm on my ninth double vodka and coke as I type. Kebab on the way.) But not once have I advocated the prohibition of meat consumption. Merely the reduction.

Is life expectancy increased by eating a vegan or vegetarian diet over an omnivorous diet? Yes.

Here's the full quote you effectively misquoted by removing context:

Being hostile towards a person who wants to eat a healthier diet and do a tiny, tiny little bit for the environment is right up there with the very dumbest things I've come across.

Do I object to the ridiculing of those who would choose vegetarianism over omnivorism? Abso*******lutely. And this is what drives me. This is why I posted in this thread. So go for it, try to find hypocrisy in my behaviour, fill your boots. But good luck finding hypocrisy in my beliefs, because I've been posting on these bi-annual veggie threads since the ClaresMad days, and if you can be arsed filtering through that pop-up infested $hithole of a website, you'll find I've never changed my tune. It's the same tune I always play: Be nice*.

*even when you're being a c.unt.

[deanothedino]

Is life expectancy increased by eating a vegan or vegetarian diet over an omnivorous diet? Yes

According to some studies. According to some studies it doesn’t. There’s plenty of studies that show vegetarian diets are not healthier than a balanced diet. You’re being incredibly selective.

There’s plenty of studies showing all of the important nutrients that vegans and vegetarians are missing from their diet. It’s a lifestyle choice, rather than a healthier choice but one people are free to make if they want.

I don’t feel I misquoted you at all. It was clear that I’d truncated the quote but I was taking issue with you saying it’s healthier, hence removing the unnecessary bits because they weren’t relevant. I don’t want to ridicule anyone for their dietary choices, just like I don’t ridicule anyone for believing in God, or like I don’t ridicule my Americans friends who believe everyone needs to own a gun.

[Spiral]

Okay, let's reset, because I feel we're arguing about points with which we somewhat agree.

In response to:

If you eat a plant based whole food diet you'll live longer. Beyond that you're trading life expectancy for your chosen poisons - be that alcohol, meat or whatever. The more animal and animal fats you can replace in your diet the better.

The environmental benefits are huge too

deanothedino said:

This is possibly the most nonsense ever written on this board and considering some people's opinions here that says a lot.

Humans are not, and never have been, herbivores. Beyond that, vegetable oils are absolutely awful for you from a health perspective.

I'm glad you've apparently climbed down from "most nonsense ever written on this board and considering some people's opinions here that says a lot", to:

According to some studies. According to some studies it doesn’t. There’s plenty of studies that show vegetarian diets are not healthier than a balanced diet. You’re being incredibly selective.

There’s plenty of studies showing all of the important nutrients that vegans and vegetarians are missing from their diet. It’s a lifestyle choice, rather than a healthier choice but one people are free to make if they want.

"Nonsense" to "perhaps..." is good.

Fat is a dietary requirement. It isn’t due to some evolution of us farming animals. If you do not eat fats you will die. If you do not eat protein, you will die. If you do not eat carbohydrates, you’ll be fine. It’s no coincidence that the two things you absolutely require are most easily found in meat.

The fact that some human beings actively choose to avoid indulging in the low-hanging-fruit (pardon the phrase) of easily accessible meat and substitute it for vegetarian options for dietary and/or environmental purposes is the entire point of this thread...that this choice, this alternative exists, and it's healthy, and to some it's worthwhile.

This thread has reminded me about Lewis Hamilton going vegan to save the environment. He drives an F1 car and flies everywhere by private jet, he isn’t saving anything. Nobody who goes vegan is going to save the world as long as you live in your brick house, on your tarmaced street, typing on your plastic keyboard.

The apparent hypocrisy of Lewis Hamilton's lifestyle doesn't invalidate the concept veganism.

Eat for your health, which means a balanced diet that’s compromised of meat, veg, fruit and nuts. (And not processed carbs, grains, vegetable oils)

Correction: ...comprised of nutrients, nutrients, nutrients, and nutrients.

Where those nutrients come from is the entire point of this thread.

[PutTheWheelieBinsOut]

People just need to cut down and be responsible.

No people really don't.

[Bfcboyo]

Giant cull required to lower greenhouse gas emissions???

Could possibly start with the Vegans?

[Bfcboyo]

Would cut back for health reasons and have thought about it. Although after a heavy session last night two bacon butties, 16 chicken wings and a mixed lamb and chicken shashlik ****** all over lettuce soup.

Nothing worse than **** meat though. Better not bothering.

Curries, pies and stews can be far better veg only. Swap chicken in a curry for potatoes and its actually better.

Going to cut it out entirely in january just as a test to see how i feel. Meat definitely makes you lethargic if you eat too much of it. Think back to caveman times. They probably caught and ate meat once a week. We arent meant to eat as much meat as we do.

I would never cut it out entirely as a) we are meant to eat it. And b) i love it. But definitely dont need 3 meat based meals a day.

I've just been thinking back to the caveman times and it was definately twice a week we caught meat.

[4:20]

I eat meat, not a great deal, but I do eat it and am happy with it. I'm lucky in that the meat I eat I can see in the next field over and often give the cows a knowing wink and a "I'll be seeing one of you lovely ladies soon...". They stare blankly back at me, but still.. The ducks, sheep, chickens etc all come within around a five mile radius, so we buy as local as possible. I'm producing my own fruit and veg for both consumption and sale next year and am getting a couple of sheep (for both wool and meat) a few chickens, a beehive and looking into farming snails. In the next 5 years I hope to have a couple of pigs and space to wallow, a goat and maybe an aquaponics system. Our beef will come from the farmer next door. The whole fruit, veg and herb side of things will be organic. local schools, nursing homes etc demand organic produce and theres not enough local produce coming in to meet it. I know and am learning off the only other local organic producer in the area, its a good relationship and the opportunity is there to have a crack at it.
I'm by no means an idealogue or whatever the best word is when it comes to food opinion, but I have grown an increasing negative opinion of aspects of GM crops and their cycles and systems although I do accept some of their benefits. What I've found is how hard it is to gain seemingly unbiased or straight talking text, there's very very strong opinion on either side of the debate concerning Monsanto et al, I really struggle with what is true and what isnt. My partner hates all the manufactured ness of it all, and that's fine, we made the decision a while back and are sticking with it. If anyone has any good, fair and balanced sources regarding the ethical, environmental, moral etc critical or complimentary, regarding the whole GM thing, please feel free to send any links my way.

[SonofPog]

No people really don't.

Well, that's that sorted...

For those that say, but humans are supposed to eat meat. We're also "supposed" to have to hunt it. It was a rare treat. Not have it as the main stable for every meal.

As for DSRs post, I don't know where to start... I thought Donald Farts tweet was going to be the stupidest thing based on half baked science I read for a while.

Your argument is akin to saying, there's no Tsunami that killed half a billion people, the amount of water in the world is fixed, therefore how can moving water around be bad!?

[deanothedino]

Correction: ...comprised of nutrients, nutrients, nutrients, and nutrients.

Where those nutrients come from is the entire point of this thread.

There are some nutrients that it is not possible to get from any source other than meat. So no, I do not think a vegetarian diet can be healthier than a diet that consists of both meat and vegetables in balanced, sensible proportions.

So, I still think it is nonsense that it is healthier, however I am aware that a number of studies have shown that vegetarians may live longer. As with most studies though, they're are plenty of studies putting forward a different view. Ultimately though, the human body is supposed to consume meat and vegetables, not one or the other.

[cricketfieldclarets]

I've just been thinking back to the caveman times and it was definately twice a week we caught meat.

fair play

[Damo]

My Mrs is vegetarian. Proper, full blown vegetarian (won't use products containing anything 'animal' or tested on animals) and I have nothing but respect for her decision to live that life.
She is quite rare in that respect though as she only does it for her own reasons. She doesn't lecture anyone about eating meat. She doesn't try to convince anyone to be like her, and she doesn't bore every single person she meets by telling them all about it

[chadders]

I eat meat in moderation but make sure as far as I can that it's local, slow grown (cattle 30-36months) and 100% grass fed. Its a taste sensation. Bovines etc aren't 'designed' to process grains but are fed these to finish early.

100% grass fed meat is actually very good for you containing healthy fats. Good grassland and soil management can sequester carbon from the atmosphere. Unfortunately our soil management is very poor across the globe. This is an incredibly serious issue. However, there is a growing movement in farming to replicate the natural movement of herbivores on grasslands. I.e. in the great plains of Africa and America. These methods are improving soils and biodiversity.

For dairy there are a number of farmers operating 'calf at foot' where the calf stays with its mother for longer.

Just putting it out there. Some really good stuff going on in farming. Supermarkets are slow to catch on and the prices are generally that bit higher for ethical products so best to source direct from farms. Many have online sales.
we have Pipers Farm in Devon for example.

Great thread! Food for thought. UTC

[Lowbankclaret]

I could have written exactly that, especially the kebab thing. The environmental impact is undeniable, and the meat industry has become so dreadful and the products so poor, that you can't even be sure which animal you've got, let alone its supposed sell-by date. It wasn't a conscious decision as such, I just found myself becoming increasingly revolted by the whole industry. You're doing better than me though, I'm only down to 2-3 a month. Greggs and the kebab shops being the main culprits.

I also hate the meat industry, that’s why I found somewhere you can see your meat growing. You could even order specific cuts of specific animals and they grow 2 miles away from the town. Whilst it’s not certified organic it is as close as you get without. No unnecessary drugs, just fresh pasture to graze in.
So for your couple of time a month meat treat, why not buy some meat with true taste.

[Lowbankclaret]

A lot of the carbon is released as methane, which is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 (about 30x more). Animal farming is also the leading cause of deforestation. Also soy protein is widely used for feeding animals, again causing deforestation. Locally, sheep farming is a cause of flooding and soil erosion, and the reason our moors aren't covered in forests and scrub.

You set yourself a difficult task in trying to prove the meat industry is environmentally benign.

I would suggest the leading cause of deforestation is now Palm oil.
Local sheep farming is not the cause of flooding, however I would agree the replanting of some trees on the moors would be a good thing, like they are doing at Crown point. One big reason for flooding is the increased run off due to humans building things, and then putting houses on flood plains. Add to that increased rainfall.

[FactualFrank]

This seems like a good enough thread as any to ask - are there any dietitians/nutritionists on here?

I've been eating overall pretty crap this year and I'm looking to get a proper meal plan sorted, Living on my own, I find it's too easy just to order a takeaway and I find I often do it because I've no plan to stick to.

[Lowbankclaret]

For those desperate to eat lots of flesh, there is a get out and a way of reducing the environmental impact, to a degree: rabbit.

http://www.countryfile.com/countryside/ ... out-rabbit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rabbits are a non-native animal, are killed in their thousands as pests, then generally binned. There are about 60 million of them in the UK, and they breed like rabbits. Free range, minimal environmental impact, ridiculously cheap and taste great. But hardly anywhere sells them. (Just make sure you don't buy farmed rabbit - tasteless, greasy, rubbery and unbelievably cruel - I accidentally bought a rabbit meal years ago, and I knew it was farmed even before I went back and asked).

Still eat wild rabbit, makes a great pie.

I also eat grouse, pheasant, wild duck, venison when it’s available.