|
Cingulate posted:But animal protein ≠ animal protein. I think beef is much less efficient than chicken, or non-meat protein such as dairy and eggs, so the decrease in consumption should be accompanied by a poo poo in consumption, away from "big" meat to "small" meat. Don't forget about aquafarmed fish. This is now a more efficient way to produce animal protein than chicken.
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 13:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 21:38 |
|
|
computer parts posted:A large number of people jumped on you because you made stupid comments like getting rid of "grain dependence" and switching over to fruit. Yes, and if you read my second quiote, I admitted I had no sources to back up the claim that fruits/veggies would be easier to grow in a world racked by global warming. However, the number of obese people is increasing in both the developing world and the developed world (I don't think anyone is going to contest this claim) , and we have to do something about it. Like eat more vegetables. Once again, I'm not advocating veganism or primitivism, but rather a different approach to how we feed the world. e: not to mention all the deforestation we are causing to grow more food additives like palm kernel oil! white sauce fucked around with this message at 13:37 on Apr 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 13:32
|
|
|
forgot my pants posted:Don't forget about aquafarmed fish. This is now a more efficient way to produce animal protein than chicken. Fish farming is nowhere near as 'efficient' (for most economic definitions of that term) as the broiler chicken industry. It's incredibly labour intensive, if you're working on a recirculating system it's incredibly water intensive, and if you're not it's far more environmentally destructive. There are good reasons it's only done on a large scale in South America and China.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 13:36
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Wouldn't it be fair to say that regarding meat consumption, a small, but attenuated increase in the developing world and a substantial decrease in the developed world is rather the only sustainable and realistic perspective? No, that would not be fair to say. There is no reason to hope for an increase in ANYONE's meat consumption. If India's 11.5 pounds per capita per year meat consumption increases to 15 just pounds/c/a, that's an extra 4.3 BILLION pounds more meat that would be needed - nearly half of the current UK consumption. Where is this meat going to come from? How will people even be able to afford it anyway? In any case, increased meat production results in decreased non-meat human-edible food production, since so much energy (and protein) is lost when animals are fed crops to produce meat, consequently increasing both meat and non-meat food prices. Protein is NOT required in the ridiculous quantities in which decadent Westerners consume it - this is a nutritional myth. You are only short of protein if you literally have kwashiorkor, which more or less requires that you are literally starving or that you are an idiot fruitarian, since grains and vegetables sufficient to provide adequate calories also provide adequate protein. Before international aid donations to famine-hit areas were given in the form of grains, they were given as meat, because there was the idea that meat and its protein was required. However, as stated, meat is both not required, and it comes with the problems of transportation difficulties, loss of calories from crop to meat, and the extra cost per calorie or per gram of protein. You are the voice of the goon meat paradox that shrike82 was talking about. Meat is a major part of the problem, both environmentally, and in contributing to world hunger by raising food prices and decreasing net calorie supply. The answer is not for poor people to eat a little more meat and rich to eat a bit less, but rather a massive cut in first world meat consumption, and that means YOU eating much less meat. Also, what does this even mean? Cingulate posted:should be accompanied by a poo poo in consumption
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 13:38
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:The answer is not for poor people to eat a little more meat and rich to eat a bit less, but rather a massive cut in first world meat consumption, and that means YOU eating much less meat. These are not mutually exclusive and it takes a lot away from your argument when your final point is "a bit less" vs "a massive cut". Maybe you'd like to throw out some numbers.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 13:44
|
|
|
quote:You are only short of protein if you literally have kwashiorkor That's a stupid as gently caress statement. There's a difference between the bare minimum amount required to stave off deficiency and the amount that produces robust health. For almost any given micro- or macro-nutrient the minimum and the optimal are two different numbers. Yeah, the ideal amount of protein is most likely a good deal less than the amount the average American eats but it's more than "just enough to stop your hair falling out". Torka fucked around with this message at 13:57 on Apr 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 13:54
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:Fish farming is nowhere near as 'efficient' (for most economic definitions of that term) as the broiler chicken industry. It's incredibly labour intensive, if you're working on a recirculating system it's incredibly water intensive, and if you're not it's far more environmentally destructive. There are good reasons it's only done on a large scale in South America and China. In terms of lbs of food produced per lbs of food expended it is far more efficient than chicken. I am not sure which is more environmentally destructive, but I do concede your other points.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 14:15
|
|
|
forgot my pants posted:Don't forget about aquafarmed fish. This is now a more efficient way to produce animal protein than chicken. Placid Marmot posted:No, that would not be fair to say. There is no reason to hope for an increase in ANYONE's meat consumption. If India's 11.5 pounds per capita per year meat consumption increases to 15 just pounds/c/a, that's an extra 4.3 BILLION pounds more meat that would be needed - nearly half of the current UK consumption. Where is this meat going to come from? How will people even be able to afford it anyway? In any case, increased meat production results in decreased non-meat human-edible food production, since so much energy (and protein) is lost when animals are fed crops to produce meat, consequently increasing both meat and non-meat food prices. Grains and vegetables do not provide adequate protein. They're universally quite poor in the essential amino acids. Didn't you read Jurassic Park? As for me being the "goon meat paradox", I've lived as a vegetarian myself for half of my life partially for ecological reasons. And I meant "shift".
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 14:18
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:
Yes they do. Soy is a complete protein. Beans are great too. e: and better for the environment than raising an equal amount of beef, chicken, whatever other animals. And along with this, more ethical I guess. white sauce fucked around with this message at 14:25 on Apr 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 14:22
|
|
|
I think it should be clear that people have different ideas about what level of meat consumption is right for both the developed and the developing world but I think most of us would agree that the current model of western meat consumption shouldn't be adopted as is by the developing world.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 14:32
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:I think it should be clear that people have different ideas about what level of meat consumption is right for both the developed and the developing world but I think most of us would agree that the current model of western meat consumption shouldn't be adopted as is by the developing world.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 14:34
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I think it's rather obvious it can't even be sustained by the western world in the first place. It's obvious to you and me but I've been surprised by the number of goons who aren't aware of that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 14:35
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:It's obvious to you and me but I've been surprised by the number of goons who aren't aware of that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 14:37
|
|
shrike82 posted:I think it should be clear that people have different ideas about what level of meat consumption is right for both the developed and the developing world but I think most of us would agree that the current model of western meat consumption shouldn't be adopted as is by the developing world. I'd go as far to say that all of us agree with that.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
forgot my pants posted:In terms of lbs of food produced per lbs of food expended it is far more efficient than chicken. I am not sure which is more environmentally destructive, but I do concede your other points. It depends on the species and the density you're raising them at. Salmon are efficient (feed conversion ratio of ~1) if you're raising them at optimal densities in open water culture, tilapia aren't any more efficient than broiler chickens (tilapia ~1.6, broiler chickens are down to ~1.6 as well now).
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 15:19
|
|
|
Interesting!  Nijdam, D., Rood, T., & Westhoek, H. (2012). The price of protein: Review of land use and carbon footprints from life cycle assessments of animal food products and their substitutes. Food Policy, 37(6), 760–770. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.08.002 It seems the major problem are beef and certain forms of seafood - guess what? Lobster tops the list. Poultry is pretty good overall. Interestingly, beef from dairy cows isn't even that bad either. Plant food also is a "it depends" kind of item. Flying in fresh fruit obviously has a large impact, but so does freezing. It seems the more similar to a rich person you eat, the worse for the environment, this is certainly a surprising observation. If I did my math right, environmentally speaking, poultry is a much better source of essential amino acids, such as lysine, than most plants, including all grain and tubers/roots. Soy easily tops the list though, I think peas would also fare fairly well. Tight Booty Shorts posted:Yes they do. Soy is a complete protein. Beans are great too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:It depends on the species and the density you're raising them at. Salmon are efficient (feed conversion ratio of ~1) if you're raising them at optimal densities in open water culture, tilapia aren't any more efficient than broiler chickens (tilapia ~1.6, broiler chickens are down to ~1.6 as well now). I think the main point to be made is that beef is a huge problem.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I think this mustn't necessarily only be about what tops the list. Although we want to benefit from economies of scale, we don't want monocultures; so knowing that tilapia and chicken are approximately on the same order of efficiency means both of them could be considered as part of a large plan. I'm not sure what you mean by 'monoculture'- fish are almost by definition raised in monoculture (single species). Polyculture is only really a thing for small scale vegetal growers. Anyway, I just wanted to address the idea that aquaculture is much more efficient than poultry- it really depends what species you're looking at and what measures you care about. Part of my job is running a small recirculating aquaculture facility and it's a huge pain in the rear end. Recirculating aquaculture has recently become sort of a fad among people interested in sustainable food production (see: every single "aquaponics" system), and it's not at all clear that its the panacea its sometimes been presented as. Open water aquaculture is much less labour, water, and energy intensive, and you have access to more low-FCR species (salmon) but it's hugely environmentally destructive, so it's a complicated issue. Paper Mac fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Apr 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
Sorry, I don't know much about this and my terminology is probably way off. I meant, we won't decide on only one food item to fulfil our needs for nutrient X. In the end, whatever we settle on will probably be some fish, some legume, some poultry and so on. As for your main point, the 1st image I posted nicely illustrates it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Sorry, I don't know much about this and my terminology is probably way off. I meant, we won't decide on only one food item to fulfil our needs for nutrient X. In the end, whatever we settle on will probably be some fish, some legume, some poultry and so on. Oh, sure, I think that goes without saying. You can't raise fish everywhere, after all. Cingulate posted:As for your main point, the 1st image I posted nicely illustrates it. Yeah, thanks for that paper.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
Want protein? Surprised you all missed an obvious choice: Insects convert food into meat far more quickly than livestock. 10 pounds of feed can translate into as much as six pounds of insect meat compared to only about one pound of beef, three pounds of pork, or five pounds of chicken. And research has shown insect meat comes with considerably lower greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions. *link, *link,*links Also, if I am not mistaken, insects could be factory farmed in closed settings with minimal disturbance to local ecosystems and without any meaningful concerns for animal welfare. I know roaches and mealworms are already farmed on a large scale in China and the Netherlands. Mostly just as animal feed and for assorted (industrial) purposes. And God even approves: Allah posted:It is permissible to eat locusts (Sahih Muslim, 21.4801) YHWH posted:Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which Not that anyone in the West is gonna bother though. In fact negative Western views on entomophagy is impacting consumtion in other parts of the world negatively. *link
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:Yes they do. Soy is a complete protein. Beans are great too. I had thought you were arguing pointlessly, but now that the conversation has turned to the amount of protein in soy and beans, I rescind my criticism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
alcyon posted:And God even approves: For Islam, it depends on the school. Hanafis (generally thought to be the majority of Muslims, most prevalent subcontinental school) don't allow the consumption of insects under any circumstances. Malikis allow it depending on how the insect was killed, Shaafi'is and Hanbalis allow some insects but not others. I don't know about the Shi'a schools, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I had thought you were arguing pointlessly, but now that the conversation has turned to the amount of protein in soy and beans, I rescind my criticism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
Paper Mac posted:For Islam, it depends on the school. Hanafis (generally thought to be the majority of Muslims, most prevalent subcontinental school) don't allow the consumption of insects under any circumstances. Malikis allow it depending on how the insect was killed, Shaafi'is and Hanbalis allow some insects but not others. I don't know about the Shi'a schools, though. Huh, interesting. Did not know that. off topic but: Would the acceptance of entomophagy among other schools be a result of persistent pre-islamic cultural practices in the African and Asian (sub-)tropics? or?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
alcyon posted:Huh, interesting. Did not know that. off topic but: Would the acceptance of entomophagy among other schools be a result of persistent pre-islamic cultural practices in the African and Asian (sub-)tropics? or? In some cases, yeah. For instance, the general Shafi'i interpretive presupposition with respect to this kind of thing is explicitly related to the cultural practices of the Arabs at the time of the Prophet, so species that were consumed prior to Islam are legitimated and species that were reviled are not. Malikis (mostly North Africans and these days Western converts) allow a pretty wide variety of practices under the heading of 'urf (local custom), although I don't know if the permissibility of entomophagy is related to that as much as the general Maliki reluctance to rule anything haraam that's not explicitly described as such in scripture or the hadith. It's worth noting that necessity obviates fiqh dietary restrictions, so if someone needs to consume insect protein (or pork, or whatever) to sustain life, that's always permissible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
alcyon posted:Want protein? Surprised you all missed an obvious choice: Insects convert food into meat far more quickly than livestock. 10 pounds of feed can translate into as much as six pounds of insect meat compared to only about one pound of beef, three pounds of pork, or five pounds of chicken. And research has shown insect meat comes with considerably lower greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions. I really think there needs to be some sort of larger-scale promotion of this. It may be psychologically difficult to consider for most people, but if it becomes trendy among foodies then mainstream acceptance may follow. I know some famous chef has done "bug dinners" to promote the health benefits and environmental efficiency of entomophagy, but that's pretty small relatively speaking.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
When I was in the Marines eating bugs to gross each other out was what we would do. Crickets are delicious raw.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Gamma Nerd posted:I really think there needs to be some sort of larger-scale promotion of this. It may be psychologically difficult to consider for most people, but if it becomes trendy among foodies then mainstream acceptance may follow. I know some famous chef has done "bug dinners" to promote the health benefits and environmental efficiency of entomophagy, but that's pretty small relatively speaking. VVV Good point. Something to note, which I think most people here know, is that lobster used to be seen as gross food for poor people as well until it became fashionable by the wealthy turning it into a delicacy. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5kCQ4NIeoEU America Inc. fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Apr 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
The association of insect-eating with poverty may pose an obstacle for its promotion, greater than the one for vegetarianism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
There's no reason insect protein couldn't be processed into something not recognisable as an insect anyway, surely. Insect-based protein powder or something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
Torka posted:There's no reason insect protein couldn't be processed into something not recognisable as an insect anyway, surely. Insect-based protein powder or something. Most protein powders I've seen tend to be based in Soy instead of meat products so I don't think that'd help that much.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
Makes sense. I just mean I'm sure we can find a way to consume insect protein that doesn't require forcing the squeamish to eat fried grasshopper on a stick or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
Torka posted:Makes sense. I just mean I'm sure we can find a way to consume insect protein that doesn't require forcing the squeamish to eat fried grasshopper on a stick or whatever. If you read Fast Food Nation, the writer notes that Red Dye #7 is made out of ground beetle husks or whatever. So we're halfway there!
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 17:36
|
|
|
That's carmine, I think.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Most protein powders I've seen tend to be based in Soy instead of meat products so I don't think that'd help that much. Whey is the most used protein for powders. Soy is overpriced and normally there are better plant based powders you could buy. We even have our own thread here on SA in YLLS if you'd like to ask more people about it. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3470330
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
Tanreall posted:Whey is the most used protein for powders. Soy is overpriced and normally there are better plant based powders you could buy. We even have our own thread here on SA in YLLS if you'd like to ask more people about it. Yeah that was the other one but I couldn't remember it off the top of my head because I don't use powders much.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2014 18:16
|
|
|
Elotana posted:Around the time someone coherently rebuts this paper showing that they are, in fact, forecasting accurately when controlled for short-term variability that the models are not intended to predict. Pretty sure I've responded to this paper itt before. Any attempts to "unskew" the climate date (and this is exactly what Rahmstorf is doing, not unlike Dean Chambers), you have to have a correct baseline of normal. If you don't, you're just telling yourself a good story to make yourself feel better. One of the recent discussions is that the climate models were built & fit during a positive phase PDO (more positive ENSOs) and entering a negative phase PDO (more negative ENSOs) has caused the models to over-predict the increase in temperature. Cool phase PDO is going to last another 10-20 years. The Rahmstorf paper is also misleading because we've been in neutral ENSO for a couple of years and yet the temperature is still "deflated." By the workings of his unskew, temperature should have increased by quite a lot. I would love to see that methodology revisited and updated through 2014. Anyway, you're sidestepping the question. Will there ever be goalposts that cannot be moved, some hard target that will cause people to reassess the efficacy of these models? Given the responses so far, I'm going to guess the answer is very, very close to "no." To me it seems perfectly reasonable that we can be .1-.2C warmer than the 2000 baseline in 2025. But .15C in 2025 would be 70% lower than the IPCC's climate models (temperature is supposed to be ~.52C warmer at 2025...remember we're almost at almost 0C right now). It seems like every response to this takes the assumption that the climate models are correct, and then attempts to explain why they have been wrong (but will be right again). And you are entirely closed off to the fact that the models could be simply wrong to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Will there ever be goalposts that cannot be moved, You seriously think you have any capacity to judge that other people move goalposts? Have you looked at your post history?
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 21:38 |
|
|
alcyon posted:Want protein? Surprised you all missed an obvious choice: Insects convert food into meat far more quickly than livestock. 10 pounds of feed can translate into as much as six pounds of insect meat compared to only about one pound of beef, three pounds of pork, or five pounds of chicken. And research has shown insect meat comes with considerably lower greenhouse gas and ammonia emissions. One of the issues pointed out in that first (FAO) link is that the feed has to be much higher-grade than you can feed to more common livestock, since you aren't able to gut the insects. So that feed efficiency is deceptive. alcyon posted:Also, if I am not mistaken, insects could be factory farmed in closed settings with minimal disturbance to local ecosystems and without any meaningful concerns for animal welfare. I know roaches and mealworms are already farmed on a large scale in China and the Netherlands. Mostly just as animal feed and for assorted (industrial) purposes. I would be inclined to state that anybody using the terms "factory farm", "closed setting" and "minimal disturbance to local ecosystems" in the same sentence is indeed mistaken. There will always be waste products, no farm is ever a perfectly closed setting, and there will certainly be some environmental impact from this. It may be less impactful, but I'd want to see some research on actual full-scale production facilities. The work by that Dutch group is interesting, but when their "production system" includes 20 egg cartons, it's hardly representative of large-scale systems. I'd also worry about other impacts -- most insects that can be produced in volume (e.g. mealworms, which that Dutch group focus on somewhat), are pests. When you go searching for journal articles about them, 95% of what you find talks about how to kill them and stop them from destroying other food sources. Anyway, there's more than just the psychosocial stigma to overcome to get people eating insects, and it's far from certain whether they'd be a viable food source on any relevant scale. But for alternative forms of meat production, I'm a big fan of ostrich. I've read somewhere (need to verify) that they're even more feed-efficient than chickens. The meat is delicious -- low in fat and redder than beef. They also live naturally in the desert, so you can keep them on land that's marginal for other uses. Obviously, though, the solution is going to have to be people eating less meat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2014 07:30
|
|
