Ah, I see. One of the reasons for reducing use of fossil fuels. is to reduce carbon emissions. Using land to produce plant food for humans produces less carbon emissions than using the same land for livestock farming. If livestock numbers decreased, increased need for petrochemical fertilisers to produce crops for human would be offset by the decreased need for fertilisers to produce feed for livestock. This article makes some interesting comparisons:- https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/78/3/660S/4690010use of oil is what the governments are trying to phase out, in all its applications. Its deemed a fossil fuel. My point is that they have no alternative as far as i know, so they are swapping one problem - animals, for another - increased need for petrochemical fertilizers.
Funding: This work was supported by the Wellcome Trust, Our Planet Our Health (Livestock, Environment and People - LEAP), award number 205212/Z/16/Z to MS, HCJG; the CGIAR Research Programs on Policies, Institutions, and Markets (PIM) and on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) to KW, SR, DMD; a BHF Intermediate Basic Science Research Fellowship FS/15/34/31656 to PS; the British Heart Foundation, grant number 006/PSS/CORE/2016/OXFORD to MR. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.Since protein is an essential nutrient for diabetics to help metabolise carbs perhaps meats and other proteins will be available on the NHS. I wonder who paid for the study. Perhaps the producers of none meat proteins as the price of these will also go up. Basic supply and demand.
There would be no need for expansion of agricultural land (at least in the near future), as this article says:-he also says:
so where does he think all this extra plant foods for humans will come from, if not from expanding our agricultural land into formerly forested areas? And his models make no allowance for the further deforestation affect on the climate due to needing more agricultural land to feed an even bigger population than we have now.
(bolding mine)
Does the 4 billion extra mouths stated include all those meat eaters who have been forced to go vegetarian? I doubt it is extra mouths, and anyway, this will only provide for about 10 years at current population growth. What then?There would be no need for expansion of agricultural land (at least in the near future), as this article says:-
If all existing cropland devoted to animal feed and biofuels were converted to crops meant for direct human consumption, we'd be able to grow food for an extra 4 billion people.
https://www.vox.com/2014/7/18/59130...gh-food-for-everyone-heres-how-to-change-that
Or we could discourage people from having the extra 3 billion people in the first place? Thus reducing greatly carbon emissions and carry on eating the steaks?There would be no need for expansion of agricultural land (at least in the near future), as this article says:-
If all existing cropland devoted to animal feed and biofuels were converted to crops meant for direct human consumption, we'd be able to grow food for an extra 4 billion people.
https://www.vox.com/2014/7/18/59130...gh-food-for-everyone-heres-how-to-change-that
I don't know the figures, but it sounds plausible that using marginal land in this way could increase the food available.What about the and where we can't grow stuff but animals can graze quite comfortably.. that would be out of food production so overall productivity would fall? Moors, steep slopes rocky land... grass grows almost everywhere (apart obviously from extremes of temperature) so can be used as animal food.
I don't know the figures, but it sounds plausible that using marginal land in this way could increase the food available.
Mind you, the money is on insects as the way forward:- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780081007228000115
I do not know how it works for monoculture agribusiness, but in previous days the natural husbandry employed by farmers used crop rotation to rejuvenate the land and as a bi product produce borage crops for silage such as clover and rape. Now rape is grown as a cash crop for Canola oil and biofuels, which is gobbling the land at an alarming rate. I suspect that this latter use is going to dominate the land clearance we see happening already, as well as contributing adversly in the smog clouds seen in Malaysia and India. Carbon emissions par extroadinaire.Ah, I see. One of the reasons for reducing use of fossil fuels. is to reduce carbon emissions. Using land to produce plant food for humans produces less carbon emissions than using the same land for livestock farming. If livestock numbers decreased, increased need for petrochemical fertilisers to produce crops for human would be offset by the decreased need for fertilisers to produce feed for livestock. This article makes some interesting comparisons:- https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/78/3/660S/4690010
They are already using these sources in schools as reported recently in the media. Ant burger anyone? Dung Beetle muffin? It used to be the occasional spider or cockroach or caterpillar that maybe joined the meal, and of course flies and wasps were 'added protein' but usually not in any significant quantity and often not intentional. Now I am even more suspicious of Garibaldi biscuits (squashed fly bics may be exactly that)Insects? Not this side of hell.
The (theoretical) argument was whether converting everyone to veganism would increase deforestation. I am saying that it shouldn't because we could feed 4 billion more people than we are at present by just using the agricultural land that is already in use. If there is population growth, as expected, this would require extra calories to be produced regardless of whether people are meat-eaters or not.Does the 4 billion extra mouths stated include all those meat eaters who have been forced to go vegetarian? I doubt it is extra mouths, and anyway, this will only provide for about 10 years at current population growth. What then?
They are already using these sources in schools as reported recently in the media. Ant burger anyone? Dung Beetle muffin?
so where do we get the biofuels to replace fossil fuel use?There would be no need for expansion of agricultural land (at least in the near future), as this article says:-
If all existing cropland devoted to animal feed and biofuels were converted to crops meant for direct human consumption, we'd be able to grow food for an extra 4 billion people.
https://www.vox.com/2014/7/18/59130...gh-food-for-everyone-heres-how-to-change-that
I have eaten Witchetty grubs with my aboriginal friends, they have a very nice flavour especially raw.Insects? Not this side of hell.
Question: what milk does a lactovegetarian use? Is animal (for example a dairy cow) source allowed? In other words will cattle still be needed to feed this group of consumers. As for pescatorians, we would not be able to support any significant increase in ex-meat eaters since our fish stocks are already depleted and rationed into quotas.I don't know the figures, but it sounds plausible that using marginal land in this way could increase the food available.
Mind you, the money is on insects as the way forward:- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780081007228000115
Sprinkles are a no-no for me as a T2DThere used to be an advert (for a bank AFAIR) in which a little girl was shocked at being offered a locust (or grasshopper) skewer until the vendor put sprinkles on it. I know it's a cultural difference but as I said earlier, not this side of hell.
Just kill off the meat eaters who are being selfish and intransigent.Or we could discourage people from having the extra 3 billion people in the first place? Thus reducing greatly carbon emissions and carry on eating the steaks?
Its a twisted logic , I did a search for vegan cat food and yep there it is.Oddly sometimes not but thy sometimes insist on feeding them vegan diets which of course is animal cruelty.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?