Igloo Won't Pay For Your Meat Expenses

[davyboy]

Vegans probably fart more methane than meat eaters  and cows .

however let's face it he only way to  save the planet is to reduce the number of humans

[Robin-H]

1 hour ago, apelike said:

Unfortunately the science to prove that it requires less land, less water, and less energy to produce protein from vegetables and pulses etc than from meat is sadly lacking. In fact a recent study in the US by the Carnegie Mellon University has concluded that the idea may actually be false. 

 

Reducing meat consumption is a good idea but not because of the environmental impact

I think you will struggle to find any reputable scientific source that agrees with the claim that there is not an environmental benefit in reducing meat consumption. If you can find one I would be interested to read it. 

[Robin-H]

1 hour ago, apelike said:

Thanks for that. Those plant based crops used as a source of protein for vegetarians, soybeans, dried beans, pulses, lentils etc are normally grown far afield (pun intended) and use a lot of energy just to get here so can have a negative impact. They can also have a high carb value as well opposed to zero carbs in meat and are stored and used differently in the body. Another problem is that around 90% of Soybeans grown in the USA are from Monsanto GM seeds called Roundup Ready, which is a worry in itself. The GM market is set to boom as vegetarianism increases.

 

https://www.motherjones.com/food/2014/04/superweeds-arent-only-trouble-gmo-soy/

 

That naturally biased US Humane Party article seems to focus first on chicken production per acre because chicken has the lowest protein value of the meats. It's also odd when 95% of chickens consumed in the UK are intensively reared in barns. Now, given that 95% of the UK are meat eaters how much extra vegetable matter needs to be grown to meet the demand?

 

It's not as simple as stating stop eating meat to save the planet as many other factors come into play. 

Nope. Chicken has the highest. It's why body builders are always eating chicken. 

 

https://www.nutrition.org.uk/nutritionscience/nutrients-food-and-ingredients/protein.html

 

Chicken breast (grilled without skin) 32g/100g
Beef steak (lean grilled) 31.0g/100g
Lamb chop (lean grilled) 29.2g/100g
Pork chop (lean grilled)31.6/100g

 

Edited March 12, 2020 by Robin-H

[carosio]

The aroma of wild rabbit roasting in the oven whilst being  basted with stew gravy could sway even the most ardent vegetarians.

[carosio]

10 hours ago, CaptainSwing said:

 

 

No, trust me, it couldn't 🤢

 

Though I suppose that this does illustrate that meat eaters can provide a useful economic or other motivation for the control of pest species.  Performing a useful ecological function, like a fungus.

Which reminds me, add mushrooms, too!

[L00b]

11 hours ago, CaptainSwing said:

(...)

 

Though I suppose that this does illustrate that meat eaters can provide a useful economic or other motivation for the control of pest species.  Performing a useful ecological function, like a fungus.

Likening meat eaters to "fungi", might not be the best approach to getting them onside, for helping to keep your vegetable patch safe from bunny-eared pests  

 

It's shooters you want anyway, not necessarily of the meat-eating persuasion...but what a debating can of worms that one is! 

[apelike]

19 hours ago, Robin-H said:

Nope. Chicken has the highest. It's why body builders are always eating chicken. 

 

https://www.nutrition.org.uk/nutritionscience/nutrients-food-and-ingredients/protein.html

 

Chicken breast (grilled without skin) 32g/100g
Beef steak (lean grilled) 31.0g/100g
Lamb chop (lean grilled) 29.2g/100g
Pork chop (lean grilled)31.6/100g

Interesting as I had already compiled a list in which chicken protein was on average 27g per 100g raw and Beef/Pork was 35g per 100g raw so something here is not right. Mabe the raw bit make a difference.

 

Now compare your site to this site: 

 

https://www.nutritionvalue.org/Chicken%2C_raw%2C_ground_nutritional_value.html

 

It seems to vary depending on where you get the information.

 

Still does not address the land usage issue though.

 

 

14 hours ago, CaptainSwing said:

That's just an idle ad hominem argument.  

Not really as an Igloo representative has already made their case as to why they chose to do what they did. Someone made that decision based on what they thought was right and not on what others though.

 

Quote

You could just as easily say that the people who are putting forward the alternative viewpoint are militant carnivores.

I could but I didn't!

Edited March 13, 2020 by apelike

[Robin-H]

15 minutes ago, apelike said:

Interesting as I had already compiled a list in which chicken protein was on average 27g per 100g raw and Beef/Pork was 35g per 100g raw so something here is not right. Mabe the raw bit make a difference.

 

Now compare your site to this site: 

 

https://www.nutritionvalue.org/Chicken%2C_raw%2C_ground_nutritional_value.html

 

It seems to vary depending on where you get the information.

 

Still does not address the land usage issue though.

 

I'm sure that the exact figures will vary slightly from site to site yes,  but I think it's generally accepted that chicken has slightly more protein per kg than beef, tho it may be different for the raw meet (tho people don't tend to eat raw beef, and never eat raw chicken!).

 

Like I said, it's why a body builder's  go to for protein is chicken rather than beef (a quarter pound of ground beef has 20 grams of protein. A skinless chicken breast boasts 52 grams of protein). 

 

But no, that doesn't directly address the land use issue, but it makes it clear that if you were choosing an animal to rear in order to get the most protein out of a certain area of land (say per acre) you'd be massively better off to go for chicken rather than beef. Just think how many chickens you could fit on an acre of land compared to how many cows.... 

 

And, as the link I provided earlier showed, you'd be even better off in terms of protein per acre if instead of meat, you planted something like soybeans instead. 

 

https://www.truthordrought.com/soybean-myths

 

"This might seem counter-intuitive, but were we to eat soya rather than meat, the clearance of natural vegetation required to supply us with the same amount of protein would decline by 94%. Producing protein from chickens requires three times as much land as protein from soybeans. Pork needs nine times, beef 32 times."

[catmiss]

McDonalds advertising freebies twice within this topic- what side are they on?

[the_bloke]

I like how the tea and coffee question goes unanswered.

 

Drinking tea and coffee damages the environment. Your company says no to it on expenses and if you have it supplied free at work, you'll be given an alternative instead. You'll agree to it though because of the environmental impact.. right?