Discussions

Very nicely stated and excellent points. I agree that the matter is more complex and wish I had framed the original post differently so as not to open it to an attacking forum.  
 
Also, Those doctors are very reputable sources. Thank you for your input to the discussion!

I don’t like what the big factory farming stands for in the way that I feel animals cows, pigs, chickens are treated poorly. I don’t like the fact that in order for humans to have dairy, that dairy cows are continually kept artificially impregnated and separated from offspring from my understanding shortly after the first birth.  
As far as non industrial, if done responsibly and ethically and not just to feed masses, then i don’t see the harm.  
From my learned and researched information, I’m not certain there are positive benefits on many accounts to either industry given there are so many other viable choices.... heck at one point only a few decades ago, it was thought smoking was healthy and even the physicians smoked until enough studies proved it deleterious nature and only when the drs jumped on board did the rest of the population follow.  
 
Also I find it interesting when people point out that in decades past, their families only had meat once per week and now we are trying to implement meatless Mondays. Where did things change? I feel they changed when it was realized that there’s lots of money to be made from this industry and As long as no one saying that it’s not right, people are going to do it .. doesn’t make it right just because everyone’s doing it. As I had mentioned, there was a point in time where everyone was smoking and it was learned overtime how harmful it was to our health and environments . I think we are reaching the tipping point here with Food as well  
 
Edited by BROCLAEVE, 2019-09-24 16:17:06

I appreciate your responses. So, if your learning and research has led you to uncertainty about any possible benefits, how are you able to speak to the "overall" negative impact? I am sorry but you cannot speak to a net positive or negative between 2 variables when you state you are uncertain of, at least, one of those variables.  
 
In addition, I know that the negative impacts of smoking were grossly under represented for decades but I don't recall it ever being touted as healthy. Harmless, likely, but healthy I don't know. I am open to learning more on that subject though.

- i’m not certain I’m following you with the possible benefits.. never been posed the question to choose between industrial and not industrial ——non industrial to me meaning a family farmer raising a Cow to feed their family.. I may have to retract on that because as we know humans have difficulty sustaining in moderation and before you know, there would be a widespread issue again .  
I still don’t see any benefit whatsoever in the consumption of meat products nor dairy at all  
I personally believe there’s enough potatoes, beans, several types of grains, fruit, vegetables and nuts and seeds to go Around to feed the entire population.  
 
Re smoking: it was very strongly suggested in previous decades that smoking wasn’t harmful, you’re right in that perhaps the word healthy wasn’t used (but i could be wrong too)  
They circumvented around the issue of tobacco problems by promoting smoking doctors and prominent celebrities and athletes very much parallel to what is happening today with the meat and dairy industry .....both industries are in it for money and promoting as much as possible their product everywhere you go indicating health benefits, connections to celebrities athletes etc  
 
They have everyone swept into believing that protein must come from meats and calcium must come from dairy. And Once again the point of view is shared by prominence and has also infiltrated some of the scholarlies,  
 
Thankfully, there are fact laden indisputable studies such as China Study for one, that is helping to build stance against the commonly held misconstrued views.  
 
Fact remains that now the meat and dairy industry have gone to far ....it’s causing damage to the environment and people’s health and now it needs to be dealt with.  
 
Very interesting video that displays the Parallel between the smoking industry of the past and today’s food industry  
https://youtu.be/4YOe_-O4jk  
 
Edited by BROCLAEVE, 2019-09-24 16:59:32

There are 3 main greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide.  
 
CANADIAN AGRICULTURE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ABOUT 10% OF TOTAL EMISSIONS.  
 
In speaking of the 'carbon footprint', little if anything is mentioned about the carbon that is taken in (sequestered) by farmers too. Years ago fields were always black from tilling - a practice that at the time was thought to be good. Now farmers realize that more nutrients (including carbon) remain in the soil with 'no till' or reduced till. With less fuel being used (less tillage), more crops residues being left in fields, and other good practices, there is a lot of carbon being kept IN the soils. Also consider: marginal land that does not produce good crops is best converted to forage where it can sequester even more carbon AND feed farting cows.  
 
The biggest production of carbon dioxide is for energy use and deforestation. Are you going to turn your heat down in the winter and stop driving a car?

Some of the reasons for deforestation are for agricultural expansion and livestock

Even more concerning is the health consequences of a high meat diet. The WHO has this information on the carcinogenicity of red meats and processed meats to include, beef, veal and pork.  
 
https://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/  
 
They classified processed meats as a Group 1 carcinogen "This category is used when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. In other words, there is convincing evidence that the agent causes cancer"  
 
Red meat consumption was classified as Group 2 carcinogen (meaning its probably carcinogenic to humans)  
 
There are many other studies and information that points to meat as being harmful to the human body, especially when we over consume it which we do in today's modern diet.  
 
Just some food for thought!

Smoking wasn't exactly deemed unhealthy back in the 50's.  
 
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-smoking-in-the-50s-is-like-eating-today/

By now it should be clear that the OP's concern is not so much with issues of climate change, but rather with issues of animal's rights. Bluntly, is it ethical to raise and kill animals for human consumption?  
 
The OP might hold an arguable position that eating other living things is bad, but hooking that presumption to climate change is a disservice to both animal rights and to climate change activists.  
 
And also:  
 
"Canada food guide was revised this year..it is 100% obvious the guidelines are also moving into that direction "  
 
The simple fact that the Canada Food Guide's recommendations have been a moving target throughout the past 40 or 50 years is not necessarily a sign of improved science but is more likely an indication of social and political influence.

Which is why smoking in the 50s and it’s promotion for everyone to do so (including doctors) Is like and to the food industry’s promotion of Unhealthy foods as healthy or needed for protein etc And the doctors seem to also be on board or not promote otherwise in today’s day and age... Which is why, until doctors are completely on board against unhealthy eating practises such as dairy eggs meat etc., then the rest of society will continue to go about the way they are...Same thing happened with smoking ...until after 7000 studies ! once the AMA finally came out with a release that smoking is linked to cancer, then the doctors quit which led the rest of the population to follow!

The healthiest diet is truely a low meat diet. Humans overconsumption causes many problems in today's world. According to nutrition science and the combined scientific literature, high meat diets are a huge contributor to the diseases we suffer today. The biggest dietary deficiency in nutrition today is fiber. Fiber does not come from meat. How much much would we have to reduce our meat consumption to be considered the healthiest amount? That is up for debate. Contrary to popular believe protein is not an issue with a plant-based diet as long as you eat a variety of plants. Every plant has amino acids. If your plant variety is varied than you will receive enough variety of amino acids to supply all your protein needs. There are also several varieties of plants that have all essential amino acids in them in a single package. Those plants are known as plants with complete proteins such as beans. There is one nutrient that is not supplied by plants and is b12. We don't need much but we do need it. Of course, we could get it the same way other animals get it or supplement it. I personally think a high plant-based diet with low meat supplication is the healthiest diet. I believe Supplementing with meat once or twice every 2 weeks is ideal. Does that mean we have to get there tomorrow? No, of course not, but we should all consider at the very least to reduce our personal meat intake to a level that is more healthy and environmentally sound.  
 
Reducing meat consumption would benefit us in many ways. From healthier people and a less stressed medical Industry to the ability to feed more human mouths with acers that used to feed animal mouths. The environment could benefit depending on the farming practices we adopt. I agree with reducing the number of factory farms. However, do not agree with reducing the number of grazing animals. I believe those animals are vital for proper land management and should be used more for managing grasslands, bushlands, and other similar habitats. they are essential to proper management of some habitats and even slowing or reversing desertification. I would be in favor of allowing farmers to graze their animals on the appropriate crown habitats for an appropriate period each year. I benefits grazing animals can contribute to the environment far outweigh the methane they contribute to the environment.  
 
Edited by rum, 2019-10-30 18:30:06

I will work with a real world situation. I have 130 beef cows and four bulls plus of course approx 130 calves that they produce. They are rotationally grazed on 700 acres of native prairie using the twice over grazing system designed to emulate pattern of the wild bison that were here before us. The twice over system (there are other similar grazing methods that achieve the same result) was designed and researched by Dr Lee Manske of the University of North Dakota. Do you consider my farm to be an intensive factory farm? If I don’t have the cows do you suggest that I rip up my pasture to grow vegetables (they wouldn’t grow on that soil)? If I keep one cow to feed my family how am so going to make a living , pay insurance, pay property taxes and live? Without manure from my cattle how am I to fertilize my land? ( green manure works but is not sustainable on its own). Just wondered. Please see “Farmers feel threatened” Western Producer current copy.

Without my cows grazing my native prairie I pasture how am I to complete the carbon cycle and sequester carbon into the soil that the cows do for me now? The obvious answer would be to plant trees but the native prairie pasture already has lots of trees on it that support many species of flora and fauna including a number of species of rare upland birds ( as confirmed by Manitoba Habitat and Heritage Cooperation).

I also currently grain farm , a four crop rotation to enhance biodiversity. If I am not allowed to keep cattle as well as grain farm than how am I to be considered a diversified operation.

The grain industry sometimes produces off grade grains(unavoidable) due to environmental conditions, screenings from the grain cleaning process, soybean and canola meal after crushing amongst other by products. These by products are turned into high quality livestock feeds. Without livestock to consume these by products they will have to be disposed of in another way, and don’t try to pull the biomass solution on me, that would just release carbon. You see a cow is a carbon recycling machine which can make high quality nutritious food. Basically the same as a plant is a solar converter. They go together as a system. Both essential. I will say that I do not support “factory farm” methods either , but to write off all livestock production is foolish and would likely create bigger environmental problems. As for deforestation and poor production methods used in other parts of the world, I will not defend that. Our standards of production are high here and it has been widely accepted that Western Canada provides the ideal environment for sustainable quality beef cattle production. Thank you

Broclaeve does have a hidden agenda and also does not know what he is talking about.  
 
Let's do a mind game. Imagine two farms a thousand acres each, separated by a road. Farm A is a crop farm and say it is divided into four, for the purpose of crop rotation, say potatoes, beans, peas and wheat. Farm A is also under irrigation with water being pumped from the Assiniboine river, otherwise it would be impossible to grow potatoes. Farm B is a cattle farm.  
 
Now let us look more closely at farm A (Crop production) In the spring, summer and Fall you will frequently notice huge machinery running up and down. These machines like tractors, combines etc. are all using fossil fuels and are belching lots of CO2 into the air. None of that on the beef farm.  
 
On the Crop production farm fertilizers like Nitrogen and Phosphate etc. are being used on a yearly basis. None of that on the beef farm.  
 
On the Crop production farm there is a yearly application of pesticides and fungicides. None of that on the beef farm.  
 
Insects like bees does not fare well when the crops are being dusted with insecticides, they are thriving on the beef farm.  
 
On the crop farm millions of liters of water is being used to irrigate the potatoes at least. (Ask any gardener if potatoes would do well without added water during our dry prairie summers). The water needed on the other side of the road (beef farm) is but a fraction of what is needed on the crop farm.  
 
Further more on the crop farm, something terrible is happening and you can not see it with the naked eye. Every time the land is being tilled the carbon component in the soil comes into contact with oxygen and escaped into the air as CO2! On the beef farm none of this is happening. On the contrary if the beef farmer is practising mob grazing to simulate the days when the buffaloes roamed the prairies a wonderful thing is happening, carbon sequestration! You read me right Carbon sequestration! The grasses captured CO2 from the air and by means of photosynthesis fueled by energy from the sun the grasses are releasing Oxygen back into the air and keeping the carbon. The grass consist mostly of carbon and the cows are eating it and trample some and the soil organisms like earthworms, dung beetles, fly maggots, fungi, bacteria etc. are taking the carbon from the cow dung and sequestrate it into the soil. (Google, Regenerative Farming if you do not believe this)  
 
I also made a few cryptic notes of Broclaeve's nonsense:  
 
1) He mentioned deforestation in connection with cows! How wrong are you? Firstly we are a prairie province and the cattle in this province are grazing the prairie landscape like in the time of the buffaloes. Secondly it is rare for a cattle farmer to clear bush. It is mostly crop farmers that are clearing the land, Broclaeve to provide you with the beans, lentils, peas etc. so that you can get some protein in your diet.  
 
2) It seems you know nothing about GMO products. Cows are faring well on the prairie landscape. It is you Broaclaeve with your plant based diet that are eating GMO's. The wheat, the peas, the lentils, the soy, the beans you are eating is mostly being genetically altered.  
 
3) You do not compare apples with apples. If you are talking about processes meat, you must compare it with processed plant based foods. Cupcakes, doughnuts etc. should be compared with Salamis, wieners etc. Both sides are real bad for your health. If you would like to make a comparison, compare steaks with carrots, beets, lentils etc. If you do that you will see that pound for pound meat is way, way more nutritious than any plant based food out there.  
 
4) Others already pointed out that cows are thriving on marginal soils which are not suitable for crop production.  
 
5) You make a mistake by saying that meat is causing diabetes. On the contrary beef is not a contributor to type two diabetes. It is diets high in sugar and refined carbohydrates that is the leading cause towards diabetes.  
 
6) Believing that meat is a major cause of heart diseases is dead wrong. The medical world now knows that the main culprit is sugary diets and refined carbon.  
 
7) Google what I am telling you now. Human beings on a plant based diet are contributing way more Methane gas than cows on grass! On top of this is the Methane produced in our garbage dumps and sewer ponds.  
 
If you would like to save our planet Broclaeve you better start eating meat.

And actually that had been proven by numerous studies by credible and experienced scientists and by the experience of many generations of farmers.

The prevalence of gm crops is not as widespread as you say, here we only have gm canola, corn and soy beans. I apologize for being an anorak .

The rotational grazing and managed grazing absolutely is a beneficial practice for the cattle industry and the planet regardless if you eat meat or not. However, that is not the norm around the world. We need to spread that management system around the world and encourage that sustainable approach.  
 
Your point about eating meat to save the planet, i would urge you to dig a bit more into some of the research that shows high meat diets are linked to various diseases and conditions. In terms of a diet, eating lots of meat can be harmful, however, eating lots of plants is absolutely not harmful.  
 
In terms of carbon foot print well that is a major issue across all industries and no easy solution or answer to that. Obviously every industry across the board should mitigate their carbon foot print and improve their processes for the betterment of the planet.  
 
Finally, i am pretty sure Broclaeves comment about deforestation was referencing what is happening in Brazil and other parts of South America. They are clear cutting the rain forest to make room for cattle farms. That is a huge problem that can and will affect the whole planet. That is also what leads to the sustainability argument. How can we actually sustain cattle production at this rate with a growing population who's meat demand is going up. Like one of the other posters mentioned a reduction in meat consumption by all would have major positive impacts on the planet and society.

Recently health Canada realized that the new healthy eating guide was being widely misinterpreted. Officials have recently said that red meat and dairy products contain essential proteins, vitamins and fats that should form PART of a balanced and nutritious diet along with fruits, nuts and vegetables.  
The biggest take away form the new Canada food guide is to reduce consumption of all processed foods, sugars as salt.  
In full disclosure as a side note I was referred to a nutritionist by my family doctor in January 2019 due to a slightly high collestrol reading. The new Canada food guide had just been released and she noted that it was misleading and did not necessarily promote a balanced diet in her opinion. Her advice to me was to reduce portion size , sugar, salt but to continue with my already balanced meals which i:nclude garden vegetables , meat and fruit. It is important that we choose foods in their natural unprocessed state whatever food group they are from.  
Beef is a very natural product unlike some of the substitutes that are brewed in large vats for months in factories- fact ,reference Canadian cattleman magazine.

I’m not saying farmers can’t be farmers ...we need to figure out how to recreate a world that’s compassionate and that cares more about the future of the environment in which we live and our future offspring will live that also values human life and health trajectories and also treats all living things with kindness and respect, yes animals. We have the capacity to live that way right now, but people do not see that because they are driven by media, in some cases their current employment, their beliefs systems and also by what the majority of people are doing because it’s so pervasive and normalized.  
 
Again, we do not need cows pigs and poultry products to survive in the least bit  
 
Industrial and factory farming cause pollution, waste, needless slaughter of billions of animals yearly worldwide, most definitely has a huge impact on the environment: Water and land degredation, deforestation (not not here but the destruction of rainforest ) which effectually affects our lives here in Canada. There is lots of study and proof that this activity contributes greatly to the global greenhouse emissions, More than planes automobiles and other transport combined.  
Meat production is very in efficient requiring large amounts of land, food (grains) and water, all of which are becoming scarce commodities and were finite to begin with (earth isn’t growing any larger, but the population and demand for meat, dairy, poultry products is) all to produce to achieve the end effect which is for humans to have a taste of something that isn’t required for them to survive in the first place!  
What about feed the food that is grown for animals instead to the humans in the world that can’t afford to eat? Use those crops for humans!  
 
Of course, no less important than any other point made, animals are needlessly suffering all the time.  
 
-additionally, there are very legitimate studies that back up the Fact that Meat products, (of course and proceessed food aren’t that great either ) but meat products are the leading causes of all of the western disease we see today diabetes, heart disease, stroke, Alzheimer’s, cancer to name a few.  
Might I direct you to the China study, www.nutrition facts.org, Dr Esselstyns (cardiologists) work, PCRM (Physicians committee for responsible medicine) Dr. Neal Barnard to name a few.  
 
Edited by BROCLAEVE, 2019-10-30 23:59:46

Everyone can buy Canadian beef, pork, chicken, dairy, potatoes, vegetables ,fruit etc and reduce our imports from those countries that do not meet our high standards of welfare, quality ,sustainability and traceability.

There is a problem when your nutritionist doesn’t even agree with the Canadian food guide.  
 
Obviously there is a setting of confusion all around so that all of these industries can continue to market whatever they want .  
If you look at the fine print of most scientific studies with a strong message in one direction, there is usually a link to one of the industries funding as they want their market to continue to thrive.  
If That means leaving people in a little state of confusion as to what to choose, so they continue doing what they’ve always done then so be it, the industry (dairy, egg, beef, poultry, pork) counts it as a win.  
 
Where is the breakdown in the communication when a nutritionist can’t even agree with what the national guidelines are, that’s a problem.  
 
Edited by BROCLAEVE, 2019-10-30 23:56:00

Do yourself the favour and educate yourself regarding the carbon cycle.  
Try this to begin with:  
 
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL_OCfTZ7-XBAjq6lXO5ej6_JHRF1iQIM2  
 
Good luck

So you are saying that you are right because your Nutritionist has a different interpretation than someone else's in terms of a balanced diet.  
 
You have said "Again, we do not need cows, pigs and poultry products to survive in the least" and you seem to indicate that the new Canada Food Guide supports your assertion.  
 
The guide says that we should try to eat high protein foods such as eggs, lean meats and poultry, nuts and seeds, fish and shellfish, lower fat dairy products, beans and lentils and soy products.  
 
While it recommends trying to maximize plant based protein ingestion, it clearly has a lot of the things you rail against listed as good stuff to eat. So...who is disagreeing with the Canada Food Guide now?  
 
https://food-guide.canada.ca/en/healthy-eating-recommendations/make-it-a-habit-to-eat-vegetables-fruit-whole-grains-and-protein-foods/eat-protein-foods/  
 
Edited by JustASoul, 2019-10-31 00:42:22

Health Canada officials have recently clarified parts of the food guide that was being misinterpreted, source: western producer.  
Also you did not respond to my questions using my own farm as an example. Do you consider my farm to be an intensive factory farm by the accurate des:cription given? If you do then obviously we have much work to do to improve people’s understanding of the Canadian agriculture industry.  
By the way, the world health organization classifications of red meat have been proven to be based on assumptions drawn from a number of now discredited studies.The science and methodology was bad.

Your claim That red meat is shown to be the leading cause of heart disease ,strokes altzeimers etc is unsubstantiated. The leading cause of heart disease and strokes is a sedentary lifestyle; ie not enough excersise.

Just for the record I’ve never referred to an agreement of the Canada food guidelines.  
I predict we will see in the not so distant future that the Canada food guide lines will continue changing...  
this is a change from previous guidelines which recommended even more meat products with a milk on the side  
So this is a win in the sense that it is they’re getting less of a feature on the plate..  
As well, spots on the guidelines plate are purchased.  
 
Edited by BROCLAEVE, 2019-10-31 00:56:46

Please refer to the China Study, read up on the blue zones of the world, Read the works and books by Dr. Greger, Dr. Barnard, Dr. Esselstyn, De John McDougall,  
How can you substantiate that red meat (you said red meat) wherein I stated all meat products, as a leading cause and purport reasons without backup ?  
I’ve been referring you to actual longitudinal fact based studies and medical doctors and Cardiologists  
 
Edited by BROCLAEVE, 2019-10-31 00:57:51

For me it really matters not what food guides say or selling my product(full disclosure).  
I am more concerned that people consume a complete , healthy,BALANCED and nutritious diet. Any home economist or credible health professional would agree.