Discussions

"The issue becomes the amount of meat people consume and often its over indulgence that gets us."  
 
On my part I believe you are over indulgencing on plant based foods.

There is a lot here on which we truly agree and that is a good thing. The important thing is that everyone has reliable information available so that they can make healthful dietary choices. Many studies have an element of flaw in them and statistics are unreliable as they can always be misconstrued to provide a desired result.  
I truly do wish that everyone can make informed choices and improve their lifestyle and health, one diet or the other is not necessarily correct but proper education about how we can take better care of ourselves what we consume, how to prepare it, where it is produced and why certain production methods are used is vital. Misinformation and overemotion from either side can be unhelpful.

I am guilty then as i do eat a lot of plants! By the way when we say plants that means foods such as: Beans, lentils, potatoes, quinoa, rice, starches , whole grains, vegetables, fruits and nuts. I encourage you to try some with your steak next time, you might actually like it!  
 
Edited by Your Majesty, 2019-11-01 11:16:06

My apologies for citing such a long winded quote...  
 
Interesting how the topic has suddenly wandered way off from the original notion.  
 
It seems the claims around cattle methane have proved a bit hyperbolic, and  for a vegan agenda.  
 
I would need some o:bjective proof of the critics assessment and the foundation of their assumptions.  Mainly that a higher carb diet is associated with significant poverty.  We could look at the vegetarian parts of India, compared to.other states, and I'm sure that has been examined.   
 
Are sweet potatoes or boiled potatoes much better than white rice? I am not  so sure.   And this point would need some scientific  backing rather than claims made with an agenda.  
 
As for the Lancet reported article, it was peer reviewed, and not withdrawn?  So claims that it was deeply flawed, or a misrepresentation can be taken with a healthy grain of salt.  Also, it is only a representation of a growing body of knowledge.   
 
It is not a coincidence that the obesity epidemic took place in the wake of the faulty advice to eliminate saturated fats etc. As a replacement carbohydrate consumption has been promoted.  This has led to real disaster in first nation and Inuit communities   In fact, to compare to the study, what percentage do carbohydrates constitute of the average north American diet?  I expect it is within the danger range described in the study.   
 
Is there any evidence that a high carb diet indicates poverty? This seems tenuous.  
 
The whole arguments promoting high carb diets seem rather vegan, and stilted.   Such a diet can be certainly called less than ideal.  As others have mentioned, a sedentary lifestyle is the greatest predictor of poor health outcomes.  But the worst outcomes are from a high carb sedentary lifestyle.  I note there is no answer for the fact that carbs have been a very low part of our diet through evolutionary time.  Common sense follows.

"I think many studies will point out the fact that these people did not live long lives. "  
 
In fact, research of hunter gatherer societies indicated rather good life expectancy, better than that of traditional farming cultures. If one survived early childhood.  
 
If you have information otherwise, it would be good to see it now.  
 
Also, an assumption that people living in the tropics made do on mostly carbs won't hold up, I'd have to see the dietary study on that...

You seem fearful of the mighty plant lol! This is an interesting read about our ancestors diets:  
 
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/human-ancestors-were-nearly-all-vegetarians/  
 
There are research papers that also indicate our ancestors ate lots of plants, nuts, berries, insects and the odd rodent. Now if you really want to get back to our roots have at it lol.  
 
I don't have all the answers and don't have a solution for you. Like i said to another poster, there is no one solution to eating healthy. You can absolutely eat healthy by just eating plants. Likewise if you eat meat once in awhile.  
 
Now when you get into the extremes on both ends of the scale you get into trouble. There are many unhealthy vegans as all they eat is processed crap, or certain foods depriving themselves of vital nutrients. And on the other end of the scale you get folks who only consume meat or processed foods with minimal plant intake. Now both extremes are unhealthy and there are numerous research papers stating so.  
 
If you want to eat lots of meat and no plants do that. I dont care what you eat but my hope is all people can make more informed decisions about their food. Getting so bent out of shape over eating plants is a little nuts.  
 
As for peer reviewed studies, you do realize often studies get published that have flaws?.Just because something is peer reviewed doesn't mean that its completely accurate or true.  
 
Take care.

"If you want to eat lots of meat and no plants do that. I dont care what you eat but my hope is all people can make more informed decisions about their food. Getting so bent out of shape over eating plants is a little nuts.    
   
As for peer reviewed studies, you do realize often studies get published that have flaws?.Just because something is peer reviewed doesn't mean that its completely accurate or true. "  
 
I hadn't realized I was dealing with the gate keeper of knowledge, to the degree that we must all take discounting published studies on just your say so. ...  
 
It is an unavoidable fact that human stature and brain size greatly increased starting roughly some 2 million years ago, coinciding with proof of the utilization of fire, and butchering marks on fossilized bones, stone tools and hammer stones.. Our brains are uniquely metabolically demanding, consuming something like 20% of our energy budget. We haven't come walking out of eden munching on a bag of granola.  
 
Also on the "walking out of vegan eden" front, this ignores the lengthy history of Neanderthals and Denisovans who apparently had been living in northern and temperate clinates for a quarter million years or more, and have contrubuted to our DNA to various degrees. That there doesn't appear to be any metabolic mosaic amongst existing humans (from gene variants) tends to discount the high carb homo sapiens theory.  
 
And, although the humour / derision is amusing, I read nothing to tackle the fact that the obesity epidemic has coincided with the advent of the high carb diet.  
 
So I thank you for the vegan perspective and take it for where it is coming from. And let's hope the vitamin supplements, dietary advisors and imported foods that keep the likes of you alive keeps on.  
 
And interesting that the cattle - methane issue seems to have been put to bed.

I never said i was the gate keeper of knowledge, although its a catchy title. I was responding to your assertion that because the article was peer reviewed it must be correct. Your journal article was ripped apart by numerous respected authors, doctors and establishments for its misrepresentation of the information found, the methodology used in the study and the presentation of the said information. My point is that peer reviewed does not guarantee a study is accurate. In this case your study you provided as evidence is flawed and full of holes.  
 
In terms of what our early ancestors ate and how they evolved, i don't think we walked out of the garden of eden eating granola lol! And i hope you realize they didn't have granola back then? !  
 
Its interesting to discuss early mans diet and i for the record dont know exactly what they ate. I dont deny though that we evolved faster and into our current form from eating not just plants but fats and meat.  
 
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fat-not-meat-may-have-led-to-bigger-hominin-brains/  
 
The researchers from the above article actually believe instead of eating the flesh and using tools to scrape meat from bones instead we ate the bone marrow and brains using the tools to smash the bones and scrape out the innards of the bones. They believe thats what lead to our brain growth and aided in our evolutionary path.  
 
Now again i don't know, and clearly not all experts know what we actually ate from way back when. Experts all seem to agree though that we did eat a variety of foods like plants, nuts, berries, insects, brains, marrow, meat and as we continued to evolve we improved our hunting techniques and eventually developed farming practices. We evolved! Now if your so hellbent on living like they did 2 million years ago, go for it. But again we have continued to evolve and to state that we should be doing what we did 2 million years ago is crazy.  
 
Regarding the methane issue, we have absolutely gone off the tracks yourself i:ncluded. We have gone down so many different paths we lost sight of the original thread topic. My take on the carbon footprint of raising cattle is not changed. We need to improve our farming practices and raising of cattle to ensure we reduce our carbon foot print. As discussed in earlier posts with Farmergeorge there are rotational grazing practices that improve the land and capture carbon. The industry is making changes to improve its carbon footprint and preserve lands. To say there is no problem at all with how cattle are raised is having your head in the sand. When people are clear cutting vast portions of the rain forest to make room for more cattle we have a problem. Again, like said in earlier posts there are steps being taken in parts of North America to improve the way cattle are raised, from improved feedlots, processing of cattle, and grazing techniques. Cattle farming globally has been shown to negatively contribute to green house gasses. Now there are many industries that contribute to green house gasses and making improvements to all industries is needed.  
 
In particular cattle are responsible for the following:  
 
http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/  
 
From article:  
 
"Total emissions from global livestock: 7.1 Gigatonnes of Co2-equiv per year, representing 14.5 percent of all anthropogenic GHG emissions. This figure is in line FAO’s previous assessment, Livestock’s Long Shadow, published in 2006, although it is based on a much more detailed analysis and improved data sets. The two figures cannot be accurately compared, as reference periods and sources differ."  
 
"Cattle (raised for both beef and milk, as well as for inedible outputs like manure and draft power) are the animal species responsible for the most emissions, representing about 65% of the livestock sector’s emissions."  
 
When reading through that its clear that cattle are the largest contributor. As well you can see that there is room for improvement and again as discussed earlier the industry is trying to make improvements as clearly they realize they need to clean up their practices which is great for planet.  
 
 
Regarding this comment:  
 
"And let's hope the vitamin supplements, dietary advisors and imported foods that keep the likes of you alive keeps on."  
 
The likes of you? Really?! LOL! Your view of people that dont eat the way you do is alarming. Who knew eating plants would cause just a division. Your clearly unable to see other peoples view points with a clear lens. My hope is that people begin asking more about where their food comes from and having a relationship with their food. I direct you to my comments earlier with FarmerGeorge for a better understanding.  
 
Yes, B12 supplementation is recommended for vegans. However all other nutrients can be found in plant based foods and it can all be found locally. No need to import anything actually! Now, i am happy that we have a global economy with access as having foods that are not grown in Canada is a pleasure to have.  
 
So i guess you only eat locally grown food as well? You only eat meat thats butchered in Manitoba? You only consume products from Canada? Or are you eating like our ancestors did and eating animal brains and bone marrow with a side of beetles and tree leaves lol!  
 
Edited by Your Majesty, 2019-11-02 08:56:17

The cattle - methane issue should be put to bed because there is not really an issue, at least in cow- calf operations in Western Canada, I can’t speak for other places and I will not defend slash and burn on the scale that it is happening abroad.  
Generally using good management practices the way that cattle are reared here provides a net environmental benefit in so many ways and can provide us with a natural, healthy ( in the right amount as part of a balanced diet), and highly nutritious food source produced locally from an animal that with correct management benefits natural prairie areas , builds soil and can self replicate itself.  
It will never become mainstream again but not so many years ago in Europe ‘dual purpose ‘ breeds of cattle suitable for producing milk and beef were very common . That has largely been lost through the decades due to the relentless drive for ‘cheap’ food products driven by politics and the consumer. A shame in my opinion.  
I wonder if more has been forgotten about sustainable cattle production than we realize. So many smaller farms have been lost and the trend seems to continue. I am a fifth generation farmer and will be the last In my family.

She said:  
"I am guilty then as i do eat a lot of plants! By the way when we say plants that means foods such as: Beans, lentils, potatoes, quinoa, rice, starches , whole grains, vegetables, fruits and nuts. I encourage you to try some with your steak next time, you might actually like it!"  
 
For the record: When we say meat it means steak, stew, chops, pure hamburger beef etc. Absolutely no processed meats.  
 
As a matter of fact I do eat all the plant based stuff that you are eating and I am loving it. But I also eat meat. Everything in moderation you know.

The vegans are telling us not to eat meat here on the prairies because of slash and burning practises in the Amazon! What if I can proof (and I can!) that the people who are doing the slashing and burning in the Amazon are also using said land for grain and vegetable production, will you then stop eating vegetables?

I support meat eaters and never said to not eat meat here in the prairies because of slash and burn in the Amazon. We are talking about the global impact of cattle and globally there are practices that happen that are harmful to our planet. I would and do not purchase foods from certain parts of the globe due to do a variety of reasons. For example I never buy garlic from China. I only buy Canadian garlic. If information is revealed about any agricultural sector that abuses the environment for profit we as consumers can chose not to purchase their products. I highly recommend speaking with your wallets more by making informed purchases. And this whole vegans segregation speak is A bit old fashioned. How about having intelligent conversations about food and environment without getting so divisive.  
 
Edited by Your Majesty, 2019-11-02 09:44:52

I find it interesting the way people tend to put their opponents into extreme camps. Instead of finding the middle ground, the tenancy is to accuse/assert/assume the other as an extremist position. I doubt that we have any actual vegans in the discussion. Maybe there are, but there is no solid proof. I am guessing there are some vegetarians, but the loudest on both sides is likely eating meat in various amounts.  
One side is very protective of their ingrained ways and traditional diets.  
The other side wants to bring awareness of the bad consequences of our traditional ways and advocate for a healthy way forward for both the health of the individual and that of the Planet.  
Let us stop this extremeness painting and come together and have a discussion that will be helpful in moving our sustainability to that of a peak of 11 billion people.

Please read the opening arguments against beef as stated by Broclaeve who started this whole conversation. You will clearly read the argument that because of slash and burn in the amazon the eating of meat is bad for the environment.  
 
I said, the slash and burn argument is a vegan argument against meat. I did not name anyone. A while ago there was an article in the Brandon Sun against meat and the slash and burn argument was brought up as well.  
 
Also it would help the argument if we would agree that if we say meat, we say unprocessed meat. And if you say a plant based diet you say unprocessed grains, veggies and fruit and not stuff like doughnuts, cupcakes etc.  
 
Also the beyond burger is highly processed and I would assume that a true vegan would not touch it.

In fact much of the amazon deforestation is aimed at soybean production. Hmmm ...

Once again Garry you provide incorrect information. Cattle farming is the main cause and soybean farming is happening for feed for the cattle.  
 
Of the four major deforestation drivers, beef has by far the largest impact. Converting forest to pasture for beef cattle, largely in Latin America, is responsible for destroying 2.71 million hectares of tropical forest each year—an area about the size of the state of Massachusetts—in just four countries.  
 
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/whats-driving-deforestation  
 
Soybean production is primarily for cattle feed.  
 
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://globalforestatlas.yale.edu/amazon/land-use/soy&ved=2ahUKEwjlkofm-MzlAhXCs54KHVtoDBEQFjACegQIDhAI&usg=AOvVaw05ms8pDIs0r1OF67mIKcJL  
 
Your proving to be unreliable Garry.... disappointing.

that most of the slash and burn in the amazon was due to the palm oil production?

Aw, shucks, your majesty, I am sorry to be suffering your disapproval.  
 
But given some of the stilted positions you take, big grains of salt seem generally in order.  
 
It does mess with your hegemony of purported knowledge when so many inconvenient facts keep on popping up...  
 
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-grains-soybeans/brazil-farmers-poised-to-plant-record-soy-area-in-2018-19-poll-idUSKCN1L61X5  
 
And where is your information that Brazilian beef is being raised on soybean? Their beef production will be grass fed. Tsk, proving consistently unreliable...  
 
The soy ends up in a number of industrial products, such as the beyond meat burgers...  
 
Edited by GarryTait, 2019-11-02 22:06:33

Wonder what this group has to say about mob grazing of cattle to reclaim desert areas. So in one part of the world we lose forested areas to the raising of cattle, and in another part of the world we create greening of the planet by using cattle.  
There have been people who have created microclimate areas in different parts of the world, and these areas do show a positive effect on small surrounding areas.  
To much of what we do on this planet is for the benefit of the individual, not for the species. In a way what we add on one end, we subtract on the other end, honestly don’t believe that we will reach the 11 billion number, parasites seem to always be danger to the host, there are many other things that are as much of a problem as climate change, and many of them are related to the idea of evolution and the survival of a species under natural conditions.

Garry, they dont feed the Brazilian soy to Brazilian cattle. China is the largest buyer of Brazilian Soy and THEY use it for mostly cattle feed.  
 
Since you like reuters:  
 
"China, which imports soybeans to use in livestock feed, has grown increasingly more reliant on Brazil for soybeans since last year, when it applied retaliatory tariffs on U.S. soybeans in response to U.S. duties on Chinese goods."  
 
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-soybeans-exclusive/exclusive-brazil-soybeans-lose-protein-china-sales-at-risk-idUSKCN1UE1SR  
 
Your ignorance and resistance to new information that goes beyond your comfort zone is astonishing. Bottom line when specifically talking about Agriculture globally there are absolutely practices that need to be improved, across the board. This thread is about cattle so we are discussing cattle. We could easily start a thread on Almond production and find numerous problems with the Almond industry. However we are talking about cattle and if you want to stick your head in the sand and act like there is no room for improvement well go for it. The rest of the world is waking up and calling for action which is a great thing.  
 
Your disdain for people who eat plant based diets is truly bizarre.  
 
And for the record i don't eat the beyond crap burger, I am a home cook who loves making my own food and can make a burger 1000 times better than that junk.

I apologize for weighing in here again but I feel that I must correct you on the primary uses of soybeans. Soybeans are primarily crushed to produce soy oil for human consumption and the by product or meal is then turned into livestock feeds . Like canola ,soybeans in fact are dual purpose. You are correct that China does import a vast quantity of soy beans. Much of the canola and soybeans imported into China now though are in a semi processed state as oil and they are major buyers of soy and canola meal primarily used to feed their vast pig herd.  
That still does not make the destruction of the worlds rain forests to produce soybeans, cattle or palm oil right though although sadly that has been a matter of contention for most of my lifetime ( I am 44), that is unsustainable production.  
I am absolutely in agreement with you on the beyond or fake burger and similar products, I think I read that it contained 22 ingredients( yuk) is highly processed and has already been shown to be much less healthy than the product that it attempts to imitate. Given that the beyond or fake burgers are produced in large factories and take several months and vast amounts of energy to brew up and it seems that the environmental footprint is quite large I am sure you’ll agree.  
You are right that on a global scale improvements can be made to improve the environmental impact and sustainability of agriculture which can ultimately be driven by the consumer buying local. Retailers could help out here by reducing imported product and promoting locally produced or at least from the same country.  
Of course we then run into the main problems in the food industry, politics, retailers and processors. The farmer and the consumer are largely pawns at each end of the chain, the farmer receiving less than wholesale price and the consumer paying vastly inflated prices at retail level.  
I commend you on preparing food at home. I do the same indeed much of our vegetables come from our own garden( we are fortunate)We all need to do more of that using more raw product which is both healthier and better tasting. Unfortunately many of us are now three generations down the convenience food isle having been told that that is what we need and therefore know no better. We then return to the need for food preparation and home economics education for all.

Sounds like our majesty needs to make a retraction. Or more than one...

Most of the Soybeans are being used for animal feed by China. Farmergeorge says its for pork, some other sources state its for cattle. Bottom line the environment is being destroyed to feed animals. If your argument is that its mostly for pork and thats ok...well thats a weak argument. This thread is never ending as our difference in opinions is so large. I have presented you strong sources of information and if you are resistant to understanding it thats on you. For anyone else out there reading this i recommend taking Farmergeorges advice and shop with your wallet. Buy local, support local farmers, eat whole real food and if enough people do this we can force the industry to improve.

No it is not ok that China uses vast amounts of soybean and canola meal to feed their pig herd. I think that over half of the pigs in the world are reared in China in awful conditions and in some cases multi storied pig barns. The Chinese pig herd is currently being decimated by African swine fever largely caused by unsanitary conditions and poor biosecurity. China is already importing vast amounts of plant and animal proteins to make up for the production shortfall which is projected to be a huge protein deficit in a very short space of time. I was simply outlining that most of the soy and canola meal is used to feed pigs in China after the oils are extracted for human consumption or use in biofuel. The coming protein deficit in China has the potential to destabilize that country and their government knows it too!

Ah yes, I should have known. Royalty doesn't make mistakes, even when they are wrong...  
 
Good points... a page from Donald Trump's post truth world...

A positive that comes out of our trade disputes with China is that more Canadian canola is now being crushed in Canada thus reducing food miles and the need to ship bulk product . Along with new and increased oat milling capacity and pulse processing plants on the Canadian prairie it represents a positive industry change that will make a real difference and provide many benefits both environmental and economic.  
Yesterday I helped my retiring neighbour bring home his cows for the last time . The herd soon going to auction. Within a couple of miles of my farm over 500 beef cows have been sold off in the last two years. The rented out pastures and hay fields are now being broken and the bush pushed to become grain production land, along with the destruction locally caused by crude oil extraction, I hate it!  
While I do produce grains on my small farm I will say that as long as I am around my pastures will not be broken. There is too much ecological value in them.  
A slump in the grain market which will come will have a few guys wishing that they had kept their pastures in their native state grazed by cattle.

Exactly what am I wrong about? So you deny that soy is used for animal feed? What because Farmergeorge says it's for pork I am wrong? From the research I have done it appears that most of the soy China imports is used for animal feed that goes to cattle and yes pigs. No need to get into the minutiae of how much goes to cattle vs pork , bottom line just like others have said it's not sustainable. Your nit picking at points I bring up simply to argue. Your not providing any solutions, or new insight into a real problem. Reminds me of those climate change deniers. Ignorance at its finest.

My own cattle receive a winter ration of free choice dry alfalfa/grass hay and a small amount of crushed barley with a mineral supplement mixed in, the barley helps the rumen to digest more efficiently but they don’t need too much. During the summer they eat native grasses and a mineral supplement is available to them. Fresh water is available to the cattle at all times. All feeds are grown on my farm and replacement females selected from our own breeding program.

As much as hyperbole and indefensible conments make for lively discussion, we have the written record to look to.  
 
"Once again Garry you provide incorrect information. Cattle farming is the main cause and soybean farming is happening for feed for the cattle.    
   
Of the four major deforestation drivers, beef has by far the largest impact. Converting forest to pasture for beef cattle, largely in Latin America, is responsible for destroying 2.71 million hectares of tropical forest each year—an area about the size of the state of Massachusetts—in just four countries.    
   
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/whats-driving-deforestation  
   
Soybean production is primarily for cattle feed.    
   
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://globalforestatlas.yale.edu/amazon/land-use/soy&ved=2ahUKEwjlkofm-MzlAhXCs54KHVtoDBEQFjACegQIDhAI&usg=AOvVaw05ms8pDIs0r1OF67mIKcJL  
   
Your proving to be unreliable Garry.... disappointing."  
 
So, it was disappointing to state factual information, and then be countered with inaccurate claims that Brazilian deforestation and soy is dedicated to beef production ? We were to be disappointed in me, and find my information unreliable, according to your judgment.  
 
In the face of refuting information it is time to retract. Or lose credibility. And it illustrates perfectly your credibility the path you have chosen.  
 
Even a vegan ought to have known better than to claim that China is a huge beef producer. But I guess that is past your depth.

Garry once again your proving to be unreliable. Your only retracting because your a sinking ship who doesn't have any solid arguments.  
 
China is one of the LARGEST beef producers in the world:  
 
Rapid growth in inventory during the past 3 decades  
 
China is one of the largest cattle producing nations in the world, with an inventory of 113.5 million head in 2013, which is third, globally, behind Brazil and India. From 1978 to 2013, the number of cattle in China increased by 60.7 million head, or 115.3%. The beef cattle inventory reached an historic peak of 121.3 million head in 2010, then began to decrease slightly. Brazil had a more rapid increase during this same period than did China, but has remained fairly stable since 2005, while there were fluctuations in India and the United States of America (Figure 1). Regardless, there is an obvious downward recent trend for the cattle inventory in China since 2010 [2].  
 
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/overview-of-the-beef-cattle-industry-in-china-the-widening-deficitbetween-demand-and-output-in-a-vicious-circle-2332-2608-1000190.php?aid=:76300  
 
https://beef2live.com/story-world-beef-production-ranking-countries-0-106885  
 
https://www.statista.com/chart/19127/biggest-producers-of-beef/  
 
I added the last one as it has graphics which should help you better understand Garry.  
 
This is a one of the reasons China imports Soy beans so they can use it in animal feed for their cows and pigs.  
 
Edited by Your Majesty, 2019-11-03 19:07:23