Hamilton goes Vegan!

[J.A.W.]

Poor ol' Ham.. ( oh dear, will he change his name to 'Veg', too?)

Seemingly caught in the cruel vortex of driver weight reduction/anorexia nervosa mind-fcuk..

I'd like to see him winning the WDC, & get stuck into some real good, off-season, downtime - in the West Indies..
& get to 'pig out' on some tasty local high protein culinary specialities, such as jerked pork, & seared swordfish steaks..

[Jolle]

Just on the point of arable land, it's interesting to note that livestock can graze on land that is not able to be farmed. A cow or sheep doesn't need a flat field to graze on, and can easily eat off grass growing on a rocky slope. So if you only produce crops you're not actually making full use of all the land. There are other points like crops being used for biofuels that will soon be a thing of the past, so I don't think land use is problematic. To blame cows for the destruction of rain forests is a bit of a stretch, no? Surely everything is equally responsible?

Of course, this is cherry-picking facts to support your beliefs. Which is exactly what documentaries like "Cowspiracy" do. Do you think you're getting an unbiased, factual view of an issue from any documentary?

Everyone is as welcome to eat a vegan diet as they are to eat bologna (i.e. testicles, trotters and brains). Fortunately we live in free world, for the most part.

Just google around, once you see the numbers it becomes staggering.

80% of all crops are fed to animals we eat. 40% of all ice free land mass is used to produce our food, almost all is used to make meat. it costs 1000l of water to make 1l of milk, 3000l of water for a hamburger, etc etc. It's the scale. There just isn't enough land to have all free grazing animals for us all. besides that, free grazing animals have such an inefficient diet that they produce 10-100 times the methane then those in the mega-stables. Animals raised for beef and milk are given the equivalent of the food to sustain 10 billion people.

These are not just the numbers from some hippies, they are numbers from the united nations, time magazine, all mayor universities, etc etc.

[Ennis]

Just on the point of arable land, it's interesting to note that livestock can graze on land that is not able to be farmed. A cow or sheep doesn't need a flat field to graze on, and can easily eat off grass growing on a rocky slope. So if you only produce crops you're not actually making full use of all the land. There are other points like crops being used for biofuels that will soon be a thing of the past, so I don't think land use is problematic. To blame cows for the destruction of rain forests is a bit of a stretch, no? Surely everything is equally responsible?

Of course, this is cherry-picking facts to support your beliefs. Which is exactly what documentaries like "Cowspiracy" do. Do you think you're getting an unbiased, factual view of an issue from any documentary?

Everyone is as welcome to eat a vegan diet as they are to eat bologna (i.e. testicles, trotters and brains). Fortunately we live in free world, for the most part.

This is a key point. Regardless of funding - whether it comes from big companies or is self-financed, - if you have a single documentary heading out there, its not going to be the single source of truth. It is what the filmmaker believes, or what the filmmaker wants you to believe. They can quote individual studies, but that alone is flawed without looking at the body of research and the limitations of reach study.

I don't think anyone can dispute that most people could be doing with eating more nutrient rich foods like vegetables. There is also no doubt that vegans, on average, live longer than meat eaters. But as you highlight above, this is a seriously flawed way of looking at it. People who are vegan are almost certain to be conscious of health and diet, whilst 'normal' eaters are not. People who are vegan are more likely to come from wealthier backgrounds. There is no distinction between meats - are they eating lean chicken, grass-fed beef & turkey or are they eating cheeseburgers & bacon? How are they cooking their meat, its already known that charring your meat will increase your risk of cancer..

So on and so forth. I do agree that the human population needs more efficient ways of eating. I'm not convinced veganism is the answer, and I think people like Lewis Hamilton picking up and repeating half-facts doesn't do it any favours. On the health side of things, I've seen nothing at all (and I've actually researched this side) that suggests eating meat is bad for you.

[Ennis]

Just on the point of arable land, it's interesting to note that livestock can graze on land that is not able to be farmed. A cow or sheep doesn't need a flat field to graze on, and can easily eat off grass growing on a rocky slope. So if you only produce crops you're not actually making full use of all the land. There are other points like crops being used for biofuels that will soon be a thing of the past, so I don't think land use is problematic. To blame cows for the destruction of rain forests is a bit of a stretch, no? Surely everything is equally responsible?

Of course, this is cherry-picking facts to support your beliefs. Which is exactly what documentaries like "Cowspiracy" do. Do you think you're getting an unbiased, factual view of an issue from any documentary?

Everyone is as welcome to eat a vegan diet as they are to eat bologna (i.e. testicles, trotters and brains). Fortunately we live in free world, for the most part.

Just google around, once you see the numbers it becomes staggering.

80% of all crops are fed to animals we eat. 40% of all ice free land mass is used to produce our food, almost all is used to make meat. it costs 1000l of water to make 1l of milk, 3000l of water for a hamburger, etc etc. It's the scale. There just isn't enough land to have all free grazing animals for us all. besides that, free grazing animals have such an inefficient diet that they produce 10-100 times the methane then those in the mega-stables. Animals raised for beef and milk are given the equivalent of the food to sustain 10 billion people.

These are not just the numbers from some hippies, they are numbers from the united nations, time magazine, all mayor universities, etc etc.

40% of ice free land mass is used to produce our food. Almost all is used to make meat. Where is the exact numbers for this amount used to make meat? How much of this could be repurposed for crops?

Of the crops fed to animals, how much are human ready? How much is the 'crap' sludge that nobody else wants?

I'm not even saying your assessment is wrong btw, but so much in this is completely lacking in balance & evidence that it gets frustrating after a while.

[Vasconia]

"When you watch this documentary and you see meat clogging up your arteries, you see all the stuff they put in the meat, stuff we are all eating, there is no way I am going to disregard that."

I eat meat almost every day and my veins are in a perfect conditions. Once again vegans make generalizations to convince the people to adopt their diet.

A good balanced diet is the best way to be healthy. I also understand the "lets protect the environment" idea but the vegan diet also brings some problems due to the massive agricultural production to provide the food for this diet. There are some docummentaries which show how forests(and animals) are burned to create massive agricultural lands. Truly terrible images, believe me.

The idea should be to reduce the amount of meat and focus on agricultural production of proximity in order to reduce the environmental impact of our diet. Its possible in cities with millions of people living there? I don´t know.

That’s the whole point. The agricultural land that is being made is all for meat production. Yes there are cows that eat off the grass they stand on, but most are fed soya, corn, etc etc. meat production is very inefficient. Around 7-10 kg of veggies are needed to produce a kg of beef. If we would stop feeding the cows, we don’t need to burn down the rain forest anymore. Veggies for human consumption is a very very small part of the industry.

Go and watch “cowspiracy”

To support such an increase in the veggie consumption there would be necessary to create inmense farmlands. I am not sure that this could covered with the reduction of meat production.

I will watch that docu, thanks.

[J.A.W.]

"When you watch this documentary and you see meat clogging up your arteries, you see all the stuff they put in the meat, stuff we are all eating, there is no way I am going to disregard that."

I eat meat almost every day and my veins are in a perfect conditions. Once again vegans make generalizations to convince the people to adopt their diet.

A good balanced diet is the best way to be healthy...

Go and watch “cowspiracy”

I will watch that docu, thanks...

Well sure, either that, or 'Soylent Green'..

" Its a dog-eat-dog world, & there's never enough dog - to go around."

[Jolle]

Just on the point of arable land, it's interesting to note that livestock can graze on land that is not able to be farmed. A cow or sheep doesn't need a flat field to graze on, and can easily eat off grass growing on a rocky slope. So if you only produce crops you're not actually making full use of all the land. There are other points like crops being used for biofuels that will soon be a thing of the past, so I don't think land use is problematic. To blame cows for the destruction of rain forests is a bit of a stretch, no? Surely everything is equally responsible?

Of course, this is cherry-picking facts to support your beliefs. Which is exactly what documentaries like "Cowspiracy" do. Do you think you're getting an unbiased, factual view of an issue from any documentary?

Everyone is as welcome to eat a vegan diet as they are to eat bologna (i.e. testicles, trotters and brains). Fortunately we live in free world, for the most part.

Just google around, once you see the numbers it becomes staggering.

80% of all crops are fed to animals we eat. 40% of all ice free land mass is used to produce our food, almost all is used to make meat. it costs 1000l of water to make 1l of milk, 3000l of water for a hamburger, etc etc. It's the scale. There just isn't enough land to have all free grazing animals for us all. besides that, free grazing animals have such an inefficient diet that they produce 10-100 times the methane then those in the mega-stables. Animals raised for beef and milk are given the equivalent of the food to sustain 10 billion people.

These are not just the numbers from some hippies, they are numbers from the united nations, time magazine, all mayor universities, etc etc.

40% of ice free land mass is used to produce our food. Almost all is used to make meat. Where is the exact numbers for this amount used to make meat? How much of this could be repurposed for crops?

Of the crops fed to animals, how much are human ready? How much is the 'crap' sludge that nobody else wants?

I'm not even saying your assessment is wrong btw, but so much in this is completely lacking in balance & evidence that it gets frustrating after a while.

http://science.time.com/2013/12/16/the- ... roduction/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4143028/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -than-cars

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_uploa ... n_2030.pdf

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/549

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full

here are just a few.

[Jolle]

"When you watch this documentary and you see meat clogging up your arteries, you see all the stuff they put in the meat, stuff we are all eating, there is no way I am going to disregard that."

I eat meat almost every day and my veins are in a perfect conditions. Once again vegans make generalizations to convince the people to adopt their diet.

A good balanced diet is the best way to be healthy. I also understand the "lets protect the environment" idea but the vegan diet also brings some problems due to the massive agricultural production to provide the food for this diet. There are some docummentaries which show how forests(and animals) are burned to create massive agricultural lands. Truly terrible images, believe me.

The idea should be to reduce the amount of meat and focus on agricultural production of proximity in order to reduce the environmental impact of our diet. Its possible in cities with millions of people living there? I don´t know.

That’s the whole point. The agricultural land that is being made is all for meat production. Yes there are cows that eat off the grass they stand on, but most are fed soya, corn, etc etc. meat production is very inefficient. Around 7-10 kg of veggies are needed to produce a kg of beef. If we would stop feeding the cows, we don’t need to burn down the rain forest anymore. Veggies for human consumption is a very very small part of the industry.

Go and watch “cowspiracy”

To support such an increase in the veggie consumption there would be necessary to create inmense farmlands. I am not sure that this could covered with the reduction of meat production.

I will watch that docu, thanks.

Thats the counterintuitive of the whole proces. If we wouldn't have to feed the large amount of livestock to make meat, we could actually scale back the farmland (and no need to cut any more forests) and stil have even enough to convert to bio-fuels (and sustain the ever expanding world population)

[J.A.W.]

If humans weren't meant to eat meat, they why does it taste so good, & feel so satisfying?
& if we aren't meant to eat them, then why are animals - made from meat?

Seriously though..
&, as the old saw goes..

Q: "What are the peasants eating?"
A: "Who cares, peasants are revolting!"

I'm thinking, that when Hammy gets to lay back, in the Caribbean, on island time, & enjoy a few spliffs,
he'll find the spicy-savoury cooking odours of animal fats 'n' proteins, that temped the ancient gods themselves,
..simply irresistable..

[Ennis]

Just google around, once you see the numbers it becomes staggering.

80% of all crops are fed to animals we eat. 40% of all ice free land mass is used to produce our food, almost all is used to make meat. it costs 1000l of water to make 1l of milk, 3000l of water for a hamburger, etc etc. It's the scale. There just isn't enough land to have all free grazing animals for us all. besides that, free grazing animals have such an inefficient diet that they produce 10-100 times the methane then those in the mega-stables. Animals raised for beef and milk are given the equivalent of the food to sustain 10 billion people.

These are not just the numbers from some hippies, they are numbers from the united nations, time magazine, all mayor universities, etc etc.

40% of ice free land mass is used to produce our food. Almost all is used to make meat. Where is the exact numbers for this amount used to make meat? How much of this could be repurposed for crops?

Of the crops fed to animals, how much are human ready? How much is the 'crap' sludge that nobody else wants?

I'm not even saying your assessment is wrong btw, but so much in this is completely lacking in balance & evidence that it gets frustrating after a while.

http://science.time.com/2013/12/16/the- ... roduction/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4143028/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -than-cars

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_uploa ... n_2030.pdf

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/549

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full

here are just a few.

Ive only skimmed (I'm in work, and short on free time), but I don't see any answers to my questions across any of those. So far all I've found is that the 40% of ice free land mass figure is actually 30% in the first article...

[Jolle]

40% of ice free land mass is used to produce our food. Almost all is used to make meat. Where is the exact numbers for this amount used to make meat? How much of this could be repurposed for crops?

Of the crops fed to animals, how much are human ready? How much is the 'crap' sludge that nobody else wants?

I'm not even saying your assessment is wrong btw, but so much in this is completely lacking in balance & evidence that it gets frustrating after a while.

http://science.time.com/2013/12/16/the- ... roduction/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4143028/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -than-cars

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_uploa ... n_2030.pdf

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/549

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full

here are just a few.

Ive only skimmed (I'm in work, and short on free time), but I don't see any answers to my questions across any of those. So far all I've found is that the 40% of ice free land mass figure is actually 30% in the first article...

a direct quote from the first part of the first article:

Some 40% of the world’s land surface is used for the purposes of keeping all 7 billion of us fed

[Ennis]

http://science.time.com/2013/12/16/the- ... roduction/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4143028/

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -than-cars

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_uploa ... n_2030.pdf

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/549

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/660S.full

here are just a few.

Ive only skimmed (I'm in work, and short on free time), but I don't see any answers to my questions across any of those. So far all I've found is that the 40% of ice free land mass figure is actually 30% in the first article...

a direct quote from the first part of the first article:

Some 40% of the world’s land surface is used for the purposes of keeping all 7 billion of us fed

I see it now. The 30% is used for meat production, although looking elsewhere it seems this number is actually 26% and not the 30% quoted.
I'm assuming based on your selective responses that the articles don't answer my other questions?

[Jolle]

Ive only skimmed (I'm in work, and short on free time), but I don't see any answers to my questions across any of those. So far all I've found is that the 40% of ice free land mass figure is actually 30% in the first article...

a direct quote from the first part of the first article:

Some 40% of the world’s land surface is used for the purposes of keeping all 7 billion of us fed

I see it now. The 30% is used for meat production, although looking elsewhere it seems this number is actually 26% and not the 30% quoted.
I'm assuming based on your selective responses that the articles don't answer my other questions?

The sludge one you mean? Well, that all starts off as normal corn or soya but is handled differently because it will be mashed up, cut with slaughterhouse waste etc. but when it comes from the land it's not much difference then what you find in the shops.

[Ennis]

a direct quote from the first part of the first article:

Some 40% of the world’s land surface is used for the purposes of keeping all 7 billion of us fed

I see it now. The 30% is used for meat production, although looking elsewhere it seems this number is actually 26% and not the 30% quoted.
I'm assuming based on your selective responses that the articles don't answer my other questions?

The sludge one you mean? Well, that all starts off as normal corn or soya but is handled differently because it will be mashed up, cut with slaughterhouse waste etc. but when it comes from the land it's not much difference then what you find in the shops.

2 main ones - how much of the 26% used for meat production can be repurposed for something else? The 26% sounds like a really high number, but if it can't be used for other crops then who cares?

The 2nd one was the 'sludge' yeah - what does it consist off, and what would that be used for if it wasn't being fed to animals?

[Tommy Cookers]

sooner or later I write something like this ......

an ever-increasing proportion of the world's crops is grown using non-renewable water (ie pumped from underground ancient sources)
much of the 'green revolution' is based on this crumbling system
what does the bloody Guardian say about that ?

grazing animals eat grass etc because grass etc is the world's most drought-resistant crop
that's why grass etc is the most widespread natural occupant of the planet's surface
grazing potential exists where there is no potential for other crops

how much of the world's surface is viable for crop growing ?
forest clearance typically cannot support crop growth for more than 2 or 3 years
been there, done that, got the (soil erosion) T shirt

the biggest adverse health impact of meat culture was the USA's introduction of cheap indegenous sugar ('corn syrup') from maize
using the part of the maize that was useless to the cattle feed makers
diabetes is the West's health issue, far more than heart disease
heart disease has plummeted though all the diet-based predictions say that it should still be increasing