Active Low-Carber Forums

Active Low-Carber Forums (http://forum.lowcarber.org/index.php)
-   LC Research/Media (http://forum.lowcarber.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Grass-fed Beef bad for environment (http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=478347)

SabreCat50 Tue, Oct-03-17 08:07

Grass-fed Beef bad for environment
 
Not sure if the article fits here, but since we are always promoting grass-fed beef as a healthier alternative to grain-fed beef, I thought I would try... .

Grass-fed beef is bad for the planet and causes climate change

Glenn in Orlando

barb712 Tue, Oct-03-17 08:25

I only skimmed the article, but its premise IMO is misleading. It twists the truth. I've been all around the block dietarily, and I believe it's true that no matter what cows feed off of, they will produce methane gas. That's nature. And nobody said you can eat unlimited amounts of beef, beef, beef if it's grass fed. That's like saying you can eat all the fat-free cookies you want because they're fat free. But I digress.

The heart of the matter, for me at least, is the way the animals are raised and treated and the quality of the life they live while they produce milk and before they become meat. I'm an animal lover and care about that. No matter if you do or not, the food they produce or become is much cleaner and healthier and nutritious (omega 3s, etc.) when they're allowed to graze.

All that said, I do very loosely follow the "Mediterranean" food pyramid model and keep the beef consumption way at the top, eating 1-2 portions a week max. I feel it's better for the environment, better for the animals, and better for me.

Just wanted to weigh in on that, no pun intended.

deirdra Tue, Oct-03-17 11:01

Human vegans & vegetarians produce a lot more methane than meat eaters. Perhaps they should be culled or at least cut back on the fodder-eating.

M Levac Tue, Oct-03-17 16:47

I was about to write something smart, then a red flag popped up. The site does not date the texts. The report itself is not dated. To illustrate, this page: http://www.fcrn.org.uk/fcrn-news/up...-launched-today

No date to indicate which "today" it refers to. No date for the news release itself. I'm not sure why it's a red flag to me. Maybe it's because it's like anonimity. Maybe it's because from an archiving point of view, it's impossible to fix it in a timeline. Maybe it's because it evokes a sense of uncertainty, not from the text itself, but from my own reaction to it.

Ima ignore everything from that group. I guess that's the only way for me to create certainty out of it.

Bintang Wed, Oct-04-17 01:48



Complete utter nonsense. I would like to explain but the political censorship on this forum will prevent me from doing so. Pity because I believe there is a strong link between climate alarmism and flawed food guidelines, which is worthy of discussion

WereBear Wed, Oct-04-17 02:03

In the meantime rainforests are burned to feed vegans.

They should answer the call coming from inside the house.

Zei Wed, Oct-04-17 19:36

If humans were to quit eating/milking cattle because they produce methane no one would have any economic reason to raise cattle, perhaps other domestic animals either. I wonder would these domesticated breeds then be allowed to go extinct except perhaps for rare farm animal zoo exhibits because without animal products to sell breeding and raising them no longer pays? I doubt that's what animal rights activists had in mind, but would that then become the reality? I consider it a rhetorical question because I don't think it will actually happen.

barb712 Wed, Oct-04-17 21:42

Even though it's rhetorical, I must answer your question by speculating that even though the cow/cattle population would shrink under those circumstances, people would still keep them as pets. I'd like to think so!

Meme#1 Wed, Oct-04-17 22:32

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bintang
Complete utter nonsense. I would like to explain but the political censorship on this forum will prevent me from doing so. Pity because I believe there is a strong link between climate alarmism and flawed food guidelines, which is worthy of discussion



I agree Bintang!

GRB5111 Thu, Oct-05-17 09:02

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bintang
Complete utter nonsense. I would like to explain but the political censorship on this forum will prevent me from doing so. Pity because I believe there is a strong link between climate alarmism and flawed food guidelines, which is worthy of discussion

I am in 100% agreement with these statements. As the scientific method has failed us, we are left to believe folklore and anecdotes supported by those forces with an agenda. Facts are merely an annoyance. The link is there.

barb712 Thu, Oct-05-17 11:51

The word "agenda" jumped into my head the minute I read the title, but it's hard to pinpoint exactly what the agenda is. Don't eat meat, period? Grass fed = grainfed because they both produce methane so you might as well eat the cheaper stuff? It's hard to tell. I think the article leads nowhere useful.

cotonpal Thu, Oct-05-17 12:18

You start out with an agenda. Then you cherry pick the "facts" you choose to share in support of your agenda. Science doesn't enter into it anywhere. It's called propaganda.

Jean

thud123 Thu, Oct-05-17 18:57

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bintang
Complete utter nonsense...

I believe it's spelled udder ;)

Grass fed beef is bad for the environment, it's hard on it, especially hard on the grass.

Bintang Fri, Oct-06-17 03:18

Quote:
Originally Posted by barb712
The word "agenda" jumped into my head the minute I read the title, but it's hard to pinpoint exactly what the agenda is. Don't eat meat, period? Grass fed = grainfed because they both produce methane so you might as well eat the cheaper stuff? It's hard to tell. I think the article leads nowhere useful.


You might get a clue about the 'agenda' if you google the following:
lifestyles consumption patterns high meat intake air-conditioning not sustainable Maurice Strong

Let me know if this helps. I would prefer to explain more directly but I don't want my post to get deleted.

Bintang Fri, Oct-06-17 03:32

Quote:
Originally Posted by thud123
I believe it's spelled udder ;)

Grass fed beef is bad for the environment, it's hard on it, especially hard on the grass.


And the corollary to that must be that grain-fed humans are good for the environment but it's hard on the humans.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:50.

Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.