Eat more chicken

[davegolf]

and save the planet. Beef production affects climate change. Great read and eye opening. No inclination on my part, however, to become a vegetarian!.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/to...meat-and-climate-change/ar-BBs1Yx5?li=BBnbfcL

 

[davegolf]

Shame on me I forgot we need to stop drinking milk also because it comes from cows.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

and save the planet. Beef production affects climate change. Great read and eye opening. No inclination on my part, however, to become a vegetarian!.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/to...meat-and-climate-change/ar-BBs1Yx5?li=BBnbfcL

It's not just climate change. Eating meat requires far more water, as well. California's drought, for example? Biggest culprits are forage crops like alfalfa. Not watering your lawn might make people feel good, but it really does nothing. Everyone turning vegan, however, would.

That said, I'm not giving up meat anytime soon, but I did roast a chicken last night, so I guess I did my part.

 

[Noodle]

It's not just climate change. Eating meat requires far more water, as well. California's drought, for example? Biggest culprits are forage crops like alfalfa. Not watering your lawn might make people feel good, but it really does nothing. Everyone turning vegan, however, would.

I think it would be easier to simply stop raising cattle and feed crops in places like California, than it would be to convince people to go vegan.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I think it would be easier to simply stop raising cattle and feed crops in places like California, than it would be to convince people to go vegan.

Actually, a big chunk of California's forage crop gets shipped to Asia. They are essentially selling their water to raise Chinese and Japanese cattle during a drought.

It's a Bernhead's dream come true: environmentalism and trade protectionism all rolled into one!

 

[IU-Curmudgeon]

imho, it's a bit too late, we have passed the tipping point, now we are working on making it's duration shorter.

 

[Noodle]

Actually, a big chunk of California's forage crop gets shipped to Asia. They are essentially selling their water to raise Chinese and Japanese cattle during a drought.

It's a Bernhead's dream come true: environmentalism and trade protectionism all rolled into one!

I'm not sure it really matters where they are selling it--it's the fact that they are using so much water in the first place. It seems to me that not enough is being done to curb agricultural water usage in California.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I'm not sure it really matters where they are selling it--it's the fact that they are using so much water in the first place. It seems to me that not enough is being done to curb agricultural water usage in California.

Agreed. There is probably a lot of industrial water waste, too. Point is, very little water actually gets used at home, but that's what everyone targets. Most people don't realize all the gallons and gallons of water it took to produce their steak.

 

[Ohio Guy]

Shame on me I forgot we need to stop drinking milk also because it comes from cows.

when you think about it, mass producing milk is really messed up. Female cows are constantly impregnated against their will and their babies are immediately stolen from them and brutally murdered.
No matter how you slice it, that's a pretty miserable existence to produce something that isn't all that healthy for humans.

 

[Ohio Guy]

It's not just climate change. Eating meat requires far more water, as well. California's drought, for example? Biggest culprits are forage crops like alfalfa. Not watering your lawn might make people feel good, but it really does nothing. Everyone turning vegan, however, would.

That said, I'm not giving up meat anytime soon, but I did roast a chicken last night, so I guess I did my part.​

​

Chicken isn't really healthier than beef, although it is marketed that way. And that's before you consider how chicken you buy at at store is prepared:

A federal inspector said, “We often see birds going down the line with intestines still attached, which are full of fecal contamination. If there is no fecal contamination on the bird’s skin, however, we can do nothing to stop that bird from going down that line. It is more than reasonable to assume that once the bird gets into the chill tank, that contamination will enter the water and contaminate all of the other carcasses in the chiller. That’s why it is sometimes called ‘fecal soup.’”
​

And then there's this:

The Five Worst Contaminants in Chicken Products

1. Feces - Chickens can soak in “fecal soup” for up to an hour before being packaged for consumers.
2. Toxic Chemicals - Peracetic acid and chlorine are both commonly used to treat chicken for contaminants in poultry plants.
3. Superbugs - Nearly 75 percent of bacterially tainted chicken products harbor germs resistant to one or more types of antibiotics.
4. Carcinogens - Arsenic in chicken could lead to increased risk of lung and bladder cancer deaths.
5. Cholesterol - Both 4 ounces of beef and 4 ounces of chicken contain approximately 100 milligrams of cholesterol.​

 

[toastedbread]

​

Chicken isn't really healthier than beef, although it is marketed that way. And that's before you consider how chicken you buy at at store is prepared:

A federal inspector said, “We often see birds going down the line with intestines still attached, which are full of fecal contamination. If there is no fecal contamination on the bird’s skin, however, we can do nothing to stop that bird from going down that line. It is more than reasonable to assume that once the bird gets into the chill tank, that contamination will enter the water and contaminate all of the other carcasses in the chiller. That’s why it is sometimes called ‘fecal soup.’”
​

And then there's this:

The Five Worst Contaminants in Chicken Products

1. Feces - Chickens can soak in “fecal soup” for up to an hour before being packaged for consumers.
2. Toxic Chemicals - Peracetic acid and chlorine are both commonly used to treat chicken for contaminants in poultry plants.
3. Superbugs - Nearly 75 percent of bacterially tainted chicken products harbor germs resistant to one or more types of antibiotics.
4. Carcinogens - Arsenic in chicken could lead to increased risk of lung and bladder cancer deaths.
5. Cholesterol - Both 4 ounces of beef and 4 ounces of chicken contain approximately 100 milligrams of cholesterol.​

I've heard turkey is the best white meat? Is that true?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

and save the planet. Beef production affects climate change. Great read and eye opening. No inclination on my part, however, to become a vegetarian!.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/to...meat-and-climate-change/ar-BBs1Yx5?li=BBnbfcL

Watch your arachidonic acid

Vegetarianism through a few generations changes human DNA thus increasing the risk of cancer and heart disease. And this doesn't even involve GMO's. We are screwed no matter what we do.

 

[Univee2]

Watch your arachidonic acid

Vegetarianism through a few generations changes human DNA thus increasing the risk of cancer and heart disease. And this doesn't even involve GMO's. We are screwed no matter what we do.

You'll have to pry my lobster roll from my cold dead hands ....

 

[mjvcaj]

I've heard turkey is the best white meat? Is that true?

Yes, unless you count fish as white meat. Turkey has more protein and less fat on average.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Watch your arachidonic acid

Vegetarianism through a few generations changes human DNA thus increasing the risk of cancer and heart disease. And this doesn't even involve GMO's. We are screwed no matter what we do.

This is a great example of people not understanding science (talking about the Telegraph writer, not you).

What the study actually found was that a population with a traditionally vegetarian diet had a mutation that made it easier to get fatty acids from plants. In that population, the mutation was beneficial, which made it more prevalent in people living in that population. That's how genetics and evolution work.

It did not find that vegetarianism causes these mutations. That's a theory of evolution that Lamarck would have subscribed to, but has been largely disproven*.

The real lesson here is that, if you wish to be a vegetarian, but you don't have the various genetic mutations that make vegetarianism more useful, you need to be careful about your diet to make sure you are getting all of your necessary nutrients. Most humans are not genetically built to be lifelong vegetarians.

* Although Lamarck was wrong, recent advances in epigenetics suggest the issue is a bit more complicated.

 

[wiede]

Agreed. There is probably a lot of industrial water waste, too. Point is, very little water actually gets used at home, but that's what everyone targets. Most people don't realize all the gallons and gallons of water it took to produce their steak.

We have water restrictions in San Antonio. Our water source is a huge aquifer. And the water is very hard- you HAVE to have a water softener to use it.

I learned that in Bexar county (the county that is San Antonio) and the surrounding areas, literally only 10% of the water is used residentially. Outside of a few large commercial users, agriculture consumes the vast majority of the water here.

We're clearly doing something wrong. All cities in Texas are growing really fast- and San Antonio is projected to have less growth (on a percentage basis) than all the rest because of our lack of water resources.

In CA, nuts like almonds and pistachios consume a lot of water- probably not the wisest move to continue growing them there in the quantities they are grown in now.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

We have water restrictions in San Antonio. Our water source is a huge aquifer. And the water is very hard- you HAVE to have a water softener to use it.

I learned that in Bexar county (the county that is San Antonio) and the surrounding areas, literally only 10% of the water is used residentially. Outside of a few large commercial users, agriculture consumes the vast majority of the water here.

We're clearly doing something wrong. All cities in Texas are growing really fast- and San Antonio is projected to have less growth (on a percentage basis) than all the rest because of our lack of water resources.

In CA, nuts like almonds and pistachios consume a lot of water- probably not the wisest move to continue growing them there in the quantities they are grown in now.

10% is actually slightly above average.

By far, most of our water is used by agriculture and power generation.

The biggest water user in California is alfalfa, which is grown almost exclusively for forage, but almonds and pistachios are famously thirsty, as well. And they can be worse, because while it's possible for farmers to leave some fields fallow during droughts, you can't do that with nut trees. They need watered every year, drought or no.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

We have water restrictions in San Antonio. Our water source is a huge aquifer. And the water is very hard- you HAVE to have a water softener to use it.

I learned that in Bexar county (the county that is San Antonio) and the surrounding areas, literally only 10% of the water is used residentially. Outside of a few large commercial users, agriculture consumes the vast majority of the water here.

We're clearly doing something wrong. All cities in Texas are growing really fast- and San Antonio is projected to have less growth (on a percentage basis) than all the rest because of our lack of water resources.

In CA, nuts like almonds and pistachios consume a lot of water- probably not the wisest move to continue growing them there in the quantities they are grown in now.

Shouldn't most consumptive use of water be for ag purposes?

I don't see anything wrong with a water allocation system that promotes crops. Human history of irrigating crops goes back thousands and thousands of years, if not millions. The US has spent billions on ag water projects. This has been a huge economic benefit.

Besides, municipalities can acquire water by eminent domain if need be.

Do you know where Loving County Texas is? I understand that there isn't potable water available anywhere in the county, it is all trucked in.

 

[wiede]

Shouldn't most consumptive use of water be for ag purposes?

I don't see anything wrong with a water allocation system that promotes crops. Human history of irrigating crops goes back thousands and thousands of years, if not millions. The US has spent billions on ag water projects. This has been a huge economic benefit.

Besides, municipalities can acquire water by eminent domain if need be.

Do you know where Loving County Texas is? I understand that there isn't potable water available anywhere in the county, it is all trucked in.

Texas has lots of communities that are water starved. And I agree that most water should be used for ag. Purposes. However, there is a question of what types of crops you should be growing, depending on your available water availability/water table.

There was talk a while ago in SA about building a de-salinization plant somewhere in the coast, and building a pipeline to San Antonio. It was cost prohibitive at the time, but I'd suspect eventually that's the answer.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Shouldn't most consumptive use of water be for ag purposes?

I don't see anything wrong with a water allocation system that promotes crops. Human history of irrigating crops goes back thousands and thousands of years, if not millions. The US has spent billions on ag water projects. This has been a huge economic benefit.

Besides, municipalities can acquire water by eminent domain if need be.

Do you know where Loving County Texas is? I understand that there isn't potable water available anywhere in the county, it is all trucked in.

About 10,000 years or so.

 

[IU-Curmudgeon]

One thing that GMO's could help with also. Oh noesss...runaway.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

One thing that GMO's could help with also. Oh noesss...runaway.

I don't think anyone has used GM technology to create a plant that uses less water. Such a task would be extremely difficult, because it's probably not a matter of simply inserting one gene, like in RR or Bt crops.

Smarter selection of crops based on local climate and water availability is the way to go.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I am going to become vegetarian, the day after my petition to have beef reclassified as a vegetable is accepted.

 

[IU-Curmudgeon]

I don't think anyone has used GM technology to create a plant that uses less water. Such a task would be extremely difficult, because it's probably not a matter of simply inserting one gene, like in RR or Bt crops.

Smarter selection of crops based on local climate and water availability is the way to go.

See drought resistant crops. Even a little savings would translate into a fair amount of water, numbers being what the are.

I read an article on roundabouts this last week. The government entity involved was planning on changing as many regular stoplight intersections into them due to gas savings. At the particular one the article was about they mentioned that expected gas saving was 24,000 gal/year...for just one intersection.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

See drought resistant crops. Even a little savings would translate into a fair amount of water, numbers being what the are.

I read an article on roundabouts this last week. The government entity involved was planning on changing as many regular stoplight intersections into them due to gas savings. At the particular one the article was about they mentioned that expected gas saving was 24,000 gal/year...for just one intersection.

GM drought resistance is still in the early stages, and plain old traditional breeding has been much more successful to this point. There may be breakthroughs in the future, but as of now, the only thing GM drought resistance gets you is a crop that you can't hold over year to year because of the onerous planting agreement.

 

[IU-Curmudgeon]

GM drought resistance is still in the early stages, and plain old traditional breeding has been much more successful to this point. There may be breakthroughs in the future, but as of now, the only thing GM drought resistance gets you is a crop that you can't hold over year to year because of the onerous planting agreement.

Shrug, yet it is what it is and it'll only improve. It's all about trillions of plants...the numbers.

Well also make more use of farming in the seas.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Shrug, yet it is what it is and it'll only improve. It's all about trillions of plants...the numbers.

Well also make more use of farming in the seas.

What Big Ag is doing with GM crops is nothing short of amazing, but some of the problems with the GM system are also the reasons that it's not the best way to tackle every problem.

See, it is about the numbers. But you have it backwards. Traditional plant breeding has the numbers. GM is a more directed attack. If they know what they need to do to the plant (like add the Bt gene), they can do that. If they don't know what to add, then a directed attack doesn't work. It's trial and error. Brute force. And traditional plant breeding has the advantage there.

Now, once the necessary genes are identified, then GM can take over and use their more direct approach to create more drought resistant strains of other plants. USDA is working on identifying likely genes in soybeans right now, for example. But until that happens, the traditional breeders are where it's at.