|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 10:07 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
Yeah, just looking at one of your links, TexasPete. Another thing that gets very little attention is the extraordinary amount of water that goes into producing meat. In an age where water scarcity is about to become a very serious issue (and already has in places like Australia), it surprises me that there is not more discussion about this.
| Quote: |
March 1, 2001 -- To date, probably the most reliable and widely-accepted water estimate to produce a pound of beef is the figure of 2,500 gallons/pound. Newsweek once put it another way: "the water that goes into a 1,000 pound steer would float a destroyer."
Not surprisingly, the beef industry promotes a study that determined, using highly suspect calculations, that only 441 gallons of water are required to produce a pound of beef.
(The cattlemen's study applied liberal deductions from water actually used, reasoning that water was evaporated at points during the process, or was "returned" to the water table after being used to grow plant feed, or was returned to the water table via urea and excrement from cows. Thus, study authors reasoned these waters were not "lost" but "recycled" and therefore could be subtracted from gross amount of water actually used in beef production. Of course, evaporation and cow dung don't go very far in replenishing water pumped from acquifers which took thousands of years to fill. It's interesting to consider that if the same fuzzy math were applied to calculating how much water it takes to grow vegetables, potatoes would probably only require about 2 gallons of water per pound.)
Bestselling author and vegetarian trailblazer John Robbins has examined in detail a variety of estimates and who worked on them, and some of his observations are in his new book Food Revolution (see here).
So what's the beef with beef, when it comes to water?
Simply put: it's wasteful and irresponsible to squander our precious resources on a luxury item like meat.
|
|
My spidey sense is tingling. Why, oh why, do I get the feeling that this is not what most people would consider a non-biased source? |
Well, even if you take the other biased source - you will find it to be 441 gallons - which is still way more than used in other foodstuffs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 10:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And from another mistrusted source, the UK's hated Guardian:
http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/food/story/0,,2286172,00.html
| Quote: |
A University of Chicago study argued that the average meat eater in the US produces about 1.5 tonnes of CO[squared] more than a vegetarian per year. That's because animals are hungry and the grain they eat takes energy, usually fossil fuels, to produce. It takes 2.2 calories of fossil fuel energy to produce a single calorie of plant protein, according to researchers at Cornell University. And lots of that plant protein is required to make animal protein. For chicken, the ratio of energy in to protein out is 4:1. For pork it's 17:1. For lamb, 50:1. For beef, 54:1.
This is a lot of energy, and a lot of grain that gets diverted. The amount of grains fed to US livestock would be enough to feed 840 million people on a plant-based diet. The number of food-insecure people in the world in 2006 was, incidentally, 854 million. Of course, this isn't simply an American phenomenon - in aggregate, rich countries feed about 60 per cent of their grain to livestock.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
And from another mistrusted source, the UK's hated Guardian:
|
Touchy, touchy. When you quote an article from a website called "vegsource.com" you really shouldn't be surprised if someone is rightly suspicious of it. I highly doubt if I had posted the numbers from a cattlemen's website as fact that you'd have let that slide as unbiased. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
And from another mistrusted source, the UK's hated Guardian:
|
Touchy, touchy. When you quote an article from a website called "vegsource.com" you really shouldn't be surprised if someone is rightly suspicious of it. I highly doubt if I had posted the numbers from a cattlemen's website as fact that you'd have let that slide as unbiased. |
Not touchy at all. Perhaps you lack humour.
Anyone with any brains at all looks at the source they are reading. I pointed out to you that the other study that the agriculture industry prefers, gives a water reading that is also very high, and very probably (as the writer at vegsource.com points out, innaccurate).
As for reading sources like vegsource.com as a starting point, I see no wrong in it. After all, this is a website of people concerned about this issue. Who else is going to devote much time to writing about it. As long as you keep an open mind, and do your own checking of the facts, you might find their website very educational. No need to dismiss it, just because those posting there are interested in the topic they are posting about.
Certainly, Fox News is not interested in educating you about the ill-effects of a major industry.
Last edited by Big_Bird on Sun Jun 22, 2008 10:22 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| The Bobster wrote: |
| Rteacher wrote: |
| You are what you eat. |
 Hello. My name is Mr Twejji Galbi. Nice to meet you. 
I'm not sure if anyone's yet adressed this very serious issue, though: Meat is just damned delicious. |
So is sugar. And that's something you shouldn't be eating huge quantites of either. |
"Sure, Mom," he said, stashing a Snickers bar in his jacket pocket later ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
And from another mistrusted source, the UK's hated Guardian:
|
Touchy, touchy. When you quote an article from a website called "vegsource.com" you really shouldn't be surprised if someone is rightly suspicious of it. I highly doubt if I had posted the numbers from a cattlemen's website as fact that you'd have let that slide as unbiased. |
Not touchy at all. Perhaps you lack humour.
Anyone with any brains at all looks at the source they are reading. I pointed out to you that the other study that the agriculture industry prefers, gives a water reading that is also very high, and very probably (as the writer at vegsource.com points out, innaccurate).
As for reading sources like vegsource.com as a starting point, I see no wrong in it. After all, this is a website of people concerned about this issue. Who else is going to devote much time to writing about it. As long as you keep an open mind, and do your own checking of the facts, you might find their website very educational. No need to dismiss it, just because those posting there are interested in the topic they are posting about.
Certainly, Fox News is not interested in educating you about the ill-effects of a major industry. |
Let me put it this way. I find it distasteful to read quotes like the one used above without seeing the sources they come from. It detracts from your argument, because it makes me, the reader, wonder why you didn't just put it out there in the first place, and there's no good reason I can think of why you didn't do that in the first place. It's absentminded at best, deliberately misleading at worst, and if you are trying to persuade people to come over to your point of view, then I submit that neither of these is the impression you want to give. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
And from another mistrusted source, the UK's hated Guardian:
|
Touchy, touchy. When you quote an article from a website called "vegsource.com" you really shouldn't be surprised if someone is rightly suspicious of it. I highly doubt if I had posted the numbers from a cattlemen's website as fact that you'd have let that slide as unbiased. |
Not touchy at all. Perhaps you lack humour.
Anyone with any brains at all looks at the source they are reading. I pointed out to you that the other study that the agriculture industry prefers, gives a water reading that is also very high, and very probably (as the writer at vegsource.com points out, innaccurate).
As for reading sources like vegsource.com as a starting point, I see no wrong in it. After all, this is a website of people concerned about this issue. Who else is going to devote much time to writing about it. As long as you keep an open mind, and do your own checking of the facts, you might find their website very educational. No need to dismiss it, just because those posting there are interested in the topic they are posting about.
Certainly, Fox News is not interested in educating you about the ill-effects of a major industry. |
Let me put it this way. I find it distasteful to read quotes like the one used above without seeing the sources they come from. It detracts from your argument, because it makes me, the reader, wonder why you didn't just put it out there in the first place, and there's no good reason I can think of why you didn't do that in the first place. It's absentminded at best, deliberately misleading at worst, and if you are trying to persuade people to come over to your point of view, then I submit that neither of these is the impression you want to give. |
Most of the people who post on this forum are well versed in checking out the sources or links posted. Perhaps you don't come here enough to realise that, and it is your ignorance that therefore compells you to lecture us in the most patronising fashion.
I always post the links to my quotes. That is enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fishead soup
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Most of these vegatarian arguements are pretty weak. What would happen if we let all the cattle go. They would trample on the ground eat all the plants and contribute more to desertfication. By keeping these animals domesticated at least we have some control over them. Cows will eat grass and drink tons of water whether we eat them or not. Most of these vegan websites will naturally promote information that sells their products |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You seriously have a problem with the VS article? The article is about a book that goes into the subject in more depth, and it encourages people to read the book for more information. It doesn't tell readers to take previously published figures as the final word on anything.
| Quote: |
Pimentel is a celebrated professor of ecology and agricultural science at Cornell University, who has published over 500 scientific articles, 20 books and overseen scores of important studies.
|
Are you suggesting a "biased" Web site falsified the author's credentials? Or that the original Newsweek quote came from a biased source? Promoting misinformation/unreliable information is a favourite pastime at Dave's, but you can hardly accuse BB of that. My god, of all the links to take issue with in this thread ...
Last edited by Bramble on Sun Jun 22, 2008 10:50 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes. This is why they've had to stop growing so much of it in Australia. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Most of the people who post on this forum are well versed in checking out the sources or links posted. Perhaps you don't come here enough to realise that, and it is your ignorance that therefore compells you to lecture us in the most patronising fashion.
I always post the links to my quotes. That is enough. |
Do you know why I get condescending? It's because people say incredibly stupid things. Like how you claim you posted a source (from reading the quote below, no you didn't) to saying you always post the link (again, from reading the quote below, NO YOU DIDN'T!!!) Get off your high horse, lady.
| Big_Bird wrote: |
Yeah, just looking at one of your links, TexasPete. Another thing that gets very little attention is the extraordinary amount of water that goes into producing meat. In an age where water scarcity is about to become a very serious issue (and already has in places like Australia), it surprises me that there is not more discussion about this.
| Quote: |
March 1, 2001 -- To date, probably the most reliable and widely-accepted water estimate to produce a pound of beef is the figure of 2,500 gallons/pound. Newsweek once put it another way: "the water that goes into a 1,000 pound steer would float a destroyer."
Not surprisingly, the beef industry promotes a study that determined, using highly suspect calculations, that only 441 gallons of water are required to produce a pound of beef.
(The cattlemen's study applied liberal deductions from water actually used, reasoning that water was evaporated at points during the process, or was "returned" to the water table after being used to grow plant feed, or was returned to the water table via urea and excrement from cows. Thus, study authors reasoned these waters were not "lost" but "recycled" and therefore could be subtracted from gross amount of water actually used in beef production. Of course, evaporation and cow dung don't go very far in replenishing water pumped from acquifers which took thousands of years to fill. It's interesting to consider that if the same fuzzy math were applied to calculating how much water it takes to grow vegetables, potatoes would probably only require about 2 gallons of water per pound.)
Bestselling author and vegetarian trailblazer John Robbins has examined in detail a variety of estimates and who worked on them, and some of his observations are in his new book Food Revolution (see here).
So what's the beef with beef, when it comes to water?
Simply put: it's wasteful and irresponsible to squander our precious resources on a luxury item like meat.
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bramble wrote: |
You seriously have a problem with the VS article? The article is about a book that goes into the subject in more depth, and it encourages people to read the book for more information. It doesn't tell readers to take previously published figures as the final word on anything.
| Quote: |
Pimentel is a celebrated professor of ecology and agricultural science at Cornell University, who has published over 500 scientific articles, 20 books and overseen scores of important studies.
|
Are you suggesting a "biased" Web site falsified the author's credentials? Or that the original Newsweek quote came from a biased source? Promoting misinformation/unreliable information is a favourite pastime at Dave's, but you can hardly accuse BB of that. My god, of all the links to take issue with in this thread ... |
1. There was no link posted, nor was there a source listed. How did I know the article came from vegsource? I had to find it on my own. Have I taken issue with the figures? No I have not. Have I taken issue with the tactics that led someone to post an article with no link nor a citation as fact? Yes, I believe I have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thunndarr wrote: |
| Bramble wrote: |
You seriously have a problem with the VS article? The article is about a book that goes into the subject in more depth, and it encourages people to read the book for more information. It doesn't tell readers to take previously published figures as the final word on anything.
| Quote: |
Pimentel is a celebrated professor of ecology and agricultural science at Cornell University, who has published over 500 scientific articles, 20 books and overseen scores of important studies.
|
Are you suggesting a "biased" Web site falsified the author's credentials? Or that the original Newsweek quote came from a biased source? Promoting misinformation/unreliable information is a favourite pastime at Dave's, but you can hardly accuse BB of that. My god, of all the links to take issue with in this thread ... |
1. There was no link posted, nor was there a source listed. How did I know the article came from vegsource? I had to find it on my own. Have I taken issue with the figures? No I have not. Have I taken issue with the tactics that led someone to post an article with no link nor a citation as fact? Yes, I believe I have. |
What do you mean, no link? TexasPete posted the link, and BB quoted from it in a subsequent post. The article acknowledges that there's a dispute over some of the figures, and refers readers to a book for more information. I haven't read the book, but considering the author's credentials I would expect him to cite peer-reviewed articles. It's the polar opposite of the sort of "information sharing" that typically goes on here at Dave's. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thunndarr
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 22, 2008 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| What do you mean, no link? TexasPete posted the link, and BB quoted from it in a subsequent post. |
You know, as alluded to previously, maybe this is a current events thing that I just can't quite grasp. You see, it's not my habit to go scrolling through other posts when I'm looking for a link to the post I'M READING RIGHT NOW. Generally, I find it better for all concerned, when using a quote, to cite that quote within the same post, or to provide a link, again, within the same post. I don't know why that seems like an alien language to some of you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
