London Uni Campus Beef Ban

[Poorbuthappy]

Oh dear! There was little other greenhouse gas emission at the time. In fact carbon was being sequestrated in a big way to create the carbon based fuel we now burn.
However, you carry on believing that cattle are not net emitters if it makes you happy. There are certainly less of them now than in the distant past, but that is irrelevant when you consider that there are far more of us and the priority is to find scapegoats and for us to mitigate and minimise the effect of those scapegoats.

????
I think you've just made my points for me!

 

[Agrivator]

How do the massive eruptions of methane from the sea bed compare to the methane produced by domesticated ruminants?

 

[Cowabunga]

????
I think you've just made my points for me!

I'm glad you're happy.
That you agree that emissions are greatly reduced by intensively managing the cattle and that everything practical should be done to reduce emissions from each unit of output from the cow, whether beef or dairy. I greatly appreciate your agreement that sucklers are massive emitters per animal and particularly per unit of output and consequently should be reduced in number drastically.

Or am I presuming just a bit too much from your agreement? ???

 

[Poorbuthappy]

I'm glad you're happy.
That you agree that emissions are greatly reduced by intensively managing the cattle and that everything practical should be done to reduce emissions from each unit of output from the cow, whether beef or dairy. I greatly appreciate your agreement that sucklers are massive emitters per animal and particularly per unit of output and consequently should be reduced in number drastically.

Or am I presuming just a bit too much from your agreement? ???

Think about what you said in the post I quoted?

 

[Cowabunga]

How do the massive eruptions of methane from the sea bed compare to the methane produced by domesticated ruminants?

They are big burps. The question is whether the figures for the proportion of methane produced by ruminants compared to all other sources is at all near accurate. Just because they say it is and it is repeated without question over and over, does not necessarily mean it is true or indeed that it is relevant to climate change, which is what I think that poorbuthappy alludes to. Unfortunately it is one part of methane emissions and an easy target even though it has been much higher in the past.

 

[delilah]

A huge well done to all the grass roots farmers who have taken the time to write to the Uni, post on student facebooks etc.
Could someone post on here the NFU and AHDB briefing sheets on livestock farming and climate change as sent to the Uni ?

 

[Ffermer Bach]

this is the reply I got

Thank you for taking the time to write.

Our decision to stop serving beef in College catering outlets is only one part of a much wider package of measures to help address our carbon footprint. These are set out briefly on our website (at https://www.gold.ac.uk/news/carbon-neutral-plan/), and include ambitious plans to reduce waste plastic – the negative effect of this on wildlife is well documented, install significantly more solar panels across our campus, to move to a 100% clean energy supplier, and to divest from companies which generate more than 10% of their revenue from fossil fuels.

These steps reflect the fact that we understand that meat production reflects around 1/6 of global carbon emissions, and that we have to take a range of other steps – especially around reducing the use of fossil fuels – if we are to address the climate change emergency.

We entirely accept that many British farmers go to considerable efforts to work as sustainably as possible, and that emissions from typical British beef production methods will be lower than methods employed in some other parts of the world. However, this cannot obscure the fact that, relatively speaking, beef remains a particularly carbon intensive form of food. It is widely accepted across the scientific community that western societies need to eat less meat in order to restore more efficient land use globally, and help tackle global warming.

For the avoidance of doubt, students and staff remain free to bring beef products on to campus, should they wish.

We hope this helps sets out the context for our recent announcements and offers some reassurance that our decision about the sale of beef is set within a wider context.

Yours,

Goldsmiths Communications Team

 

[JP1]

High Heels and Canola FieldsLike Page
13 hrs ·
I have two burgers. The one on your left is a beef burger from McDonald’s and the other on the right is a Beyond Meat, plant-based protein burger from A&W.
You’ve been told by companies, groups and the media to choose; to eat less meat because one is better for the environment, and we’ve been led to believe that by picking one over the other, we’re doing our part in climate change and being more environmentally-friendly.
What if I told you that both burgers are doing their part and all agriculture is part of the solution, not the problem? What if I told you it’s not one versus the other when it comes to climate change? What if I told you there is more to the story than these companies are sharing?
To let you know, my family and I grow lentils. I’m grateful demand has grown for this tiny seed jammed packed with protein. I don’t raise cattle but have friends who do and am grateful for all they do to also raise nutrient-dense food.
All of agriculture, both the plant protein and the beef burger are doing their part when it comes to climate change. Agriculture in Canada accounts for 8% of total emissions, and cattle contribute less than half of that at 2.4%. But did you know the largest sources of emissions were transportation at 28%? Why are we blaming cows, dairy and meat so much?
Contrary to recent headlines, giving up meat won’t save the climate or even make a significant difference to climate change. According to the University of California, Davis, if Americans were to eat the plant-based burger instead of the beef burger on Meatless Monday every week for a year it would only be a reduction of 0.3% in emissions. If I were to go full vegan for a year, I would reduce 0.8 tonnes of greenhouse gases.
Is that 0.8 tonnes a huge difference? Not as much as you might want it to be. One round trip flight from the US to Europe emits 1.6 tonnes so a whole year of reducing meat in your diet has only half the impact of a single transatlantic flight.
Removing animals from agriculture would lower greenhouse gases to a small degree but there’s unintended consequences if we removed them completely. There’s a really great story when it comes to agriculture’s environmental footprint missing from those headlines and trying to get you to choose sides.
One part of that solution is right under our nose….literally. It’s in the soil. By managing soils for healthy crops and raising healthy livestock, soil can hold water, nutrients and capture carbon. As per the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), agriculture and forestry land use in the US currently takes in and captures more carbon than it emits.
Whoa....what?
--The Agriculture and Forestry sectors combined are capturing more carbon in the atmosphere than they are putting out. --
These headlines aren’t sharing agriculture is doing our part. In the past, our lentil fields would be ploughed so all you would see every other year would be soil and some weeds. But by growing a crop and minimally disturbing the soil by direct seeding, lentils take greenhouse gases out of the air, create nitrogen and then put nitrogen back into the soil. It’s like nature’s way of fertilizing the crop for next year and capturing carbon.
But not all land is suitable for growing crops. Only 3.2% of Canada’s land can be used for growing crops , but cattle can inhabit and graze nonarable land. Pastureland used for grazing cattle in Canada removes greenhouse gases and stores the emissions of 3.62 million cars per year. Raising cattle has many environmental benefits such as soil replenishment, nutrient recycling, preservation of natural grasslands, and improving biodiversity and wildlife habitat. It’s pretty incredible that cattle can upcycle land, which is otherwise unproductive to humans, into protein-rich food for families while returning benefits to the land.
These are just a couple of examples out of so many more of farmers and ranchers helping be more environmentally friendly and efficient. Whether we grow crops or raise livestock, we care about the soil and environment.
We know we have more work to do but we have been working hard at being more efficient, doing our part and being part of the solution.
There is always more to the story than the click-bait headlines. When you read or hear about “Eat Less Meat to Save the Planet” or have to choose between a plant-based or a meat burger, please remember and know that there are farmers and ranchers behind the scenes doing their best to save the planet too.
I appreciate that we get the choice of how to farm and you get so many choices in the grocery store and at restaurants. For me, I’ll always choose the beef burger.
Sources:
National Inventory Report, 2016; CRSB, 2016
http://www.agr.gc.ca/…/agricultural-greenhouse-gas-indica…/…
https://www.wri.org/…/7-things-know-about-ipcc-special-repo…
https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-the-ipccs-special-r…
http://www.beefresearch.ca/resources/images.cfm
https://sustainablesociety.com/environment/land-use
https://www.alltech.com/…/frank-mitloehner-cattle-climate-c…
https://caes.ucdavis.edu/…/livestock-and-climate-change-fac…

 

[delilah]

Nice buns.

 

[Northeastfarmer]

Nice buns.

Lovely baps

 

[FonterraFarmer]

High Heels and Canola FieldsLike Page
13 hrs ·
I have two burgers. The one on your left is a beef burger from McDonald’s and the other on the right is a Beyond Meat, plant-based protein burger from A&W.
You’ve been told by companies, groups and the media to choose; to eat less meat because one is better for the environment, and we’ve been led to believe that by picking one over the other, we’re doing our part in climate change and being more environmentally-friendly.
What if I told you that both burgers are doing their part and all agriculture is part of the solution, not the problem? What if I told you it’s not one versus the other when it comes to climate change? What if I told you there is more to the story than these companies are sharing?
To let you know, my family and I grow lentils. I’m grateful demand has grown for this tiny seed jammed packed with protein. I don’t raise cattle but have friends who do and am grateful for all they do to also raise nutrient-dense food.
All of agriculture, both the plant protein and the beef burger are doing their part when it comes to climate change. Agriculture in Canada accounts for 8% of total emissions, and cattle contribute less than half of that at 2.4%. But did you know the largest sources of emissions were transportation at 28%? Why are we blaming cows, dairy and meat so much?
Contrary to recent headlines, giving up meat won’t save the climate or even make a significant difference to climate change. According to the University of California, Davis, if Americans were to eat the plant-based burger instead of the beef burger on Meatless Monday every week for a year it would only be a reduction of 0.3% in emissions. If I were to go full vegan for a year, I would reduce 0.8 tonnes of greenhouse gases.
Is that 0.8 tonnes a huge difference? Not as much as you might want it to be. One round trip flight from the US to Europe emits 1.6 tonnes so a whole year of reducing meat in your diet has only half the impact of a single transatlantic flight.
Removing animals from agriculture would lower greenhouse gases to a small degree but there’s unintended consequences if we removed them completely. There’s a really great story when it comes to agriculture’s environmental footprint missing from those headlines and trying to get you to choose sides.
One part of that solution is right under our nose….literally. It’s in the soil. By managing soils for healthy crops and raising healthy livestock, soil can hold water, nutrients and capture carbon. As per the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), agriculture and forestry land use in the US currently takes in and captures more carbon than it emits.
Whoa....what?
--The Agriculture and Forestry sectors combined are capturing more carbon in the atmosphere than they are putting out. --
These headlines aren’t sharing agriculture is doing our part. In the past, our lentil fields would be ploughed so all you would see every other year would be soil and some weeds. But by growing a crop and minimally disturbing the soil by direct seeding, lentils take greenhouse gases out of the air, create nitrogen and then put nitrogen back into the soil. It’s like nature’s way of fertilizing the crop for next year and capturing carbon.
But not all land is suitable for growing crops. Only 3.2% of Canada’s land can be used for growing crops , but cattle can inhabit and graze nonarable land. Pastureland used for grazing cattle in Canada removes greenhouse gases and stores the emissions of 3.62 million cars per year. Raising cattle has many environmental benefits such as soil replenishment, nutrient recycling, preservation of natural grasslands, and improving biodiversity and wildlife habitat. It’s pretty incredible that cattle can upcycle land, which is otherwise unproductive to humans, into protein-rich food for families while returning benefits to the land.
These are just a couple of examples out of so many more of farmers and ranchers helping be more environmentally friendly and efficient. Whether we grow crops or raise livestock, we care about the soil and environment.
We know we have more work to do but we have been working hard at being more efficient, doing our part and being part of the solution.
There is always more to the story than the click-bait headlines. When you read or hear about “Eat Less Meat to Save the Planet” or have to choose between a plant-based or a meat burger, please remember and know that there are farmers and ranchers behind the scenes doing their best to save the planet too.
I appreciate that we get the choice of how to farm and you get so many choices in the grocery store and at restaurants. For me, I’ll always choose the beef burger.
Sources:
National Inventory Report, 2016; CRSB, 2016
http://www.agr.gc.ca/…/agricultural-greenhouse-gas-indica…/…
https://www.wri.org/…/7-things-know-about-ipcc-special-repo…
https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-the-ipccs-special-r…
http://www.beefresearch.ca/resources/images.cfm
https://sustainablesociety.com/environment/land-use
https://www.alltech.com/…/frank-mitloehner-cattle-climate-c…
https://caes.ucdavis.edu/…/livestock-and-climate-change-fac…

Duely noted that some of the people's comments who disagree with her, that they have pretty weak arguments, are self motivated and a touch hypocritical.

 

[Still Farming]

She's happy!

 

[AGN76]

Interesting about the horses too (on her faceache page) I've often wonder about the environmental effect of those things.
Also, I assume Vegans don't ride horses??

 

[Ffermer Bach]

I think the answer is to farm in a regenerative way, just reading Gabe Brown's book, and also for a health perspective eat food that has been prepared at home (so not in a factory), eat less sugar, less complex carbs, less salt, more local seasonal food, and much as I hate to admit it, less bacon and sausages, and I think food should be more expensive so we would value it more. I also think using artificial fertlisers destroy soil biology and before everyone says we need these to produce the yields to feed the population, question do these yields give farmers a profit or if everyone produced a little less would food be worth more?

 

[Ffermer Bach]

I think the answer is to farm in a regenerative way, just reading Gabe Brown's book, and also for a health perspective eat food that has been prepared at home (so not in a factory), eat less sugar, less complex carbs, less salt, more local seasonal food, and much as I hate to admit it, less bacon and sausages, and I think food should be more expensive so we would value it more. I also think using artificial fertlisers destroy soil biology and before everyone says we need these to produce the yields to feed the population, question do these yields give farmers a profit or if everyone produced a little less would food be worth more?

And something wrong where water in a bottle (which falls from the sky and is free) is sold for more (in a plastic bottle) than milk is!

 

[essexpete]

Interesting about the horses too (on her faceache page) I've often wonder about the environmental effect of those things.
Also, I assume Vegans don't ride horses??

Ha you might assume. Nasty exploitation of a poor 4 legged animal.

 

[DaveGrohl]

And something wrong where water in a bottle (which falls from the sky and is free) is sold for more (in a plastic bottle) than milk is!

You haven't even mentioned all of the platic that's used in making these disgusting wastes of resources, never mind the fossil fuels dug up and burned just in the manufacture and transport of bottled water. Just imagine how much carbon could be saved by banning plastic bottled water outright. One of the absurdities of modern life is these self-righteous know it all vegans preaching to us from their glass castles while drinking bottled water.

 

[Jackov Altraids]

A repost on High heels and canola fields page;

I know they are not ruminants, but if we are going to have a bright future, the whole picture has to be considered. Everybody tries to hook the blame for environmental problems on what other people do and consider their own actions as the saviour. The truth is we all need to do less bad and more good.

 

[melted welly]

A repost on High heels and canola fields page;

View attachment 829373

I know they are not ruminants, but if we are going to have a bright future, the whole picture has to be considered. Everybody tries to hook the blame for environmental problems on what other people do and consider their own actions as the saviour. The truth is we all need to do less bad and more good.

The whole animal ownership thing bothers me, not from any high minded ethical point of view, but because of the massive waste of resources that goes into it.

Uk pet industry worth something like £5bn. You can buy all sorts of pointless tat for them from fancy dress outfits to dog prams for the more senile 4 legged companion (massively popular in Keswick, last time we visited).

Cat food costs more per kg than raw chicken, we’ve got folk making careers from driving dogs about to go for a walk and productive land on the edges of towns, which should be at the very heart of local food production, is often given over to reams of white tape, thistles and obese equines.

We’ve even got “charities” rescuing other countries dogs, donkeys etc and bringing them here. WTF. I’m sure there was an article on the radio a while back about some fool in Fife who’d “rescued” a sh;tload of rabbits from foreign soils and was struggling to pay for upkeep, so used Radio Scotland to ask for help.

We need to eat, we don’t need 4 pet dogs a rescued rabbit and a part time employee to look after them.

We also don’t need trousers that are too tight to be pulled up your legs, yet so baggy they slip off your backside once you’ve finally hauled them up (......you were told to try them on in the shop but you refused because you’ve always been a 34:34, and jeans are jeans, it’ll be fine. So now you’ve gotten home and you’ve to push on through and pretend they’re exactly what you were wanting....)

I’ve no idea of what’s also spent on fashion, and having never been cool (or ever likely to be), don’t really understand it, but that’s another massive industry that should be afforded closer scrutiny than it is.

 

[roscoe erf]