For the cow puss drinkers.

[Nerf Herder]

I've never understood why rice was grown here.

 

[moorey]

Just because they could, however ridiculous to do so

 

[moorey]

Arête, cheers for the thorough response. My 'idiot' comment was unnecessary and inflammatory, and not directed at you.
My veganism, btw, is based on a personal philosophy, and while sustainability is a consideration it doesn't factor in my choice of lifestyle. For that matter, nor does logic or nutrition, and absolutely not on a religious or dogmatic as most seem to assume. I have posted extensively on this in earlier, and don't need to go there again. I don't claim to be right, but it's right for ME.
Re: providing evidence to support any arguement, it depends on what people accept as evidence. I can find "evidence" of Bigfoot, faked moon landings, evils of vaccination, god, and Bush being reptilian, but I'm preaching to the choir to tell you that evidence doesn't equal fact or proof.
While it isn't feasible to produce crops in places you have highlighted, I can imagine that if someone finds a way to make a dollar out if it, it will happen. I can't be arsed researching right now, but it would be iteresting to compare the climate and rainfall of some of those areas to productive regions in the Mediterranean. Just thinking out loud. Would be interesting to see some comparisons. Again, not supporting the practice, just hypothesizing and playing devils advocate.

So many people, family and friends, oddly assume that my personal choices are a criticism or attack on them. I guess that's the legacy of a lifetime of being a shit stirring jerk. :tape::tape:

 

[brisneyland]

While it isn't feasible to produce crops in places you have highlighted, I can imagine that if someone finds a way to make a dollar out if it, it will happen.

You realise they make money out of these areas by raising cattle right?

 

[moorey]

You realise they make money out of these areas by raising cattle right?

You are missing my point. If someone was looking at produce crops INSTEAD of livestock, I imagine it could be done.

I'm not actually sure what YOUR point is... :roll:

 

[No Skid Marks]

I posted an article. NSM posted the positive assertion that some of the facts in the article were false or lead to logically disjunct conclusions.
Now if we're following the rules of logic rather than asinine ranting, the burden of proof lies with the party making the positive assertion (e.g. Russel's teapot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot)
NSM's response was to suggest that facts could be made up/found to support any position - which is (sorry NSM) a bit of a cop out.

I am also eagerly awaiting evidence suggesting that areas such as the Kimberley, the Flinders, The MacDonnells etc can be turned into cropland or how crops in the MDB have the same or less environmental impact than pasture would. I've also personally collected endangered species from pastoral leases (an even uranium mines) but I'm yet to collect any resident wildlife from a tilled cropland, so evidence suggesting that tilled monoculture harbors the same biodiversity as grazed native pasture would be good too.
Much of the area surrounding Canberra is the Monaro plateau. This area has never been forested and is native grassland. The most significant environmental impact by graziers has been the draining of wetlands and subsequent endangerment of species reliant on these habitats. http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/upland-wetlands.html

The premise of my whole argument - as stated multiple times, is not to drive some dichotomous "vegan=bad, meat=good" stance. It's easy to find examples of unethical, environmentally damaging "vegan" food production and easy to find examples of comparatively ethical and environmentally sustainable meat production. The division of food products based on whether they are taxonomically animals or plants as driven by an ethical or environmental motive, at least in my humble opinion, a naive and not entirely sensical notion. It comes down to and emotionally motivated ideology and in some circumstances, is contradictory. This ins't necessarily bad and if it makes you feel better about your lifestyle, that's great, but at least in my humble opinion again, any action/stance that is purported to be based on rationality should be open to criticism and alternative interpretations.

As for being wrong, as a scientist I'm all about being wrong - the most exciting bit about the whole job is when my assumptions prove to be false. So I'm quite happy to be proven wrong by rational, logical discussion but have to admit a certain vindication when a party with a weak argument descends to moral soap-boxing and name-calling when their premise is shown to lack rationality.

Stating things like the Kimberlies is taking what anyone questioning what you've said or quoted out of context. Obviously if you put a cow in a fucked up location(far from ideal for crops), it will do what it can to feed itself.
This thread was started just showing a cruel meat production video. It has turned into a meat Vs crops debate. If people decided to eat less meat, crops could be grown in richer soil locations that now run cattle. I would like to know how the cow farts are weighing into the green debate. The endangered animals you're collecting may not suffer directly from cattle, but will they suffer more from cow farts indirectly?
I try to avoid eating meat for a few reasons, environmental concerns were one of them, I'm now more open minded to this. But would still like to know about the cow fart effect.
I have seen old paintings etc of the Monaro area, and yes they were open grasslands, but there was still more trees, and it's still possible to plant trees there for cows to shelter, and to offer homes to natives, and benefit the air.
It's not a black/White answer between Cattle or Crops.

 

[Arete]

Stating things like the Kimberlies is taking what anyone questioning what you've said or quoted out of context. Obviously if you put a cow in a fucked up location(far from ideal for crops), it will do what it can to feed itself.

Most of the continent is more arid than the Kimberley, and there are cattle grazed all over it. It's in direct context to the suggestion that the 2-3's to 3/4 of the continental landmass of Australia which is used for grazing and not crops could potentially be used for crops, which is not currently true. Saying it could if someone figured out how is a truism. I could fly to mars using a kazoo and rubber band if I figured out how...

I would like to know how the cow farts are weighing into the green debate. The endangered animals you're collecting may not suffer directly from cattle, but will they suffer more from cow farts indirectly?

Irrigated cropland produces more greenhouse emissions per kilo of produce than meat. Rice is the worst offender, contributing 24 times more greenhouse gases per unit of produce than beef. http://www.breiling.org/publ/lcaricejap-en.pdf http://www.loleegreen.com/2009/04/food-for-thought-carbon-footprint-of-rice/comment-page-1/

Back of the envelope (read; highly speculative) calculations seem to indicate it only takes the production of about 30 - 80kg of rice on soil prone to anaerobic conditions to produce as much greenhouse gas as the manufacture of your average family car.
Figures from (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2010/sep/23/carbon-footprint-new-car and http://polizeros.com/2009/02/17/rice-has-much-higher-carbon-footprint-than-beef/)

wheat hits in at around 200kg CO2 per tonne http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/aboutus/n...-2011/carbon-footprint-for-one-tonne-of-wheat, beef at about 3640kg CO2 a tonne. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jul/19/climatechange.climatechange, so in terms of emissions, unirrigated crops clearly win.

Some but not all of Australian produced soybeans are irrigated http://www.australianoilseeds.com/soy_australia/growing_soybeans

It's not as simple as cows fart = greenhouse effect, plants don't fart = no greenhouse gas.

It's not a black/White answer between Cattle or Crops.

Nope, and roo meat clearly beats out both in terms of environmental impact.

 

[No Skid Marks]

Irrigated cropland produces more greenhouse emissions per kilo of produce than meat. Rice is the worst offender, contributing 24 times more greenhouse gases per unit of produce than beef. http://www.breiling.org/publ/lcaricejap-en.pdf http://www.loleegreen.com/2009/04/food-for-thought-carbon-footprint-of-rice/comment-page-1/

Back of the envelope (read; highly speculative) calculations seem to indicate it only takes the production of about 30 - 80kg of rice on soil prone to anaerobic conditions to produce as much greenhouse gas as the manufacture of your average family car.
Figures from (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2010/sep/23/carbon-footprint-new-car and http://polizeros.com/2009/02/17/rice-has-much-higher-carbon-footprint-than-beef/)

wheat hits in at around 200kg CO2 per tonne http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/aboutus/n...-2011/carbon-footprint-for-one-tonne-of-wheat, beef at about 3640kg CO2 a tonne. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jul/19/climatechange.climatechange, so in terms of emissions, unirrigated crops clearly win.

Some but not all of Australian produced soybeans are irrigated http://www.australianoilseeds.com/soy_australia/growing_soybeans

It's not as simple as cows fart = greenhouse effect, plants don't fart = no greenhouse gas.



Nope, and roo meat clearly beats out both in terms of environmental impact.

Wow, that's nuts. I stand corrected. Still won't change my diet much due to poor welfare practices for animals.
What about farmed fish(out of curiosity, not for debate)?
and things like hemp for seed?

 

[moorey]

2 layman points come to mind arête.

Irrigated rice is a poor comparison, and one that you will struggle to find support from anyone with any concern for sustainability or the environment.

Plants also soak up carbon and produce oxy. Have you factored that in?


Lets compare apples with apples.

 

[Arete]

2 layman points come to mind arête.
Irrigated rice is a poor comparison, and one that you will struggle to find support from anyone with any concern for sustainability or the environment.

Yeah - that's the point, rice being a vegan food option and all. Dividing foods up into animal/non animal and applying certain blanket environmental and ethical assumptions deviates from reality.

Plants also soak up carbon and produce oxy. Have you factored that in?

Click links to find calculation methodologies. Are you aware that the use of fertilizer and decay of plant material (particularly in anaerobic conditions) releases methane and NOx in addition to carbon dioxide? Food production =/= carbon sequestration - any CO2 stored in the process is released promptly back into the atmosphere - in some cases converted to far nastier greenhouse gases.

Lets compare apples with apples.

You mean like food production methods with food production methods? I was pretty sure that's what I was doing.

NSM - I can find only a couple of articles trying to quantify the carbon cost of aquaculture - http://tekmar.no/tema/marked/2009-Carbon_footprint_of_seafood_products.pdf http://www.enaca.org/modules/wfdownloads/singlefile.php?cid=198&lid=917

Basically there's no easy number a aquaculture is an umbrella term for a bunch of industries and nobody has tried very hard to come up with a number for any of them, but it looks like it is extremely high due to a couple of factors: 1) Food for the predatory fish humans like to eat needs to be extremely high in nutrients and is thus costly to produce 2) The waste ammonia from fish farming produces NOx and CO2 in large quantities.

It's really hard to find any environmentally ethical seafood.

Hemp seeds - no clue. There's a shit tin of pro cannabis suggestion it's super environmentally friendly but given the level of dubious information coming from the pro pot lobby on other issues I'd view it with a high level of skepticism.

 

[moorey]

Apples to apples, I think broad acre dryland wheat/chickpea/lentil (as grown by my family) is a better comparison than irrigated rice.

Personslly, we eat VERY little rice. Maybe as a side dish twice a month.

Again, environmental factors are low on my dietary choice checklist, but I'm happy to play advocate as best I can.

 

[Arete]

Apples to apples, I think broad acre dryland wheat/chickpea/lentil (as grown by my family) is a better comparison than irrigated rice.

If you re-read you'll notice I included a figure for wheat (indeed one calculated by the industry itself). I disagree that comparisons should be biased towards those that would favor one argument or the other. If the position you state:

I maintain that a vegan vegetarian diet is far more sustainable on land and resources

rings true then it should be shown unequivocally in factual comparisons (i.e. easy to support with data). I'm yet to see you post anything apart form opinion and conjecture and I disagree with your argument that evidence does not support a positive assertion.

What I'm arguing is that your statement above is not true, and that the "sustainability" (I hate that word) of a given human diet is considerably more multifactorial (read: complicated and full of grey areas) than whether or not it includes animal products.

 

[brisneyland]

ten chars....