Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Animal rights and ethical food production

Jump to new
fiftyeight said:
Unfortunately it has been bottled. I can only justify this by the fact as a percentage of the life span of the nitrogen atom it only spends a small amout of time bottled.
Click to expand...


Disgraceful treatment of free radicals?:

NitroCage.jpg
 
SirRumpole said:
I think we all believe you, it's shocking and disgusting, but I don't watch such videos because I don't have the stomach to.
Click to expand...

I don't have the stomach for it either, but it's the truth, and I decided if I couldn't stomach the facts I shouldn't be able to stomach the products.

Not only is there terrible things happening to the animals behind our curtains of ignorance that he hide our eyes behind, but the industry is lying to us about the health benefit of their products.

------------

Who here has been told that Milk is needed for strong bones? probably every one.

However, the countries with the highest milk consumption also have the weakest bones, and the highest rates of osteoporosis, and higher rates of cancers caused by high levels of hormones.

The lies are spread by the milk and dairy industry.


Non graphic video about the risks with dairy.
 
Tisme said:
And here's me thinking narcissism was dead. He could of thought up a better script than using manic sarcasm as his preferred vehicle over the lies about italian cars and the porsche.
Click to expand...

I guess after 17 years of being told constantly you need to eat meat to get protein we can let him off for his sarcastic remarks, He is another example for you that you don't need meat to be an athlete.

I can tell you, as soon as you give up meat, its like every time some one notices that you don't eat meat they become an arm chair nutritionalist repeat the same protein and vitamin myths to you, I understand his frustration.
 
Value Collector said:
I guess after 17 years of being told constantly you need to eat meat to get protein we can let him off for his sarcastic remarks, He is another example for you that you don't need meat to be an athlete.

I can tell you, as soon as you give up meat, its like every time some one notices that you don't eat meat they become an arm chair nutritionalist repeat the same protein and vitamin myths to you, I understand his frustration.
Click to expand...

That has come through in your previous posts.

I'm still inclined to the dietary mix of the 50s and 60s where, in healthy families, the vegetable volume was high and meat portions small.
 
Tisme said:
That has come through in your previous posts.

I'm still inclined to the dietary mix of the 50s and 60s where, in healthy families, the vegetable volume was high and meat portions small.
Click to expand...

The less meat the better, a family that gives up meat can reduce their carbon foot print by more than they would if they gave up their car or got solar panels.

Even if you are willing to put aside the horrific treatment of animals thats involved, we still have to deal with the fact that Meat production (especially cattle) contributes more greenhouse gases than all the worlds Cars, planes, trains and trucks combined.

 
Value Collector said:
The less meat the better, a family that gives up meat can reduce their carbon foot print by more than they would if they gave up their car or got solar panels.

Even if you are willing to put aside the horrific treatment of animals thats involved, we still have to deal with the fact that Meat production (especially cattle) contributes more greenhouse gases than all the worlds Cars, planes, trains and trucks combined.
Click to expand...

It's about 20% of the population eat about 45% of greenhouse emissions? About 70% of Oz emissions are sheep and cattle, but when you take out the renewables (e.g. crops, weeds, etc) req'd to support the production it's about 10%?
 
Tisme said:
but when you take out the renewables (e.g. crops, weeds, etc) req'd to support the production it's about 10%?
Click to expand...

The crops and weeds come no where near offsetting the carbon released when the natural bush was cleared to make room for the farms. (bush and rainforest is being cleared all over the world and in australia to make room for cattle and the cropland needed to feed the cattle)

Not to mention the green house gases released from mining and break down of the fertilisers. (it can take over 4 times the amount of fertiliser to produce meat than it takes to produce food crops for humans)

Also the main problem is methane, which is 16 times more potent than carbon dioxide, yes the crops remove carbon dioxide, but then the cattle turn that into methane.
 
Value Collector said:
The crops and weeds come no where near offsetting the carbon released when the natural bush was cleared to make room for the farms. (bush and rainforest is being cleared all over the world and in australia to make room for cattle and the cropland needed to feed the cattle)

Not to mention the green house gases released from mining and break down of the fertilisers. (it can take over 4 times the amount of fertiliser to produce meat than it takes to produce food crops for humans)

Also the main problem is methane, which is 16 times more potent than carbon dioxide, yes the crops remove carbon dioxide, but then the cattle turn that into methane.
Click to expand...

Methane is CH4

Total sink (hydroxyls and troposphere loss) of methane emissions is something like 98% ?

Tree loss is a one off. The grass and cereals are renewables to offset current production.
 
Tisme said:
Methane is CH4

Total sink (hydroxyls and troposphere loss) of methane emissions is something like 98% ?

Tree loss is a one off. The grass and cereals are renewables to offset current production.
Click to expand...

the total amount of methane in the atmosphere is growing, because it takes a long time to break down into carbon dioxide, methane released today can have an effect for 100 years, it not like it just breaks down right away.
Methane in the earth's atmosphere is a strong greenhouse gas with a global warming potential (GWP) 104 times greater than CO2 in a 20-year time frame; methane is not as persistent a gas as CO2 and tails off to about GWP of 28 for a 100-year time frame.[4][11] This means that a methane emission will have 28 times the impact on temperature of a carbon dioxide emission of the same mass over the following 100 years. Methane has a large effect but for a relatively brief period, having an estimated lifetime of 8.9±0.6 years in the atmosphere,[12] whereas carbon dioxide has a small effect for a long period, having an estimated lifetime of over 100 years.

One of the most significant consequences of using a GWP 100 year time horizon for all GHGs regardless of their lifetime and warming potential is in sequestration. Here it leads to a serious underestimation, by a factor of approximately 3, for the volumes of CO2 sequestration which would be required to counter the warming effects of a given volume of methane. On the other hand, the benefits of rapid direct reductions of methane are also thought to be substantially obscured by this choice of warming time horizon for methane.[13]
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane

Tree loss is a one off. The grass and cereals are renewables to offset current production.
Click to expand...

Tree loss is a once off, but that carbon will remain in the atmosphere till the trees are allowed to grow back.

The grass and cereals do not offset the 100 year effect of the methane they are converted into, nor do they offset the other gases released by the fertilisers used and the energy used to mine the fertilisers etc.

 
Value Collector said:
the total amount of methane in the atmosphere is growing, because it takes a long time to break down into carbon dioxide, methane released today can have an effect for 100 years, it not like it just breaks down right away.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane



Tree loss is a once off, but that carbon will remain in the atmosphere till the trees are allowed to grow back.

The grass and cereals do not offset the 100 year effect of the methane they are converted into, nor do they offset the other gases released by the fertilisers used and the energy used to mine the fertilisers etc.

Click to expand...


Australian cattle and livestock industry is targetting 0% net gain within a decade I think it is.
 
27% of human contributing emissions are livestock. Human emissions are 64% of total, so livestock is ~17% of total.
 
Tisme said:
Australian cattle and livestock industry is targetting 0% net gain within a decade I think it is.
Click to expand...

Feel free to link some documents showing how they intend on doing that.

But even if the climate change wasn't a problem, I dare you to watch this video footage from a Sydney slaughter house, (0.50 mark) and see if you can trust what this industry says, or stomach eating an animal that has been processed like this.

 
Tisme said:
27% of human contributing emissions are livestock. Human emissions are 64% of total, so livestock is ~17% of total.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear live stock is more that Cars, Trucks, planes, ships and trains combined.
 
Value Collector said:
Feel free to link some documents showing how they intend on doing that.

But even if the climate change wasn't a problem, I dare you to watch this video footage from a Sydney slaughter house, (0.50 mark) and see if you can trust what this industry says, or stomach eating an animal that has been processed like this.

Click to expand...


I've been in abattoirs so I know what goes on in our slaughter houses. The actions in that video are gross violations and I would advocate imprisonment for all involved. Similarly I don't supported live exports outside Australia, religious branding, etc.

The subject is jumping around a bit: advantages of a vegan diet, greenhouse gases, cruelty to animals, etc.

I'm not privy to the objectives, tactics and strategies being applied for net zero emissions, but merely revealing the aim.
 
https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/botany/plants-feel-pain.htm

According to researchers at the Institute for Applied Physics at the University of Bonn in Germany, plants release gases that are the equivalent of crying out in pain. Using a laser-powered microphone, researchers have picked up sound waves produced by plants releasing gases when cut or injured. Although not audible to the human ear, the secret voices of plants have revealed that cucumbers scream when they are sick, and flowers whine when their leaves are cut [source: Deutsche Welle].

There's also evidence that plants can hear themselves being eaten. Researchers at the University of Missouri-Columbia found that plants understand and respond to chewing sounds made by caterpillars that are dining on them. As soon as the plants hear the noises, they respond with several defense mechanisms [source: Feinberg].

For some researchers, evidence of these complex communication systems -- emitting noises via gas when in distress -- signals that plants feel pain. Others argue that there cannot be pain without a brain to register the feeling. Still more scientists surmise that plants can exhibit intelligent behavior without possessing a brain or conscious awareness
Click to expand...
 
Top