It would be kinder than letting millions die of starvation which is what would happen if we took your idea seriously.

Whole world goes vegetarian

=

millions die of starvation

millions already die of starvation.

Growing animals uses more water than growing crops??? Rubbish.

No, that makes sense – there’s the water that’s used to grow their feed, and then the water they themselves drink.

And fert regimes, phosphate and nitrate run-off is very much connected. Urine is not a problem per se; its what in it and the amount of it that that can be problematic and that is a direct consequence of diet.

And intensifcation CAN lead to nitrification of waterways, but it doesn’t HAVE to.

Nandor you either accept what I’m saying is meant in good faith or you don’t. This isn’t a debate as far as I’m concerned because like you, I’m not a scientists and not qualified to explain the bilogical processes that link these issues. This is a highly technical area of science and practice. You can’t boil it down to sweeping generalisations and a back of a postage stamp once over lightly conclusion. If you choose to cling to your generalised views without speaking to qualified people that advise on this issue and deal with it at the coal face with farmers, then that’s your choice. You might consider that if I wasn’t genuine, I wouldn’t bothered to take the time to respond to you.

LOL

In any case, we weren’t discussing water quality. Show some valid evidence that farmers can significantly reduce methane emission by adjusting their fertiliser regime and I’ll be impressed. Continue to make general statements of no evidential value and it doesn’t seem worth continuing the conversation.

Maybe he’s planning a career as a mobile judder bar because it would certainly stop traffic.

“Le Grand Fromage, you need to put trousers on before leaving the house. People will think you are creepy otherwise”

Duh. He’ll be wearing his baby fur seal jocks. So no probs!

Mind you, will that outfit work? It might be fine for the odd occasion, but its a bit full on. You wouldn’t wear it every day would you?”

Hey, Le Grande Fromage – apart from attending Green parties, what exactly were you intending to do while dressed in that get up? thedavincimode and I are most intrigued as you have clearly put much thought into your ideas of elegance and it seems to reflect some kind of new sartorial superhero. Are you going to save us from Nandor?

In a nutshell, livestock emissions are a product of what they eat and what they eat is a product of how its grown and what it grows in. Its science. You clearly haven’t spoken to the right people. Speak to soil and animal nutrition scientists that don’t have an axe to grind and who can explain to you the fertilityrequirements for growing grass and what happens when fertility is screwed up. You are no doubt aware of the damage that phosphate and nitrate run-off causes, but you don’t appear to understand why that happens and why there was no need for it to happen and how we’ve got to the situation that we’re in. Animals are no different from humans and if they eat dodgy grub, then that has consequences for their health (and on-farm profitability) and their emissions.

Ignoring some of the more bizarre elements of your post, you have boiled it down to:

“what goes in = what comes out”

Not exactly. Its digested on the way. I realise there is lots of work going on into changing feed to reduce methane emissions, but we have yet to see how big a result that will get – unless something has been published very recently?

“livestock are a vat”

No, they are not. They are a mammal, with a living internal ecosystem.

“its a biochemical reaction”

Your point being ?

“and then suggesting some people, including soil scientists, that he could talk to so that he could form his own opinion”

Well, I have spoken to a range of scientists, farmers, environmental regulators, academics and economists and I have made up my own mind, based on the best information available to me to date. If you think that there is something I’m missing, then spell it out.

By your current line of reasoning one could argue that cars don’t emit air pollution because:

what goes in = what comes out
its a chemical reaction
a car engine is a machine
go speak to someone about it

I’m far from convinced about ’starvation’ (“According to the USDA, growing the crops necessary to feed farmed animals requires nearly half of the United States’ water supply and 80 percent of its agricultural land. Additionally, animals raised for food in the U.S. consume 90 percent of the soy crop, 80 percent of the corn crop, and a total of 70 percent of its grain – wiki”) however – would need some sort of evaluation like RRM’s on the world’s soils, not just New York’s.

RRM @ 5.43 gives the answer – most food crops require better land than pastures do.

Climate, topography and soils which are fine for growing pasture on which stock can graze aren’t always suitable for cropping.

Is there something about indicating that what goes in = what comes out, that livestock are a vat, that its a biochemical reaction, and then suggesting some people, including soil scientists, that he could talk to so that he could form his own opinion that passed you by?

Goodness. Why could that be?

Hmmm

Yes you are.

And haughty and patronising as well, yet you don’t make any contribution to sensible debate – unless you consider those interminable ad hominem rants sensible contributions.

No facts, no figures, no references to peer reviewed science in credible publications. Nandor comes across as 100 times more considered, informed and, yes, respectful even of opposing views, than you.

I’m not saying he is better informed than you, but you just don’t give us anything factual to go on. Because, in the void you create, we will have to go with Nandor.

It may not be rocket science, but neither is it a secret code.

She didn’t … surely … did she??

But then why should I be surprised?

I’m not being snarky or nasty when I say this because I do believe your heart is in the right place in this respect.

But you don’t seem to know what you are talking about and that’s a bit tragic for the melons former environment spokesperson.

If you are serious about this, then get informed. Given your response, you seem to be relying on party line propaganda; not science. Its got nothing to do with keeping a cow in the attic or jumping about under the full moon with your jack crackers flopping about. It boils down to the simple fact that what goes in determines what comes out. Its just a biochemical reaction. Livestock are just a fermentation vat. I’m genuinely disappointed at your response because its just party line rhetoric based on ignorance – like Turia on free trade and Kedgely on water today (good grief). Go talk to a few soil scientists. Then talk to some farmers and find out what actually happens on farms because you don’t seem to know. Then talk to some farm consultants and fertiliser reps. Then go back and talk to the soil scientists. After a while you will start to get a feel for what has been happening and where the problems and solutions lie. But don’t go on swallowing the global melon party line that in this regard seems to have its roots in protectionism.

Nandor, come on , really! The use of grains by the Meat and Dairy sectors around the world did not cause the recent percieved food shortages. The acceptance of the marketplace to steadily declining reserves of grain around the globe, combined with the biofuels phenomenon drove the price rises , and focused attention on the world reserves of grain, and the players all got a big fright, governments started slapping export bans on grain and hey presto, a bit of panic. Stocks have been rebuilt , to a point , and the market has settled , well slumped actually , but thats another story. Nice try though.