The current thinking is that hominid brain growth was due to our ancestors taking up carnivory in the late Pliocene/early Pleistocene.

However, going from that observation to claiming that vegetarianism stunts your brain shows evidence of ... something; you're not vegetarian, are you?

Felix,

While I agree that GHG is likely to damage productivity, unless a crisis is declared, change is unlikely to be significant as people really dont see how climate change impacts them enough to motivate action. Once you understand the food insecurity problem, issues like GHG suddenly become more relevant. Julian Cribb quotes a spanish proverb, Civilisation and anarchy are only 7 meals apart. The problem is food and one root cause is GHG. In reference to your analogy, GHG is a big toe . PESTEL analysis is a very useful tool. If climate change wasnt there, we would still have politics, economics etc that would be needed to be managed.

As a vegan coming from a background of being a Dietitian, I would love to connect the groups of Vegans, and Environmental advocates and a) push for LOCAL MEAT, DAIRY, and EGGS instead of factory farm products.
b) these are both more humane, better for human health, better for the environment in total (polluted streams don't result in more emissions, but still should be avoided!) and may likely result in people eating FEWER servings of meat because local, grass fed meat is of higher quality than gmo-corn fed cow meat, and since people are eating less of this better quality meat in total will have an impact.

A large impact with sticking with this as part of a multi-pronged approach climate change is getting people to realize that OUR FOOD CHOICES MATTER and affect other people, and our planet.

and it isn't tactical to necessarily invest all effort in one way of doing things. Our world is very complex.

I can walk or ride my bike to work frequently or even give up my car entirely (as I have done)
while at the same time I limit eating meat and dairy (or avoid entirely)

while I turn down the thermostat...install LED bulbs AND minimize the usage... on and on.

If one is a Catholic does one only follow a couple of the commandments as a strategy? Is it a conflict for me to do more than one environmentally friendly thing? I think it's imperative that we really live it--not pick the easiest change to make.
WE are the example for others.

Daniel, I am not sure what you mean by 'local' products as opposed to 'factory' products. Almost all beef sold in Australia is local and is free range and grass fed. I am not aware of any corn-fed beef here, although there are some feedlotters who use grain as a short term finishing feed. Australian dairy products come from free range cows.
I've worked in the farming sector for a long time and I can assure you that there is no correlation between farming system and environmental impact or approach to animal welfare. I've seen organic farms with appalling environmental practices and free range self styled 'alternate' livestock producers with even worse welfare attitudes. I've seen test results on organic products that show contaminants such as heavy metals that are directly harmful to human health. Some of the best practices on all counts have been from what activists might consider to be 'factory' farms
The lesson is that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to farming systems or to eating habits. Nor is there any right or wrong - within the bounds of the law.
Everyone is entitled to make their own choices - and no-one has the right to enforce their own emotional or political views on others.

@Daniel- good luck getting vegans to sign up to that.
In my experience the abolitionist vegans are only interested in talking about sustainability insofar as it helps achieve their goal of a vegan utopia where all animal use is banned. That value system will always see a heavily processed soy burger airlifted in from a former South American rainforest as morally superior to any meat product ever, regardless of its glowing green and welfare credentials. If you don't believe me go for a tour of the vegan/ animal rights web forums: Meat eaters are all uneducated scum, brutal cancerous fat supporters of the animal holocaust. Vegans are all highly evolved health superbeings on an Oscar Schindler style mission to save animalkind...

Why is it people contributing to this conversation have no idea what Aussie livestock eat?

www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf.../abare-feedgrains-report.pdf

Beef cattle 3.7m tonnes grain per year, dairy 2.6m tonnes/yr.

iron deficiancy is related to a number of factors--I've been a vegan for over 6 years, take no Iron and have noted deficiency, which lab and American Red Cross tests show.

-Dietitian Dan

the human body does get better at absorbing non-heme iron if that is the only source. I do cook in Iron skillets frequently and eat a balanced mostly whole food plant-based diet.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=299634460136724&set=a.163956000371238.24803.131369396963232&type=1

Byron, that's why I say technically. There are so many caveats to production of biofuels and animals that to say one is neutral or not is never really a blanket statement. Was fertiliser used in the system, was it a closed or open system, was the methane trapped and burnt for "biofuel", etc, all stipulations that radically change the calculation.

That is pretty much why I'm not a fan of biofuels and why I'm a big fan of the emission reduction research that is going on for agriculture. The big advantage I see of emission reduction research is the added bonus of more efficient agricultural production.

Tim,

Aren't the dramatic improvements you're talking about in quantifying agricultural emissions in Australia (I'm always sceptical of unpublished data, let alone second hand accounts of these data), primarily for N2O emissions, given our more efficient application rates etc.? And wouldn't this have a greater impact on estimates for crop production than for livestock?

I'd suggest the CH4 estimates are fairly robust. Given the relatively high percentage of free-range ruminants in Australia (which tend to produce more CH4 than those in feedlots) the high contribution (>10%) to radiative forcing seems unsurprising.

I'm not strictly a vegetarian, but I really don't see how you can argue that the CO2e/kJ from livestock is not quite a lot higher than from plant-based foods.

But without you giving at least ball-park figures of the supposed changes in the estimates of the contribution of N2O and/or CH4, you're really not giving me or anyone else the means to evaluate your statements.

Could we agree that grazing on land that is suitable for cropping is inefficient, that growing crops to feed to livestock is inefficient, and that overgrazing is a big problem in Australia?

Tom, let me get this straight. You want me to quote figures that are incorrect, figures that are based upon European measures and guesstimates? You then also want to dismiss the fact that there is current work trying to assess the actual emissions, that this project was raised and funded for the very reasons that I am arguing. In fact, when you consider that accurate figures can't be presented, then the argument that changing from omnivore to vegan is somehow good can't be made in the first place.

I can see that you would want some hard data for my claims, but as I said, the data are not mine to publish. But I can point out the flaws in the current calculations and how emissions are not quoted fairly. For example, ruminants produce waste methane, but the majority of crop N fertiliser applied volatilises (the amount differing by application type and fertiliser type) as NO, a much more potent greenhouse gas than methane. Wetter areas (Europe) have differing volatilisation rates to drier areas (Australia) and are more likely to have N pass out of the root zone. As far as I'm aware this difference is not accounted for.

Another example is transfer of emissions between production types. An extensive grazing enterprise is lower input, less fertilisers, less emissions from the grasses. The entire animal is used in manufacture (not just the meat, a major flaw in calculations of water, nutrients and emissions comparisons) whereas the crop only uses the seed (or whatever). The majority of biomass remains to breakdown and is not "sequestered" as any products.

So my objection is that emissions from agriculture are part of food production and all need to more efficient. Changing production type doesn't benefit our emissions, it just causes a shift in the type of emission, which is no better or only marginally better for the environment. I'm really sick of the anti-agriculture claims made by lobby groups (like vegans), because they spin a tale that lacks any substance and rationale. I don't care if people don't want to eat meat, I just want the spurious claims about the environment and agriculture to stop.

No, I never asked for you to quote incorrect figures, and I never asked you to dismiss current work. I never even asked for hard data. I asked for ball-park figures on the extent of changes in estimates, and the direction of change.

Let me put the questions more simply:
- Will the new estimates result in a downward or upward revision of Australia's N2O? emissions?
- Are there new estimates for CH4 emissions from livestock in Australia? (Downward or upward?)

My point is, even if the current figures are unsound (sure, they may well be), you would need a staggering upward revision in crop emission estimates AND and staggering downward revision of livestock methane emission estimates for a change in diet to only amount to a "shift in emissions". And even then, so much grain is grown to feed livestock it's difficult to see how livestock emissions wouldn't still be higher.

Mark,
This is a really complex issue and more so after it was recognised there is a likely link between food insecurity and the worlds political hot spots, and obesity despite poverty.

Point 3 picks up on something I wanted to challenge Bruce Campbell on but he suggested his stats were net of takeup in plants. It is therefore incremental but your point needs this type of validation.

I dont think you need to justify support for cattle as FAO themselves recognise the potential despite the environmental challenges. Judith's point about loss of biodiversity is reasonable if we are to believe polemic films that suggest US burgers are sourced from ranches that were once rainforest. R M Williams might have agreed with your view though! Farmers are more mindful than we give credit and deserve our support.

Mr Adams, I salute you.

What I take hundreds of words to say, you say in a few. Looks like you took a few lessons from Abe Lincoln when he wrote his Gettysburg Address.

Again, well done.

Gerard Dean

Mr Scanlon,

How so am I 'cherry picking' in my comment.

Are you saying that:

- JetA1 fuel is not a fossil fuel? Science says otherwise.
- There are alternative renewable jet fuels? Science has not yet won this battle.
- People who fly to Europe or Nepal or Peru are not flying for pleasure? Science can take a rest, just ask your many friends who are winging off this summer holidays.
- Flying is not discretionary? Again, do you and your friends NEED to fly to the US or Thailand or Bali or Queensland or China or Europe or the Greek Islands.

I trust you are not one of those who tell me to stop burning JetA1 fossil fuel, but then proceed to burn it yourself for your own pleasure.

As Mr Adams commented, 'People seem to want to have their carbon and emit it too.'

Gerard Dean

You can't resist bringing up your straw man furphy about aircraft use, can you?

So, here's the necessary slapdown: biofuel R&D is proceeding apace.

All that is necessary for rollout of the technology is a price on fossil carbon (ie a price that distinguishes between geosequestered and photosynthetically fixed carbon. Regrettably, our Brains Trust (economists) cannot tell the difference ...

DavidA, I go with Gerard on biofuels being silly, no matter how correctly we burden fiossil fuels with their damages.

Biofuel, of any sort, yields less that 1% of the plant-captured solar energy. Photosynthesis wasn't designed by Ma Nature to make us fuels to burn, so it's only ~7% efficient to start.

The additional debits on water, farming operations, processing, transporting, etc., biofuels just completely flop. The only possibly viable ones could come from specially-bred algae, but again, the inherent inefficiency and energy needed for water removal, etc. are severe burdens.

The way to make truly carbon-neutral fuels is simple -- above 700C, process heat can dissociate water & CO2 and allow any CxHy fuel to be synthesized. This is why sources like advanced nuclear will \pay many dividends, beyond just electricity and desalination.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but

1. Some if not many of those pastures (internationally) came about through forest clearing, which has contributed to salinity and soil erosion, in addition to the carbon sink issue.

2. The pastures (in Australia at least) seem to be prone to drought, which means the cattle would need to be fed grains in the interim. Whether we import or grow that grain, a forest somewhere has been cut down to grow that grain, which might otherwise be fed to humans.

3. Australia is red and usually dead in the middle, but around pretty much all the coastlines, in particular the east of the continent, is naturally occurring swathes of bushland as far as the eye can see. The entire Sydney basin used to be a forest. So did Perth, Brisbane and Melbourne. That's millions of trees not growing here now, all because of urban sprawl, most of which began (after European invasion) as pastureland for cattle and sheep.

4. It is sensible to farm near a source of naturally occurring water, such as a river. The trees are logged to make room for the farm, fair enough. Except that this changes how the river runs, and run off, salinity and such occurs in that river and flows downstream to the ocean. Acidification of the ocean destroys coral reefs and increases the odds of cyclones (check an article on here by Sue Lawler - woot I remembered the name!) and messes up the environment. This is a problem happening with pretty much every farm in the world. On top of that, oodles of factories have been built near water to use the water for production/cleaning and have polluted it with run-off waste. We might have laws to control that, but those laws don't have strong teeth, and this occurs around the world, so it's a culmulative effect of what everyone, not just we, do.

Cattle, sheep, etc are a needless burden on the environment, one of many, and we are a burden to them. Just as an example we can eat chickens, who can walk around the garden and eat the bugs and its poop can fertilise the gardens, all just by letting the chooks do it. We can eat their eggs and get B12 from the eggs (not much) and albumin and iron and several other healthy things. All without killing or hurting the chicken, chopping down trees, or using vast tracts of land for grain.

Admittedly, I am biased. I am allergic to milk and frustrated with how many foods have casein added to it. But what I also know is that I've eliminated an entire food group and that it's possible to get all the nutrients I need from other sources. It's a pain in the backside checking every label and my preferences/tastes have had major rethinks. But milk makes me very sick and even after so much time, I am still understanding this problem. This does not represent the needs of everyone, but, it's fair to say that it's not a new thing and it flew under the radar for thirty years while me and my planet suffered needlessly. So I think people assume that because the dairy council says it's a food group and also fund the dietician's board (check it, they do) we all think dairy is good for us and ignore the evidence that says that in some people it's downright awful, and in other people, it's consumed far too much anyway.

If I can live without milk, you can too, just be careful what you eat.
You'll need the magnesium, iron, B12 and calcium, all available from other foods (when you learn where to look). What we don't need is the 20 types of morphine that casein breaks down into, and what we don't need is global warming caused by deforestation, salinity, acidification and the meaningless slaughter of animals when we have other choices, like eating their eggs. Besides most cultures don't traditionally use milk products in the diet and those cultures didn't have obesity and diabetes epidemic before the western diet was introduced, and those cultures - let's be honest here - have more delightful cuisine than the meat and three veg Pommy tradition some of our ancestors imported.

Besides, milk is a recent dietary element, and it is consistently overused, to the detriment of cows, people and the planet. In my case it's just that I'm even more worse off than usual, it's still doing harm to others - by degrees and kind. I get all sorts of crap now - later, you may well get a heart attack.

There are careful food choices that can be made and I kindly suggest that people stop shooting the messengers or being stuck up and over doing things (like vegans or carnies), put down that cheeseburger, and have an apple instead.

And note that the 2009 Copenhagen Assessment of 1Tonne/capita ignored the effects of ocean acidification, now proceeding inexorably to sea food-chain shutdowns, first likely in the N. Atlantic, in years, not decades; and regardless of any combustion halt.

Then too, the problem few wish to raise is quite simple -- population per planet.

All that methane? Crikey.

Imagine how much less methane would be emitted if the cattle were populated with kangaroo gut flora, and also how much more weight gain the cattle would manage per kg feed.

Alternatively, do away with cattle (eat all of them?), and take up kangaroo breeding.

"Perhaps it's time they diversified a bit or at least had some thought for for farmers who grow vegetables, fruits, wholegrains, legumes, seeds and nuts."

I'm sure I'm not the only one who isn't so keen on poisoning themselves with grains, seeds and beans just so farmers can continue their vocation of choice!

Steve,
Why do you think that grains, seeds and beans are poisonous? Do you have any references? Has an actual nutritionist ever claimed this? Or is it just claimed by people who misunderstand evolution?

The farmed kangaroo debate always fascinates me.
There is a reason Kangaroos aren't farmed, and if you have ever seen a Kangaroo under pressure you would understand why.

How do grazers "regenerate my landscape"? Were they there before the English dropped folks off? Were they there before the Aboriginals arrived?

The problem with meat is that it's a very inefficient way of converting sunlight to food energy, and it emits a lot of methane along the way to the dinner table -- much worse than just CO2.

Since photosynthesis is only ~7% efficient, vegans aren' t great either, but the herbivore knocks that 7% down to way below 1%, while adding much methane farting.

.

Alex, there many large herbivores in Australia prior to, and for a while after, aboriginal settlement of this country. A lot of ruminants evolved alongside & in a synegistic relationship with the worlds grasslands, and the grasses respond the same now to how they have for millions of years if given the chance. It alway dissapoints me that people can be so quick to blame animals for what has been a 'human decision making problem' causing ecological damage for the last few thousand years.
Most of the worlds land surface area is arid or semi arid and the bacteria in the gut of the ruminant plays a vital role in cycling carbon & nutrients, as well preparing a seed bed, breaking down and opening up dry vegetation for new growth as well as enhancing water retention. There is no better way available for us to turn dry cellulitic fibre into high quality protein, and unfortunately because of the ridiculous bias against animals we are left with many areas being needlessly burnt every year, adding to the degradation.
Google 'Allan Savory", "Holistic Management", or Terry McCosker and cell grazing to get more information. They are revolutionary's to an extent & so have plenty of critics.
Oddly enough though, those that follow their principles have had amazing regeneration on their land all over the world.
Cattle have a vital role to play, and it isn't being locked up on concrete being force fed grain. If they were meant to be like that they would have evolved with gumboots and a beak...
All the best.

Ok, Graham, I get what you're saying and agree generally. My concern is only similar to what transpired here in Calif. after the Spanish padres came over, brought their grazers & seeds and changed much of our environment.

So my remaining question is why cattle, which are hybrid and not indigenous there, as here?

Most plants and animals came from somewhere else at some point in history. This idea that ecosystems are locked in to a particular period or 'state' is a reductionist scientific fallacy, and there should be much more effort placed in trying to improve overall health and biodiversity rather than clammering for some fantasy 'pristine' condition. My cattle do not detract from the lands capacity to support a wide variety of flora & fauna, they actually enhance it greatly.
The reason I choose cows, is that they are economically viable, easier to manage than wildlife such as roo's (which are not ruminants and are prolific here anyway), and the cows do a fantastic job.
We need much more focus and research directed towards systems that deliver good results, rather than the continual blame game that academics tend to get caught up in.
Animals produced in a 'natural environment' that are managed well are net sequesters of carbon, and that includes methane, so as I've said before vegetarians that are truly concerned about the planet should be supporters of animal 'industries' that have a good result. Anyone that thinks we are somehow 'seperate' from nature and that we shouldn't eat other creatures is so far removed from nature & how the living world operates that I would not waste my time arguing with them.
As a wise man once said - "Never argue with a fool, they'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience every time"

Graham, I apparently asked a sensitive question, given your response to "why cows?"

"Most plants and animals came from somewhere else at some point in history. This idea that ecosystems are locked in to a particular period or 'state' is a reductionist scientific fallacy"

A tautology isn't a reason. I don't know how cows perform in Australia. I do know that grazing animals brought to the N. American West by the Spanish, along with European wheat, caused serious damage to native species.

Alex, the vast grasslands of the world evolved with herbivores of many different species. There is not that much difference between a bison & an old hereford cow when it comes to how the plants and soil react to specific management.
The animals have never been responsible for the land degradation. Management that has included holding animals in restricted areas (even in small numbers), and / or keeping them there too long or returning too early can always be found to have been the issue if you dig deep enough.
The degradation escalated in many areas with the introduction of wire, and in particular 'barbed wire' which allowed animals to be restricted easily without labour. For a long time before that they were herded, which sort of mimicked how it was in nature with predators keeping animals bunched and on the move.
I wasn't using tautology. Cows are my preferred choice for many reasons, but any herbivore could do the job to an extent. The point is that I think using biology (including cows - they are just a big 'ol biological fermentation tank after all) is the key to seriously addressing many of our ecological woes.

Graham, I'll take your word that unfenced Aussie cows are ok!

There was an interesting article, I think it was actually on the Conversation, about local extinctions of native fauna, caused by removing buffalo and managing the landscape by strategic firing.
Apparently they learnt that the Buffalo were actually beneficial to the landscape.

"animal justice issues are often overlooked in the food sustainability debate" for good reason- they are actually wholly separate discussions.
In their calculations of 'animal justice' and food production, do the pro-vegetarians remember to factor in the fact that kilo for kilo of product arable farming causes several times more deaths than meat production? Its called pest control. Its the reason vegan claims to be 'saving animal lives' are a joke.

Mark,

"do the pro-vegetarians remember to factor in the fact that kilo for kilo of product arable farming causes several times more deaths than meat production?"

Do you have any references for this claim? If so, do they account for the pest control involved in meat and feed crop production?

Hi Mark.
I've noticed a lot of people try to justify eating meat by painting apocalyptic scenarios of life without meat farmers, as if meat farmers are the key to the ecosystem that locks everything in place. Even if this was he case, I don't see how it is a good argument against eating less or no meat. Consider this statement.

I'm not going to take my bike instead of my car today because the world would be a horrible place if all cars ceased to exist overnight.

Do you think this is a good argument?