i'd be really curious to see a follow-up on this in a year - will this effect continue, or is it only occuring because the meat dishes being so far away is unexpected, and once people get used to the location of the meat dishes they'll skip to them.
Adding a metre between meals boosts vegetarian appeal – study
41–50 of 103 posts
Re: Adding a metre between meals boosts vegetarian appeal – study
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agriculture causes around 10%, while transportation, including freight and flights causes around 30%. Among the most effective things you can do yourself with minimal impact of your way of life is choosing to eat less meat. Edit: the numbers I remembered was for Europe. Globally food production is 25%
These are USA numbers correct? My numbers are whole world numbers.
Most I can tell your numbers are just entirely made up, I've never heard of any serious study ever estimating global green house gas emissions from agriculture under 10%.
https://www.c2es.org/content/international-emissions/
>Globally, the primary sources of greenhouse gas emissions are electricity and heat (31%), agriculture (11%), transportation (15%), forestry (6%) and manufacturing (12%). Energy production of all types accounts for 72 percent of all emissions.
Re: Adding a metre between meals boosts vegetarian appeal – study
#43Today I learned that the British meter is 181 centimeters.
Re: Adding a metre between meals boosts vegetarian appeal – study
#44The temporal dimension is just as important as space. Adding a year between eating meat and a plant-based diet also makes the alternatives more appealing. After being meat and dairy free for awhile my cravings changed. I guess our brains are plastic? I ate (and loved!) meat for 28 years, but today I don't even crave it, and can report I enjoy food just as much as I used to. If being plant-based required will-power, I…
I can relate to your experience on switching to plant-based diet.
Re: Adding a metre between meals boosts vegetarian appeal – study
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article isn’t about vegetables being good “for you”. It’s about a college cafeteria experimenting to reduce carbon emissions and the amount of land required to serve meals: > Last year, University cafeterias (separate from the colleges) announced a 33% reduction in carbon emissions per kilogram of food purchased, and a 28% reduction in land use per kilogram of food purchased.
Something I dont think very many people realize is that cattle are raised on land that is unsuitable for practically any other purpose. They aren't ranching in Manhatten. Leasing land for grazing brings in about $70 an acre while doing it for crops will bring in around $280 an acre. Development of course would bring in amounts that are several orders of magnitude higher. Where cattle are raised, raising cattle is the…
Thats not hugely relevant though, quoting from the wiki article:
"Grazing systems supply about 9 percent of the world's production of beef"
The overwhelming majority of cows live on maize, soy, barley etc.
Article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle_feeding#Grazing
Re: Adding a metre between meals boosts vegetarian appeal – study
#46Today I learned that the British meter is 181 centimeters.
They added a meter. FTA:
The difference: almost a metre of added distance between the vegetarian and meat options, with an 85cm gap in the first college compared to a 181cm gap in the second
Re: Adding a metre between meals boosts vegetarian appeal – study
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it? As a rule of thumb, each layer of indirection in the food chain retains only 10% of the energy from the previous layer. If we eat the stuff we give to cows (which is what vegetarians do) then we would need only 10% of the land to farm it.
Being pedantic. If we eat the stuff they feed to the cows I eat we would die. Grass is not human digestible. My point being the problem is not meat which is a natural part of our diet (and is traditionally raised on land not well suited to crops) but the crazy frankenmeat many are reduced to eating due to overpopulation.
All meats are causing much more greenhouse gas emissions than vegetarian food. Even cows only eating grass farts a lot, which is a significant contribution (not kidding).
Re: Adding a metre between meals boosts vegetarian appeal – study
#48Stop trying to nudge me. Focus instead on cultured meat, because that actually solves the fundamental problem.
I'm curious if you've tried Beyond Meat? Not saying it is comparable, but it is quite good in my opinion, much better than the old veggie burger options. Just interested in subjective opinions of people of how close it gets to being a viable alternative to people who currently eat meat.
I've tried it (not OP), and as someone who loves meat (not fanatic though), if I'd been told it's a regular burger there's a decent chance I wouldn't have suspected. Don't remember if the nutritional content is similar to meat but taste-wise, for me, it's definitely a viable alternative.
Re: Adding a metre between meals boosts vegetarian appeal – study
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article isn’t about vegetables being good “for you”. It’s about a college cafeteria experimenting to reduce carbon emissions and the amount of land required to serve meals: > Last year, University cafeterias (separate from the colleges) announced a 33% reduction in carbon emissions per kilogram of food purchased, and a 28% reduction in land use per kilogram of food purchased.
Something I dont think very many people realize is that cattle are raised on land that is unsuitable for practically any other purpose. They aren't ranching in Manhatten. Leasing land for grazing brings in about $70 an acre while doing it for crops will bring in around $280 an acre. Development of course would bring in amounts that are several orders of magnitude higher. Where cattle are raised, raising cattle is the…
Which is entirely irrelevant because 90%+ of cattle produced for meat do not graze, they are fed industrial produced corn and soy in crowded feedlots. We don't have the physical space on earth for all the cattle we currently produce to graze naturally.