(02-05-2023, 09:57 PM)brocode Wrote:

(02-05-2023, 09:46 PM)kathisterima Wrote:

(02-05-2023, 09:26 PM)brocode Wrote:

(02-05-2023, 09:19 PM)kathisterima Wrote: it's obvious this guy is misrepresenting and omitting stuff because he trying to push a narrative 

even without doing research I found a shitton of lies in this video

Tell me what those lies are

Raising cattle for food is not a BAD "carbon footprint". literally not.

yes it is, he is using a bad study that has been debunked

https://youtu.be/DkMOQ9X76UU

his point about water consumption is totally false, since cow urine (and the fertilizers used to feed the cow) are major groundwater pollution factors

he nitpicks beef vs white rice comparison when it's known that you can have plant-based sources with multiple times less water consumption and multiple times more calories provided than beef (energy is the most important metric and he completely skips it)

you are comparing a white rice, a carbohydrate, void of any protein and amino acid, with beef, a meat, full of protein, essential amino acids, NEEDED for every function of the human body.

it is not just energy. it is also a nutrient requirement.
plant based food sources do not have nor do they fulfil any sort of nutrient requirements.

bioidentical fake meat doesnt either.

cow urine isnt a groundwater polluter, cows pee into the land not into water, and the uric acid is absorbed by the soil and thats how the soil regains fertility. basic nitrogen cycle.
fertilizers are not used to feed cows, not really sure what you mean there, fertilizers are poisonous and we die upon consumption of it. immediate death by direct consumption, slow prolonged death by indirect consumption by way of farm grain.

the guy in ur video is highly retarded by way of simply shilling for veganism. and you know what his solution to the nutrients we cant get from plant is? (which is like 99% of nutrients), its taking supplements and pills. jfl why would i eat shit empty calorie fertilizer foods like plants and take pills? i'd rather just eat meat which is healthy, tasty, and makes my mood feel beautiful and gives me everything i need.

(02-05-2023, 10:11 PM)hollow Wrote:

(02-05-2023, 08:43 PM)brocode Wrote: of fucking course we all saw this coming @hollow

It's over if we don't farmmaxx soon

(02-05-2023, 10:37 PM)kathisterima Wrote:

(02-05-2023, 09:57 PM)brocode Wrote:

(02-05-2023, 09:46 PM)kathisterima Wrote:

(02-05-2023, 09:26 PM)brocode Wrote: Tell me what those lies are

Raising cattle for food is not a BAD "carbon footprint". literally not.

yes it is, he is using a bad study that has been debunked

https://youtu.be/DkMOQ9X76UU

his point about water consumption is totally false, since cow urine (and the fertilizers used to feed the cow) are major groundwater pollution factors

he nitpicks beef vs white rice comparison when it's known that you can have plant-based sources with multiple times less water consumption and multiple times more calories provided than beef (energy is the most important metric and he completely skips it)

you are comparing a white rice, a carbohydrate, void of any protein and amino acid, with beef, a meat, full of protein, essential amino acids, NEEDED for every function of the human body.

it is not just energy. it is also a nutrient requirement.
plant based food sources do not have nor do they fulfil any sort of nutrient requirements.

bioidentical fake meat doesnt either.

cow urine isnt a groundwater polluter, cows pee into the land not into water, and the uric acid is absorbed by the soil and thats how the soil regains fertility. basic nitrogen cycle.
fertilizers are not used to feed cows, not really sure what you mean there, fertilizers are poisonous and we die upon consumption of it. immediate death by direct consumption, slow prolonged death by indirect consumption by way of farm grain.

the guy in ur video is highly retarded by way of simply shilling for veganism. and you know what his solution to the nutrients we cant get from plant is? (which is like 99% of nutrients), its taking supplements and pills. jfl why would i eat shit empty calorie fertilizer foods like plants and take pills? i'd rather just eat meat which is healthy, tasty, and makes my mood feel beautiful and gives me everything i need.

and your guy is an anti-vegan loon making videos trying to debunk vegan diet. 

Quote:fruit is the most nutritionally dense caloric source

Quote:and regular meat consumption increases all-cause mortality and cancer risk among others

Quote:I said he is NITPICKING because white rice needs a lot of water and is mostly empty calories when he could have picked brown-rice for the same comparison or combination of plant-based calory sources that match the meat in water consumption

Quote:and yes, ammonia and nitrate pollution of soil and groundwater are real, you can literally just google this shit and find papers on it. When I say fertilizers I'm obviously referring to the ones used in crops destined to feed animals. This guy completely ignores this point in his video like it doesn't even exist. 

Quote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundwater_contamination_from_animal_agriculture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_contamination

(02-05-2023, 11:15 PM)brocode Wrote: no it isnt

(02-05-2023, 11:15 PM)brocode Wrote: no it doesnt. that's consumption of processed foods. which what supplement vegans shill for.

(02-05-2023, 11:15 PM)brocode Wrote: only in the synthetic form, natural ammonia in the form of urea enriches the soil. did you not learn about this in primary school?

Quote:Agriculture is the major source of ammonia (NH3) emissions to the atmosphere in the UK, accounting for >80% of anthropogenic emissions. Most of these emissions derive from urea excreted by farmed livestock (or uric acid in the case of poultry) and emissions will therefore arise wherever livestock excreta are deposited or managed i.e. at grazing, in livestock housing and during manure storage and application to land. Emissions also arise from inorganic nitrogen fertilisers applied to land.
https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/library/reports?report_id=977

Quote:Ammonia itself and the nitrogen deposition resulting from ammonia emissions negatively affect biodiversity. Ammonia is one of the main sources of nitrogen pollution, alongside nitrogen oxides. A major effect of ammonia pollution on biodiversity is the impact of nitrogen accumulation on plant species diversity and composition within affected habitats. Common, fast-growing species adapted to high nutrient availability thrive in a nitrogen-rich environment and out-compete species which are more sensitive, smaller or rarer.Ammonia pollution also impacts species composition through soil acidification, direct toxic damage to leaves and by altering the susceptibility of plants to frost, drought and pathogens (including insect pests and invasive species). At its most serious, if changes in species composition and extinctions are large, it may be that remaining vegetation and other species no longer fit the criteria for that habitat type, and certain sensitive and iconic habitats may be lost. Certain species and habitats are particularly susceptible to ammonia pollution. Bog and peatland habitats are made up of sensitive lichen and mosses which can be damaged by even low concentrations of ammonia. Grasslands, heathlands and forests are also vulnerable.

However, much of the wider evidence on biodiversity impacts relates to all nitrogen pollution, rather than just ammonia. There is far less evidence on the impact of ammonia, and nitrogen more generally, on animal species and the wider ecosystem. However, animal species depend on plants as a food source; therefore herbivorous animals are susceptible to the effects of ammonia pollution. There is a negative correlation between flower-visiting insects, such as bees and butterflies, and nitrogen pollution. Ammonia affects freshwater ecosystems through direct agricultural run-off leading to eutrophication Summary ii The impact of ammonia emissions from agriculture on biodiversity (accumulation of nutrients, leading to algal growth and oxygen depletion) and also has toxic effects on aquatic animals that often have thin and permeable skin surfaces.

Quantifying the economic impact of ammonia emissions on biodiversity is challenging and the methods used are subject to debate. Available estimates suggest that loss of biodiversity due to ammonia emissions could have impacts in the UK which can be valued, conservatively, at between £0.20 and £4 per kg of ammonia. Combining this with the monetised health impacts, our conservative estimate of the total costs from both health and biodiversity impacts of ammonia in the UK is £2.50 per kg of ammonia (though the range of possible values is from £2 to £56 per kg). This conservative estimate, combined with projected emission data, suggests that if no action is taken to reduce ammonia emissions, the negative impacts on the UK in 2020 could be equivalent to costs of over £700m per year. However, there are significant uncertainties in these values. The range of possible costs, based on the estimates in the literature and best available projections for emissions, are between £580m and £16.5bn per year.

https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/projects/evidence-synthesis/Ammonia/Ammonia-report.pdf

Quote:Effects of ammonia have been established from transect studies downwind of significant NH3 sources (van Herk 1999; Pitcairn et al. 1995, 1998; Wolseley et al. 2006) and a field release (Sheppard et al 2011). Ammonia can be taken up through the leaves via stomata, increasing the potential for nutrient N uptake. The consequences of foliar uptake and processing of an alkaline gas for cellular functions, appear to drive the deleterious effects of NH3 on terrestrial plants. Alkalinity is also thought to be a key driver for NH3 effects on epiphytic lichens (van Herk 2001). Atmospheric NH3 also impacts as NH4+, when the NH3 deposits to plant surfaces, dissolves and is washed into the soil where it can increase soil acidity and interfere with base cation uptake (Pearson and Stewart 1993, Fangmeier et al. 1994, Krupa 2003). Effects represent the combined effects of uptake through shoots as NH3/NH4+ and roots as NH4+.

Negative effects on vegetation occur via direct toxicity, when uptake exceeds detoxification capacity and, via N accumulation, which increases the likelihood of detrimental interactions with other abiotic and biotic stressors. Ammonia can also enrich a system with nitrogen putting under-storey species at risk as they become shaded by the expansion of nitrophiles (N loving plants) that use the additional N to increase productivity and expand the over-storey. Nitrogen enrichment affects competition for resources, favouring fast growing, tall species with rapid N assimilation rates. Mosses and lichens are most at risk, they have limited detoxification capacity relative to their uptake potential and a large surface area relative to mass (Pearson and Stewart 1993).

Many lichen species are sensitive to even small increases in NH3 concentrations above c. 1µg m-3 (Wolseley et al. 2006). Current evidence suggests that the absence of acidophytic lichens (lichens loving acid conditions) from twigs and trunks of acid-barked trees, growing in NH3 rich environments, is due to NH3 neutralizing the bark pH (van Herk 2001). Sheppard et al. (2004) found that monthly NH3 concentrations > 20 µg m-3 decimated Cladonia portentosa populations in less than one year and that after three years the concentration had fallen to < 3 µg m-3. Wet deposited NH4+ caused only restricted damage.

In mosses, NH3 exposure can increase both the N and amino acid content of ectohydric pleurocarpous mosses. Elevations in N and amino acid content have been proposed as a well coupled indicator of NH3-N deposition (Pitcairn et al. 2006). Moss species differ with respect to their N uptake, and presumably their tolerance (Pitcairn et al. 2006). Some Sphagnum (bog mosses) appear to be very sensitive, especially those that lack the red-orange pigments, carotenoids, that protect against oxidative stress (Sheppard et al 2011). Overall dry deposited ammonia-N drives species composition change and reduces species cover and diversity, much faster than the same unit of N in wet deposition (Sheppard et al 2011).

Attributing both specific effects in the field and indicators can be challenging because ammonia is a form of nitrogen which is an essential plant growth nutrient. In addition, some of the effects are difficult to separate from those caused by management, or lack of shading of the under-storey.

A summary of effects on vegetation are:

• Eutrophication leading to changes in species assemblages; increase in N loving species (e.g. grasses) and species that can up regulate their carbon assimilation at the expense of species that are conservative in their N use.
  
• Shift in dominance from mosses, lichens and ericoids (heath species) towards grasses like Deschampsia flexuosa, Molinia caerulea and ruderal species, e.g. Chamerion angustifolium, Rumex acetosella, Rubus idaeus.
  
• Increased risk of frost damage in spring (van der Eerden et al 1991)
  
• Increased winter desiccation levels in Calluna and summer drought stress
  
• Increase in N loving epiphytes, e.g. Xanthoria parietina, at the expense of epiphytes that prefer acid bark.
  
• Increased incidence of pest and pathogen attack, e.g. heather beetle outbreaks.
  
• Direct damage and death of sensitive species, e.g. lichens and mosses, Sphagnum, Pleurozium schreberi.
  
• Reduced root growth and mycorrhizal infection leading to reduced nutrient uptake, sensitivity to drought and nutrient imbalance with respect to N that is taken up via the foliage (Perez Soba 1995 for Scots pine).
  
• Increase in soil pH follows acidification
  
• Ammonia excess will lead to increases in nitrification and denitrification, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions.
  
  

https://www.apis.ac.uk/overview/pollutants/overview_nh3.htm

(02-05-2023, 11:15 PM)brocode Wrote: did u even read the wikipedia "Sources" u posted.
from the first source YOU posted:
Causes of groundwater pollution include: naturally-occurring (geogenic), on-site sanitation systems, sewage, fertilizers and pesticide, commercial and industrial leaks, hydraulic fracturing, and landfill leachate

link to highlight: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groundwate...20leachate

from the second source YOU Posted:
Soil Contamination is typically caused by industrial activity, agricultural chemicals or improper disposal of waste. 

link to highlight: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_conta...of%20waste.

(03-05-2023, 03:53 AM)kathisterima Wrote: yes it is, you compare per weight, not per calories, which is incorrect

an apple is more nutritionally complete than ground beef, see for yourself

https://tools.myfooddata.com/nutrition-c...0g/1-4.8/1

(03-05-2023, 03:53 AM)kathisterima Wrote: yes it does, I've made posts about it numerous times, vegans have the lowest all-cause mortality risk and cancer risk

(03-05-2023, 03:53 AM)kathisterima Wrote: Idk what you learn in India schools, but ammonia emissions pollute soil. You are one google search away from finding that out. 

(03-05-2023, 03:53 AM)kathisterima Wrote: no idea what point you are trying to make there, that because there are other causes of soil and groundwater pollution, agricultural impact is less important? THat's a poor point.

(03-05-2023, 04:41 AM)Mustang Wrote: Euros are absolutely adopting the American retard cancer. Your government is trying to kill you. All EUcels, rope now

(03-05-2023, 12:49 PM)brocode Wrote: This is literally showing Beef is superior in all ways. You're literally showing me here that we have to consume 4.8x 100g of apple (which would cause more carbon footprint to produce) than 100g of beef WHILE beef is more nutrient dense and calorie efficient? Dawg, not really sure how this is supposed to help your point here.
Even though this is favoring beef, I have to tell you, Calories don't matter much since protein has an additional Thermic Effect of Food and most foods are different. calorie is not a great way to measure food quality.

(03-05-2023, 12:49 PM)brocode Wrote: I was of the impression that we mutually understand that the ammonia "emissions" come from fertilizers and not cows directly and urea isnt the real cause for groundwater pollution. 
Cow urine has some enzymes that naturally treat the extremely tiny amount of urea present in it.
Fertilizers are a problem, I'm not advocating for the use of fertilizers.

(03-05-2023, 12:49 PM)brocode Wrote: the point was they're a result of fertilizers and soil degradation, not cows grazing on grass or pissing on the soil.

• groundwater contamination is linked to fertilizer used for agriculture AND cow urine
  
• the agriculture industry is the main cause of produced ammonia emissions
  
• cow urine still releases ammonia emissions
  
• ammonia emissions damage soil
  

(03-05-2023, 01:45 PM)kathisterima Wrote:

(03-05-2023, 12:49 PM)brocode Wrote: This is literally showing Beef is superior in all ways. You're literally showing me here that we have to consume 4.8x 100g of apple (which would cause more carbon footprint to produce) than 100g of beef WHILE beef is more nutrient dense and calorie efficient? Dawg, not really sure how this is supposed to help your point here.
Even though this is favoring beef, I have to tell you, Calories don't matter much since protein has an additional Thermic Effect of Food and most foods are different. calorie is not a great way to measure food quality.

"On average it takes 15,400 litres of water to make 1kg of beef"
"822 litres of water is used to make one kg apples"

"Apples have a relatively low carbon footprint of 0.24 kg (0.53 lbs) of CO2e per pound of produce compared to other fruits."
"With 99.48 kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents per kilogram, beef production remains the biggest source of greenhouse gases."

Quote:

(03-05-2023, 12:49 PM)brocode Wrote: I was of the impression that we mutually understand that the ammonia "emissions" come from fertilizers and not cows directly and urea isnt the real cause for groundwater pollution. 
Cow urine has some enzymes that naturally treat the extremely tiny amount of urea present in it.
Fertilizers are a problem, I'm not advocating for the use of fertilizers.

(03-05-2023, 12:49 PM)brocode Wrote: the point was they're a result of fertilizers and soil degradation, not cows grazing on grass or pissing on the soil.

stop being in denial

I've posted links and data that prove the following

• groundwater contamination is linked to fertilizer used for agriculture AND cow urine
  
• the agriculture industry is the main cause of produced ammonia emissions
  
• cow urine still releases ammonia emissions
  
• ammonia emissions damage soil
  

(03-05-2023, 03:06 PM)brocode Wrote: What are u on?
100g of BEEF is the same weight as 100g of Apple. Calories means jackshit. u will feel MORE full eating 100g of beef than u would eating 100g of Apple.

Water can be derived from any source, thats not a big problem. Cows dont need giga filtered water to drink, they're just gonna lick the water and they have 2 digestive tracts to fix anything in their way.

(03-05-2023, 03:06 PM)brocode Wrote: how am i being in denial?

(03-05-2023, 04:48 PM)kathisterima Wrote: backtracking, changing the subject, grasping at straws, anything to not admit that I was right about my point 

obviously, a person measures the amount of food they are consuming in calories and not in weight

(03-05-2023, 04:48 PM)kathisterima Wrote: same thing, you are backtracking from your initial point, and I've already answered this with this paper in my prev post

https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/library/repo...ort_id=977

page 2 ammonia emmisions per category 

why even bother posting this

(03-05-2023, 05:19 PM)brocode Wrote: lol if u think 1000 calories of beef is the same as consuming 1000 calories of apple.
im not backtracking. just make sense of it man

(03-05-2023, 05:19 PM)brocode Wrote: From your study, on page 2, The estimate of ammonia emissions in kilotons (kt) is based on ALL sources such as livestock waste, fertilizers, and manure management practices. not just livestock waste.

(03-05-2023, 05:19 PM)brocode Wrote: Also dawg, When we come to the cattle subsection, look at the n count, you are talking as if it was 1 cattle


It has been largely the same for most of the study.

(03-05-2023, 05:19 PM)brocode Wrote: You can also look at page 24, for a more thorough analysis about the input of ammonia via feed and the output. The calculation to fertilizer is highly skewed. You will easy know it if you understand basic statistics.
They even admit to it in fact (page 25).

(03-05-2023, 05:19 PM)brocode Wrote: Still not a comparison to how plant agriculture is better in terms of emission as compared to animal farming. I would argue with any study you look, the amount of nutrients you can feed a human through livestock is much much higher than plants.
Plants are just less expensive that's all, that's why we added them to the food pyramid. otherwise, it would all be largely meat based.

(03-05-2023, 06:48 PM)kathisterima Wrote: who said it's the same? But weight is not a useful metric in that instance, since you are measuring the amount of food you need to consume in order to survive in calories and not in kilograms or lbs or whatever.

(03-05-2023, 06:48 PM)kathisterima Wrote: yes, there are values for many categories of emissions, your point being?

(03-05-2023, 06:48 PM)kathisterima Wrote: how are the fertilizer calculations skewed? The asterisk on page 25 is referring to different studies than the ones on page 24 where it shows that most grazing emissions are clearly due to urine. And that quote doesn't prove anything is skewed anyways, it says emission rates were below detection level and that could be for both fertilizer and urine emissions, but again, different study.

(03-05-2023, 06:48 PM)kathisterima Wrote: you can argue all you want but if studies don't back you up then you can't act like you are speaking facts and debunking governments like in OP. You are just a random with access to the internet at the end of the day.

(03-05-2023, 07:09 PM)brocode Wrote: no you dont. you can survive with 700 calories of chicken just fine, as long as you feel satiated and full, which u do btw, 700calories of chicken get u super full. thats why i have been saying calories are not a good way to measure food energy requirements and we use weight as a general means to distribute food.

(03-05-2023, 07:09 PM)brocode Wrote: that fertilizers are the real cause not cow piss. i've been itirating this since forever. 

(03-05-2023, 07:09 PM)brocode Wrote: wdym "it doesnt" prove anything, skewing statistics to skew the end result is so so common, its used so much in biotech for PR purposes (which is why most drugs' actual potency isnt known until the clinical trials conducted by governing bodies). this is a thing not just in biotech but in all industries.

(03-05-2023, 07:09 PM)brocode Wrote: so you're really gonna come here and give me a skewed report that says "beef consumption causes x amount of groundwater pollution, so we should switch to veganism"? seriously come on, there is no proper comparison with how veganism reduces pollution. no such study. that's why i said that line in the previous message in that tone.

and frankly speaking, the quality and nutrient richness of meat is just simply better.

(03-05-2023, 08:22 PM)kathisterima Wrote:

(03-05-2023, 07:09 PM)brocode Wrote: no you dont. you can survive with 700 calories of chicken just fine, as long as you feel satiated and full, which u do btw, 700calories of chicken get u super full. thats why i have been saying calories are not a good way to measure food energy requirements and we use weight as a general means to distribute food.

you can't survive with 700 calories of anything, that's common sense 

you can not measure energy in weight main... only in calories, or joule

(03-05-2023, 07:09 PM)brocode Wrote: that fertilizers are the real cause not cow piss. i've been itirating this since forever. 

which doesn't result from anything, since literature shows that cow piss is a legit contributing factor

(03-05-2023, 07:09 PM)brocode Wrote: wdym "it doesnt" prove anything, skewing statistics to skew the end result is so so common, its used so much in biotech for PR purposes (which is why most drugs' actual potency isnt known until the clinical trials conducted by governing bodies). this is a thing not just in biotech but in all industries.

there's no evidence those studies that the paper quoted are "skewed", but on the contrary, the one you posted on your video is straight up at the request of the agricultural industry and has been rebuked so...

(03-05-2023, 07:09 PM)brocode Wrote: so you're really gonna come here and give me a skewed report that says "beef consumption causes x amount of groundwater pollution, so we should switch to veganism"? seriously come on, there is no proper comparison with how veganism reduces pollution. no such study. that's why i said that line in the previous message in that tone.

and frankly speaking, the quality and nutrient richness of meat is just simply better.

where did I say this? I'm not vegan myself. Your starting point about ammonia pollution is wrong, deal with it.