Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 269 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
#35749 - 08/13/10 03:04 PM question about livestock
nightwalkery
Unregistered


I know that cows emit methane through eructation and through their manure.

I also know that poultry contribute to global warming through the emissions of ammonia through their manure.

Does poultry manure also emit methane? Does cow manure also emit ammonia and nitrous oxide?

When researching how poultry contributes to global warming, I only find information about ammonia volatilization. However, nothing about how their manure also emits methane. I know that they dont eructate methane since they're not ruminant animals.

When researching how cows contribute to global warming, I find information about methane production in their stomach and from their manure. Nothing on ammonia or nitrous oxide.

So poultry emits more GHGs than cows because it isn't a ruminent animal. Manure emissions are same for both animals. Right?

Top
.
#35752 - 08/14/10 05:08 PM Re: question about livestock [Re: ]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Methane is largely produced through anerobic (oxygen-free) digestion of grasses, by methanogenic (methane-producing) bacteria in the guts of cows.

Chickens do not have a lot of methanogenic bacteria in their guts - those kinds of bacteria are mostly seen in animals which eat high-cellulose foods (grasses, trees, etc).

I don't recall where I saw the numbers, but GHG emissions from poultry is quite low - on par with vegetable/fruit production.

The worst agricultural polluter is rice farming. Rice farming releases a large amount of methane - ironically, the methane is a product of "organic" farming techs. Rice is gown in flooded fields, and are usually fertilized by adding plant matter to those fields - methanogenic bacteria break down the plants, releasing nutrients for the rice, along with a bunch-o-methane. Chemical fertilizers can be used to greatly reduce that methane production.

Methane from cows, unfortunately, is harder to reduce. There has been some suggestion that changing their diet, and possibly feeding them alternate bacteria may reduce emission. But AFAIK, none of these have been shown to actually work.

Bryan
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#35789 - 08/20/10 12:53 PM Re: question about livestock [Re: ImagingGeek]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
You reckon most of the methane from cows comes from farting rather than bubbling out of their poos on the ground?

That's a pity because Nightwalkery's post gave the idea of doing something with the manuer to prevent the methane release.

Haha that rice production thing sticks it to the greenies wink Maybe it's just me but I seem to notice that environmentalists are always wanting to make changes that end up backfiring:

No nuclear - oh wait but now it might reduce global warming.

Biofuel - oops, many killed by 2008 food price problem.

Light a candle on Earth hour - even tho candles burn more fossil fuel than electric generators.

Don't buy imported food - but locally produced food can be worse for the environment due to unsuitable local climate.

Save the whales - even tho whales eat plankton, one of the major sources of oxygen in the air. Hehe well that's probably a neglible effect, but it's the principle!

Organic farming - except the world is running out of arable land and organic farming has lower yield than traditional farming.

Car emissions controls - reduce toxic emissions at the expense of more greenhouse gasses.

Stop clubbing baby seals - and save the polar bears too.



Heh, well I've been off the forum for 2 weeks so I think I deserve a good rant :P

Top
#35795 - 08/20/10 11:07 PM Re: question about livestock [Re: kallog]
samwik Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/10/06
Posts: 1164
Loc: Colorado

Originally Posted By: kallog
You reckon most of the methane from cows comes from farting rather than bubbling out of their poos on the ground?

That's a pity because Nightwalkery's post gave the idea of doing something with the manuer to prevent the methane release.
....
Heh, well I've been off the forum for 2 weeks so I think I deserve a good rant :P


Don't you think things would be a lot better if we managed the waste biomass that the planet produces each year? Several of the comments you make bring up that point about managing our biomass better. After all, that is a major part of the carbon cycle, with which we are increasingly having so many problems (resources, CO2, acidification).

You mentioned the whales eating plankton, but that is just the part of the carbon cycle that sequesters CO2 from the air. We need to grow more whales; to eat the plankton before the plankton can die, decompose, and return directly to the atmosphere as methane or carbon dioxide. Gigatonnes of whales equals gigatonnes of CO2 not in the air.

Originally Posted By: kallog
...
Haha that rice production thing sticks it to the greenies wink Maybe it's just me but I seem to notice that environmentalists are always wanting to make changes that end up backfiring:

In a similar way, rice production can be net carbon negative (sequestering) if you manage the biomass properly. The methane production is only one part of the yearly carbon cycle for rice and rice-growing soils.

Originally Posted By: kallog
...
No nuclear - oh wait but now it might reduce global warming.

I'm not too sure about nuclear because it costs sooo much money--it needs to be constantly subsidized--and the construction, support, and decommissioning activities generate almost as much CO2 as the plant is supposed to prevent.

Originally Posted By: kallog
...
Biofuel - oops, many killed by 2008 food price problem.

Now biofuels are a lot cheaper and employ a lot more people, but I agree that they shouldn't be made from food crops. That's why the focus on "waste" biomass is so critical to managing the carbon cycle more effectively.

Originally Posted By: kallog
...
Light a candle on Earth hour - even tho candles burn more fossil fuel than electric generators.

"Lighting a candle..." might not be the least fossil-fuel intensive way to light a room. But if that is accompanied by also turning off the computer/TV/etc. stuff, then a candle might represent a difference in behaviour. As with so many of your points, it depends more on context as to whether or not any given activity is carbon negative or wasteful of carbon.

Originally Posted By: kallog
...
Don't buy imported food - but locally produced food can be worse for the environment due to unsuitable local climate.

Well, growing food and climate problems are at the root of our sustainability issues, so that comment deserves its own topic/thread.... But let me point out that the more we are dependant on foreign-produced food and energy, the more we are less secure....

Originally Posted By: kallog
...
Save the whales - even tho whales eat plankton, one of the major sources of oxygen in the air. Hehe well that's probably a neglible effect, but it's the principle!

The whales--already mentioned--represent gigatonnes of CO2 that could be converted back into biomass, as they were once converted into whale oil to burn and decaying (CO2-producing) flesh.

Originally Posted By: kallog
...
Car emissions controls - reduce toxic emissions at the expense of more greenhouse gasses.

Automotive emission controls reduce gas milage? Is that your point? We should have electric cars for most short-range activities, so more toxic emissions wouldn't be a problem.... Emission controls should be at the point of generation (such as coal-fired power) for better control of the carbon cycle.

Originally Posted By: kallog
...Stop clubbing baby seals - and save the polar bears too.

...and baby seals and polar bears don't really matter in the big picture, except as benchmarks of all-critical biodiversity, and that their habitat needs to be preserved if we want to avoid a major climate-mode shift. The Arctic is the planet's air-conditioner (at least in our current climate mode) and if that function changes drastically, then our planet's current climate mode will also change to some other mode with its own drastically unfamiliar weather patterns.
===

Originally Posted By: kallog
...
Organic farming - except the world is running out of arable land and organic farming has lower yield than traditional farming.

But as to the myth that corporatized, industrial-scale agriculture is the only way to feed billions of people.... Well, we won't last for long as a civilization if it is... because that style of agriculture is causing unsustainable problems with the carbon cycle, the nitrogen cycle, the phosphorous cycle, and various socio-economic cycles, as well as our nutritional and health status as a species.

There are ways to make "organic farming" less resource intensive and also more productive, but your point about arable land is the most important. "Larding the Lean Earth" is a book describing how civilization's quest for arable lands has driven much of our history. The grass is always greener on the other side, eh? ...and now we've filled our niche as a species and we are rapidly destroying our remaining arable lands and productive waters. Problems abound with our resources... and these are even affecting the global climate and planetary homeostasis.

Restoring those waters, and regenerating our arable lands, would be the most significant control of the carbon cycle that we could hope to achieve. Suddenly the true, new value of arable land comes into focus, eh? Think of the new jobs and industries that will be generated by creating new arable lands and restoring our waters and old arable lands (managing the carbon cycle).
===

Biodiversity is here to feed and sustain us, not to profit individuals while making us poorer as a species.

Promoting biodiversity and more effective management of the carbon cycle means:

More education, less imported energy, more economic benefits, and less environmental problems. What could be better?
_________________________
Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.

Top
#35797 - 08/21/10 03:25 AM Re: question about livestock [Re: samwik]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: samwik

Don't you think things would be a lot better if we managed the waste biomass that the planet produces each year? Several of the comments you

Yea that'd be great. And I think it might work commercially too eventually. That means there'll be no need for education, changes in lifestyle and all the other 'religious' type ideas surrounding environmentalism.

Quote:

I'm not too sure about nuclear because it costs sooo much money--it needs

Part of the reason for the cost is the very slow growth of the industry - hindered by environmentalist and bomb fears. I think the world pretty much stopped building reactors a few decades ago. Now it's coming back with promises of lower costs and new technology. We'll see if it comes true or not.

Quote:

Now biofuels are a lot cheaper and employ a lot more people, but I agree

Isn't that a contradiction?? Who's being employed? Slaves? 3rd world people trapped in poverty? Currently in China they have a problem with a shortage of farm labour. The wages are too low so people move to the cities to work in other industries. There's a threat to food production if they don't change to less labour-intensive farming methods - or push up food prices, with the obvious problems that could lead to.


Quote:

"Lighting a candle..." might not be the least fossil-fuel intensive way to light a room. But if that is accompanied by also turning off the computer/TV/etc. stuff, then a candle might represent a difference in


To me it represents trying to feel good without bothering to understand if you're achieving your goals or not.

Better to turn on a small lamp instead of a whole-room light. Maybe one using an efficient LED, CFL or better yet, gas discharge bulb. Using these energy efficient technologies represents a progressive and sustainable attitude.


Quote:

But let me point out that the more we are dependant on foreign-produced food and energy, the more we are less secure....

Isn't that just an American political concept? International trade is the reason so much of the world is so successful today. As long as you have a diverse range of suppliers, no one country can cut you off.


Quote:

current climate mode will also change to some other mode with its own drastically unfamiliar weather patterns.

Sounds like fun. As long as we have energy we can manange pretty much any new weather patterns.

Top
#35800 - 08/21/10 03:27 PM Re: question about livestock [Re: kallog]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: kallog
You reckon most of the methane from cows comes from farting rather than bubbling out of their poos on the ground?


I believe that is the case, although that is my opinion, not a proven fact (AFAIK). That said, one of my uncles collects his cattle manure and ferments it to extract additional methane, which is stored and used to heat his barns in the winter. I don't think that would happen on the open fields as the manure would be exposed to O2.

Originally Posted By: kallog

That's a pity because Nightwalkery's post gave the idea of doing something with the manuer to prevent the methane release.


The idea isn't without merit, however a lot of cows methane is released as burps (not farts, which form in the intestine).

Originally Posted By: kallog
Haha that rice production thing sticks it to the greenies wink Maybe it's just me but I seem to notice that environmentalists are always wanting to make changes that end up backfiring:


Of course, because they often have other goals in mind and use enviro as cover. Pro-vegetarian groups, animal "rights" groups, anti-large business groups, etc, all hide under the guise of the environment.

Originally Posted By: kallog
Biofuel - oops, many killed by 2008 food price problem.


Biofuels not made from food = good idea. Biofuels made from food = stupid. Give me cellulose ethanol, gasified garbage and photosynthetic biodiesel. The only thing corn should be fermented into is sour-mash whiskey.

Originally Posted By: kallog

Don't buy imported food - but locally produced food can be worse for the environment due to unsuitable local climate.


I saw an interesting show on this topic - turns out in many cases less GHG's are released by putting large amounts of food on ships/planes and sending it around the planet, than is released by thousands of small trucks carrying small amounts of local foods to local markets.

That said, I like local foods, as it supports local farmers...

Bryan
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#35868 - 08/28/10 02:42 PM Re: question about livestock [Re: ImagingGeek]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Why would you want to support local farmers? That means hurting more distant farmers as well as encouraging inefficient production.

Top
#35872 - 08/29/10 04:49 AM Re: question about livestock [Re: kallog]
Amaranth Rose II Offline

Superstar

Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 962
Loc: Southeast Nebraska, USA
Supporting local farmers means you buy what you can locally from the growers themselves. Fewer hands in the process means more money goes to the local community, to be spent locally and generate local sales taxes and boost the local community's economy. Less shipping and handling means fresher, more healthful foods on the table at less expense. It's a win-win situation for the local community.

It does no harm to distant growers, who are then able to sell their goods in their local community and get more money by eliminating the middleman and shipping costs.
_________________________
If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose


Top
#35876 - 08/29/10 12:16 PM Re: question about livestock [Re: Amaranth Rose II]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: Amaranth Rose II

It does no harm to distant growers, who are then able to sell their goods in their local community and get more money by eliminating the middleman and shipping costs.


It does harm to growers who can produce more than their local community needs. It also causes high food prices in places with less production capability.

And at the end of the day it's cheaper to buy imported food when the prices say it's cheaper. Middlemen or not, cheaper means less money being wasted - wherever it might be going.

That's the whole point of globalization. No more potato famines in Ireland. If there's a shortage somewhere, then it'll get filled up from somewhere else. If there's a glut somewhere then it gets spread around at a lower price instead of being dumped.

Top
#35881 - 08/30/10 12:52 PM Re: question about livestock [Re: kallog]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Like Kate said:

1) Supports my local community,

2) Supports my countries economy (non-local foods, at least here, are largely foreign imports),

3) Many of my family members are farmers, and I'd rather buy products that support them (directly, or indirectly through supporting production in their region)

So its a bit of familialism and patriotism

Bryan
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#35882 - 08/30/10 02:41 PM Re: question about livestock [Re: ImagingGeek]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

So its a bit of familialism and patriotism


Well that's not very nice to people in general.

Maybe I should steal from tourists because they're not part of my family, community or country.

Top
#35885 - 08/30/10 05:21 PM Re: question about livestock [Re: kallog]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: kallog

Well that's not very nice to people in general.


How so?

Originally Posted By: kallog

Maybe I should steal from tourists because they're not part of my family, community or country.


I fail to see the similarity between theft vs. purchasing the same amount of goods from different vendors/producers.

Bryan
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#35891 - 08/31/10 02:43 PM Re: question about livestock [Re: ImagingGeek]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
It's effectively boycotting businesses and people who you don't feel a personal connection to. It's not their fault you didn't want to make friends with them.

Imagine you were selling some amazing product that was cheaper and better than all the competition. But half the world refused to buy it because they don't like America's foreign policy so they want to hurt American companies. Wouldn't you feel a bit annoyed? You'd certainly lose a lot of money, and people everywhere would miss out on your superior product.

Buying local is a small stab in the side of free trade, economic growth and fairness. The overall effect is to make the world operate more wastefully. Nevermind the harm it causes poor farmers in the 3rd world who depend on selling you things to keep themselves alive.

Top
#35895 - 08/31/10 05:07 PM Re: question about livestock [Re: kallog]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: kallog
It's effectively boycotting businesses and people who you don't feel a personal connection to. It's not their fault you didn't want to make friends with them.


I wasn't aware I was under an obligation to make friends with everyone. I can, and do, boycott a whole range of businesses and products - businesses that engage in labor practices I find horrendous, corps with histories of poor environmental stewardship, any company that produces "pro-biotic" foods or any other pseudo-scientific crap products like them, and companies who make commercials that irritate/piss me off.

It's my money, and I'll spend it where and on whom I want. This idea I have some obligation to make nice with everyone is not something I would subscribe to.

Originally Posted By: kallog

Imagine you were selling some amazing product that was cheaper and better than all the competition. But half the world refused to buy it because they don't like America's foreign policy so they want to hurt American companies. Wouldn't you feel a bit annoyed? You'd certainly lose a lot of money, and people everywhere would miss out on your superior product.


And? It is my responsibility to sell my product - if I fail to do so that is my fault, not the fault of my potential customers.

PS: I'm not an American, not that its relevant...

Originally Posted By: kallog

Buying local is a small stab in the side of free trade, economic growth and fairness. The overall effect is to make the world operate more wastefully. Nevermind the harm it causes poor farmers in the 3rd world who depend on selling you things to keep themselves alive.


A few points here:
1) Free trade doesn't exist, especially in the area of food production - all western nations hugely subsidize their agricultural industry.

2) Those subsidies prevent 3rd world producers from competing with us - the only 3rd world products that can compete are ones which cannot be produced locally. Buying local doesn't prevent them from competing - paying farmers a subsidy so they can produce food below cost does.

3) Where is the evidence it makes the world work more wastefully? In the west, 40-50% of all food destined for the grocers is thrown away. The worst offenders are bannanas, of which ~60% that are harvested are thrown out. That alone would suggest that 3rd world food imports are more wasteful than domestic products.

4) Domestic farmers also depend on the sale of food products to make their living. Why don't you take their needs into account? Or does being in a 3rd world country magically make your welfare more important that someone in a developed nation?

Bryan
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#35897 - 09/01/10 12:45 AM Re: question about livestock [Re: ImagingGeek]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Sure you can choose to buy whatever you want. If a company decides it needs your business they might change their irritating ads or poor labour practices. Many companies are doing this for exactly that reason.

But those things have some purpose for overall good in your mind. Buying locally just because you feel some relationship with local people clearly doesn't do any good overall. It's like buying only from white-owned businesses. Maybe you do that too?

Throwing away bananas isn't wasteful if people are willing to pay for it to get what they want. I doubt there are banana farms which are specially made to be harvested, loaded onto dumptrucks and taken to the tip. Probably it's because people want a reliable supply so they need to have extras to make sure they don't run out of stock, or maybe people want unbruised bananas or whatever. Somehow people want something which can be achieved most cheaply by throwing lots of them away.

Yes I agree with you on subsidies. Subsidies are essentially the same idea as buying local, but they're more powerful, and thus more destructive.

If a farmer or any businessman can't compete then his business should be allowed to fail. That opens the door for competitors who can do the job better/cheaper. That failed farmer can they go and do something he's actually good at instead. The world doesn't exist to support businessmen, it exists to support people in general. Businesses are allowed to operate in most countries because they support people.

There's a particular society which has historically been strong supporters of the 'buy local' idea. They applied it so much, with such disregard for outsiders that they built up a strong resentment from others. Eventually the outsiders rebelled, with tragic consequences. Now they've mostly toned it down a bit. I wonder if you can guess who I'm referring to.

here's a question. If you visit another place, will you prefer to buy things made there? How do you choose which locality to have loyalty to? Is it the place that will give the most back to you? So the place you've got more future in? What if you know you'll permanently move to another country in 6 months. Will you get a head start by preferring goods imported from your future home while you're still living at your old place?

Top
#35907 - 09/01/10 01:48 PM Re: question about livestock [Re: kallog]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: kallog
Sure you can choose to buy whatever you want. If a company decides it needs your business they might change their irritating ads or poor labour practices. Many companies are doing this for exactly that reason.

But those things have some purpose for overall good in your mind. Buying locally just because you feel some relationship with local people clearly doesn't do any good overall.


Sure it does - if anything it does more good than the other practices I engage in. It, after all, supports individuals in the local economy. All the other practices simply take a tiny amount of money from one huge mega-corp and give it to another mega-corp. They're basically feel-good things on my part, with no discernible effect.

Originally Posted By: kallog
It's like buying only from white-owned businesses. Maybe you do that too?


If you need to resort to insults to make your point, you've already lost the argument...

Originally Posted By: kallog
Probably it's because people want a reliable supply so they need to have extras to make sure they don't run out of stock, or maybe people want unbruised bananas or whatever.


Nope. The most common reason bannanas (and other fruits/vegs) are thrown out is appearance - people want perfect-looking produce. Most grocers simply dump produce that is blemished.

Originally Posted By: kallog
If a farmer or any businessman can't compete then his business should be allowed to fail.


But the flip side is that a nation incapable of feeding itself is enslaved to those who provide their food. Food is the oldest, and most profound, national security issue.

Originally Posted By: kallog
here's a question. If you visit another place, will you prefer to buy things made there?


Yep, do it all the time. Many years ago I did some HIV research, and spent some time in Africa. While there, I made a point of buying everything I could from local vendors and producers. Even today, when I travel for fun or work, I try to buy what I can from the local community - even if that is as simply as eating at a mom&pop type restaurant instead of McDonalds.

Bryan
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#35910 - 09/01/10 11:00 PM Re: question about livestock [Re: ImagingGeek]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Sure it does - if anything it does more good than the other practices I engage in. It, after all, supports individuals

It may do more good. But key word was 'overall'. Doesn't it do a similar amount of bad elsewhere?


Quote:

Originally Posted By: kallog
It's like buying only from white-owned businesses. Maybe you do that too?


If you need to resort to insults to make your point, you've
already lost the argument...

That's not an insult. I was pointing out what people might (and do) consider their 'local community'. Lets see what else:
Your country
Your state/province
Your town
Your religion
Your race
Your friends
Your family
Your planet

They're all different ways of grouping people into communities. I'm trying to understand what's the fundamental goal you're trying to achieve. So can you tell me which of those 'communities' do and don't count, and why?

Quote:

But the flip side is that a nation incapable of feeding itself is enslaved to those who provide their food. Food is the oldest, and most profound, national security issue.

So is this the real reason? Then your 'local' food would be food produced in your country, even a distant colony under the control of your country.


Quote:

research, and spent some time in Africa. While there, I made a point of buying everything I could from local

But why?? If you wanted to support their food industry, why only do it while you're there? Isn't that quite arbitrary? Wouldn't a better strategy be to identify countries with low production capacity and preferentially buy from them, thus improving national security for those countries at greatest risk.

One place you might consider is China, with a disproportionately small amount of farming for its population. America has plenty of farms and hardly any people, so nobody need make an extra effort to buy their food.

Top
#35911 - 09/01/10 11:10 PM Re: question about livestock [Re: kallog]
kallog Offline
Megastar

Registered: 03/17/10
Posts: 1100
This might help your buying decisions:

Food security risk index

I hope you don't live in a 'green' country, because buying their food is counter-productive to your goal of national security.

Top
#35912 - 09/02/10 12:25 AM Re: question about livestock [Re: kallog]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: kallog
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek

Sure it does - if anything it does more good than the other practices I engage in. It, after all, supports individuals

It may do more good. But key word was 'overall'. Doesn't it do a similar amount of bad elsewhere?


But by that rational, any sale is "evil". After all, unless you make sure to spread your money perfectly evenly throughout all suppliers of the product you are buying, you will deprive someone, somewhere.

Originally Posted By: kallog
I'm trying to understand what's the fundamental goal you're trying to achieve. So can you tell me which of those 'communities' do and don't count, and why?


My fundamental goal is to support those closest to me, where I am. Not one group, but rather a hierarchy:

Family > Friends > Region I am currently in > Country I am currently in > Everyone else

Originally Posted By: kallog
Quote:

But the flip side is that a nation incapable of feeding itself is enslaved to those who provide their food. Food is the oldest, and most profound, national security issue.

So is this the real reason? Then your 'local' food would be food produced in your country, even a distant colony under the control of your country.


Not my real reason - just a point worth making. A country that cannot feed itself is at the mercy of those who can.

Originally Posted By: kallog
Quote:

research, and spent some time in Africa. While there, I made a point of buying everything I could from local

But why?? If you wanted to support their food industry, why only do it while you're there?


Actually its much simpler than you seem to realize. I don't buy local when I travel because I'm trying to save the world, but rather because I consider it a common courtesy. They don't have to let me into their country - the very least I can do in return for the privilege of visiting their country is to support the locals while I am there. It doesn't matter if I'm in the richest county in the world, or the poorest.

It's no different than bringing a bottle of wine to a dinner you've been invited to. You don't have to do it, but it is the right thing to do.

Bryan
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
#35913 - 09/02/10 12:26 AM Re: question about livestock [Re: kallog]
ImagingGeek Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/10
Posts: 410
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: kallog
This might help your buying decisions:

Food security risk index

I hope you don't live in a 'green' country, because buying their food is counter-productive to your goal of national security.



I think you got that backwards - green countries have excess growing capacity. If anything, buying from red (at-risk) countries would be a bad thing, as you would be reducing local stocks, thus reducing the local food supply.

Bryan
_________________________
UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA

Top
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.