London - Not riding a personal vehicle is a way of reducing carbon emissions that affect global warming. While not eating meat is a more effective way, according to new research.
Recent research shows a larger scale in the adverse effects of the production of meat, especially beef. Cattle farm in need of land 28 times larger than pork or chicken, 11 times as much water, and produces a warmer climate emissions five times larger.
Guardian reported, compared with staple foods such as potatoes, wheat, and rice, the impact of per calorie of meat far more extreme, requiring 160 times more land and produce 11 times as much greenhouse gas is greater.
Agriculture is the most influential causes of global warming, accounted for 15 percent of all emissions, half of the farms. Furthermore, large amounts of grain and water needed to take care of cattle is an issue of concern to experts who worry about eating for two extra human trillion in 2050. However, an invitation for people to eat less meat to help the environment, or keep supplies of grain, is considered very controversial.
"The gist of the story, is how the beef had an enormous impact than others," said Professor Gidon Esshel, professor at Bard College of New York and leader of the research impact of beef. He said the subsidy cuts of meat production will be the least controversial way to reduce consumption.
"I sincerely hope the government does not intervene in the diet of people but at the same time, there are many government policies that encourage diet by eating certain meats," said Esshel. "Remove the artificial support given to the livestock industry, and price increases would be a matter for later. In this way, there will be less interference from the government in the affairs of the diet of people."
Eshel team analyzed how much land, water, and nitrogen fertilizer is required for beef cattle, and compare it with chicken, pork, eggs, and dairy products. The beef had a greater impact than others, because as ruminants, in terms of food, feeding the cows are less effective affair.
"In just one minute, part of the cow entered the food consumed in their blood stream, so it is a lot of energy is lost," said Eshel.
Feeding the cows with grain instead of grass further aggravated these conditions are less effective, although Eshel stressed even grass-fed cows has a large footprint on the environment than other animals. Livestock such as sheep, which are relatively rarely consumed in the US, are not considered in the study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Professor Tim Benton, from the University of Leeds, said that the recent work is based on the US National Data, rather than farm level studies, and provide a useful overview.
"It captures the big picture," he added that livestock is the key to sustainable agriculture widely.
"The interventions that can be done by people in reducing carbon gas not only to not drive a car, but by eating less red meat," said Benton.
"Research other interventions that can be applied is the calories that are eaten man not given to cattle meat producer in the US,"
However, he stated this subject will always be controversial.
"It's like opening a tin of worms," tuturrnya.
Professor Mark Sutton, from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology UK, said: "The government needs to consider the message carefully if they want to improve the overall efficiency of production and reduce the impact on the environment. But the message to consumers stronger. Subtraction meat consumption is excessive, especially beef , good for the environment.
"The US and Europe are using most of the land for farming systems which really is not effective, while a lot of good quality agricultural products grown for feeding animals, not humans," added Sutton.
In a separate study, it is evident that one-tenth of the eating habits of the British people per day resulted in a twofold increase in emissions of climate warming than those with a vegetarian diet.
Study of the English diet was conducted by scientists at the University of Oxford. It was found that a diet rich in meat --lebih of 100 grams per hari-- resulting in the emission of 7.2 kg of carbon dioxide emissions.
By contrast, a fish-eating vegetarian diet and peak at 3.8 kg CO2 per day, and a vegan diet produces only 2.0 kg. Researchers analyzed the food eaten by the carnivorous 30 thousand, 16 thousand vegetarians, fish eaters 8 thousand and two thousand vegan.
 |
Guardian reported, compared with staple foods such as potatoes, wheat, and rice, the impact of per calorie of meat far more extreme, requiring 160 times more land and produce 11 times as much greenhouse gas is greater.
Agriculture is the most influential causes of global warming, accounted for 15 percent of all emissions, half of the farms. Furthermore, large amounts of grain and water needed to take care of cattle is an issue of concern to experts who worry about eating for two extra human trillion in 2050. However, an invitation for people to eat less meat to help the environment, or keep supplies of grain, is considered very controversial.
"The gist of the story, is how the beef had an enormous impact than others," said Professor Gidon Esshel, professor at Bard College of New York and leader of the research impact of beef. He said the subsidy cuts of meat production will be the least controversial way to reduce consumption.
"I sincerely hope the government does not intervene in the diet of people but at the same time, there are many government policies that encourage diet by eating certain meats," said Esshel. "Remove the artificial support given to the livestock industry, and price increases would be a matter for later. In this way, there will be less interference from the government in the affairs of the diet of people."
Eshel team analyzed how much land, water, and nitrogen fertilizer is required for beef cattle, and compare it with chicken, pork, eggs, and dairy products. The beef had a greater impact than others, because as ruminants, in terms of food, feeding the cows are less effective affair.
"In just one minute, part of the cow entered the food consumed in their blood stream, so it is a lot of energy is lost," said Eshel.
Feeding the cows with grain instead of grass further aggravated these conditions are less effective, although Eshel stressed even grass-fed cows has a large footprint on the environment than other animals. Livestock such as sheep, which are relatively rarely consumed in the US, are not considered in the study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Professor Tim Benton, from the University of Leeds, said that the recent work is based on the US National Data, rather than farm level studies, and provide a useful overview.
"It captures the big picture," he added that livestock is the key to sustainable agriculture widely.
"The interventions that can be done by people in reducing carbon gas not only to not drive a car, but by eating less red meat," said Benton.
"Research other interventions that can be applied is the calories that are eaten man not given to cattle meat producer in the US,"
However, he stated this subject will always be controversial.
"It's like opening a tin of worms," tuturrnya.
Professor Mark Sutton, from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology UK, said: "The government needs to consider the message carefully if they want to improve the overall efficiency of production and reduce the impact on the environment. But the message to consumers stronger. Subtraction meat consumption is excessive, especially beef , good for the environment.
"The US and Europe are using most of the land for farming systems which really is not effective, while a lot of good quality agricultural products grown for feeding animals, not humans," added Sutton.
In a separate study, it is evident that one-tenth of the eating habits of the British people per day resulted in a twofold increase in emissions of climate warming than those with a vegetarian diet.
Study of the English diet was conducted by scientists at the University of Oxford. It was found that a diet rich in meat --lebih of 100 grams per hari-- resulting in the emission of 7.2 kg of carbon dioxide emissions.
By contrast, a fish-eating vegetarian diet and peak at 3.8 kg CO2 per day, and a vegan diet produces only 2.0 kg. Researchers analyzed the food eaten by the carnivorous 30 thousand, 16 thousand vegetarians, fish eaters 8 thousand and two thousand vegan.
0 Response to "Global Warming, Meat More Dangers of Car?"
Posting Komentar