mfioretti: cafo*

Bookmarks on this page are managed by an admin user.

34 bookmark(s) - Sort by: Date ↓ / Title / Voting / - Bookmarks from other users for this tag

  1. They conclude that “If Americans reduced their mean beef consumption from the current ~460g per person per week to ~200g per person per week, the US beef industry could become environmentally sustainable by the narrow definition of this paper.” Easy. Just have one weekly burger instead of two.
    https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/...e-sustainable-cut-beef-eating-in-half
    Voting 0
  2. Ti sei mai chiesto quali tipologie e quante tipologie di traffico illegale sostieni con la tua alimentazione?
    In che modo riesci a non essere un peso per l’ecosistema e per gli altri tuoi simili, alimentandoti?

    Spero tu non abbia mai addentato una fettina di carne, perché esiste un vero e proprio sfruttamento dei lavoratori anche nell’industria dello smontaggio animale.
    Pensa, nel 2013 si parlò di operai pagati 3 euro l’ora, una paga quasi inferiore a quella percepita dagli operatori dei call center. Con la differenza che nei call center non c’è puzza di budella né ci si sporca di sangue.
    Spero tu non abbia mai digerito un chilo di carne, perché in quel momento hai privato ai tuoi simili ben 15 kg di cereali e 15000 litri di acqua potabile. Sempre riferendomi alla carne, spero non sia fra i tuoi consumi anche per motivi ambientali: secondo la Fao(Food and Agricolture Organization of the United Nation) l’allevamento determina una quantità di emissioni di gas serra (18%) più alta dei trasporti (13%). Altri studi invece stimano che considerando tutto il ciclo dell’allevamento l’impatto possa addirittura superare il 50% del totale.

    Mi auguro tu non abbia mai gustato una tartina coi gamberetti: mangiandola avresti sentito il retrogusto di schiavitù minorile, della tratta di umani costretti a lavorare sui barconi o di persone buttate in mare e ammazzate se osano ribellarsi. Gamberetti che finiscono poi dritti nei mangimi impiegati negli allevamenti di animali nei paesi ricchi.
    Hai mai mangiato animali allevati che a loro volta hanno mangiato questi mangimi?

    Avrai sicuramente evitato come eviteresti un vegano a cena l’acquisto di un qualsiasi tipo di alimento o bene di consumo proveniente da multinazionali che incatenano esseri umani e devastano l’ambiente. Giusto? Oppure no?

    Se rifletti bene, tu, ma anche gli altri che come te hanno in qualche modo provato soddisfazione nel credere veritiere le cose che hai scritto, in questa gara a chi è meno etico non hai alcuna vittoria contro quelli che tu definisci “adepti”.

    La verità è che è troppo facile vedere gli errori altrui dimenticandosi dei propri.
    Fino a poco prima dell’impennata che ha avuto l’alimentazione vegan eravate tutti impegnati a fare altro. Magicamente, adesso che esistono milioni di persone a cui importa seriamente qualcosa, vi sentite minacciati.
    Ed essendo molto più semplice criticare quell’ipotetico “poco” fanno gli altri anziché muoversi e dimostrare di saper fare di meglio, state li a criticare.
    Perché agire, anziché parlare, fa fatica.
    https://carmenluciano.com/2017/09/20/...in-risposta-allarticolo-di-the-vision
    Voting 0
  3. nessuno degli allevamenti visitati allevava le vacche al pascolo. Una situazione che conferma quanto aveva già riportato nel suo ultimo libro, Dead Zone, il direttore internazionale di CIWF, Philip Lymbery, con una intervista ai due Consorzi.

    Oltre mezzo milione di vacche fanno parte della filiera dei due grandi formaggi. Tanti animali e per questo un potenziale di tanta sofferenza, se tenute a pascolo zero.

    Nella nostra investigazione, gli animali stavano come stanno le vacche stanno negli allevamenti intensivi: con corpi ossuti si trascinavano a fatica nei corridoi delle stalle e nelle cuccette. I pavimenti delle stalle, di cemento, erano ricoperti di feci e urina; alcune vacche presentavano ferite alle zampe.

    La nostra campagna per portare le vacche del Parmigiano e del Grana Padano al pascolo, lanciata in 7 paesi europei, ha avuto una visibilità incredibile. In pochi giorni ha raggiunto 39 paesi, un pubblico di 200 milioni di persone, con decine di migliaia di cittadini che dicevano #notonmypasta e sottoscrivevano il nostro appello ai Consorzi: dare alle loro vacche almeno cento giorni di pascolo all’anno.
    https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2017...ano-e-grana-padano-al-pascolo/4011873
    Voting 0
  4. Average land use area needed to produce one unit of protein by food type, measured in metres squared (m²) per gram of protein over a crop's annual cycle or theaverage animal's lifetime. Average values are based on a meta-analysis of studies across 742 agricultural systems and over 90 unique foods.
    https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/la...-use-per-gram-of-protein-by-food-type
    Voting 0
  5. Similarly, nutrient pollution in the Mississippi River Basin creates a massive dead zone every year in the Gulf of Mexico, suffocating aquatic life and impacting commercial and recreational fishing. Reducing the dead zone will require cutting this pollution — which predominantly comes from agriculture — to about half of its historical baseline. Despite decades of effort by farmers and conservationists, annual nutrient loads remain stubbornly high.

    Given these challenges, it is good news that the world’s appetite in 2050 may not be as voracious as some estimates have indicated.
    http://grist.org/article/do-we-really...e-food-production-by-2050-actually-no
    Voting 0
  6. so-called “locavores” argue that the fewer miles from field to fork, the less environmental impact of your meal. Others, such as Steve Sexton, Assistant Professor in the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University, argue that large-scale monocrop farms actually use fewer resources and cause less harm to the environment than small-scale farms with diverse crops. The gains in efficiency, debatably, outweigh the limited carbon avoidance from reduced food miles on the locavore menu.

    To support his argument, Sexton tests the impact of a scenario in which all food eaten in the United States was grown locally. He concludes that the amount of acres, fertiliser and chemical pesticides needed to make the shift would increase by 20%–40%. This analysis would suggest that large-scale and monocrop agriculture is a better method of sustainable agricultural.

    However, Sexton assumes that nothing else about our food system would change – not eating habits, agricultural practices, government subsidies to large cash-crop farms nor food processing. But if the new locavore nation also started eating fewer highly processed foods laden with corn syrup and soy, this would significantly reduce the demand for these crops at the heart of his analysis, and therefore the amount of pesticides, land and water required in localised agriculture.

    Indeed, efficiencies gained by large-scale monocrop systems have driven the proliferation of this type of agriculture. Many things would need to change for even a single US state to shift to “locavorian” agricultural practices. But eating local is about more than just food miles and small-scale farming; it’s about knowing where your food comes from and the sustainable practices used on the farm.
    Influence and industry

    Consider the largest egg recall in US history: in 2010, half a billion eggs were taken off grocery shelves after more than a thousand cases of Salmonella were linked to hens living in confinement at two of the country’s largest egg producers. A series of undercover video investigations by the US Humane Society (USHS) and later by the Food and Drug Administration revealed deplorable living conditions at the Iowa sites. “One facility had 18 structures, each confining approximately 300,000 birds,” reported the USHS.


    Bigger farms, in this case, meant the risk of exposure was spread more widely. The number of birds harmed by living out their days in battery cages was in the millions and the weight of food waste resulting from the egg recall was immense.

    The larger size also meant that these industrial farmers with a history of environmental violations had the financial capacity for greater legal recourse. Two years after the egg recall, the state became one of many to pass a so-called ‘Ag-Gag’ law. Originally drafted to prevent the video or photo documentation of animal cruelty at farming operations, it was rewritten and passed to make it illegal for investigative reporters to take jobs at factory farms in Iowa, thwarting efforts like the ones that led to this and other food recalls.
    Tools of the trade

    But the plot thickens. Not only do small farmers face significant financial and legal barriers, the very tools used to evaluate environmental impact are designed with only an industrial scale in mind, according to Ankita Raturi, a doctoral student in Informatics at the University of California, Irvine.

    While the story of sustainable agriculture in the 21st century is still being written, we can draw some morals from the journey so far.

    First, large-scale farms are better equipped to manage the administrative and financial costs of organic certifications, but this does not mean they are more environmentally sound than smaller, uncertified farms. Streamlining the certification process and providing incentives may help small farmers get certified. But until the label holds to the principles of organic that reflect actual environmental and social impact, small farmers and consumers will grow ever more weary of the label itself.

    Second, large-scale farms may be more efficient in their use of resources, but may likewise be able to wield those resources for legal advantage and regulatory resolutions. If efficiency in farming is the way forward, we must engender a watchful citizenry and greater checks and balances on regulatory decisions that make trade-offs between financial risk and human, animal and environmental risk.

    Finally, the tools designed to assess sustainability in agriculture have been based on the practices of large-scale farms, and not geared towards assessing whether large-scale farming is superior to small-scale in terms of sustainability. For as long as industrial agriculture enjoys readily available data on conventional, though unsustainable, practices, and small farmers using alternative methods must invest significant resources into assessment tools, we will lack systematic and rigorous evaluation of actual impact. With new measures on the horizon we may soon be able to carry out a more robust comparison of sustainable agriculture across scale, and confidently celebrate a hero in this story.
    http://sustainablefoodtrust.org/artic...suring-impact-of-scale-in-agriculture
    Voting 0
  7. Raising animals for food requires massive amounts of land, food, energy, and water and contributes to animal suffering.

    It takes more than 11 times as much fossil fuel to make one calorie from animal protein as it does to make one calorie from plant protein. Raising animals for food gobbles up precious energy. Simply add up the energy-intensive stages of raising animals for food: (1) grow massive amounts of corn, grain, and soybeans (with all the required tilling, irrigation, crop-dusters, etc.); (2) transport the grain and soybeans to feed manufacturers on gas-guzzling 18-wheelers; (3) operate the feed mills (requiring massive energy expenditures); (4) transport the feed to the factory farms (again, in gas-guzzling vehicles); (5) operate the factory farms; (6) truck the animals many miles to slaughter; (7) operate the slaughterhouse; (8) transport the meat to processing plants; (9) operate the meat-processing plants; (10) transport the meat to grocery stores; (11) keep the meat refrigerated or frozen in the stores until it’s sold.
    Water

    Between watering the crops that farmed animals eat, providing drinking water for billions of animals each year, and cleaning away the filth in factory farms, transport trucks, and slaughterhouses, the farmed animal industry places a serious strain on our water supply. Nearly half of all the water used in the United States goes to raising animals for food. In 2008, John Anthony Allan, a professor at King’s College London and the winner of the prestigious Stockholm Water Prize, urged people worldwide to go vegetarian because of the tremendous waste of water involved with eating animals.

    It takes more than 2,400 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of beef, while growing 1 pound of wheat only requires 25 gallons. You save more water by not eating a pound of beef than you do by not showering for six months!
    http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-us...or-food/meat-wastes-natural-resources
    Voting 0
  8. Mandorle a go go; e mucche a go go: 28 mila da macello nella sola Central Valley del Golden State. Tutte ammucchiate per far sì che un hamburger da 2-3 etti – questo il quantitativo folle di carne che ogni membro dei paesi ricchi mangia ogni giorno, in media – costi 2-3 euro.

    vedi anche:
    Dal pesce ai polli, i numeri dell'allevamento intensivo
    Quali sono i Paesi produttori, le cifre del mercato mondiale e i costi dell'allevamento in termini di emissioni di gas serra
    Apparentemente, perché in realtà paghiamo molto più caro, con la scomparsa di interi habitat, la fuga di specie presenti fino dall’alba della terra come le api, la morte di interi golfi, fiumi, praterie, foreste e via catastrofi elencando.
    http://espresso.repubblica.it/visioni...ro-il-cibo-low-cost-1.203880?ref=fbpe
    Voting 0
  9. Amish eschew any kind of government intervention. They consider themselves sovereign. They neither pay into social security and government health benefits nor receive them. They speak their own language and attend their own schools. They follow their own scriptures and codes. So it’s not surprising that some of their farms wouldn’t be up to EPA’s codes.

    But while they don’t contribute to government benefits, they continue to be a major contributor to the pollution flowing through the Chesapeake Bay. Agriculture is the largest source of pollution in the Chesapeake, which is fed by a 64,000-square-mile watershed that includes parts of six states and Washington, D.C. The EPA has identified three pollution “hot spots,” where its scientists have concluded a disproportionate amount of pollution is coming relative to size: the Shenandoah Valley, the Delmarva Peninsula, and the Amish’s home base in Lancaster County.

    The Shenandoah Valley and the Delmarva Peninsula include many concentrated animal feeding operations — large-scale farms in laymen’s language — with thousands of chickens or cows. They require a federal permit and a great deal of oversight. By contrast, the Lancaster County farms tend to be small, with a few dozen head of milk cows, heifers, or horses on each. And yet they are prodigious polluters. In 2007, Lancaster County generated 61 million pounds of manure. That is six times more than what other counties generated, according to The New York Times.
    http://grist.org/food/the-amish-maker...tion&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed
    Voting 0
  10. Avrei voluto davvero esserci, ad Arlington: vedere un allevatore americano che affronta un azzimato diplomatico europeo per chiedergli quando in Europa la pianteremo di impedirgli di venderci le sue bestie cresciute con gli ormoni, e se ci decideremo a farlo con il TTIP, non ha prezzo. I tradizionali dialoghi con la società civile, che i negoziatori del Trattato transatlantico di liberalizzazione di commercio e investimenti Usa-Ue svolgono a margine delle trattative in corso in questa settimana oltre Oceano, hanno assunto nella ridente cittadina della Virginia un tono meno patinato di quello cui ci avevano abituato Bruxelles e Washington.
    http://tradegameblog.com/2014/05/23/in-virginia-botte-da-orbi-sul-ttip
    Tags: , , , by M. Fioretti (2014-07-25)
    Voting 0

Top of the page

First / Previous / Next / Last / Page 1 of 4 Online Bookmarks of M. Fioretti: Tags: cafo

About - Propulsed by SemanticScuttle