Emissions statistics

we're talking about Cow farts here and considering the export industry...
is there more or less shipping done for 'fresh' produce or meat.

it is very ambiguous, one side is choosing to include things the other doesn't have to...
i.e. now that the industry is established, it probably wouldn't be considering the forests that were there before grazing... ALSO... they go hand in hand....

in between human food crop, much is FEED crop... for example Soya is mostly for feed and that is the impact on the Amazon, where as the rest is human consumption.

I don't see why organizations need to legitimize WHY it is wrong... they must focus more on how the standards are now, how they can be... being inclusive of the truth that people LIKE eating Meat.... then how can the people who are adverse to it, with their principles in mind... give insight into the industry and make SURE it is much more compassionate and less urged into decay by short term profit.

Cruelty occurs when the meat industry gets commissioned to work, like a painter being asked to remake the same thing for every new sky-rise lobby being built by the same company. ... they'd just make prints right?

Quality, charm, personability, diversity of material source... are replaced by stock standard Ink and Indonesian Pulp. Aka THE JUNGLE BOOK.

I guess this can be hard sometimes can't it. Research like this are almost always biased, its hard to tell what it really is.

It's like the water issue...  according to aa 100,000 litres of water is used to produce 1 kilo of beef.. according to world vision 10-13,000 litres is used and according to  A 2009 life cycle assessment carried out by The University of New South Wales for three beef production systems in southern Australia found that it takes between 27 to 540 litres of water to produce a kilogram of beef. (that is posted on meat and livestock australia's site here http://www.redmeatgreenfacts.com.au/Myth-Bust so which is true? I no longer feel comfortable using that statistic in an argument because i don't know which is the most credible resource.. nor how they obtained these statistics yet..

It's hard to get totally bias free info on an issue like this, I think. What about the exhaust fans used in piggeries? Or the emissions caused by transporting livestock? You could go back and forth all day. I think the best arguments though (especially in Australia) are found in the wasteful amount of water used to "produce" meat; and the land clearing that has been necessary for livestock to graze on.

Regardless of what the actual stats are, I think it'd still be very, very hard for anyone to claim that meat eating is GOOD for the environment.

I agree with you there but the issue is when doing an assignment on this topic you need to find credible evidence to back up what you're point is.. and having three different statistics can be a little fustrating to try and work with. I'll just have to mention the variables that may and may not be considered in the various statistics, and mention the possible bias from both sides. There are really good sources from the us, shame there aren't any so far for Australia, that would be classed as credible and fairly neutral when it comes to bias.

This page by AA uses reputable resources (e.g. UN, NASA, ABS)

http://whyveg.com/save_the_planet/

And you can always track down the original source and reference that.

Thanks!

The table of water usage is taken from research by David Pimentel, as reproduced in Compassion in World Farming's very informative report "The Global Benefits of Eating Less Meat"
http://www.ciwf.org.uk/includes/documents/cm_docs/2008/g/global_benefits_of_eating_less_meat.pdf

As for criticism of the UN's "Livestock's Long Shadow" report... it doesn't surprise me that they'd want to discredit this report. It was very damning of the livestock industry... but is still moderate compared to some estimates I've heard in relation to greenhouse gas emissions. There was a news article last week about another report by two researchers who used to be with the World Bank Group, who estimated that livestock production contributes 51% of all man-made greenhouse gases.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/michellemaisto/2012/04/28/eating-less-meat-is-worlds-best-chance-for-timely-climate-change-say-experts/

As you say the Red Meat Green Facts website that you referred to is run by Meat and Livestock Australia. While I haven't had the time to look into all the claims they make there, the shocking cruelty exposed in the live export industry last year in Indonesia, and the fact that MLA had known about it for years, doesn't reflect well on their credibility or willingness to be open and honest with the Australian public.

I'd be more inclined to trust figures reported by the UN than MLA.

If you want another source who are likely to be relatively impartial, then you could check out the report by the PEW Trust (a respected US trust that analyses and reports on issues affecting public policy): http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=38438

Thanks heaps for this!