PDA

View Full Version : Eat eggs to live a long life



Goodfellers
16-Apr-17, 11:34
I couldn't resist posting this about worlds oldest woman

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39610937

Quote from article;

But it was also down to a rather unusual diet of three eggs - two raw - each day for more than 90 years.
My favorite quote

Her doctor of 27 years, Carlo Bava, had told AFP news agency that she rarely ate vegetables or fruit.

So eating lots of eggs and avoiding fruit and veg you are able to live to 117, goes against a lot of 'research' posted on here!

Happy Easter everyone :lol:

Rheghead
16-Apr-17, 12:19
A domesticated hen has been selectively bred to ovulate 25 times more than its ancestor in the wild. If hens could speak then that would make one moody hen. Also they need to be fed vast amount of added calcium in their diet, that is the equivalent of us having to eat 300g of limestone grit, that would also make us pretty gloomy.

The recommended daily intake of cholesterol is 300mg per day, an egg contains 185mg. It is high in cholesterol which raises our risk of coronary heart disease.


Hens get exhausted from the continuous production of eggs leading to their premature death. They lose 10% of their calcium in their skeletons to produce each egg. They also suffer from fatty livers and ovarian cancers to produce the eggs for you.

Hens are often kept in cramped conditions. Some even cannibalise each other for space and food.

Virtually all hens are killed after 18 months of laying due to exhaustion, the natural lifespan of a chicken is 10-20 years.

It takes 3 kg of grain to produce 1 kg of eggs and 200 litres of water to produce one egg. Hen faeces has a huge amount of ammonia that leaches into groundwater. That has a huge environmental impact on our countryside in terms of biodversity loss and carbon footprint.

The consumption of eggs has also been linked to diabetes, heart disease and cancer.

60 billion of male chickens are routinely killed each year by gassing, suffocation, put into a grinder beause they are unwanted. Though the latest fad is to dye them a pretty colour and give them away as Easter gifts.

Happy Easter everyone ;)

Goodfellers
16-Apr-17, 12:34
YAWN (yes, big text, again) Back to ag college for you, as a farmer you would be broke within a month if your feed consumption figures were even close. You are clearly obsessed with learning all you can about poultry farming, so I have attached a management guide for you to read, few years out of date but it will give you some idea about the correct facts.

Enjoy

Goodfellers
16-Apr-17, 12:38
44 gallons of water per egg......are you mad!!!!

Rheghead
16-Apr-17, 12:47
44 gallons of water per egg......are you mad!!!!

Actually that is about the amount of water to produce one egg.


That’s right, every single egg requires an average of 53 gallons of water to produce. Chickens require water-intensive grain feed (about two pounds per every pound of chicken protein produced) as well as water for drinking and irrigation.

https://qz.com/171698/it-takes-53-gallons-of-water-to-produce-a-single-egg/

Rheghead
16-Apr-17, 12:58
200 litres/53 gallons of water for 1 egg

http://everylittledrop.com.au/knowledge-center/our-global-water-footprint/

Goodfellers
16-Apr-17, 13:08
For the 'normal, sensible' reader, a hen drinks just over 200ml a day (7.5 fl oz). A hen eats around 120g of food a day, so 53 gallons to produce 100g of grain......I don't think so. Working on that principle a 800g loaf would need 424 gallons. An Olympic size swimming pool filled to the brim to produce 1557 loaves of bread....ok.

Question....How much water to produce 100g of lettuce or any other vegetable? Or is it just grain for hens that take enormous volumes of rainwater to produce?

You also failed to mention that virtually all the water used in the production of ANYTHING is returned to ground either directly or through evaporation ....so as usual, you try to make things look worse than they appear.

Rheghead
16-Apr-17, 13:28
For the 'normal, sensible' reader, a hen drinks just over 200ml a day (7.5 fl oz). A hen eats around 120g of food a day, so 53 gallons to produce 100g of grain......I don't think so. Working on that principle a 800g loaf would need 424 gallons. An Olympic size swimming pool filled to the brim to produce 1557 loaves of bread....ok.

Question....How much water to produce 100g of lettuce or any other vegetable? Or is it just grain for hens that take enormous volumes of rainwater to produce?

It just takes 6.6 gallons of water to produce a 100g of lettuce.

Feeding food to animals to farm meat, milk and dairy is a very inefficient process in resources. It takes about 10kg of plant protein to produce 1 kg of meat. It take a surprising amount of water to produce grain but it takes astronomical amounts of water to produce meat, milk and eggs. It is just basic maths at the end of the day.

sids
16-Apr-17, 13:34
Actually that is about the amount of water to produce one egg.



https://qz.com/171698/it-takes-53-gallons-of-water-to-produce-a-single-egg/


I might worry about using water if it didn't rain every bloody day.

Rheghead
16-Apr-17, 13:39
I might worry about using water if it didn't rain every bloody day.

The problem is that it doesn't rain every day here or anywhere else for that matter.

Goodfellers
16-Apr-17, 14:00
Don't panic readers.

Even using Rhegheads ridiculous figure of 200L per egg (I think that must be every single drop used including for washing our vans, tractors and us at the end of each day) We have enough fresh water in the world (93,113 Cubic Kilometers surface water, not including aquifers and desalination) to produce eggs for the next 100,000 (one hundred thousand years) years, so no need to panic buy just yet.

Rheghead
16-Apr-17, 14:31
Don't panic readers.

Even using Rhegheads ridiculous figure of 200L per egg (I think that must be every single drop used including for washing our vans, tractors and us at the end of each day) We have enough fresh water in the world (93,113 Cubic Kilometers surface water, not including aquifers and desalination) to produce eggs for the next 100,000 (one hundred thousand years) years, so no need to panic buy just yet.

53 gallons of water to produce one egg is not my figure, I do not make these things up. It is official estimates by organisations who know what they are talking about.
As always, if you are going to deny it then you are undermining your own position by being anti-science and anti-knowledge.

If you had gone to agricultural college and took notice then I am sure you would know the truth about farming eggs anyways...

Goodfellers
16-Apr-17, 14:42
Rheghead. You post 'headline' grabbing statements.

Some 'official' somewhere may have calculated that it uses 200L to produce an egg. However, if you understood the water cycle you would know that that 200L returns to ground and is used again and again

There is a finite water supply. all water is used then used again.

Even if it took 2 million gallons of water to produce an egg, it wouldn't matter as all that water goes back into the atmosphere or ground and can be used again. surely one of your scientific websites would have told you that?

So, I will reiterate, no need to panic, all the water agriculture uses is not 'gone', the Earth will get it back, as it will all the water contained within us, we are only 'borrowing' it for a few years.

Rheghead
16-Apr-17, 14:48
Rheghead. You post 'headline' grabbing statements.

Some 'official' somewhere may have calculated that it uses 200L to produce an egg. However, if you understood the water cycle you would know that that 200L returns to ground and is used again and again

There is a finite water supply. all water is used then used again.

Even if it took 2 million gallons of water to produce an egg, it wouldn't matter as all that water goes back into the atmosphere or ground and can be used again. surely one of your scientific websites would have told you that?

So, I will reiterate, no need to panic, all the water agriculture uses is not 'gone', the Earth will get it back, as it will all the water contained within us, we are only 'borrowing' it for a few years.

Water is a valuable resource, we all depend on it. It is only available to farmers at a minute portion of that water cycle which takes centuries to happen. You do not do your position justice by plucking out a figure from google and play around with a calculator to come up with some sort of quasi sustainable argument.

Do you concede that the 53 gallons per egg is a reasonable estimate?

sids
16-Apr-17, 15:10
The problem is that it doesn't rain every day here or anywhere else for that matter.

I hadn't heard about the Reay drought.

Probably caused by windmills.

Goodfellers
16-Apr-17, 15:15
I have no idea if 53 gallons is reasonable. I can tell you what a hen drinks each day as all water is metered as it is the most important indicator of bird health.

You do not seem able to accept that whatever water is used, it is not 'gone' it is returned to the water cycle therefore whatever the figure is, it is in real terms irrelevant.

Do you accept that whatever the figure is, all the water is returned to ground to be used again?

Saveman
16-Apr-17, 15:27
Water is a valuable resource, we all depend on it. It is only available to farmers at a minute portion of that water cycle which takes centuries to happen

I don't really have a horse in this race (or an egg in this basket) but the water cycle takes centuries to happen? Residence time may be centuries or even millennia, but it's a continuous cycle as in the sun lifts 505,000 km3/year and precipitation amounts to 505,000 km3/year .

Goodfellers
16-Apr-17, 16:14
Back to original topic.....

I am interested in Rhegheads views on this lady reaching 117, eating three eggs a day (two of them raw) and having a dislike of fruit and vegetables.

With all the research you have previously posted, I would have thought this feat would have been impossible.

I look forward to reading your explanation for this. I know you wont use genetics in your answer as you already dismissed (ignored) that argument in your 'dairy' thread.

Fulmar
16-Apr-17, 19:43
Birds' eggs formed a vital part of the nutritional mix for ancestral, Neolithic humans and eggs still do so, for modern humans, to this very day. Hooray for eggs and I'm not surprised the lady has reached 117 years young eating them.
I have been helping to look after a friend's small flock of chickens for some time now; (they have had to be kept in a large byre since the end of November due to the regulations over bird flu) but they usually live out of doors and are free range.
I frequently laughed at Rheg's assertions over what it takes for chickens to lay but couldn't be bothered to post on the subject. They are certainly not drinking all that amount of water, (I know, because I give them their fresh water each day). Nobody is force feeding them anything (they receive a mixture of layers pellets and grain and as much green stuff as we can source for them and they have a shallow container with grit and shell that they can help themselves to, plus a container of dusty material so that they can dust bath) and they have been extremely happy and laying like crazy. The irony is that they used to spend all their time as outdoor chickens trying (annoyingly always under ones feet) to get into the byre to the grain sacks so we reckoned they should be happy to be in. However now, we think that they will be glad to go out again which is due to be allowed (hopefully) by the end of this month! Meantime, we continue to look after them and make sure that they are happy and healthy- which they are.

Rheghead
17-Apr-17, 21:38
I have no idea if 53 gallons is reasonable. I can tell you what a hen drinks each day as all water is metered as it is the most important indicator of bird health.

You do not seem able to accept that whatever water is used, it is not 'gone' it is returned to the water cycle therefore whatever the figure is, it is in real terms irrelevant.

Do you accept that whatever the figure is, all the water is returned to ground to be used again?

I'm telling you that the experts say that 53 gallons per egg is the amount of water required. If you think that the amount of water needed to create an egg is the amount that you run off from a tap for a hen to drink just demonstrates your ignorance.

mi16
18-Apr-17, 13:31
It requires a hell of a lot more water to ship your coconut oil around the world

Rheghead
18-Apr-17, 16:10
It requires a hell of a lot more water to ship your coconut oil around the world

I accept there is a lot of water in the oceans.

Fulmar
18-Apr-17, 16:13
Not to mention all the huge volumes of water that it takes to grow and process the vegetables, seeds, nuts, pulses and grains upon which you depend for your life. Perhaps you would like to enlighten us all about that? On second thoughts, don't bother. I don't have a problem with it nor with what ever quantity of water it takes to produce an egg and it certainly does not take what you are suggesting for most folk who keep a few chucks up here. Water is life and life needs water. Simples.

Rheghead
18-Apr-17, 16:19
Not to mention all the huge volumes of water that it takes to grow and process the vegetables, seeds, nuts, pulses and grains upon which you depend for your life. Perhaps you would like to enlighten us all about that? On second thoughts, don't bother. I don't have a problem with it nor with what ever quantity of water it takes to produce an egg and it certainly does not take what you are suggesting for most folk who keep a few chucks up here. Water is life and life needs water. Simples.

Yes it does take water to grow vegetables and fruit. But when you have to feed 10 kg of plant protein to get 1 kg of meat or 3 kg of grain to reap 1 kg of eggs then you are requiring a disproportional amount of water usage to provide your food. Just because people may have a few backyard hens at home, it does not make them immune to the statistics or the cruelty. It is simple to work out.

Fulmar
18-Apr-17, 16:31
Well, you can keep hens and feed them very simply and cheaply and successfully on household scraps- millions of people do just that in poorer parts of the world and for centuries, this was how they were kept in the UK as well. I can remember this from my childhood when some grain was set aside for the chickens but they were also fed upon whatever was going. In fact, some Aid agencies give people a few chickens as they recognise the value that this brings in terms of improving quality of life and nutrition. An egg is packaged wholesome nutrition and an excellent source of protein that many children go short of. As for the water side of things, a new process announced only the other week is set to make a real difference, extracting fresh water from sea water and will hopefully turn things around for very many people in the future:
Graphene-oxide membranes (http://www.graphene.manchester.ac.uk/explore/the-applications/membranes/) have attracted considerable attention as promising candidates for new filtration technologies. Now the much sought-after development of making membranes capable of sieving common salts has been achieved.
New research demonstrates the real-world potential of providing clean drinking water for millions of people who struggle to access adequate clean water sources.
The new findings from a group of scientists at The University of Manchester (http://www.manchester.ac.uk/) were published today in the journal Nature Nanotechnology (http://www.nature.com/nnano/index.html). Previously graphene-oxide membranes have shown exciting potential for gas separation and water filtration (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8NxvkwkhiI&t=2s).

Rheghead
18-Apr-17, 16:36
Well, you can keep hens and feed them very simply and cheaply and successfully on household scraps- millions of people do just that in poorer parts of the world and for centuries, this was how they were kept in the UK as well. I can remember this from my childhood when some grain was set aside for the chickens but they were also fed upon whatever was going. In fact, some Aid agencies give people a few chickens as they recognise the value that this brings in terms of improving quality of life and nutrition. An egg is packaged wholesome nutrition and an excellent source of protein that many children go short of. As for the water side of things, a new process announced only the other week is set to make a real difference, extracting fresh water from sea water and will hopefully turn things around for very many people in the future:
Graphene-oxide membranes (http://www.graphene.manchester.ac.uk/explore/the-applications/membranes/) have attracted considerable attention as promising candidates for new filtration technologies. Now the much sought-after development of making membranes capable of sieving common salts has been achieved.
New research demonstrates the real-world potential of providing clean drinking water for millions of people who struggle to access adequate clean water sources.
The new findings from a group of scientists at The University of Manchester (http://www.manchester.ac.uk/) were published today in the journal Nature Nanotechnology (http://www.nature.com/nnano/index.html). Previously graphene-oxide membranes have shown exciting potential for gas separation and water filtration (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8NxvkwkhiI&t=2s).

History has taught us that problems can arise with human health when food waste is fed to animals.

Fulmar
18-Apr-17, 16:59
It was not food waste, it was food!
You do such a disservice to animals. Chickens, for example, free range in Caithness or in an African village are able to make choices about what they eat and they do. They will hoover up plenty of invertebrates for a start. The chickens that I have to do with (though they are not mine) usually live out of doors returning to their hen house at night, roaming quite widely in fields and in the yard. In the summer, when there is plenty of 'forage' for them then they are far less bothered about their actual feed or grain which can sometimes be left in the trough. Most farm animals in Caithness and many throughout the UK, live out of doors in fields and pastures that may be bordered by rough edges, hedges or streams and rivers that offer them a choice of greenery other than grass. You have only to actually take time to observe animals to see that things are not so simple as you might at first think.
But this is just the old, tired argument, isn't it that has been gone round in circles over endlessly by you. The basic thing is that you see cruelty and inhumanity everywhere in animal husbandry (while the rest of us don't and know that the welfare standards in the UK are higher than anywhere else. What was it in the Groat recently about a pregnant cow having more 'rights' and protection than an expectant Caithness mother)? Also, you think it wrong to eat animals or their products and again, most of the rest of us on here clearly have a different view.

Rheghead
19-Apr-17, 09:17
It was not food waste, it was food!
You do such a disservice to animals. Chickens, for example, free range in Caithness or in an African village are able to make choices about what they eat and they do. They will hoover up plenty of invertebrates for a start. The chickens that I have to do with (though they are not mine) usually live out of doors returning to their hen house at night, roaming quite widely in fields and in the yard. In the summer, when there is plenty of 'forage' for them then they are far less bothered about their actual feed or grain which can sometimes be left in the trough. Most farm animals in Caithness and many throughout the UK, live out of doors in fields and pastures that may be bordered by rough edges, hedges or streams and rivers that offer them a choice of greenery other than grass. You have only to actually take time to observe animals to see that things are not so simple as you might at first think.
But this is just the old, tired argument, isn't it that has been gone round in circles over endlessly by you. The basic thing is that you see cruelty and inhumanity everywhere in animal husbandry (while the rest of us don't and know that the welfare standards in the UK are higher than anywhere else. What was it in the Groat recently about a pregnant cow having more 'rights' and protection than an expectant Caithness mother)? Also, you think it wrong to eat animals or their products and again, most of the rest of us on here clearly have a different view.

Live in your cruel dreamworld if you want.

Do I need to post graphic images of chicks being drowned , gassed, ground up, and other images of animals being slaughtered and raped to get my point across?

mi16
19-Apr-17, 11:04
here we go with the crackpot rape theories again!!

Rheghead
19-Apr-17, 11:43
here we go with the crackpot rape theories again!!

It is mainstream language for the procedure. A rape rack is what the dairy/meat industry calls the stalls where the cows get raped.

mi16
19-Apr-17, 12:54
and crackpot is mainstream language for your types.

smithp
19-Apr-17, 18:34
I've just caught one of my chucks egg eating. I've now a moral dilemma - do I a) kill it for being an egg eater or b) kill it for being an egg eater?

Goodfellers
20-Apr-17, 14:01
I'm telling you that the experts say that 53 gallons per egg is the amount of water required. If you think that the amount of water needed to create an egg is the amount that you run off from a tap for a hen to drink just demonstrates your ignorance.

Please provide a breakdown of how the 53 gallons is calculated...Not just 'an expert says'

I will repeat my earlier question.....Do you accept that all water is returned to the water cycle through evaporation or by direct means to ground? I know that admitting this will blow your argument to pieces....but lets see if you are man enough to admit it :D
or maybe you actually believe that an egg contains 53 gallons of water

As for ignorance....what a cheek, if your posts weren't so sad and bigoted, they would be funny.

I see you still don't have any posters siding with you yet.

Rheghead
24-Apr-17, 16:58
Please provide a breakdown of how the 53 gallons is calculated...Not just 'an expert says'

I will repeat my earlier question.....Do you accept that all water is returned to the water cycle through evaporation or by direct means to ground? I know that admitting this will blow your argument to pieces....but lets see if you are man enough to admit it :D
or maybe you actually believe that an egg contains 53 gallons of water

As for ignorance....what a cheek, if your posts weren't so sad and bigoted, they would be funny.

I see you still don't have any posters siding with you yet.

You are anti expert now? Thought so, hmm...

sids
24-Apr-17, 17:57
Eat powdered egg.

Nobody's going to come along and claim there's 63 gallons of water in it.


https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/c76bd339-613b-41a6-8874-15566dd38e5b_1.a738c3d397a84a039b9f8cbe332aaa4d.jp eg?odnHeight=450&odnWidth=450&odnBg=FFFFFF

Bystander1
24-Apr-17, 21:24
You should not laff - the man is an eggspert dontcha know

mi16
25-Apr-17, 06:35
Couple of eggs short of a basket

Fulmar
25-Apr-17, 07:56
And still has not provided the actual reference to the 'experts' as directly requested by Goodfellers but ducked it. I wonder why?

Goodfellers
25-Apr-17, 08:41
Strange how 'he' provides 'factual scientific evidence' for his anti everything dairy/cancer posts, but can't do the same here.

AND he can't accept that all water is returned to the water cycle making his statements regarding water used irrelevant.

No grain is irrigated in the UK so I would be interested to know how he calculates the rainfall that falls on all the UK crops.

A high % of UK grown wheat is not suitable for milling and is used as feed wheat....we only used UK wheat for milling our own feedstuffs.

Goodfellers
25-Apr-17, 08:45
Eat powdered egg.

Nobody's going to come along and claim there's 63 gallons of water in it.


https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/c76bd339-613b-41a6-8874-15566dd38e5b_1.a738c3d397a84a039b9f8cbe332aaa4d.jp eg?odnHeight=450&odnWidth=450&odnBg=FFFFFF

If you read the instructions on the label it does say 'add 53 gallons of fresh water per spoonful of powder' :lol:

Fulmar
25-Apr-17, 09:52
That'll make a lot of custard!

Goodfellers
25-Apr-17, 10:34
CUSTARD!! Think we better wait for 'the oracle' to tell us whether it's safe to eat or if we will all die a horrible death riddled with one cancer or another first. I could actually eat a big (not 53 gallon) bowl of custard with some jam roll right now.

Fulmar
25-Apr-17, 11:37
Mmm, me too!

Rheghead
25-Apr-17, 17:57
And still has not provided the actual reference to the 'experts' as directly requested by Goodfellers but ducked it. I wonder why?

I provided a link to the information from water management experts which quotes how much water is used to produce one egg per 53 gallons. I am not an expert on water management so I cannot breakdown the figures and I have no valid reason to doubt what is considered to be true.

Just because you feel it it is an unrealistic amount of of water is not a valid excuse to deny the figure of 53 gallons per egg.

mi16
25-Apr-17, 18:56
how many gallons of water to rape a coo Rheg?

sids
25-Apr-17, 22:08
how many gallons of water to rape a coo Rheg?

Do you have a bath first?

Does she?

Goodfellers
26-Apr-17, 08:29
I provided a link to the information from water management experts which quotes how much water is used to produce one egg per 53 gallons. I am not an expert on water management so I cannot breakdown the figures and I have no valid reason to doubt what is considered to be true.

Just because you feel it it is an unrealistic amount of of water is not a valid excuse to deny the figure of 53 gallons per egg.


You should never blindly believe experts. ' Experts' once believed the Earth was flat.

Without some idea of how 'experts' calculated 53 gallons/egg, it's difficult to decide if that is a reasonable figure. Personally, I think it's quite high. What type of system (cage, barn or free range), which country are they talking about as sheds in hot countries use a water mist system to cool hens (which uses a huge amount of water every day). This is why more information is required to come to an informed conclusion. Never trust an expert without evidence. When you were at school, your maths teacher would not accept just the answer to a maths problem, you always had to show the working out. Same rule applies here.

The hen drinks about 7.5 fl oz, probably a similar amount contained within the feedstuff.
Grain in this country is not irrigated, just natural rainfall, difficult to calculate that......as you said 'it doesn't rain everyday' and virtually all the rain goes to ground, not absorbed by the plant.
Eggs are not washed.
Hens are not washed.
Buildings are washed at the end of flock only. (once a year) Using about 4000 gallons of a water/foaming disinfectant.
Buildings are made of wood with steel profile sheeting roof. Buildings last 30+ years
Building holds 16,000 birds.
16,000 birds produce about 145 million eggs over 30 years (lifespan of building) using your figure 145M X 53gallons = 7,685,000,000


Using the above information, I am interested in Rhegheads informed opinion of how it takes 636 gallons of water to produce a dozen eggs (or nearly 13 oil drums filled with water).

As I have repeatedly said, no matter how much water is truly used, 53 gallons or 5300 gallons, it is irrelevant as all water is returned to the water cycle to be used again and again. IT IS NOT LOST.

Do you (Rheghead), accept that fact?

mi16
26-Apr-17, 10:01
Do you have a bath first?

Does she?

coos are notoriously skittery right enough
i suppose a shower would suffice if water conservation was a driver for you

Fulmar
26-Apr-17, 13:08
Meantime, the hens at the croft had laid their usual good number of eggs this morning aided only by a single shallow bucket of water (not all of it consumed, by any means) and having eaten their usual food ration of feed manufactured for them out of ingredients grown in the UK (so no irrigation required).
Where, I wonder, had they derived the 53 gallons of water from (times 26, for the number of eggs collected this morning)? I have looked high and low for the large storage container that the water must be stored in as I will obviously need to re-fill it ahead of the next round of laying. It's a mystery, right enough, but must be correct since Rheghead who is never (?!!) wrong has stated it on here.
When I think of the number of crofts and farms in Caithness alone where this simple process is going on each day, well, the mind boggles really.

Goodfellers
27-Apr-17, 14:49
I provided a link to the information from water management experts which quotes how much water is used to produce one egg per 53 gallons. I am not an expert on water management so I cannot breakdown the figures and I have no valid reason to doubt what is considered to be true.

Just because you feel it it is an unrealistic amount of of water is not a valid excuse to deny the figure of 53 gallons per egg.


Rheghead. Your own link to your ‘expert’ page has the information I requested.

If you are going to post links PLEASE read them……don’t just post ‘Headlines’, they really do make you look unintelligent.

Water use is calculated using three categories green, blue and grey. If you want information on what each colour represents then read your own link.


Country....... green........ blue. ....... grey


USA............. 1740........... 183 ........ 331

China............ 3952.......... 375....... 1189

India........... 10,604........ 1360....... 1176

Netherlands..... 1695........... 76......... 161


Average............ 6781......... 418........ 446



Your headline figure is based on the average of undeveloped countries and only one European country. The closest country to the UK uses the least water. This is why you need to show your ‘working out’. Or perhaps you did, but, the fact that EU countries use way less doesn’t suit your warped agenda. Grey water is the most damaging figure.....and guess what the NL creates the least. The UK egg industry is far more regulated than NL so our figures are probably even better. Get your facts right before posting your anti-farming nonsense on here. You keep making a fool of yourself on here....Why do you do it??

Also if you look at the figures on the webpage, you might be interested to know the battery hens use far less water than free range...interesting.

Yet again you have been weighed, you have been measured and you have been found wanting.

Hannah Faulkner
28-Apr-17, 11:24
This much eggs are enough to give me allergies....

sids
28-Apr-17, 12:31
Fish eggs must take a lot of water to produce.

Rheghead
28-Apr-17, 23:38
how many gallons of water to rape a coo Rheg?

The incentive is measured in £££s.

Rheghead
28-Apr-17, 23:41
Rheghead. Your own link to your ‘expert’ page has the information I requested.

If you are going to post links PLEASE read them……don’t just post ‘Headlines’, they really do make you look unintelligent.

Water use is calculated using three categories green, blue and grey. If you want information on what each colour represents then read your own link.


Country....... green........ blue. ....... grey


USA............. 1740........... 183 ........ 331

China............ 3952.......... 375....... 1189

India........... 10,604........ 1360....... 1176

Netherlands..... 1695........... 76......... 161


Average............ 6781......... 418........ 446



Your headline figure is based on the average of undeveloped countries and only one European country. The closest country to the UK uses the least water. This is why you need to show your ‘working out’. Or perhaps you did, but, the fact that EU countries use way less doesn’t suit your warped agenda. Grey water is the most damaging figure.....and guess what the NL creates the least. The UK egg industry is far more regulated than NL so our figures are probably even better. Get your facts right before posting your anti-farming nonsense on here. You keep making a fool of yourself on here....Why do you do it??

Also if you look at the figures on the webpage, you might be interested to know the battery hens use far less water than free range...interesting.

Yet again you have been weighed, you have been measured and you have been found wanting.

Do you think egg consumption and global environmental concerns is restricted to the UK? Your ignorance knows no limits.

Rheghead
28-Apr-17, 23:47
You should never blindly believe experts. ' Experts' once believed the Earth was flat.

Without some idea of how 'experts' calculated 53 gallons/egg, it's difficult to decide if that is a reasonable figure. Personally, I think it's quite high. What type of system (cage, barn or free range), which country are they talking about as sheds in hot countries use a water mist system to cool hens (which uses a huge amount of water every day). This is why more information is required to come to an informed conclusion. Never trust an expert without evidence. When you were at school, your maths teacher would not accept just the answer to a maths problem, you always had to show the working out. Same rule applies here.

The hen drinks about 7.5 fl oz, probably a similar amount contained within the feedstuff.
Grain in this country is not irrigated, just natural rainfall, difficult to calculate that......as you said 'it doesn't rain everyday' and virtually all the rain goes to ground, not absorbed by the plant.
Eggs are not washed.
Hens are not washed.
Buildings are washed at the end of flock only. (once a year) Using about 4000 gallons of a water/foaming disinfectant.
Buildings are made of wood with steel profile sheeting roof. Buildings last 30+ years
Building holds 16,000 birds.
16,000 birds produce about 145 million eggs over 30 years (lifespan of building) using your figure 145M X 53gallons = 7,685,000,000


Using the above information, I am interested in Rhegheads informed opinion of how it takes 636 gallons of water to produce a dozen eggs (or nearly 13 oil drums filled with water).

As I have repeatedly said, no matter how much water is truly used, 53 gallons or 5300 gallons, it is irrelevant as all water is returned to the water cycle to be used again and again. IT IS NOT LOST.

Do you (Rheghead), accept that fact?


Why are you right and the water experts wrong? Convince me.

Goodfellers
29-Apr-17, 14:54
Why are you right and the water experts wrong? Convince me.

The 'water experts' are not wrong, you are. You are running down the UK farming industry. however, now that your argument does not hold true, you switch to 'global'.

How many eggs are imported into the UK from any of the countries that use huge amounts of water? Answer..None.

I will repeat the question you are constantly refusing to answer.

As I have repeatedly said, no matter how much water is truly used, 53 gallons or 5300 gallons, it is irrelevant as all water is returned to the water cycle to be used again and again. IT IS NOT LOST.

Do you (Rheghead), accept that fact?

Goodfellers
29-Apr-17, 15:12
Another nice simple question for you..............Using your own link....do you accept that the UK egg industry uses far less than your headline figure of 53 gallons per egg?

joxville
29-Apr-17, 20:21
32050

Goodfellers, here's a brick wall for you to beat your head against. ��

sids
29-Apr-17, 21:27
beat your head

Is he an egg-head?

Goodfellers
30-Apr-17, 11:30
Rheghead

I now accept you are stubborn as a mule. Even when your own links don't back you up, you try to wriggle out of it.

When you post your propaganda links on here, try actually reading them first.

I think everyone who follows this forum has the measure of you so I will leave it there.

I look forward to picking gaping holes in your next anti something or other thread.

Final thought, why not change your quote at the bottom of your posts to 'Stubborn as a mule'? Or 'I'm not interested in facts'

Rheghead
30-Apr-17, 21:18
Rheghead

I now accept you are stubborn as a mule. Even when your own links don't back you up, you try to wriggle out of it.

When you post your propaganda links on here, try actually reading them first.

I think everyone who follows this forum has the measure of you so I will leave it there.

I look forward to picking gaping holes in your next anti something or other thread.

Final thought, why not change your quote at the bottom of your posts to 'Stubborn as a mule'? Or 'I'm not interested in facts'

I'm sorry if you only see what you want to see. The water experts say the production of one egg requires 53 gallons on average. I do not make up the figures, I just report them here. I cannot control how you react to science but you clearly decided to ignore the fact and deny the science. I don't know why I waste my time on correcting your ignorance to be honest.

One thing is clear though, you are determined to ridicule any opposition to egg product by any fair means or foul.

Bystander1
30-Apr-17, 21:58
I'm sorry if you only see what you want to see. The water experts say the production of one egg requires 53 gallons on average. I do not make up the figures, I just report them here. I cannot control how you react to science but you clearly decided to ignore the fact and deny the science. I don't know why I waste my time on correcting your ignorance to be honest.

One thing is clear though, you are determined to ridicule any opposition to egg product by any fair means or foul.

I would have thought that highly educated scientific person could spell 'fowl'.

Fulmar
01-May-17, 08:09
One thing is clear though, you are determined to ridicule any opposition to egg product by any fair means or foul.

Unfortunately, you are the one who does this, not the rest of us who do not have a problem with it.
You admitted yourself, way back that you like meat and dairy products. I think that your anger and irritability results from your self imposed repression and consequent obsession with food but of course, I can't prove that and you will adamantly deny it. But there is a saying about 'converts to a cause' being more militant, evangelical and self righteous than other mere mortals and you certainly fit that picture but are the only one on here who cannot see it.
Don't kid yourself though, if you were stuck in a desert place, starving and with no food and a little furry animal or a ground dwelling bird happened by, you would kill it if you could and you would eat it in order to survive. You are lucky to not face those choices and to have the luxery of choice, as are we all, but unlike you we do not 'preach' about it under the guise of 'discussion'.

Goodfellers
01-May-17, 08:19
I'm sorry if you only see what you want to see. The water experts say the production of one egg requires 53 gallons on average. I do not make up the figures, I just report them here. I cannot control how you react to science but you clearly decided to ignore the fact and deny the science. I don't know why I waste my time on correcting your ignorance to be honest.

One thing is clear though, you are determined to ridicule any opposition to egg product by any fair means or foul.

Please don't see this as a personal attack...I am just curious.....do you suffer from some sort of mental illness? If you do, I can then treat you a bit more sympathetically.

You say "I'm sorry if you only see what you want to see"

I see exactly what you post, I even take the trouble of reading your links and copy and paste the relevant information that you would prefer NOT to see.

You say "I cannot control how you react to science but you clearly decided to ignore the fact and deny the science"

I correct your mis-guided interpretation of the facts (you clearly do not like anyone standing up to you....were you a bully at school?)

I have proved beyond doubt that the UK egg industry does not use 53 gallons per egg by using your own scientific link (that must REALLY hurt)

You are still refusing to answer my two questions...why?

As I have repeatedly said, no matter how much water is truly used, 53 gallons or 5300 gallons, it is irrelevant as all water is returned to the water cycle to be used again and again. IT IS NOT LOST..... Do you accept this fact?



Another nice simple question for you..............Using your own link....do you accept that the UK egg industry uses far less than your headline figure of 53 gallons per egg?



​If you disagree then please enlighten us as to why.

Goodfellers
01-May-17, 08:37
Please don't see this as a personal attack...I am just curious.....do you suffer from some sort of mental illness? If you do, I can then treat you a bit more sympathetically.

You say "I'm sorry if you only see what you want to see"

I see exactly what you post, I even take the trouble of reading your links and copy and paste the relevant information that you would prefer NOT to see.

You say "I cannot control how you react to science but you clearly decided to ignore the fact and deny the science"

I correct your mis-guided interpretation of the facts (you clearly do not like anyone standing up to you....were you a bully at school?)

I have proved beyond doubt that the UK egg industry does not use 53 gallons per egg by using your own scientific link (that must REALLY hurt)

You are still refusing to answer my two questions...why?

As I have repeatedly said, no matter how much water is truly used, 53 gallons or 5300 gallons, it is irrelevant as all water is returned to the water cycle to be used again and again. IT IS NOT LOST..... Do you accept this fact?


Another nice simple question for you..............Using your own link....do you accept that the UK egg industry uses far less than your headline figure of 53 gallons per egg?



​If you disagree then please enlighten us as to why.


I would also like you to explain where all your fruit/veg/pulses and grains come from (bearing in mind you have posted on other threads in the past). I ask because of your statement..."Do you think egg consumption and global environmental concerns is restricted to the UK? Your ignorance knows no limits."

What was it Delboy used to call Rodney? LOL

Goodfellers
01-May-17, 11:19
More mis-information from Rheghead.

His link to the ‘expert’ study has a disclaimer that Rheg ‘forgot to mention’. It says

There are several uncertainties in this study in the quantification of the water footprint of animals and animal products. Due to a lack of data, many assumptions have to be made. There are a number of uncertainties in the study,

Another glaring mis-representation.
The study is using US gallons not Imperial. Makes a big difference

Another shocker for veggies
The actual factual data claims that pulses and nuts are far more damaging to the global environment. Will Rheghead now be campaigning to get them banned? A bet you wish you had read the information in your link properly! Click on picture for bigger version.

32065

I’m sure I will find plenty more opportunities to show you for what you are. Keep posting your links!!

Goodfellers
01-May-17, 13:34
Rheghead.

Some further reading for your journey to enlightenment.

http://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/the-truth-about-fats-bad-and-good

Extract; For years, fat was a four-letter word. We were urged to banish it from our diets whenever possible. We switched to low-fat foods. But the shift didn't make us healthier

Extract; There are two broad categories of beneficial fats: monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats.

https://authoritynutrition.com/10-super-healthy-high-fat-foods/

Read Item 4

Bottom Line: Whole eggs are among the most nutrient dense foods on the planet. Despite being high in fat and cholesterol, they are incredibly nutritious and healthy.

https://www.heartfoundation.org.au/healthy-eating/food-and-nutrition/protein-foods/eggs

(I chose Australian HF as you think UK HF is a Tesco subsidiary)

Extract; One egg has about 5 g of fat – but most of this is unsaturated, a fat that you need to be healthy


http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e8539 British Medical journal study

Extract; However, eggs are also an inexpensive and low calorie source of many other nutrients, including minerals, proteins, and unsaturated fatty acids, which could lower the risk of cardiovascular disease.


Do I need to go on? Not only is this 'expert' advice I have provided proper links that easily show the information.

And to keep this 'water based', I have listed how much water is needed to produce 1g of needed fat. The information comes from your own link

Eggs 33L
Milk 33L
Nuts 47L
Pulses 180L
Vegetables 154L
Root veg 226L
Fruit 348L
Cereals 112L

It's not as black and white as you make out is it? Eat more eggs and drink more milk to help save water

Game, set and match to British Egg Farmers and British farming in general

Rheghead
02-May-17, 10:38
More mis-information from Rheghead.

His link to the ‘expert’ study has a disclaimer that Rheg ‘forgot to mention’. It says

There are several uncertainties in this study in the quantification of the water footprint of animals and animal products. Due to a lack of data, many assumptions have to be made. There are a number of uncertainties in the study,

Another glaring mis-representation.
The study is using US gallons not Imperial. Makes a big difference

Another shocker for veggies
The actual factual data claims that pulses and nuts are far more damaging to the global environment. Will Rheghead now be campaigning to get them banned? A bet you wish you had read the information in your link properly! Click on picture for bigger version.

32065

I’m sure I will find plenty more opportunities to show you for what you are. Keep posting your links!!

All science has uncertainties and assumptions. There is nothing new here.

Rheghead
02-May-17, 10:48
Please don't see this as a personal attack...I am just curious.....do you suffer from some sort of mental illness? If you do, I can then treat you a bit more sympathetically.

You say "I'm sorry if you only see what you want to see"

I see exactly what you post, I even take the trouble of reading your links and copy and paste the relevant information that you would prefer NOT to see.

You say "I cannot control how you react to science but you clearly decided to ignore the fact and deny the science"

I correct your mis-guided interpretation of the facts (you clearly do not like anyone standing up to you....were you a bully at school?)

I have proved beyond doubt that the UK egg industry does not use 53 gallons per egg by using your own scientific link (that must REALLY hurt)

You are still refusing to answer my two questions...why?

As I have repeatedly said, no matter how much water is truly used, 53 gallons or 5300 gallons, it is irrelevant as all water is returned to the water cycle to be used again and again. IT IS NOT LOST..... Do you accept this fact?



Another nice simple question for you..............Using your own link....do you accept that the UK egg industry uses far less than your headline figure of 53 gallons per egg?



​If you disagree then please enlighten us as to why.

Now you have completely lost the argument by calling into question my mental health and my personal integrity by accusing me of being a bully. As a vegan I am for non-violence. I firmly believe that once the abattoirs have stopped killing animals and stealing their flesh , fur and secretions then we will have a non violent society, it makes little sense to kill each other once we start respecting all animal life on this planet.

Rheghead
02-May-17, 10:55
One thing is clear though, you are determined to ridicule any opposition to egg product by any fair means or foul.

Unfortunately, you are the one who does this, not the rest of us who do not have a problem with it.
You admitted yourself, way back that you like meat and dairy products. I think that your anger and irritability results from your self imposed repression and consequent obsession with food but of course, I can't prove that and you will adamantly deny it. But there is a saying about 'converts to a cause' being more militant, evangelical and self righteous than other mere mortals and you certainly fit that picture but are the only one on here who cannot see it.
Don't kid yourself though, if you were stuck in a desert place, starving and with no food and a little furry animal or a ground dwelling bird happened by, you would kill it if you could and you would eat it in order to survive. You are lucky to not face those choices and to have the luxery of choice, as are we all, but unlike you we do not 'preach' about it under the guise of 'discussion'.




I do not preach about veganism. I have never said 'thou shalt not eat meat and dairy'. I simply state the health, environmental and ethical problems with it and reply to wrong and misleading claims to the opposite. That is not preaching, that is just making a rational case for veganism. Whether you wish to ignore the facts or accept them then that is up to you. I'm not bothered, I cannot magically convert you and nor would I wish to.

Rheghead
02-May-17, 11:07
You are still refusing to answer my two questions...why?[/B]

[/SIZE]As I have repeatedly said, no matter how much water is truly used, 53 gallons or 5300 gallons, it is irrelevant as all water is returned to the water cycle to be used again and again. IT IS NOT LOST..... Do you accept this fact?



Another nice simple question for you..............Using your own link....do you accept that the UK egg industry uses far less than your headline figure of 53 gallons per egg?



​If you disagree then please enlighten us as to why.

Yes i do disagree. The amount of water used to produce eggs is important. Eggs are a staple food source for many people around the world so it will have a huge global impact on the environment. There is only so much average rainfall that happens in any one area. Rainfall and water management has an impact on yields for the grain and how much land you need to produce that grain. More land being used and increased water management means a greater impact on biodiversity and carbon emissions. Unless you haven't heard, this is important.

You have many times said that the 53 gallons figure is an average, I have not challenged that or tried to hide that, I provided the link in the first place so it would be pretty lame of me to claim otherwise.

I have a question for you. Since you do not think the water used to produce eggs is unimportant despite the evidence that it is, why are you making a big thing about it?

Fulmar
02-May-17, 18:41
I do not preach about veganism. I have never said 'thou shalt not eat meat and dairy'.
Really? Have you not actually read your posts? You have done absolutely everything you can think of to denigrate those who are non vegans, including sneers and jibes and misinformation, to name but a few. You have used every trick in the book.
As for not preaching about veganism, well, in that case what else are your posts about and please don't bother saying that they are about 'science'.

Bystander1
02-May-17, 20:12
There must be some truth in this Reggy/Eggy business after all. According to Police Scotland a curtain-sider truck carrying 150 cases of brown free range eggies was involved in a collision with a coo on the outskirts of Stranraer this morning. The cargo was a total loss and the coo was last seen swimming down Loch Ryan en route for Norn Iron.
Despite the attendance of emergency services including police,ambulance and 7 fire pumps the road was closed for several hours until the flood of biblical proportions could be sooked up. Deputy Firemaster Jeemag MacKay, on the scene, estimated that the escaped water amounted to at least 2,862,000 gallons. Our reporter on the spot asked how Jeemag arrived at this figure and he explained it was a simple calculation, i.e. 150 cases @ 30 dozen per case (a dozen being 12 off) so thats 150x30x12= 54,000 eggs with a water content of 53 gallons per egg = 2,862,000 gallons . This does not allow for double yokers etc. If these figures are correct its time to get e ark doon oot o e loft again.

Goodfellers
03-May-17, 08:04
Rheghead, you ask

"I have a question for you. Since you do not think the water used to produce eggs is unimportant despite the evidence that it is, why are you making a big thing about it?" (Me.. as someone you claim is ignorant, I managed to make sense of the double negative in your statement).

Rheghead, I have stated many times that I don't worry about how much water is used in the production of UK eggs, as unlike you I understand the water cycle.

Your 'average' figure bears no relevance to UK egg production. I thought you would understand that. You are an Eco-warrior of the worst kind hypocritical. It seems we all have to be concerned about how much water is used to produce eggs in India, even though we will never eat them. However it's okay for you to buy and consume fruit, veg, nuts, pulses and rice from anywhere else in the world.

You might get more respect if you only ate locally sourced produce.

You might not have a mental illness.....but you are special.

Rheghead
03-May-17, 14:27
I do not preach about veganism. I have never said 'thou shalt not eat meat and dairy'.
Really? Have you not actually read your posts? You have done absolutely everything you can think of to denigrate those who are non vegans, including sneers and jibes and misinformation, to name but a few. You have used every trick in the book.
As for not preaching about veganism, well, in that case what else are your posts about and please don't bother saying that they are about 'science'.

No I do not preach. I make a good case for veganism with sound scientific sources. What you do with that information is up to you. The thread about dairy products causing cancer is full of scientific studies that suggests strongly there is a serious health problem with eating animals and there secretions. I do not make this up, it is not fake. It is science. What has been proved is that people who enjoy eating animal products are prepared to deny the health issues or run the risk to their health just because they can't change their food choices. In comparison, we see it all the time that people who enjoy using fossil fuels or profit from them are prepare to deny the science of climate change. You just fit in that jigsaw.

Rheghead
03-May-17, 14:30
Rheghead, you ask

"I have a question for you. Since you do not think the water used to produce eggs is unimportant despite the evidence that it is, why are you making a big thing about it?" (Me.. as someone you claim is ignorant, I managed to make sense of the double negative in your statement).

Rheghead, I have stated many times that I don't worry about how much water is used in the production of UK eggs, as unlike you I understand the water cycle.

Your 'average' figure bears no relevance to UK egg production. I thought you would understand that. You are an Eco-warrior of the worst kind hypocritical. It seems we all have to be concerned about how much water is used to produce eggs in India, even though we will never eat them. However it's okay for you to buy and consume fruit, veg, nuts, pulses and rice from anywhere else in the world.

You might get more respect if you only ate locally sourced produce.

You might not have a mental illness.....but you are special.

What is hypocritical is saying you like animals and the natural world and go on to eat meat and dairy when animal agriculture is the number one threat to biodiversity and a major threat to climate change.

Fulmar
03-May-17, 15:33
Sadly, your post is complete rubbish and you have proved absolutely nothing with regard to eating animal products and causation of cancer and utterly failed to grasp the complexities of cancer generation. You refuse to look at and evaluate the real evidence that is out there and that, as you are so fond of saying, is down to you and nothing any of us can do to change it.
In case you have forgotten, vegans also get cancer.
As Goodfellers has said (in relation to the topic under dispute on here but relevant overall) absolutely nothing is black and white.
As I have said, it is perfectly possible to eat animal products ethically and sparingly- but you refuse to accept any of that. Again, nothing any of us can do to change your mindset on that one so you will just have to agree to disagree and to stop preaching on the subject!
In comparison, we see it all the time that people who enjoy using fossil fuels or profit from them are prepare to deny the science of climate change. You just fit in that jigsaw.
As for this, well what in heavens name is this about (and I note again, the use of the Royal 'we' in this statement? For your enlightenment, it's not 'we' it's you! I'm not part of your 'we' and I never will be)! Are you maintaining then that you, the oh so pure and superior vegan uses no product or undertakes no activity that has any reliance on fossil fuels? If you are saying that, then it is not I who is the hypocrite.
I am perfectly acquainted with and accepting of the science of man made climate change, driven by very many industrial processes and modern transport, of which agriculture is only one aspect among very many and I do not require any lectures from you. I wonder what you personally do about all of that? Or do you think, encompassed as you are in your cloud of infinite superiority that your veganism is enough?
I know what I try and do, with the lifestyle that I have adopted and have bothered to look into all of that and thankfully, I will never ever be part of any jigsaw of your invention.

Rheghead
03-May-17, 15:50
Sadly, your post is complete rubbish and you have proved absolutely nothing with regard to eating animal products and causation of cancer and utterly failed to grasp the complexities of cancer generation. You refuse to look at and evaluate the real evidence that is out there and that, as you are so fond of saying, is down to you and nothing any of us can do to change it.
In case you have forgotten, vegans also get cancer.
As Goodfellers has said (in relation to the topic under dispute on here but relevant overall) absolutely nothing is black and white.
As I have said, it is perfectly possible to eat animal products ethically and sparingly- but you refuse to accept any of that. Again, nothing any of us can do to change your mindset on that one so you will just have to agree to disagree and to stop preaching on the subject!
In comparison, we see it all the time that people who enjoy using fossil fuels or profit from them are prepare to deny the science of climate change. You just fit in that jigsaw.
As for this, well what in heavens name is this about (and I note again, the use of the Royal 'we' in this statement? For your enlightenment, it's not 'we' it's you! I'm not part of your 'we' and I never will be)! Are you maintaining then that you, the oh so pure and superior vegan uses no product or undertakes no activity that has any reliance on fossil fuels? If you are saying that, then it is not I who is the hypocrite.
I am perfectly acquainted with and accepting of the science of man made climate change, driven by very many industrial processes and modern transport, of which agriculture is only one aspect among very many and I do not require any lectures from you. I wonder what you personally do about all of that? Or do you think, encompassed as you are in your cloud of infinite superiority that your veganism is enough?
I know what I try and do, with the lifestyle that I have adopted and have bothered to look into all of that and thankfully, I will never ever be part of any jigsaw of your invention.

Well if you value science and its message then you will accept that animal agriculture is responsible for approximately 15-20% of greenhouse gases. You can cut your carbon footprint immensely by going vegan and you will reduce your chances of getting a heart attack, diabetes, cancer and a whole host of other afflictions. It won't take a scientific breakthrough to achieve, it won't take any money out of your pocket, it doesn't even take any effort and it won't take a political revolution to make it happen either. If it is so easy and so beneficial then why aren't we doing it already?

joxville
04-May-17, 00:36
No I do not preach. I make a good case for veganism with sound scientific sources. What you do with that information is up to you. The thread about dairy products causing cancer is full of scientific studies that suggests strongly there is a serious health problem with eating animals and there secretions. I do not make this up, it is not fake. It is science. What has been proved is that people who enjoy eating animal products are prepared to deny the health issues or run the risk to their health just because they can't change their food choices. In comparison, we see it all the time that people who enjoy using fossil fuels or profit from them are prepare to deny the science of climate change. You just fit in that jigsaw.

Do you still drive a big 4x4 and a large motorhome? You've a cheek to preach to others!

Goodfellers
04-May-17, 08:10
I think Rheghead forgets, this is a relatively small community and many of us know him, so if he's not whiter than white, we will find out.

Rheghead, didn't I see a picture of you on the roof of Reay hall re-pointing the chimney? What were you using to re-point. I hope it was mud and not a cement based product. Do you know how much damage cement causes to the environment?

http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/cement-CO2-emissions.html

Extract; Due to the large quantities of fuel used during manufacture and the release of carbon dioxide from the raw materials, cement production also generates more carbon emissions than any other industrial process. Cement clinker production contributes about 5% of global total CO2 emissions from fuel use and industrial activities. cement CO2 emissions

Carbon dioxide emissions and climate changeThe concrete industry is one of two largest producers of carbon dioxide (CO2), creating up to 5% of worldwide man-made emissions of this gas, of which 50% is from the chemical process and 40% from burning fuel.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_concrete#cite_note-wbcsd-1) The carbon dioxide CO2 produced for the manufacture of one tonne of structural concrete (using ~14% cement) is estimated at 410 kg/m3 (~180 kg/tonne @ density of 2.3 g/cm3) (reduced to 290 kg/m3 with 30% fly ash replacement of cement).[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_concrete#cite_note-3) The CO2 emission from the concrete production is directly proportional to the cement content used in the concrete mix; 900 kg of CO2 are emitted for the fabrication of every ton of cement, accounting for 88% of the emissions associated with the average concrete mix.[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_concrete#cite_note-4)[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_concrete#cite_note-:1-5) Cement manufacture contributes greenhouse gases both directly through the production of carbon dioxide when calcium carbonate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_carbonate) is thermally decomposed, producing lime (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lime_(material)) and carbon dioxide (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide),[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_concrete#cite_note-6) and also through the use of energy, particularly from the combustion of fossil fuels (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel)

Fulmar
04-May-17, 08:19
Well if you value science and its message then you will accept that animal agriculture is responsible for approximately 15-20% of greenhouse gases. You can cut your carbon footprint immensely by going vegan and you will reduce your chances of getting a heart attack, diabetes, cancer and a whole host of other afflictions. It won't take a scientific breakthrough to achieve, it won't take any money out of your pocket, it doesn't even take any effort and it won't take a political revolution to make it happen either. If it is so easy and so beneficial then why aren't we doing it already?
I rest my case! In fact, I rest all of my cases and again note the use of 'we' in the above! No Rheghead, it's you and you alone (on here anyway), not the rest of us.

Rheghead
04-May-17, 19:15
Well if you value science and its message then you will accept that animal agriculture is responsible for approximately 15-20% of greenhouse gases. You can cut your carbon footprint immensely by going vegan and you will reduce your chances of getting a heart attack, diabetes, cancer and a whole host of other afflictions. It won't take a scientific breakthrough to achieve, it won't take any money out of your pocket, it doesn't even take any effort and it won't take a political revolution to make it happen either. If it is so easy and so beneficial then why aren't we doing it already?
I rest my case! In fact, I rest all of my cases and again note the use of 'we' in the above! No Rheghead, it's you and you alone (on here anyway), not the rest of us.

It is not just me though. Responsibility is not just resting on my shoulders for the good of the environment, it requires a collective response. There are 6 billion people on this planet. A surprisingly small proportion of that 6 billion are eating meat and dairy regularly. 30% of the land surface is used for animal agriculture. What happens when there are 12 billion people on the planet as is projected by later this century? Does that mean we just gorge our faces on meat and dairy and continue to have little regard for the billions of animals who go to slaughter and the billions of animals who are denied a habitat? When does it stop if we are to restore the damage to the Earth? Do we live out the mould in a petrie dish analogy?

Fulmar
05-May-17, 08:35
and continue to have little regard for the billions of animals who go to slaughter and the billions of animals who are denied a habitat? When does it stop if we are to restore the damage to the Earth? Do we live out the mould in a petrie dish analogy?
Equally, do we continue to have little regard for the millions of animals that fall victim to their natural predators? (The destruction of garden birds by the UK's domestic cat population, for example- a bug bear with me)? It is nature so I guess we have to get used to it and accept it. You apparently do accept this natural order, so far as I can gather. It is just humans to whom you would deny eating animal products, even though as a species, we have evolved to be so successful because of this (because it has enabled us to thrive) and because of developing farming and animal husbandry.
Many of the animals that are being denied a habitat are having that forced upon them due to the cultivation of a huge variety of crops, not due to the rearing of farm animals. That is one of those inconvenient truths. Sometimes, the crops being grown are for people in the affluent West (including you and I) while the poor and dis-empowered folk who live in those countries are malnourished and require food to be grown for their own consumption.
Orgers like Goodfellers, have pointed out to you that things are not black and white but you will always, it seems by your nature, sieze upon doomsday, bleak scenarios because it suits your agenda when in fact no one knows what the future holds. There may or there may not be 12 billion people by the end of this century, I do not know, neither do you.
What I do know is that nature and the planet have a way of fighting back and that in fact, despite everything humans are doing to cause harm in very many ways, good things are also happening. Humans are arrogant (well, some are), very often wrong and utterly puny in the face of nature and it is delusional to think otherwise or to assert as you do, that you can see all ends.
I will give you a good example. I am now classed as old or at least, elderly. In my childhood and youth, the talk by scientists was all of an impending Ice Age. I remember being quite fearful of it (although not as much as I was about nuclear warfare). That is what science confidently predicted and look what has happened. However, it would only take a sustained and huge volcanic eruption (and there are plenty of active volcano contenders), throwing out enormous amounts of ash for the situation regarding climate to change again and cool rapidly. There would be absolutely nothing human beings could do about it and life would change for all species as a result but life would survive as it is infinitely resourceful. The point is that the planet will cope, even if humans do not and life continually changes and evolves- have you not grasped that?
I certainly do not see a future that reduces life to mould in a petrie dish if that is what the line above is supposed to mean. Thankfully, I am optimistic and with good reason and there is no reason to give up animal husbandry and clearly, the majority of the inhabitants of this planet do not want it either. It aint going to happen however much you beat your drum. There are good things happening all around- in the UK (more trees than ever before, people caring passionately about their patch and doing their bit to improve biodiversity- I could go on and on). This is happening in many other regions of the world as well, alongside of the bad stuff- it is just that you will never see any good but have eyes only for the bad and I pity you.

mi16
05-May-17, 09:19
I am getting eggasperated with this nonsense, I hate to call fowl but I think Rheg has cracked up and it's getting beyond the yolk.
totally clucking mental

Fulmar
05-May-17, 15:24
And here's another inconvenient truth for you. Many of the absolute rarest animals on the planet are having their very survival threatened either by the bush meat trade or the trade of their bodies for Chinese medicine- not by animal husbandry at all. Personally, I would rather that people slaughtered and ate a chicken from their own back yard than go out and buy the carcass of some rare monkey (or whatever) from a market where bush meat is on sale, perpetuating this awful 'trade'. I would certainly rather see chickens for sale at the market than what is currently there despite, in many instances, the sale of bush meat being completely illegal.
But you know what is making a difference? Education and local effort on the ground that is what, not lecturing people on the evils of eating meat.

Goodfellers
05-May-17, 15:39
32111 I think this says it all Rheghead (please note the GREEN hammer, I know how it's your favorite colour!)

Better Out Than In
03-Aug-17, 11:09
Well I have the same water in me as the Dinosaurs had in them.

mi16
03-Aug-17, 16:59
Sweet Jebus don't set him off again!!!

Rheghead
12-Aug-17, 01:07
just another reason to not eat eggs

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40841411

Fulmar
12-Aug-17, 08:11
Thankfully, free range and organic eggs from happy hens are readily available in Caithness and throughout the UK. British consumers have the good sense to overwhelmingly choose eggs produced in this country and very good they are too.

Kevin Milkins
12-Aug-17, 09:33
I feel another Edwina Currie moment coming on!!