Thursday, July 12, 2012

Worldwatch Institute: Meat-Eating Responsible for More Than Half of Global Warming

Worldwatch Institute: Meat-Eating Responsible for More Than Half of Global Warming

I have had a person claim that raising cattle on pasture doesn't contribute to global warming as soon as he saw the title of the Worldwatch article, without even reading the original article, which explains that pasture land is part of the problem, when it is created by cutting down forests.
As there is now a global shortage of grassland, practically the only way more livestock and feed can be produced is by destroying natural forest. Growth in markets for livestock products is greatest in developing countries,where rainforest normally stores at least 200 tons of carbon per hectare. Where forest is replaced by moderately degraded grassland, the tonnage of carbon stored per hectare is reduced to 8.

On average, each hectare of grazing land supports no more than one head of cattle,whose carbon content is a fraction of a ton. In comparison, over 200 tons of carbon per hectare may be released within a short time after forest and other vegetation are cut, burned, or chewed. From the soil beneath, another 200 tons per hectare may be released, with yet more GHGs from livestock respiration and excretions. Thus, livestock of all types provide minuscule carbon “piggybanks” to replace huge carbon stores in soils and forests. But if the production of livestock or crops is ended, then forest will often regenerate. The main focus in efforts to mitigate GHGs has been on reducing emissions, while—despite its ability to mitigate GHGs quickly and cheaply—vast amounts of potential carbon absorption by trees has been foregone.
Much of the pasture land in the continental U.S. was once forest. Remember how all the pioneers cleared forests to create pastures and farms? More than 96 percent of the original forests covering North American have been cleared.

That means that your locally raised, grass-fed meat probably is part of the problem, not part of the solution, because it is raised on pasture that once was a forest that could, if restored, sequester 25 times more carbon than the pasture and cattle combined.

And we continue to clear forests (for various purposes, including livestock):  In fact, at present, the U.S. has a higher percentage of forest loss than Brazil.

This person also claimed that global warming is not even occuring; that we are cooler now than thousands of years ago.  In fact,  "The most respected scientific bodies have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people are causing it by burning fossil fuels and cutting down forests."

This passage from the Environmental Defense Fund page discussing the scientific consensus on global warming gives a good description of how science works to weed out mistakes:
Climate scientists, like all scientists, are professional skeptics. They welcome — in fact, rely upon — rigorous challenges to their work from colleagues. Through this process of peer review and independent verification, scientists critique and double- (and triple- and quadruple-) check each others work.
This can lead to debate and controversy, but over time, solid research is validated, errors are discarded, and a body of reliable facts is created. In addition, science advances by focusing on what is not yet known. In the case of climate change, for example, there is an extremely good general understanding of the phenomenon, but many details are not yet understood. These gaps in the research, as they come to light, are systematically tackled by the scientific community.
In this context, the kind of material used by climate-change skeptics to cast doubt on global warming — whether it be a handful of emails stolen from an East Anglian research facility or a few errors in an IPCC report — are meaningless. The mountain of climate data assembled over decades by the scientific community as a whole is irrefutable. The records collected and analyzed by independent scientists from many disciplines and thousands of locations, paint a consistent, verifiable picture of a rapidly warming world.
Make no mistake: Science has given us unequivocal warning that global warming is real. The time to start working on solutions is now.
This passage equally applies to medical nutrition science.  I will only substitute a few appropriate bolded words in the above passage:


Medical and nutrition scientists, like all scientists, are professional skeptics. They welcome — in fact, rely upon — rigorous challenges to their work from colleagues. Through this process of peer review and independent verification, scientists critique and double- (and triple- and quadruple-) check each others work.

This can lead to debate and controversy, but over time, solid research is validated, errors are discarded, and a body of reliable facts is created. In addition, science advances by focusing on what is not yet known. In the case of diet and heart disease, for example, there is an extremely good general understanding of the phenomenon, but many details are not yet understood. These gaps in the research, as they come to light, are systematically tackled by the scientific community.

In this context, the kind of material used by lipid hypothesis skeptics to cast doubt on the lipid hypothesis — whether it be a 1935 book by a dentist, a set of pre- World War II studies, or a blogger's mishandling of the raw China Project data — are meaningless. The mountain of nutrition data assembled over decades by the scientific community as a whole is irrefutable. The records collected and analyzed by independent scientists from many disciplines and thousands of locations, paint a consistent, verifiable picture of diets rich animal protein and fat promoting disease.

Make no mistake: Science has given us unequivocal warning that diets rich in animal protein and fat promote disease. The time to start changing your diet is now.

I find it interesting to see how nutrition science denial seems to go hand in hand with climate science denial, and vice versa.

Ignorance seems like bliss, until it isn't.

52 comments:

Bart Kay said...

There is no serious argument that the world is currently warming. Neither is there any argument that in the next 5.5 K years it WILL cool - significantly (i.e. we WILL experience another ice-age). What is as question here, is the overall cause of these changes. The evidence in support of CO2 as a major contributor to warming on Earth at present is weak at best. Please let us keep our eye on the ball. We must plan for change (either warming or cooling), NOT try to avoid change. One factor which is inescapable is that there are too many human beings on Earth. At some point, she will spit a large proportion of us off.

The Humane Hominid said...

How We Know Global Warming is Real
and Human Caused

by Donald R. Prothero

Bog said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bog said...

Great article HumaneHominid.

Just like with the lipid-theory confusionists, even a talented 12-year old kid can refute the claims made by climate denialists/cranks with the help of google.

Rex said...

HumaneHominid thanks for finding that...Don, great article as usual.

Ben said...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unstoppable_Global_Warming:_Every_1,500_Years

Michael P said...

I understand the argument and I myself do not eat meat, at least not more than a bite here and there, but forests have been cleared to grow vegetables and grain as well. You can't grow a vegetarian garden in the rain forest very easily either

Ben said...

Micheal P.

How ridiculous. Certainly the only land that is ever cleared of forest is that used for producing meat. Land is NEVER cleared to produce grains or vegetables. How absurd.

And, of course, no one here mentions that there is more forested land in the United States today than there was in 1900 - despite out hunger for meat and wood and paper.

Listen to the environmentalists, however, and you will think that US forests are almost all gone and that, furthermore, recycling paper will "save trees." Oh, how we are deceived!

Avishek said...

I haven't read this blog in a while and i'm quite surprised to read that animal fat and protein cause heart disease! Certainly Don has been misguided.

But on these statistics, how can we prevent this? Can we grow forests back and cultivate venison instead? Buffalo?

rezzrovv said...

Actually, there is more forest in North America today than 100 years ago.
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/more-trees-than-there-were-100-years-ago-its-true

Furthermore, Native Americans cleared large swaths for agriculture and would deplete the soil then move on. Plus, they would start forest fires for the purpose of clearing out underbrush that hindered hunting also providing better food for prey. This caused sometimes dramatic changes to the forest and it would burn out hickories and oaks leaving behind pines as seen in the Southeast.

The Humane Hominid said...

True, there are more trees in North America, but it probably won't make much of a difference:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=tropical-forests-cool-earth

Also, increased atmospheric CO2 concentration inhibits nitrogen absorption in C3 plants (i.e., most trees), which in turn inhibits photosynthesis and growth.

So, sorry, but more trees in N. Am. does not mean less global warming.

As for Singer and Avery:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0HGFSUx2a8

The Humane Hominid said...

Oops, forgot to post sources about CO2 and N-absorption:

http://web.niser.ac.in/bjc/talkfiles/elevated_CO2-1.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22624317

Ben said...

Don said, "The mountain of climate data assembled over decades by the scientific community as a whole is irrefutable."

Irrefutable? Is that similar to how Galileo proposed that the Earth actually revolves around the sun instead of the other way around. Yet everyone at the time knew it was "irrefutable" that the sun goes around the Earth. Thus, Galileo spent his late year under house arrest because he would not accept the consensus of the day. . . .

Ben said...

Humane Hominid:

It seems you need to address your facts about carbon sequestering directly to Don. He is the one who said that, "That means that your locally raised, grass-fed meat probably is part of the problem, not part of the solution, because it is raised on pasture that once was a forest that could, if restored, sequester 25 times more carbon than the pasture and cattle combined."

Don is certain that if my local farmer who raises exclusively grass-fed beef cattle stops that and lets his once food-productive land go to trees and brush, then we will be on our way to solving global warming.

I guess you showed him!

Incidentally, does not all that rapidly growing grass that cattle feed upon sequester CO2 also?

Ben said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ben said...

This from your own beloved EPA (http://www.epa.gov/sequestration/faq.html):

"Carbon accumulation in forests and soils eventually reaches a saturation point, beyond which additional sequestration is no longer possible. This happens, for example, when trees reach maturity, or when the organic matter in soils builds back up to original levels before losses occurred. Even after saturation, the trees or agricultural practices would need to be sustained to maintain the accumulated carbon and prevent subsequent losses of carbon back to the atmosphere."

So when we clear-cut vast forests of mature trees, were we making global warming worse? Or were we producing conditions from which sequestration could begin to be more rapid again?

This reminds me of the story of the Taoist farmer:

This farmer had only one horse, and one day the horse ran away. The neighbors came to condole over his terrible loss. The farmer said, "What makes you think it is so terrible?"

A month later, the horse came home--this time bringing with her two beautiful wild horses. The neighbors became excited at the farmer's good fortune. Such lovely strong horses! The farmer said, "What makes you think this is good fortune?"

The farmer's son was thrown from one of the wild horses and broke his leg. All the neighbors were very distressed. Such bad luck! The farmer said, "What makes you think it is bad?"

A war came, and every able-bodied man was conscripted and sent into battle. Only the farmer's son, because he had a broken leg, remained. The neighbors congratulated the farmer. "What makes you think this is good?" said the farmer.

Don said...

It takes more land to produce 3000 kcal of animal foods than to produce 3000 kcal of plant foods, simply because animals live on plants, and a large portion of the energy fed to animals dissipates as heat and activity. This is why factory farmers keep their animals as stationary and warm as possible, to reduce losses.

Thus, if forest must be cleared, less is cleared to support a plant based diet than an animal based diet.

Ben,

Are you able to distinguish between what I quoted and what I myself said? I ask because you attributed to me a passage that is a part of a quote.

Do you really believe that the state of today's climate science is similar to the church's dogma that the solar system is geocentric?

The SA article cited by HumaneHominid states: "if you remove all the forest in the U.S., it would probably heat up the world, but have a slight cooling influence on the U.S., itself."

According to that article, boreal forests only have a warming effect where the forest covers a snowy expanse.

Besides, the point of the WWI authors was that a developed rainforest sequesters 25 times more carbon than rapidly growing grass stocked with cattle. A boreal forest also sequesters more carbon, simply because trees, being much larger plants than grasses, with much larger root systems, contain much more carbon, as carbohydrate, than grass. This is why we burn wood, not grass, nor cattle, in fireplaces. If grass sequestered (stored) more carbon (carbohydrate) than trees, it would provide more fuel and be preferred to wood as such. Cattle convert most of the plant-based carbon (carbohydrates) they consume into carbon dioxide and water, and heat.

Rezzrovv,

I quoted a source that states that more than 96% of the original forests that covered North America have been cleared. You come back by saying that we have more forest cover now than 100 years ago. Do you realize that you have not invalidated the claim that only 4% of the original forests remain?

Do you realize that 100 years ago was 1912, which was more than 100 years after U.S. independence, therefore after more than 100 years of deforestation by settlers?

Do you realize that since 1912, there has been some effort to restore some of the forests, largely during the depression, when a large number of trees were planted by people employed by the government?

As for the comment about Native Americans, I'm not sure your intention. I certainly have not here stated that Native Americans were conservationists. They started the deforestation on the North American continent.


People of all ethnic groups have been destructive. I can cite treatises of Chinese philosophers written hundreds of years ago, in which they described and decried the ongoing deforestation of China and the poverty that ensued.

Jimmy Gee said...

Perhaps all should read this report:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/

The Humane Hominid said...

Jimmy,

Nope. That "31,000 climate scientists" stuff is another bullshit claim:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Py2XVILHUjQ

The article also cites a spokesman from the Heartland Institute, which has problems of its own:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute

gunther gatherer said...

Awesome Don. This is where the food and nutrition debate should be going. Planet health and personal health are the same thing.

This macho "man as big game hunter" crap that the paleo peeps are selling has got to go.

And even if it were true: What good would personal health be if you have to kill the planet in the process?

Jimmy Gee said...

HA HA HA HA,

You Vegans are just too funny.

Ben said...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/ipcc_admits_its_past_reports_were_junk.html

Ben said...

Don,

You asked me, "Do you really believe that the state of today's climate science is similar to the church's dogma that the solar system is geocentric?"

Yes, I do. And you would to if you looked at the process required to have work about climate change published and how promotion, publication, recognition, and status depend on how well you regurgitate the state's position on the matter.

"Global warming" IS dogma.

Dogma: Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization.[1] It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioners or believers. Although it generally refers to religious beliefs that are accepted without evidence, they can refer to acceptable opinions of philosophers or philosophical schools, public decrees, or issued decisions of political authorities." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma)

Ben said...

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/11/20/statisticians-can-prove-almost-anything-a-new-study-finds/

Okay Don, here's my ultimate question derived from this blog post of yours:

In it, you said, "This passage from the Environmental Defense Fund page discussing the scientific consensus on global warming gives a good description of how science works to weed out mistakes."

And,

"Medical and nutrition scientists, like all scientists, are professional skeptics. They welcome — in fact, rely upon — rigorous challenges to their work from colleagues. Through this process of peer review and independent verification, scientists critique and double- (and triple- and quadruple-) check each others work."

And,

"This can lead to debate and controversy, but over time, solid research is validated, errors are discarded, and a body of reliable facts is created."


Given your obvious love for this nearly flawless way of achieving scientific consensus, why do you not endorse and defend the scientific consensus of how to treat disease using modern Western medicine? Aren't their findings "irrefutable?" Haven't they created "a body of reliable facts" about how to treat illness?

Shouldn't you be telling us how the "consensus" is clear that the best way to treat most any ailment is either to cut, burn, or poison the patient? After all - that is the scientific consensus, is it not?

Odd, for some reason you reject Western medicine which is based on the same "irrefutable" evidence as global warming, but you are ready to defend heartily that our meat-eating is warming the planet. Please reconcile.

The Humane Hominid said...

Ben,

Your link is a joke. I read the IAC report, and aside from getting a lot of its page citations completely wrong (indeed, most of the quotes in the article weren't on the cited pages at all), the link gives a dishonest presentation of what phrases like "alternative views" and "critical review" mean in the context of science generally and of the report, specifically.

Plus, it's written by a lobbyist. Fail.

But, I believe in being fair. So, how about you give us your single best piece of evidence that the current warming trend is not anthropogenic?

The Humane Hominid said...

Ben, that link is a joke.

First, it gets its quote citations wrong. Most of the quotes aren't even on the cited pages.

Second, it gives an inaccurate and somewhat dishonest picture of what phrases like "alternative views" and "critical review comments" mean in the context of the IPCC reports specifically, and science generally.

Third, it's written by a lobbyist. Fail.

But, I believe in being fair. So, give us you single best piece of evidence that the current warming trend is not anthropogenic, and explain why and this piece of evidence demonstrates your case.

The Humane Hominid said...

*why and how.

Sorry.

Ben said...

Humane Hominid,

Nice appeal to argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Look, human climate study and actual recorded data dates back to what? 1900? Maybe later for things like reliable data about worldwide temperatures. True?

Yet I am supposed to believe that scientists can observe temperatures from selected locations over this tiny period of human/earthly history and it becomes "irrefutable" that man's use of fossil fuels and cutting of forests is responsible? And that no period of warmer temperatures ever occurred before in Earth's history?

Further to that is the emphasis that this warming MUST mean catastrophic things for the earth and mankind. Is it always a given that change will mean things will be worse? (See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age.html)

Even more, I'm supposed to believe that climate scientists, who generally cannot predict weather changes accurately beyond about one week now KNOW that the currently observed warming will continue until draconian enough laws are in place to stop the use of fossil fuels?

How is it that a weather prediction from meteorologists is so full of uncertainty, but this prediction of global warming is not subject to any significant uncertainty?

The Humane Hominid said...

Ben,

I asked you to provide your single best piece of evidence.

Questions are not evidence.

Also, weather and climate are different things.

Please try again. Just give your single best piece of evidence that current warming trends are not anthropogenic. Explain how and why this evidence demonstrates your case.

Ben said...

Human Hominid,

Apparently you missed where I dismissed your request as being argumentum ad ignorantiam. This is also sometimes known as shifting the burden of proof and goes along the lines that "since you have not proved that anthropogenic global warming is not the case, then it must be true."

It is up to the climate change stalwarts to prove beyond a reasonable doubt their theories. They have not done so any more than "medical and nutrition scientists" have proven that eating meat will cause cancer, heart disease, etc.

I have no need to prove the negative until you first prove the positive beyond a reasonable doubt.

Further, I understand that weather and climate are not the same thing. This, in fact, is part of my point. While weather pertains to the atmospheric conditions in a given area at a given time, the climate is the general weather condition of an area over a long period of time. So while a meteorologist is wholly incapable of predicting local weather accurately for more than about a week, I am supposed to believe climatologists can predict the long term general atmospheric conditions of the whole planet for the next century? Good luck with that!

Ben said...

Also, make sure you read this excellent post:

http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/2011/03/keeping-cattle-cause-or-cure-for.html

The Humane Hominid said...

Ben,

It's not argumentum ad ignorantium at all. Any knowledgeable and honest skeptic can easily cite a piece of evidence they expect undermines a prevailing theory. For instance, a rabbit fossil from the pre-Cambrian would cast serious doubt on evolution. Citing irrelevant, half-understood fallacies is only an evasion designed to avoid you having to actually discuss the evidence.

Yes, climate scientists CAN predict long term atmospheric patterns, because climate is the average of weather patterns over centuries or milennia. Also, global warming has a lot more to do with the warming of the oceans than it does with the atmosphere.

Anthropogenic global warming is easily provable by any reasonable standard of evidence. CO2 is either a radiative gas, or it isn't. The C-isotope ratio is either affected by CO2 from organic sources, or it isn't. These aren't opinion questions, or propaganda.

My own background is in geology and paleobiology, so I could talk pretty knowledgeably about climate patterns in the rock record, and show that the current warming is unprecedented in Earth history, in terms of its rapidity. And also point out that the C12/C13 ratio has gotten smaller in the last 150 years or so, and the only possible sources of this change are fossil fuel release and deforestation. No other source fits all the observations. Atmospheric C12 only comes from organic sources.

Finally, who in your opinion decides whether the case has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Clearly, you aren't qualified for it, and apparently you don't think that the community of earth scientists are qualified, either.

Who does this leave?

Ben said...

For Don:

Since you highly respect and wish to advance scientific consensus, you can start your re-education on medicine with documents like this:

http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/content/25/24/2243.full#sec-36

Here, the authors describe this as follows:, "Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents aim to present all the relevant evidence on a particular issue in order to help physicians to weigh the benefits and risks of a particular diagnostic or therapeutic procedure. They should be helpful in everyday clinical decision-making."

Note they have declared that they have "all the relevant evidence." Not some, or most, or some from a particular viewpoint, but ALL of it.

You will no doubt want to begin adopting their methods of treatment since this is a consensus document of medical scientists. After all, they have "all the relevant evidence" that this is the way to proceed.

Remember, these scientists are "professional skeptics." they have double (even triple and quadruple checked!) Nothing gets by them! Now they have the right answer. And you would do well to listen to them!

Oh! Oops! I almost missed this. the authors also state, "In spite of the fact that standards for issuing good quality Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents are well defined, recent surveys of Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents published in peer-reviewed journals between 1985 and 1998 have shown that methodological standards were not complied with in the vast majority of cases."

Darn it! And here I thought those scientists were infallible!

The Humane Hominid said...

1) No one said scientists were infallible.

2) Not all evidence is relevant.

Ben said...

Human Hominid:

First, I don't and have never doubted that human activities emit CO2.

Second, I am well aware that CO2 is one (of the many) "greenhouse gasses."

The human-caused global warming enthusiasts' equation is thus:

Man, over the last century, has emitted gigantic loads of CO2.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. (It contributes between 9 and 26% to the greenhouse effect - far below water vapor's effect.)

Therefore, warming temperatures are a result of human activity that emits CO2.

I will construct a similar argument using similar facts:

The number of trees in North America has increased greatly since 1900.

Trees emit 02 into the air. O2 is one necessary component of fire.

According to http://globalwarming.markey.house.gov/mediacenter/pressreleases_id=0113.html, "The frequency and intensity of wildfires have increased in recent decades throughout the Western United States. "

Therefore, increased emission of O2 by trees is causing more wildfires.

See how simple it is?

Can you produce your best evidence that increased O2 emission by a larger tree population does not result in more wildfires?

Let's review:

Fact: more trees mean more O2.
Fact: more O2 supports more fire.
Fact: there have been more fires in the last 40 or 50 years in NA.

It must be that we have more fires because of trees.

Or:

Fact: more cars and deforestation mean more CO2.
Fact: more CO2 supports more greenhouse warming.
Fact: statistics show a (very small) increase in atmospheric warming over hte last 40 or 50 years.

It must be that we have more global warming because of humans.

Notice how ridiculous the "more trees emitting O2 means more fires" argument is?

The Humane Hominid said...

More evasive logic games! This behavior is why climate scientists don't take (self-presumed) "skeptics" seriously, Ben.

You can't even construct a decent caricature of the established climate model, let alone discuss the evidence competently. I hope you don't expect me take you seriously after that.

ROFLMAO.

Swede said...

All of the hot air from this blog must be responsible for the other half of all global warming.

The Humane Hominid said...

A leading skeptic of anthropogenic global warming is now convinced it's real.

Bog said...

Even the biggest oil-companies in the world declare that climate change is real and anthropogenic. Who are we to believe, oil-money paid corporate scientists or a bunch of creationists and free-market advocates :)

Exxon
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/safety_climate.aspx

Chevron
http://www.chevron.com/globalissues/climatechange/

ConocoPhillips
http://www.conocophillips.com/EN/susdev/environment/climatechange/Pages/index.aspx

The Humane Hominid said...

I suspect you're probably being facetious, Bog, but your question actually touches an important point. The answer is we "believe" whichever "side" the evidence says is right.

If the evidence supports their claims and the results are independently replicable, it doesn't matter who paid for the research.

George Henderson said...

I actually agree with you about one thing.

Just because someone has good sense about diet and sees through the BS (unlike you, sir), that does not make them a meterologist.

Doctors are NOT qualified to pontificate on climate change, and risk discrediting the real knowledge they have by doing so.

Ben said...

http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/why-i-am-global-warming-skeptic

AL said...

Dear Don,

"That means that your locally raised, grass-fed meat probably is part of the problem, not part of the solution, because it is raised on pasture that once was a forest that could, if restored, sequester 25 times more carbon than the pasture and cattle combined." —Don

http://www.mccarrisonsociety.org.uk/other-publications/201-how-i-fell-in-love-with-poly

African Buffalo and why Saturated fats are dangerous:
At that time, Ancel Keys' Seven Countries study was also pointing the finger of accusation at dietary saturated fats which were closely associated with coronary mortality (3). As these fats mostly came from animal sources our first analytical foray was to compare the fat from African and European meats. The European beef sounded like a good start. It gave us lots of peaks of 16 and 18 carbon chain lengths which were readily identified as mainly palmitic, stearic and oleic acids and not much else apart from some odd chain length and shorter chain length saturated fatty acids.
African Buffalo, Syncerus caffer, known to the locals with the much more sonorous, threatening and descriptive name of ‘Mbogo’ (pronounced Mmmm-bo-go) was our starting comparison. After all humans were supposed to have lived on the meat of these animals during the millions of years when the genome was finally shaped. We found the expected palmitic, stearic and oleic acids but to our astonishment, these were followed by a substantial peak for linoleic (20%) and a smaller but significant peak for linolenic acid (5%). Many more peaks followed. What were they? We asked the nice people at EMI for help. Our samples were shoved down a mass spectrometer and soon we had the empirical formula. Silver nitrate chromatography separates fatty acids based on the number of double bonds and that combined with hydrogenation to remove the double bonds gave us even more information.

Perhaps this can answer some questions about badly-fed obese cattle getting into the food chain.

Mike says we probably ate forest ungulates because they grassland ones were too fast for us. They were the original fast food.

I hope this helps,

AL
AskDrPangloss.com

AL said...

Dear Don,

"That means that your locally raised, grass-fed meat probably is part of the problem, not part of the solution, because it is raised on pasture that once was a forest that could, if restored, sequester 25 times more carbon than the pasture and cattle combined." —Don

http://www.mccarrisonsociety.org.uk/other-publications/201-how-i-fell-in-love-with-poly

African Buffalo and why Saturated fats are dangerous:
At that time, Ancel Keys' Seven Countries study was also pointing the finger of accusation at dietary saturated fats which were closely associated with coronary mortality (3). As these fats mostly came from animal sources our first analytical foray was to compare the fat from African and European meats. The European beef sounded like a good start. It gave us lots of peaks of 16 and 18 carbon chain lengths which were readily identified as mainly palmitic, stearic and oleic acids and not much else apart from some odd chain length and shorter chain length saturated fatty acids.
African Buffalo, Syncerus caffer, known to the locals with the much more sonorous, threatening and descriptive name of ‘Mbogo’ (pronounced Mmmm-bo-go) was our starting comparison. After all humans were supposed to have lived on the meat of these animals during the millions of years when the genome was finally shaped. We found the expected palmitic, stearic and oleic acids but to our astonishment, these were followed by a substantial peak for linoleic (20%) and a smaller but significant peak for linolenic acid (5%). Many more peaks followed. What were they? We asked the nice people at EMI for help. Our samples were shoved down a mass spectrometer and soon we had the empirical formula. Silver nitrate chromatography separates fatty acids based on the number of double bonds and that combined with hydrogenation to remove the double bonds gave us even more information.

Perhaps this can answer some questions about badly-fed obese cattle getting into the food chain.

Mike says we probably ate forest ungulates because they grassland ones were too fast for us. They were the original fast food.

I hope this helps,

AL
AskDrPangloss.com

AL said...

Dear Don,

"That means that your locally raised, grass-fed meat probably is part of the problem, not part of the solution, because it is raised on pasture that once was a forest that could, if restored, sequester 25 times more carbon than the pasture and cattle combined." —Don

http://www.mccarrisonsociety.org.uk/other-publications/201-how-i-fell-in-love-with-poly

African Buffalo and why Saturated fats are dangerous:
At that time, Ancel Keys' Seven Countries study was also pointing the finger of accusation at dietary saturated fats which were closely associated with coronary mortality (3). As these fats mostly came from animal sources our first analytical foray was to compare the fat from African and European meats. The European beef sounded like a good start. It gave us lots of peaks of 16 and 18 carbon chain lengths which were readily identified as mainly palmitic, stearic and oleic acids and not much else apart from some odd chain length and shorter chain length saturated fatty acids.
African Buffalo, Syncerus caffer, known to the locals with the much more sonorous, threatening and descriptive name of ‘Mbogo’ (pronounced Mmmm-bo-go) was our starting comparison. After all humans were supposed to have lived on the meat of these animals during the millions of years when the genome was finally shaped. We found the expected palmitic, stearic and oleic acids but to our astonishment, these were followed by a substantial peak for linoleic (20%) and a smaller but significant peak for linolenic acid (5%). Many more peaks followed. What were they? We asked the nice people at EMI for help. Our samples were shoved down a mass spectrometer and soon we had the empirical formula. Silver nitrate chromatography separates fatty acids based on the number of double bonds and that combined with hydrogenation to remove the double bonds gave us even more information.

Perhaps this can answer some questions about badly-fed obese cattle getting into the food chain.

Mike says we probably ate forest ungulates because they grassland ones were too fast for us. They were the original fast food.

I hope this helps,

AL
AskDrPangloss.com

AL said...

Dear Don,

"That means that your locally raised, grass-fed meat probably is part of the problem, not part of the solution, because it is raised on pasture that once was a forest that could, if restored, sequester 25 times more carbon than the pasture and cattle combined." —Don

http://www.mccarrisonsociety.org.uk/other-publications/201-how-i-fell-in-love-with-poly

African Buffalo and why Saturated fats are dangerous:
At that time, Ancel Keys' Seven Countries study was also pointing the finger of accusation at dietary saturated fats which were closely associated with coronary mortality (3). As these fats mostly came from animal sources our first analytical foray was to compare the fat from African and European meats. The European beef sounded like a good start. It gave us lots of peaks of 16 and 18 carbon chain lengths which were readily identified as mainly palmitic, stearic and oleic acids and not much else apart from some odd chain length and shorter chain length saturated fatty acids.
African Buffalo, Syncerus caffer, known to the locals with the much more sonorous, threatening and descriptive name of ‘Mbogo’ (pronounced Mmmm-bo-go) was our starting comparison. After all humans were supposed to have lived on the meat of these animals during the millions of years when the genome was finally shaped. We found the expected palmitic, stearic and oleic acids but to our astonishment, these were followed by a substantial peak for linoleic (20%) and a smaller but significant peak for linolenic acid (5%). Many more peaks followed. What were they? We asked the nice people at EMI for help. Our samples were shoved down a mass spectrometer and soon we had the empirical formula. Silver nitrate chromatography separates fatty acids based on the number of double bonds and that combined with hydrogenation to remove the double bonds gave us even more information.

Perhaps this can answer some questions about badly-fed obese cattle getting into the food chain.

Mike says we probably ate forest ungulates because they grassland ones were too fast for us. They were the original fast food.

I hope this helps,

AL
AskDrPangloss.com

AL said...

Dear Don,

"That means that your locally raised, grass-fed meat probably is part of the problem, not part of the solution, because it is raised on pasture that once was a forest that could, if restored, sequester 25 times more carbon than the pasture and cattle combined." —Don

http://www.mccarrisonsociety.org.uk/other-publications/201-how-i-fell-in-love-with-poly

African Buffalo and why Saturated fats are dangerous:
At that time, Ancel Keys' Seven Countries study was also pointing the finger of accusation at dietary saturated fats which were closely associated with coronary mortality (3). As these fats mostly came from animal sources our first analytical foray was to compare the fat from African and European meats. The European beef sounded like a good start. It gave us lots of peaks of 16 and 18 carbon chain lengths which were readily identified as mainly palmitic, stearic and oleic acids and not much else apart from some odd chain length and shorter chain length saturated fatty acids.
African Buffalo, Syncerus caffer, known to the locals with the much more sonorous, threatening and descriptive name of ‘Mbogo’ (pronounced Mmmm-bo-go) was our starting comparison. After all humans were supposed to have lived on the meat of these animals during the millions of years when the genome was finally shaped. We found the expected palmitic, stearic and oleic acids but to our astonishment, these were followed by a substantial peak for linoleic (20%) and a smaller but significant peak for linolenic acid (5%). Many more peaks followed. What were they? We asked the nice people at EMI for help. Our samples were shoved down a mass spectrometer and soon we had the empirical formula. Silver nitrate chromatography separates fatty acids based on the number of double bonds and that combined with hydrogenation to remove the double bonds gave us even more information.

Perhaps this can answer some questions about badly-fed obese cattle getting into the food chain.

Mike says we probably ate forest ungulates because they grassland ones were too fast for us. They were the original fast food.

I hope this helps,

AL
AskDrPangloss.com

AL said...

Dear Don,

"That means that your locally raised, grass-fed meat probably is part of the problem, not part of the solution, because it is raised on pasture that once was a forest that could, if restored, sequester 25 times more carbon than the pasture and cattle combined." —Don

http://www.mccarrisonsociety.org.uk/other-publications/201-how-i-fell-in-love-with-poly

African Buffalo and why Saturated fats are dangerous:
At that time, Ancel Keys' Seven Countries study was also pointing the finger of accusation at dietary saturated fats which were closely associated with coronary mortality (3). As these fats mostly came from animal sources our first analytical foray was to compare the fat from African and European meats. The European beef sounded like a good start. It gave us lots of peaks of 16 and 18 carbon chain lengths which were readily identified as mainly palmitic, stearic and oleic acids and not much else apart from some odd chain length and shorter chain length saturated fatty acids.
African Buffalo, Syncerus caffer, known to the locals with the much more sonorous, threatening and descriptive name of ‘Mbogo’ (pronounced Mmmm-bo-go) was our starting comparison. After all humans were supposed to have lived on the meat of these animals during the millions of years when the genome was finally shaped. We found the expected palmitic, stearic and oleic acids but to our astonishment, these were followed by a substantial peak for linoleic (20%) and a smaller but significant peak for linolenic acid (5%). Many more peaks followed. What were they? We asked the nice people at EMI for help. Our samples were shoved down a mass spectrometer and soon we had the empirical formula. Silver nitrate chromatography separates fatty acids based on the number of double bonds and that combined with hydrogenation to remove the double bonds gave us even more information.

Perhaps this can answer some questions about badly-fed obese cattle getting into the food chain.

Mike says we probably ate forest ungulates because they grassland ones were too fast for us. They were the original fast food.

I hope this helps,

AL
AskDrPangloss.com

AL said...

Dear Don,

"That means that your locally raised, grass-fed meat probably is part of the problem, not part of the solution, because it is raised on pasture that once was a forest that could, if restored, sequester 25 times more carbon than the pasture and cattle combined." —Don

http://www.mccarrisonsociety.org.uk/other-publications/201-how-i-fell-in-love-with-poly

African Buffalo and why Saturated fats are dangerous:
At that time, Ancel Keys' Seven Countries study was also pointing the finger of accusation at dietary saturated fats which were closely associated with coronary mortality (3). As these fats mostly came from animal sources our first analytical foray was to compare the fat from African and European meats. The European beef sounded like a good start. It gave us lots of peaks of 16 and 18 carbon chain lengths which were readily identified as mainly palmitic, stearic and oleic acids and not much else apart from some odd chain length and shorter chain length saturated fatty acids.
African Buffalo, Syncerus caffer, known to the locals with the much more sonorous, threatening and descriptive name of ‘Mbogo’ (pronounced Mmmm-bo-go) was our starting comparison. After all humans were supposed to have lived on the meat of these animals during the millions of years when the genome was finally shaped. We found the expected palmitic, stearic and oleic acids but to our astonishment, these were followed by a substantial peak for linoleic (20%) and a smaller but significant peak for linolenic acid (5%). Many more peaks followed. What were they? We asked the nice people at EMI for help. Our samples were shoved down a mass spectrometer and soon we had the empirical formula. Silver nitrate chromatography separates fatty acids based on the number of double bonds and that combined with hydrogenation to remove the double bonds gave us even more information.

Perhaps this can answer some questions about badly-fed obese cattle getting into the food chain.

Mike says we probably ate forest ungulates because they grassland ones were too fast for us. They were the original fast food.

I hope this helps,

AL
AskDrPangloss.com

AL said...

Dear Don,

"That means that your locally raised, grass-fed meat probably is part of the problem, not part of the solution, because it is raised on pasture that once was a forest that could, if restored, sequester 25 times more carbon than the pasture and cattle combined." —Don

http://www.mccarrisonsociety.org.uk/other-publications/201-how-i-fell-in-love-with-poly

African Buffalo and why Saturated fats are dangerous:
At that time, Ancel Keys' Seven Countries study was also pointing the finger of accusation at dietary saturated fats which were closely associated with coronary mortality (3). As these fats mostly came from animal sources our first analytical foray was to compare the fat from African and European meats. The European beef sounded like a good start. It gave us lots of peaks of 16 and 18 carbon chain lengths which were readily identified as mainly palmitic, stearic and oleic acids and not much else apart from some odd chain length and shorter chain length saturated fatty acids.
African Buffalo, Syncerus caffer, known to the locals with the much more sonorous, threatening and descriptive name of ‘Mbogo’ (pronounced Mmmm-bo-go) was our starting comparison. After all humans were supposed to have lived on the meat of these animals during the millions of years when the genome was finally shaped. We found the expected palmitic, stearic and oleic acids but to our astonishment, these were followed by a substantial peak for linoleic (20%) and a smaller but significant peak for linolenic acid (5%). Many more peaks followed. What were they? We asked the nice people at EMI for help. Our samples were shoved down a mass spectrometer and soon we had the empirical formula. Silver nitrate chromatography separates fatty acids based on the number of double bonds and that combined with hydrogenation to remove the double bonds gave us even more information.

Perhaps this can answer some questions about badly-fed obese cattle getting into the food chain.

Mike says we probably ate forest ungulates because they grassland ones were too fast for us. They were the original fast food.

I hope this helps,

AL
AskDrPangloss.com

AL said...

Dear Don,

"That means that your locally raised, grass-fed meat probably is part of the problem, not part of the solution, because it is raised on pasture that once was a forest that could, if restored, sequester 25 times more carbon than the pasture and cattle combined." —Don

http://www.mccarrisonsociety.org.uk/other-publications/201-how-i-fell-in-love-with-poly

African Buffalo and why Saturated fats are dangerous:
At that time, Ancel Keys' Seven Countries study was also pointing the finger of accusation at dietary saturated fats which were closely associated with coronary mortality (3). As these fats mostly came from animal sources our first analytical foray was to compare the fat from African and European meats. The European beef sounded like a good start. It gave us lots of peaks of 16 and 18 carbon chain lengths which were readily identified as mainly palmitic, stearic and oleic acids and not much else apart from some odd chain length and shorter chain length saturated fatty acids.
African Buffalo, Syncerus caffer, known to the locals with the much more sonorous, threatening and descriptive name of ‘Mbogo’ (pronounced Mmmm-bo-go) was our starting comparison. After all humans were supposed to have lived on the meat of these animals during the millions of years when the genome was finally shaped. We found the expected palmitic, stearic and oleic acids but to our astonishment, these were followed by a substantial peak for linoleic (20%) and a smaller but significant peak for linolenic acid (5%). Many more peaks followed. What were they? We asked the nice people at EMI for help. Our samples were shoved down a mass spectrometer and soon we had the empirical formula. Silver nitrate chromatography separates fatty acids based on the number of double bonds and that combined with hydrogenation to remove the double bonds gave us even more information.

Perhaps this can answer some questions about badly-fed obese cattle getting into the food chain.

Mike says we probably ate forest ungulates because they grassland ones were too fast for us. They were the original fast food.

I hope this helps,

AL
AskDrPangloss.com

AL said...

Dear Don,

"That means that your locally raised, grass-fed meat probably is part of the problem, not part of the solution, because it is raised on pasture that once was a forest that could, if restored, sequester 25 times more carbon than the pasture and cattle combined." —Don

http://www.mccarrisonsociety.org.uk/other-publications/201-how-i-fell-in-love-with-poly

African Buffalo and why Saturated fats are dangerous:
At that time, Ancel Keys' Seven Countries study was also pointing the finger of accusation at dietary saturated fats which were closely associated with coronary mortality (3). As these fats mostly came from animal sources our first analytical foray was to compare the fat from African and European meats. The European beef sounded like a good start. It gave us lots of peaks of 16 and 18 carbon chain lengths which were readily identified as mainly palmitic, stearic and oleic acids and not much else apart from some odd chain length and shorter chain length saturated fatty acids.
African Buffalo, Syncerus caffer, known to the locals with the much more sonorous, threatening and descriptive name of ‘Mbogo’ (pronounced Mmmm-bo-go) was our starting comparison. After all humans were supposed to have lived on the meat of these animals during the millions of years when the genome was finally shaped. We found the expected palmitic, stearic and oleic acids but to our astonishment, these were followed by a substantial peak for linoleic (20%) and a smaller but significant peak for linolenic acid (5%). Many more peaks followed. What were they? We asked the nice people at EMI for help. Our samples were shoved down a mass spectrometer and soon we had the empirical formula. Silver nitrate chromatography separates fatty acids based on the number of double bonds and that combined with hydrogenation to remove the double bonds gave us even more information.

Perhaps this can answer some questions about badly-fed obese cattle getting into the food chain.

Mike says we probably ate forest ungulates because they grassland ones were too fast for us. They were the original fast food.

I hope this helps,

AL
AskDrPangloss.com