gazza Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 In yesterdays TimesOrganic food is a waste of money Clicky The idea that organic food is better for the environment is also questionable. Organic milk, for example, generates more carbon dioxide emissions than standard milk and uses significantly more land. More land = more grass = more photosynthesis = more conversion of CO2-O2 = better for the environment? no dosent work like that, more land because thay need more cattle which means more co2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringwraith Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 Food Standards Agency study on organics abuses statistics A study commissioned by the UK Food Standards Agency concluded that: there is little, if any, nutritional difference between organic and conventionally produced food and that there is no evidence of additional health benefits from eating organic food.[1] Yes and no. What the study actually shows is that organic food typically does have higher levels of important nutrients but the high degree of variability in the measured levels means that we cannot be 95% sure that these higher levels are not the outcome of chance. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009...-agency-organic More info here: - http://www.anhcampaign.org/news/fsa-shock-...roduce-findings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 no dosent work like that,more land because thay need more cattle which means more co2 Sorry gazza, but cattle creating co2 is effectively a series of chemical reactions. Photosynthesis is a chemical reaction. In both cases you cannot output more than you take in. If the cattle were creating carbon then that would be a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBloodyNine Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 So is this organic milk unpasteurised? I thought it had to be. It is, it's just that it reminds me of Crowe's milk from many years ago. Try it - you can really taste a lot of difference between that and non-organic. Is the anything to do with Pam Crowe? Also, you really really can't taste the difference. People who say they can aren't lying, they really think they can, but in fact they can't. Honestly, taste is something like 75% in the mind. Nobody in the world can distinguish between Pepsi and Coke reliably, but we all think we can and have a firm favourite: Bollocks, I bet you I can not only taste the difference between Coke and Pepsi but also between local and European coke. Pepsi has a completely different flavor to coke. As for for wine, most snobs will tell you more expensive wine is better because they are programmed that way, however you cant tell me that a bottle of Tesco value tastes the same as a half decent bottle, if you really think that then I would say your tongue is broken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 Sorry gazza, but cattle creating co2 is effectively a series of chemical reactions. Photosynthesis is a chemical reaction. In both cases you cannot output more than you take in. If the cattle were creating carbon then that would be a problem. That depends on how they're fed, doesn't it? And carbon is far less damaging locked away in grass or oil than in the atmosphere via a cow fart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 Exactly, and it would be fantastic if they were shitting diamonds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
queenie Posted September 8, 2009 Share Posted September 8, 2009 Regarding taste - maybe the organic veg is just fresher? I think nutrients are supposed to diminish with the age of the veg as well. Got some carrots and onions at the Douglas farmer's market, no idea if they are organic, but they definitely taste better than the supermarket ones. Carrots have more taste and the onions are loads jucier and sweeter. Plus I had a choice of different coloured carrots! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 That depends on how they're fed, doesn't it? And carbon is far less damaging locked away in grass or oil than in the atmosphere via a cow fart. Damn mother nature for creating animals that emit green house gases! Slim, the carbon from grass is sustainable. A cow cannot fart more carbon than it eats. Cows eat grass which consumes carbon and emits oxygen. The two balance out, that is why it is sustainable. Cows do not drink oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
organicarganoiluk Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Interesting debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alias Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 That depends on how they're fed, doesn't it? And carbon is far less damaging locked away in grass or oil than in the atmosphere via a cow fart. Damn mother nature for creating animals that emit green house gases! Slim, the carbon from grass is sustainable. A cow cannot fart more carbon than it eats. Cows eat grass which consumes carbon and emits oxygen. The two balance out, that is why it is sustainable. Cows do not drink oil. I don't really understand your way of thinking. Noone's talking about creating carbon, and it's a misnomer to think of carbon itself as associated with GHGs. Think of GHGs as CO2 equivalent units, not of their chemical composition. Organic materials can be processed in different ways, some creating more CO2e units then others - i.e. being supposedly worse for global warming. Cows create lots of ('unnatural') CO2e, as does burning oil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrie Stevens Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 Why is food treated with animal manure supposed to be better? Would I be better boiling my potatoes with water out of my septic tank? The pioneering works on this subject (other than the Norfolk four crop rotation) are Soil Grass and Cancer and Concentrated Incomplete Fertilisers both by the late Andre Voisin. I had to study some of his work at school. Google Andre Voisin and "Soil Grass and Cancer" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I always think of organic food as some clever bloke saying "I know lets save some money by not using fertilizer on farms, not washing the shit off the veg and selling it as organic for more profit." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Damn mother nature for creating animals that emit green house gases! Slim, the carbon from grass is sustainable. A cow cannot fart more carbon than it eats. Cows eat grass which consumes carbon and emits oxygen. The two balance out, that is why it is sustainable. Cows do not drink oil. Cor, that's an old Cambwrong! They do, effectively, drink oil, a good summary can be found on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_meat_production#Fossil_fuel_consumption_and_greenhouse_gas_emissions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.