Diana Rodgers - Kale vs. Cow
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 сен 2024
- Diana Rodgers, RD, LDN, NTP is a “real food” nutritionist and writer living on a working organic farm in Carlisle, Massachusetts. She runs a clinical nutrition practice, has written two books, hosts the Sustainable Dish Podcast, and speaks internationally about human nutrition, sustainability, animal welfare and social justice. Her work has been featured in The Los Angeles Times, The Boston Globe, Outside Magazine, Edible Boston and Mother Earth News
Great presentation, thanks for sharing.
Forgot dung beetles that break up and bury cow manure, followed by their larvae turning the manure into bioavailable fertilizer. The larvae might also be reducing or eliminating some of the cow parasites.
And then the birds come to eat the larvae and beetles and the birds bring other predators, and on and on until you have a fully functioning, self-sustaining ecosystem, which is the only thing that will reverse climate change. Technology got us into this mess via agriculture, it's not going to get us out via lab meat. Certainly there are roles for technology in making our lives easier, but the idea that more technology will somehow solve climate change is ridiculous [even so-called green energy sources aren't so good for the environment].
@@megankwisdom THE GREEN ANSWER -- far cheaper, far more effective, and solves far more world problems -- see Allan Savory's TED talk here (22 mins): ruclips.net/video/vpTHi7O66pI/видео.html . Allan Savory's techniques have been applied in America very successfully with a few changes.
Here are 2 very successful American ranching and farming operations that are improving environmental quality, using no inputs other than sunlight, fresh air, and sequestered rain:
1) Will Harris' "White Oak Pastures" in GA, 15 minute video "One Hundred Thousand Beating Hearts": ruclips.net/video/UoQWLK8-CYE/видео.html
2) Gabe Brown's "Brown's Ranch" in ND, 65 minute video is here: ruclips.net/video/ZTpYG0rAhBQ/видео.html or the more in depth with Q&A interspersed (2.5 hrs): ruclips.net/video/8NeFjqBnzWc/видео.html
Soil regeneration takes the pressure off of green energy, rapidly sequesters CO2 into living soils, creates soils that act like rain sponges, and reverses the 10 thousand year agricultural degradation of planet Earth by humans! Ex-vegan Mariah Campbell of Perma-Earth has an excellent common sense video (18 mins): ruclips.net/video/J5ebI97xSzY/видео.html
BUT, THE BIGGEST CLIMATE REVELATION TO ME TO DATE, has been around for at least 4 years and suppressed well enough that I never heard about it until 2019, and that is the actual role that CO2 plays in the atmosphere, climate, and life on Earth. After an in depth journey into the science, filtering out as much as possible the effects of big money and politics, the following 42 minute video by Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace and radical environmentalist presents a very compelling case for more CO2, not less, in the atmosphere. This is backed by modern biological science and the best archaeological evidence of atmospheric CO2 concentrations going back 100s of millions of years.
ruclips.net/video/57W3ZhOAkAE/видео.html
Also, a 40 minute global greening presentation from another staunch environmentalist, Matt Ridley: ruclips.net/video/j5M1qtN62yk/видео.html
@@megankwisdom In rereading your reply, I noticed that you were wanting to "reverse climate change". That would also be climate change. Climate change has been happening for 100s of millions of years, sometimes subtly and sometimes dramatically. I know of no way to stop that in the foreseeable future. The biggest threat is the coming ice age based on the cycle recorded in geological evidence.
Yeah, I somewhat enjoyed to watch documentary about Australia how they struggled with imported cattle, because, well, no dung beetles natively present in there. So they had to import them too. But it wasnt easy at all.
Very educational. Thank you
Good points, but her description of the Savory method for managing livestock (which is utterly crucial to understand in this paradigm that she promotes) is off base in a number of respects. To wit: Eating the grass does not 'stimulate' it. The reason that the cattle or bison herd moves on is that they ate all of the grass where they are, and they MUST keep moving to find more food. The value of the predators is to keep the herd ruminants bunched up, so that they do not 'cherry pick' but rather eat everything. This system works with perennials, which root deeper. When the grass is eaten down to the ground, then the roots die back, WHICH FERTILIZES DOWN DEEP, then it resprouts with this big root system and regrows quickly. Because the herd is now miles away, the grass recovers nicely and extends its roots again. When all you have is a perimeter fence, the animals cherry pick, and over time you get a field full of star thistle, plus when the grass attempts to recover, the animals are there and bite it again -- WHICH MUST NOT OCCUR!! Current grazing practices are complacent and retarded, and result in much less production and reduced soil quality compared to enlightened methods, which require actual work on the part of the rancher, but result in impressive benefits. Learn it!
Sorry but you are incorrect. Funny how the grasses in Yellowstone National Park where bison are confined (they are routinely shot when they try to leave the park) aren't all mowed down to nothing. Don't believe me? Go take a look for yourself. Ditto Custer State Park in the Black Hills.
You can partially ignore this paradigm in more humid climates. But you still end up with less production and a farm more vulnerable to drought or excess rainfall. I've seen it on our farm in the U.K.
@@gildone84 When you say 'confined' -- how big are those parks?? And how do those herds compare to the old herds of 3 centuries ago? When a giant herd that is kept bunched up by predators moves through a prairie, it eats and tramples EVERYTHING to the ground, and moves on. Then the grasses there rebound. That does not happen on smaller acreages where the animals can cherry pick and roam the whole (small) acreage.
It is one of those talks that has set a mission first and than picked up facts to suit it. According to FAO, only ca 10% of global beef is currently pastured. Even if we greatly improve the pasture management (with whatever holistic generative etc. methods) we might triple it (maybe). Where will the rest is going to come from? Cutting back on beef (and other meat and dairy) in countries where it is consumer in quantities excessive and unnecessary to health is the only solution. There are several more arguments one can pick on. But just one more: 60% of all mammalian biomass is presently domesticated animals with that of wild mammals being just 7%. And, yes, it might be worth checking on a profile of a speaker - an adherent of ketogenic diet
Check your supplements.
60% + 7% doesn't equal 100% of mammalian biomass - Sounds like you've decided what to believe and didn't even bother to pick "facts" that are facts.
Ok and what exactly would the other 33% be?
El relato no está en mi idioma,
Pero pregunto.
Porque tiene que ser vacunos.
¿no puede ser ovejas , cabras , aves, cerdos en pastoreo? De manera regenerativa,
Sin duda a las pretroquimicas( petroleras que fabrican quimicos y los aplican a alimentos) nobles interesa que se difunda que el N ( Nitrógeno) está en la atmósfera y muchos de los P fósforos y otros elementos no están solubles por los químicos que los eliminan o los dejan insolubles.
Por ejemplo el Mg ( magnesio) la ausencia de genera muchas enfermedades, además de depresión ( también el glifosato, lo causa )
Saludos
Inglés hablante
Bendiciones
A los v
at 18:00 -- yeah, but the US average weights are probably skewed by the number of overweight people. Shouldn't you go by what these people's ideal weight at a healthy BMI would be so you're not trying to provide enough protein to account for their excess fat?
those fat americans need a different diet to resolve their problems and that means higher quality nourishment....many people find more protein helps to satiate as they improve their metabolic health and sustainably lose weight in the long term. Since merely cutting calories and moving more is proven to not work in the long run for the majority in the western food environment, an improvement in food quality is the only viable answer. For many people this can mean including meat on a daily basis to acheive their health and weight goals.
Wow! So interesting!! Vegans are going to explode with anger lol
What made the Great Plains so great, I would opine the great herds of Buffalo fertilizing and building the soil. CO2 is essential to plant life. Mono cropping is what is destroying our world not regenerative farming.
Meat eaters have lost this battle. Too much money and sexy / trendy advertising with celebrity endorsement to over consume toxic plant products. It’s becoming challenging to avoid vegan lecturing especially in Los Angeles, pressuring me to poison myself with lectin and oxalate packed “super foods”.
Dont give up just yet. Check Low Carb Down Under. Plenty of doctors there making some sense into correct diet.
@@masterofreality926 low carb anything is a bad thing
@@AstraeaAchelois - funny.
@@AstraeaAchelois I’m partially right. Zero carb is the only thing that works
I need to attach the sound of the hogs dying a horrible death over 4 to 6 hours while their air was shut down and steamed was pumped into their confined shed. Is that acceptable to you?
That doesn't equal don't eat meat. That equals support local farms and local butchers. Vegans and emotional responses. Sheesh. How myopic
I like to listen but it is not well presented!
Fortunately overweighted nutritionists are renewable too
This is easily the most sick and twisted presentation on sustainable food production and nutrition that I have ever seen. I will just some of of the warped "facts" that Diana makes:
1. She talks about how bad soy is for the environment. Most soy grown worldwide is grown EXPLICITLY for animal feed. In the U.S. 98% of the soy we grow goes to animal feed.
2. She talks about how much water goes into crops in California, yet does not say a single word about the amount of water it takes to raise an animal to the age of maturity in meat production (spoiler: its A LOT)
3. She talks about 70% non-farmable land but fails to include geographic barriers such as mountains, urban areas, etc in this statement. The reality is that a relatively small portion of non-farmable land is suited for grazing. We would not be cutting down our forests for grazing land if this was the truth.
4. Her statements on nutritional deficiencies are missing a very important detail: MOST PEOPLE EAT MEAT. You cannot make an argument against plant based diets by claiming 30% of people are anemic, and completely leave out the fact that this percentage is from a population where most of the people ARE CONSUMING MEAT. This does nothing to discredit these diets, and does not confront the reasons why people are actually developing these deficiencies (hint: it is not because they aren't eating enough meat)
5. Although she specifies that she is not in favor of factory farming, she is ignoring the fact that these "humane, grass-fed meats" are inaccessible to a majority of the world for monetary, geographic, and infrastructure-related reasons. She also fails to include in her presentation how, exactly, everyone can eat according to her nutritional standards, considering the amount of "humane, grass-fed" meat that would need to be produced. On our earth it is literally impossible to meet this demand in the ways that she is proposing.
There are MANY more things that are wrong with her presentation, but this list would exceed the amount of time am willing to put into arguing against someone so deluded. Reduce your animal product consumption, recycle what you can, and of course, stay educated on what industries you are supporting with your purchases. XOXO
You tal so much bulshit .Every point of your is misinformation and misinterpretation of what Diana said.
Sanja Marinovic Humans are obligate carnivores. Get over it.
Sanja Marinovic Your as thick as a cow pat!
Grass fed beef is raised the world over far more then the USA.
Cyclical grazing as Greg Judy shows brings back biodiversity and creates happy healthy cows.
1. Soy is used to produce oil which is used purely for human consumption. Some of what's left over after oil extraction gets fed to pigs just so it's not wasted, but that's not why soy is produced.
2. Funny thing, the water, animal suffering/death and pollution costs of animal farming are almost entirely due to the fact that we feed them grain. Otherwise these costs are negligible.
3. Almost all land is usable for grazing, just not usable for growing grass. Goats, for example, eat brush, unfortunately it's not a commonly produced meat around here.
4. Nutritional deficiencies due to high plant consumption and low meat consumption are very common. Eating plants destroys a lot of the benefits of eating meat.
5. The reason meat isn't available for everyone is simple overpopulation. A large part of the population is going to have to suck it up and eat plants.
Ideally buy 100% grass-fed meat, though of course with the absurd levels of wealth inequality present today it's probably not an option for most of us.
@@daenydovahsdottir3757
Exactly, it embarrasses me what I used to believe, praising charlatans like greger and McDougall etc. Big 🤦♂️for me on that one lol.
BP
Blocking me- of course you are.
Animal protien and especially healthy fats are important for feeding and healing, but we also need plant products - including fiber - for cleansing as well as feeding our microbiome organ; consisting of cells far more numerous than our own? (They for example play a vital role in maintenance of healthy enterosites as well as in producing vitamins needed by our bodies.)
We as humans are fearfully and wonderfully made - in God's image, and were put in charge of the earth; to rule over and use both animals and vegatation in order to maintain ourselves; this also by working. For how we did this, we will be held accountable by our Creator.
However well we may do this though - in whatever way - it will not make us live forever; physical death being part of our fallen world. Eternal life spiritually - within a glorified body - that is another matter.
We actually don't need plant products at all. Fibre is detrimental (it's an antinutrient and causes many digestion issues), I stopped eating it three years ago and all the digestion issues that I'd been plagued with all my life are completely gone, my digestion is now perfect. The myth that fibre is good originates with a religious cult in the USA that happened to found the first nutrition organizations and wrote the textbooks used to teach it in schools for decades, and implemented abysmally low scientific standards for nutrition-based research, which is why most nutritionists all believe all sorts of weird things, such as "fibre is necessary for good digestion" or "if you don't eat any plants for months, you'll get scurvy".
These people are straight-up insane and they do not hesitate to lie and manipulate to promote their religious and commercial interests. And sadly they are extremely influential worldwide.
@@BigSlimyBlob
Recently listened to an interview with Ivor Cummings, where Gary&Belinda Fettke explained the SDA sect's influence through the processed food industry (beginning with Kellogg's); of how they established dietary guidelines based on selected Scriptures (not at all representative of what the whole Bible reveals), and of their vision to take over the training of medical professionals. In agreement with you; it is indeed alarming how influential they are all over the world.
Yet, as the SDA sect should not be making it their business to go around telling others not te eat meat and other animal foods; it is not the business of meat eaters to go around spreading dogma about not eating plant foods (1 Tim 4 warns us against doing this).
Weston Price found healthy isolated people groups over the world thriving on different diets; it was not the same diet for all. None were vegan; all were high fat, and contained some form/s of animal- and fermented foods. So, while I recognise the importance of bio-available animal nutrients, it need not be all I ingest. It is for each individual to find for him/herself what agrees with them and what not.
God provided both animal and plantfoods for us to feed ourselves. Whatever we have at our disposal; let us enjoy it with thanksgiving.
@@maricamaas5555 I'm not religious so I believe that our development was the product of natural selection, not design.
I said we don't need plants and that's all I meant. I'm not saying no one should eat any plants at all. I'd be wary of most of them as foods since they have evolved all sorts of ways to make themselves as inedible as possible (low bioavailability, toxins, antinutrients, fibre), but there are plenty of people who tolerate certain plant foods and it's not wrong for them to eat those foods.
There should never be dogma about anything. Question everything. We should always look at reality, consider the facts, and act accordingly.
@@BigSlimyBlob
In connection with the possibility for an organism - or even a single cell - to come about from scratch through natural selection; kindly look into the work of Stephen Meyer? Besides for being religious, taking the complexity of Creation into account; Intelligent Design as scientific explanation seems far more justifiable?
ruclips.net/video/eW6egHV6jAw/видео.html
In agreement with you that we should question everything; which is why this dogma around the idea that science is settled in regards to the origin of species through Evolution (even as a way God could have went about); for example does not sit well with me.
When it comes to healthy digestion: It seems to me that being able to digest a wide variety of foods (originating from both animal and plants) would mean an extended representation of microbes in the gut; which can be very beneficial to the organism?
Not to say that all should be adapted to this at all times; yet why not at least try to pursue the possibility? This is why the approach of the GAPS diet (of Natasha C.McBride) makes more sense to me than PDK (as advanced by Dr. Zsofia Clemens): Healing the gut by using animal foods, and then re-introducing plant matter - as tolerated.
She doesn’t actually advocate for a meat only diet.
I’m an advocate for efficient ruminant farming.
This presenter knew the facts, yet really needs some cultural diversity training.
I know this isn’t a compelling argument and it probably shouldn’t change anyone’s mind, but i feel like you shouldn’t be giving presentations on nutrition unless you’re in obviously phenomenal shape.
But she may be incredibly healthy for someone who doesn't go to the gym everyday... jsut cause you put your body through intense pressure ot become muscular and bigger doesnt mean you are healthy.
One might say the same thing to you about your intellect and you comment.
Two babies fool!
to some people we have to be anorectic to be in phenomenal shape. This woman looks healthy and not overweight to me! Most of the vegan "doctors" are emaciated.
@@katrienopsomer8012 Correct!
Whaaat ? As a society, we do eat too many proteins, particularly animal proteins, and that is a serious health problem because of all the detrimental nutritional package of animal proteins compared to the benefitial package of plant proteins (fibers, vitamins, antioxydants), etc... By eating whole-plant foods only, one gets all the protein one needs.
Aurelien B Ignorance is the root of all evil, go and preach pseudoscience elsewhere..
Uh she just pointed out that you are incorrect. And she studies this shit as a career.
Aurelien B yeah where’d you hear that “what the health” lol and it’s called a complete protein did you watch the presentation?
Rolf Krauss You are an idiot. What the health was made by physicians who have devoted their lives to preaching a whole food plant based diet. This woman is a registered dietician who spreads her cherrypicked studies and propaganda to promote her animal farm.
@@lucaskraus9867 And the whole food plant based doctors are looking like the most unhealthy lying idiots to me. They write studies by the dozens most of which are epidemiology . Those are not to be taken seriously. They are supported by the food industry. It is the food industry against the small farmer. "David " does not stand a chance against "Goliath" in this case! Who do you think has the most money?