http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-18/eating-lettuce-three-times-worse-for-environment/7042242

Turns out you really don't make friends with salad.

US scientists have released a new study which claims eating salad is worse for the environment than eating meat.

The new research from Carnegie Mellon University — published in the journal Environment Systems and Decisions — states current recommendations to incorporate more fruits, vegetables, dairy and seafood in a diet could be worse for the environment.

Key points

New study looked at water, energy and greenhouse gases used to produce food
Study used three diet scenarios and how they impacted the environment
Vegetables required more resources per calorie to produce on to the plate
The study measured energy use, how much water is needed and greenhouse gas emissions right the way through the food chain.

It used the US dietary guidelines to look at a shift from current food consumption patterns to three dietary scenarios and how that impacted the environment.

Researchers looked at how growing, processing and transporting food, sales and service, and household storage could impact the environment.

Researcher Paul Fischbeck said eating lettuce was three times worse for greenhouse gas emission than eating bacon.

"Lots of common vegetables require more resources per calorie than you would think," he said.

"Eggplant, celery and cucumbers look particularly bad when compared to pork or chicken."

In the first scenario, the impact of food production on the environment could be lessened if people simply ate less of what they already do. Shifting from a high-calorie diet to a reduced calorie diet - that path found a 9 per cent decrease in energy use, water footprint and emissions.

The second scenario involved maintaining calorie intake, but adjusting foods to incorporate more fruits, vegetables, dairy and seafood. That scenario would see an increase of 43 per cent in energy, 16 per cent in water footprint and emission rise by 11 per cent.

The third scenario took the greatest toll on the environment, where calories were reduced and switched to a diet with more vegetables and less meat. That resulted in 38 per cent increase in energy, 10 per cent in water footprint and 6 per cent in gas emissions.

The researchers claimed there was "a complex relationship between diet and the environment".

"What is good for us health-wise isn't always what's best for the environment," the study revealed.

"That is important for public officials to know and for them to be cognisant of these tradeoffs as they develop or continue to develop dietary guidelines in the future."

The study has become an interesting turn for "bacon lovers", after the World Health Organisation warned processed meats like bacon, sausages and hot dogs caused colon cancer.

Critics of the new study said the research only looked at "calorie-for-calorie" comparison, for example 100 calories of bacon, versus 100 calories of lettuce.

Oh for crying out loud. Calorie for calorie. Of course there are more calories in meat than in lettuce. You don't eat the equivalent calories of fruits and vegetables that you do of meat.

What a ridiculous study.

Food with no calories performs badly in study comparing calorie efficiency, shocker.

What food has no calories?

freediver wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 8:19am:

What food has no calories?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hyperbole

mothra wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 7:59am:

Oh for crying out loud. Calorie for calorie. Of course there are more calories in meat than in lettuce. You don't eat the equivalent calories of fruits and vegetables that you do of meat. What a ridiculous study.

But it's the same argument used with the "emission per capita"

Oh my goodness. How can you trust US scientists?. We now they are all corrupted.

Maqqa wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 8:45am:

mothra wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:59am: Oh for crying out loud. Calorie for calorie. Of course there are more calories in meat than in lettuce. You don't eat the equivalent calories of fruits and vegetables that you do of meat. What a ridiculous study. But it's the same argument used with the "emission per capita"

No. It's not.

mothra wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 9:40am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 8:45am: mothra wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 7:59am: Oh for crying out loud. Calorie for calorie. Of course there are more calories in meat than in lettuce. You don't eat the equivalent calories of fruits and vegetables that you do of meat. What a ridiculous study. But it's the same argument used with the "emission per capita" No. It's not.

Yes you are

Yes i am?

Who commissioned the study? The meat industry?

Right, so this is based on substituting meat for say lettuce. Instead of say, a 500gram steak for your meal, you'd eat 8.3 kilograms of lettuce to get the equivalent calories.


Good luck with that.

mothra wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 9:55am:

Yes i am?

You said there are more calories in meat than in lettuce and you don't eat the equivalent of calories in fruit and veg compared to meat.

Environmentalists are saying Australia (meat) emits more carbon (calories) than 3rd world countries (lettuce) therefore Australia should reduce its carbon emissions.

Maqqa wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 10:02am:

mothra wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 9:55am: Yes i am? You said there are more calories in meat than in lettuce and you don't eat the equivalent of calories in fruit and veg compared to meat. Environmentalists are saying Australia (meat) emits more carbon (calories) than 3rd world countries (lettuce) therefore Australia should reduce its carbon emissions.

That is a preposterous argument Maqqa. Did you think that all the way through?

Australia is the 15th largest emitter of Carbon in the world. We are not the 15th most populated country. We need to reduce our footprint.

mothra wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 10:07am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:02am: mothra wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 9:55am: Yes i am? You said there are more calories in meat than in lettuce and you don't eat the equivalent of calories in fruit and veg compared to meat. Environmentalists are saying Australia (meat) emits more carbon (calories) than 3rd world countries (lettuce) therefore Australia should reduce its carbon emissions. That is a preposterous argument Maqqa. Did you think that all the way through? Australia is the 15th largest emitter of Carbon in the world. We are not the 15th most populated country. We need to reduce our footprint.

18th - but lets not split hair on this point

Total human emission is 35,700,000

Australia's emission is 410,000

The environmentalist have not pushed the "per capital" argument for years now

Maqqa wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 10:18am:

mothra wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:07am: Maqqa wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:02am: mothra wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 9:55am: Yes i am? You said there are more calories in meat than in lettuce and you don't eat the equivalent of calories in fruit and veg compared to meat. Environmentalists are saying Australia (meat) emits more carbon (calories) than 3rd world countries (lettuce) therefore Australia should reduce its carbon emissions. That is a preposterous argument Maqqa. Did you think that all the way through? Australia is the 15th largest emitter of Carbon in the world. We are not the 15th most populated country. We need to reduce our footprint. 18th - but lets not split hair on this point Total human emission is 35,700,000 Australia's emission is 410,000 The environmentalist have not pushed the "per capital" argument for years now

Do you even know what you are rabbiting on about?

mothra wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 10:26am:

Do you even know what you are rabbiting on about?

;D


Quote:

So why do witches burn? - 'Cause they're made of wood? - Good! - How do we tell if she is made of wood? - Build a bridge out of her. - But can you not also make bridges out of stone? - Oh, yeah. - Does wood sink in water? - No, it floats. - Throw her into the pond! - What also floats in water? - Bread. - Apples. - Very small rocks. - Cider! Great gravy. - Cherries. Mud. - Churches. - Lead. - A duck! - Exactly. - So, logically-- - If she weighs the same as a duck... - she's made of wood. - And therefore? - A witch! - A duck! A duck! - Here's a duck. - We shaIl use my largest scales. - Burn the witch !

Maqqa wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 10:18am:

mothra wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:07am: Maqqa wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:02am: mothra wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 9:55am: Yes i am? You said there are more calories in meat than in lettuce and you don't eat the equivalent of calories in fruit and veg compared to meat. Environmentalists are saying Australia (meat) emits more carbon (calories) than 3rd world countries (lettuce) therefore Australia should reduce its carbon emissions. That is a preposterous argument Maqqa. Did you think that all the way through? Australia is the 15th largest emitter of Carbon in the world. We are not the 15th most populated country. We need to reduce our footprint. 18th - but lets not split hair on this point Total human emission is 35,700,000 Australia's emission is 410,000 The environmentalist have not pushed the "per capital" argument for years now

Maqqa wants us to halve our CO2 emissions by splitting into two countries.

Is there a better way than a per calorie comparison to judge the footprint of foods?

If you grow the same or similar food in your backyard without propping up Bunnings in order to do so, the footprint can be close to zero.

freediver wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 10:48am:

Is there a better way than a per calorie comparison to judge the footprint of foods?

I think the study would be best done with staple food groups.  That way it would cover the most human consumption with the least amount of research, and could potentially give information as to which foods can sustain us the most efficiently.  I'm pretty certain the answer won't be bacon

freediver wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 10:48am:

Maqqa wants us to halve our CO2 emissions by splitting into two countries. Is there a better way than a per calorie comparison to judge the footprint of foods? If you grow the same or similar food in your backyard without propping up Bunnings in order to do so, the footprint can be close to zero.

Maqqa is looking at the fallacy of each debating techniques

In one argument we look at the calorific density of a food and in another argument we are looking at the carbon emission density of a human from a certain area

Your rebuttal in terms of splitting into two countries I think reinforce my point is that the environment does not distinguish between a Chinese carbon emission and an Australian carbon emission.

You are drawing a very long bow Maqqa.

In fact, i don't think it's a bow at all.

mothra wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 11:19am:

You are drawing a very long bow Maqqa. In fact, i don't think it's a bow at all.

It's comparative debating technique that can be used on any number of topics

Maqqa wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 11:21am:

mothra wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 11:19am: You are drawing a very long bow Maqqa. In fact, i don't think it's a bow at all. It's comparative debating technique that can be used on any number of topics

It failed.

Maqqa wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 11:03am:

freediver wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 10:48am: Maqqa wants us to halve our CO2 emissions by splitting into two countries. Is there a better way than a per calorie comparison to judge the footprint of foods? If you grow the same or similar food in your backyard without propping up Bunnings in order to do so, the footprint can be close to zero. Maqqa is looking at the fallacy of each debating techniques In one argument we look at the calorific density of a food and in another argument we are looking at the carbon emission density of a human from a certain area Your rebuttal in terms of splitting into two countries I think reinforce my point is that the environment does not distinguish between a Chinese carbon emission and an Australian carbon emission.

Good point Maqqa. You should inform the scientific community.

mothra wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 11:33am:

Maqqa wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 11:21am: mothra wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 11:19am: You are drawing a very long bow Maqqa. In fact, i don't think it's a bow at all. It's comparative debating technique that can be used on any number of topics It failed.

It worked very well on the Australian public

How can the cattle industry be more efficient than veges? Milk production alone requires kilograms of feed per liter. Milk production requires constant breeding for lactation. 50% of those cows (the males) must be culled or sold off as beef products. The land degredation from cattle is a constant complaint of farmers. The methane produced is a major greenhouse issue.

There is no way this study can support itself. It appears, however, to address pork, not beef.

Karnal wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 12:50pm:

How can the cattle industry be more efficient than veges? Milk production alone requires kilograms of feed per liter. Milk production requires constant breeding for lactation. 50% of those cows (the males) must be culled or sold off as beef products. The land degredation from cattle is a constant complaint of farmers. The methane produced is a major greenhouse issue. There is no way this study can support itself. It appears, however, to address pork, not beef.

There is certainly much more water used in the production of meat than in the production of plants.

When you consider that the supply of water is going to be one of the most pressing issues in the not too distant future, there are more arguments against meat than for it.

Despite the findings of this very flawed study.

Meat production requires a much higher amount of water than vegetables. IME state that to produce 1kg of meat requires between 5,000 and 20,000 litres of water whereas to produce 1kg of wheat requires between 500 and 4,000 litres of water.


Data summary

Typical values for the volume of water required to produce common foodstuffs

Foodstuff           Quantity       Water consumption, litres
Chocolate          1 kg                      17,196
Beef                       1 kg               15,415
Sheep Meat       1 kg               10,412
Pork                   1 kg                       5,988
Butter                1 kg               5,553
Chicken meat          1 kg                       4,325
Cheese               1 kg                       3,178
Olives               1 kg                     3,025
Rice                        1 kg                       2,497
Cotton                1 @ 250g               2,495
Pasta (dry)          1 kg                       1,849
Bread                        1 kg               1,608
Pizza                       1 unit               1,239
Apple                1 kg                         822
Banana              1 kg                         790
Potatoes              1 kg                      287
Milk                1 x 250ml glass         255
Cabbage               1 kg                     237
Tomato               1 kg               214
Egg                  1                      196
Wine               1 x 250ml glass       109
Beer               1 x 250ml glass      74
Tea                      1 x 250 ml cup      27
Source: IME



http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/10/how-much-water-food-production-waste

Maqqa wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 7:43am:

New study looked at water, energy and greenhouse gases used to produce food Study used three diet scenarios and how they impacted the environment Vegetables required more resources per calorie to produce on to the plate The study measured energy use, how much water is needed and greenhouse gas emissions right the way through the food chain.

They looked at water, energy and greenhouse gases

mothra wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 1:13pm:

Karnal wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 12:50pm: How can the cattle industry be more efficient than veges? Milk production alone requires kilograms of feed per liter. Milk production requires constant breeding for lactation. 50% of those cows (the males) must be culled or sold off as beef products. The land degredation from cattle is a constant complaint of farmers. The methane produced is a major greenhouse issue. There is no way this study can support itself. It appears, however, to address pork, not beef. There is certainly much more water used in the production of meat than in the production of plants. When you consider that the supply of water is going to be one of the most pressing issues in the not too distant future, there are more arguments against meat than for it. Despite the findings of this very flawed study.

The supply of water, Mother, but also the supply of land. Beef farming requires multiple fields per unit of food produced. Forest clearing for beef production, particularly around the Amazon, is one of the major producers of CO2.

In the US, grass feed has been replaced with corn feed. That corn could feed hundreds more people than the beef produced. Over 80% of beef goes into mince, most of this used for hamburger patties. Corn and beef are big ticket US exports, all subsidized. Most of it goes into fast food products, soft drinks and processed foods.

When you add the government subsidies, manufacturing process and supply chain to the water and land use, you couldn’t dream up a more inefficient way of producing food.

When this process dumps food on the global market and puts smaller producers out of business, it puts food security itself at risk. The ultimate result is the monopolization of food.

Multinationals like Cargills, Monsanto and Nestle earn larger profits than the GDP of many nations they trade in, and in doing so, they put farmers in those countries out of business. Those farmers join the slums of the major urban centres. Manila, Mumbai, Dhaka, Lagos, the old food producers become the new urban poor, while the air conditioned malls sell McDonalds to the children of the rich and newly emerging middle classes.

This is not just about land use, it’s about an entire global economy.

Karnal wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 2:37pm:

mothra wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 1:13pm: Karnal wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 12:50pm: How can the cattle industry be more efficient than veges? Milk production alone requires kilograms of feed per liter. Milk production requires constant breeding for lactation. 50% of those cows (the males) must be culled or sold off as beef products. The land degredation from cattle is a constant complaint of farmers. The methane produced is a major greenhouse issue. There is no way this study can support itself. It appears, however, to address pork, not beef. There is certainly much more water used in the production of meat than in the production of plants. When you consider that the supply of water is going to be one of the most pressing issues in the not too distant future, there are more arguments against meat than for it. Despite the findings of this very flawed study. The supply of water, Mother, but also the supply of land. Beef farming requires multiple fields per unit of food produced. Forest clearing for beef production, particularly around the Amazon, is one of the major producers of CO2. In the US, grass feed has been replaced with corn feed. That corn could feed hundreds more people than the beef produced. Over 80% of beef goes into mince, most of this used for hamburger patties. Corn and beef are big ticket US exports, all subsidized. Most of it goes into fast food products, soft drinks and processed foods. When you add the government subsidies, manufacturing process and supply chain to the water and land use, you couldn’t dream up a more inefficient way of producing food. When this process dumps food on the global market and puts smaller producers out of business, it puts food security itself at risk. The ultimate result is the monopolization of food. Multinationals like Cargills, Monsanto and Nestle earn larger profits than the GDP of many nations they trade in, and in doing so, they put farmers in those countries out of business.

The Amazon is a particular point of interest. Since the wealthy Brazilian oligarchy's cut down huge tracts of the forest to farm cows, they also created the perfect storm for disease.

Grain stored in high concentrations for cattle feed attracted usually controlled populations of  native mice that urinated over everything, resulting in the genesis of Machupo virus, also known as Bolivian Hemorrhagic Fever.

Taking nature out of context tends to bite us in the arse.

mothra wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 1:13pm:

Karnal wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 12:50pm: How can the cattle industry be more efficient than veges? Milk production alone requires kilograms of feed per liter. Milk production requires constant breeding for lactation. 50% of those cows (the males) must be culled or sold off as beef products. The land degredation from cattle is a constant complaint of farmers. The methane produced is a major greenhouse issue. There is no way this study can support itself. It appears, however, to address pork, not beef. There is certainly much more water used in the production of meat than in the production of plants. When you consider that the supply of water is going to be one of the most pressing issues in the not too distant future, there are more arguments against meat than for it. Despite the findings of this very flawed study.

In it's simplest form, you just let cattle wander round the paddock and do their thing. The methane bit is hard to get around, but there are plenty of non-ruminant grazers. Roo meat is a good option. They are pretty much free. Grazing animals can actually improve soil quality.

Most of the water is rainfall directly onto the ground that is otherwise marginal for food production - not sucking it out of rivers and aquifers for intensive production.

Most commercial vege production requires huge energy input. Fertiliser production for example requires huge amounts of energy.

Mass production of fruits and vegetables also require land clearing

freediver wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 3:26pm:

Fertiliser production for example requires huge amounts of energy.

Good point, but that's industrial farming methods for you. Most of the world's beef is grain-fed, which requires corn, not grass.

There's no way to spin this, meat is not an efficient food source.

I'm sure the cows would agree.

So eat Roo. It is all 100% free range grass fed and shot with a rifle the way God intended.

Or get the grass fed beef. They have started labeling it.

Wouldn't it be easier to just sequester vegans?

freediver wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 4:25pm:

So eat Roo. It is all 100% free range grass fed and shot with a rifle the way God intended. Or get the grass fed beef. They have started labeling it.

I would if the roo or the cows offered themselves to let me eat them, FD. Most of the ones I meet want me to feed them.

freediver wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 3:26pm:

The methane bit is hard to get around, but there are plenty of non-ruminant grazers. Roo meat is a good option.

'If you eat kangaroo meat thinking it is free of the environmentally harmful greenhouse gases produced by the bucketloads by farm animals, think again.

Researchers have busted that myth, finding that kangaroos produce as much gas as other herbivores such as horses.'

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/kangaroos-produce-as-much-methane-as-horses-researchers-find-during-smelly-research-20151104-gkqobm.html#ixzz3ukKSSPzM

Grass fed beef is delicious, so is roo. Grain fed beef sucks.

There is a huge loss of life by small animals when land gets ploughed. Veges do take lots of water. In Virginia, SA they use water from the Bolivar Sewerage Works.

ehehehehe I had a boss I really disliked, gave him a message “Ring Sue Ridge” and gave the number of the Bolivar works. Took the idiot 20 minutes to work it out  :D

lee wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 4:39pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 3:26pm: The methane bit is hard to get around, but there are plenty of non-ruminant grazers. Roo meat is a good option. 'If you eat kangaroo meat thinking it is free of the environmentally harmful greenhouse gases produced by the bucketloads by farm animals, think again. Researchers have busted that myth, finding that kangaroos produce as much gas as other herbivores such as horses.' http://www.smh.com.au/environment/kangaroos-produce-as-much-methane-as-horses-researchers-find-during-smelly-research-20151104-gkqobm.html#ixzz3ukKSSPzM

From your article:

Researcher Adam Munn said kangaroos could still be considered environmentally friendly, as they produced significantly less methane than cows. They also eat less food and drink less water than traditional livestock.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 4:45pm:

In Virginia, SA they use water from the Bolivar Sewerage Works.

This is the way it should be done. Use sewerage, and there's no more need for phosphates.

freediver wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 4:25pm:

So eat Roo. It is all 100% free range grass fed and shot with a rifle the way God intended. .

And more often than not not killed cleanly. Often enough there is a joey in the pouch. Do you know what roo shooters do with joeys? The ones that don't run away to be eaten by predators or starve to death that is.

Do you know there are 27 species of kangaroo and wallaby? Some are endangered or protected. Did you also know that 6 macropod species have become extinct in the last 100 years?

Did you know that kangaroos are migratory and get trapped against fences, making it seem as though their populations are bigger than they are and what is often considered to be 'plague' numbers is nothing more than animals caught out in their movements?

Yep. And then there is this -

'Wetland methane emissions are thought to comprise around 80 percent of the total natural methane source, with methane release from termites, methane hydrates (frozen deposits of methane), and the emission from the oceans also being important.'

http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/154589/

So 80% from wetlands, significant amounts from termites and hydrates, doesn't seem to leave 20% for cows.

And then of course there were huge herds of bison, before hunting and trapping of them, I guess cows merely took their place.

mothra wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 4:55pm:

freediver wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 4:25pm: So eat Roo. It is all 100% free range grass fed and shot with a rifle the way God intended. . And more often than not not killed cleanly. Often enough there is a joey in the pouch. Do you know what roo shooters do with joeys? The ones that don't run away to be eaten by predators or starve to death that is. Do you know there are 27 species of kangaroo and wallaby? Some are endangered or protected. Did you also know that 6 macropod species have become extinct in the last 100 years? Did you know that kangaroos are migratory and get trapped against fences, making it seem as though their populations are bigger than they are and what is often considered to be 'plague' numbers is nothing more than animals caught out in their movements?

Some fish species are endangered. Does that mean we should stop eating seafood? Should we stop eating beef because the aurochs went extinct? How about we stop eating chicken on account of all the endangered birds out there?

Have you ever seen a kangaroo trapped against a fence? Have you ever left the city?

freediver wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 5:12pm:

mothra wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 4:55pm: freediver wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 4:25pm: So eat Roo. It is all 100% free range grass fed and shot with a rifle the way God intended. . And more often than not not killed cleanly. Often enough there is a joey in the pouch. Do you know what roo shooters do with joeys? The ones that don't run away to be eaten by predators or starve to death that is. Do you know there are 27 species of kangaroo and wallaby? Some are endangered or protected. Did you also know that 6 macropod species have become extinct in the last 100 years? Did you know that kangaroos are migratory and get trapped against fences, making it seem as though their populations are bigger than they are and what is often considered to be 'plague' numbers is nothing more than animals caught out in their movements? Some fish species are endangered. Does that mean we should stop eating seafood? Should we stop eating beef because the aurochs went extinct? How about we stop eating chicken on account of all the endangered birds out there? Have you ever seen a kangaroo trapped against a fence? Have you ever left the city?

The point that clearly failed to leave an impression on you is that can you be sure the species of kangaroo being culled is in abundant numbers FD. You should have been able to work it out for yourself but you got all defensive instead. Gets in the way of a proper think.

And yes i've left the city. I don't live in the city. And yes i've seen roos caught up against fences. I've also seen roos injured by fences. You think they all just bounce happily over? Some fences, FD are taller than others.

freediver wrote on Dec 19^th, 2015 at 5:12pm:

mothra wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 4:55pm: freediver wrote on Dec 19th, 2015 at 4:25pm: So eat Roo. It is all 100% free range grass fed and shot with a rifle the way God intended. . And more often than not not killed cleanly. Often enough there is a joey in the pouch. Do you know what roo shooters do with joeys? The ones that don't run away to be eaten by predators or starve to death that is. Do you know there are 27 species of kangaroo and wallaby? Some are endangered or protected. Did you also know that 6 macropod species have become extinct in the last 100 years? Did you know that kangaroos are migratory and get trapped against fences, making it seem as though their populations are bigger than they are and what is often considered to be 'plague' numbers is nothing more than animals caught out in their movements? Some fish species are endangered. Does that mean we should stop eating seafood?

Of course. That's what catch quotas are all about.