Let them eat BUGS!

Jajajaja
The jimini cricket eaters align with the usual shot pushing leftists in this thread.
Lmao, as expected.
I love this site.

Truthfully, bugs would provide sustenance but I cant see the low caloritic content of bugs to be sustaining for humans. You would have to eat (Dependent on the Species) maybe hundreds or thousands to achieve the proper caloritic intake one needs. It cant be a viable replacement to feed the worlds population.

I could see bugs being used to supplement other food sources though. They are a good source of protein, vitamins and minerals. Though they are way down on the list of sources for me, just above picking peanuts out of poo. I draw the line at consuming feces for sustenance.

I don't foresee it ever coming to that, but then again, I can't imagine someone saying hey lets eat this thing that just fell out of a chickens ass either.

I bet we are going to see more of this kind of thing as rumors spread that eating bugs is fun and you can WIN things.

Clown world I say...

www.cbsnews.com...

Yeah I was just trying to point out that what we find strange or disgusting is down mostly to the society we live in.

I find the idea of eating crickets or those wiggety grub thing repulsive yet I'll eat pan fried lambs liver, the eggs of chickens which is pretty odd when you think about it and even black pudding which is a type of sausage made from the blood of freshly killed pigs.

Its all pretty fkin weird unless you are a vegan.

originally posted by: baddmove
a reply to: nonspecific

It does not as I was raised eating meat and not bugs.

I would like to think most people should'nt have to eat bugs,

But I understand that some cultures do, mine doesn't.

The crazy thing about the bugs instead of beef, poultry, and pork, pound-for-pound cockroaches produce more methane than cows. By a significant amount.

The thing about the push for insects as protein is probably sound, but they are pushing it a bit hard seems. Why?

From the extreme fringe that we came from the aliens' dogma, hearing the conversion to insects and bugs as a food source because we are now reaching a balance where they are more aliens and alien/human hybrids than good ole humans out there. Especially in world leadership positions. How's that for crazy...got to love ancient aliens

www.imdb.com...

originally posted by: DeathSlayer
I heard human flesh taste like chicken.

Gute Appétit

originally posted by: Notabot12345666
a reply to: baddmove

I already made up my mind. First I’m eating leaves, then I’ll eat my neighbors pets, then I’ll eat my neighbors. The ones to my left are a young progressive couple. I’m sure the wife hates guns. I ain’t eating no damn bugs.

Cannibals say it tastes like pork, which is why humans are called "long pig".

Have you factored in the fact that cows need to live a lot longer to reach butchering weight than a cockroach and also that a good percentage of a cow is inedible in compared to the cockroach?

What about the environmental impact of the feed for the cattle as opposed to that needed for the cockroaches?

originally posted by: putnam6
The crazy thing about the bugs instead of beef, poultry, and pork, pound-for-pound cockroaches produce more methane than cows. By a significant amount.

The thing about the push for insects as protein is probably sound, but they are pushing it a bit hard seems. Why?

From the extreme fringe that we came from the aliens' dogma, hearing the conversion to insects and bugs as a food source because we are now reaching a balance where they are more aliens and alien/human hybrids than good ole humans out there. Especially in world leadership positions. How's that for crazy...got to love ancient aliens

www.imdb.com...

originally posted by: theatreboy
Did you know 300 cockroaches produce more methane than 1 cow?

Look it up. I am too busy at work to find the link.

False.

A cockroach is estimated to emit about 35g of methane a year, 300 of them would be just over 10kg. A cow can emit up to 120kg a year.

originally posted by: nonspecific
Have you factored in the fact that cows need to live a lot longer to reach butchering weight than a cockroach and also that a good percentage of a cow is inedible in compared to the cockroach?

What about the environmental impact of the feed for the cattle as opposed to that needed for the cockroaches?

originally posted by: putnam6
The crazy thing about the bugs instead of beef, poultry, and pork, pound-for-pound cockroaches produce more methane than cows. By a significant amount.

The thing about the push for insects as protein is probably sound, but they are pushing it a bit hard seems. Why?

From the extreme fringe that we came from the aliens' dogma, hearing the conversion to insects and bugs as a food source because we are now reaching a balance where they are more aliens and alien/human hybrids than good ole humans out there. Especially in world leadership positions. How's that for crazy...got to love ancient aliens

www.imdb.com...

This was about the single "alleged reason/excuse" because livestock produce so much methane"

Besides if we are throwing in factoring here, cockroaches and other methane-producing insects' weight that exist VS the poundage of livestock?

Pretty sure livestock's poundage is minuscule to insects, or am I not following correctly? see link below not saying it's right or wrong but what are your thoughts cause there is conflicting information out there? The link below is specifically about termites

unrealfacts.com...

Now, we’re not saying that each individual termite can out fart any of the other mass farting animals in a one on one contest. It’s the fact that they are so abundant in numbers, and have a high fiber diet that make them the world champions in this particular theater of competition.

They produce so much flatulence that some scientists have speculated that they can produce 165 million tons of methane every year. That’s a real lot, and methane is actually worse for climate change than carbon dioxide. In comparison a cow will produce about 250 liters of methane a day, and the majority will be from belching, not flatulence. In total, scientists believe that termites produce about 11 percent of global methane emissions annually.

Another surprising little find is that methane isn’t the only gas these insects produce. They are also capable of producing hydrogen which is also extremely flammable. From a single sheet of paper, termites can produce up to 2 liters of of hydrogen gas.

www.foothillsforage.com...

By weight, no cattle do not produce the most methane. Insects do. There are a variety of insects, that also have methanogens in their digestive tracts, that produce methane. (Methanogens are bacteria in the digestive tract that produce methane via fermentation also known as methanogenesis). Cockroaches, termites, centipedes and various arthropods all produce methane as noted in this study from 1994 “Methane production in terrestrial arthropods.” Roughly 200 to 300 hundred cockroaches emit as much methane as a head of cattle.



If you look back at articles from the early 1980’s on termites, based on laboratory (in vitro) experiments, many scientists thought termites could be responsible for up to 30% of global methane emissions. However when the termites were looked at in their natural environments (in situ), the methane produced via methanogenesis in termites digestive tracts was more than offset by methanotrophs in the the soils and degrading materials of the environments that the termites lived in. Methanotrophs are bacteria that digest atmospheric methane (methane oxidation).



Now the problem with so much of the discussion with cattle and methane is that there is no discussion of context. The way enteric emissions (essentially burps) have been measured with cattle is either through masks, SF6 tracers, or chambers. This means the cattle’s emissions are measured out of the context of where the cattle live.



In healthy well managed pastures, cattle help build organic soil matter that stores more carbon via photosynthesis (carbon is pumped by plants roots into the soil in exchange for soil nutrients) and due to the land not being disturbed. When soil is cultivated, that is tilled, soil releases carbon into the atmosphere and thus doesn’t retain as much carbon. Synthetic fertilizers also reduce the soils capacity to retain carbon. When there is more soil carbon, soils retain more water. There are various numbers that show that for every 1% increase in soil carbon, every acre of 6″ deep soil holds any where from 10,000 to 27,000 more gallons of water. Now when soils retain more water, aren’t tilled, and are continuously covered with plants (as is the case with grassland ecosystems used for grazing), soil ecosystems are healthier and contain more soil bacteria including the methanotrophs listed above. Just like with termites, in intact ecosystems, methanotrophs in grasslands being grazed offset the methane created by methanogens via methanogenesis in ruminants (cattle, bison, sheep, goats, yak, wildebeast, etc) rumen. Yes research has indicated that grazing increases methanotrophic activity.

So when looking at methane, and ghg's in general, you can't just look at numbers, you have to look at the entire ecosystem context.



For example, peat bogs emit a lot of CH4, but they also sequester a lot of carbon. Same thing with tropical forests. The trees in the forest are a huge source of methane, but they also sequester a huge amount of carbon; more than enough carbon to offset all the methane these trees produce. No one is suggesting draining peat bogs or tearing down forests because of methane emissions. As previously noted, many different types of insects also produce enteric CH4 via methanogenesis. There are billions of these insects. But they too serve an ecological function, so no point in eradicating all insects. (What would birds eat?).



So same thing with wild ruminants. These animals were in intact functioning ecosystems where all the enteric CH4 was offset via carbon sequestration and methane oxidation. Part of the problem with domestic ruminants are feedlots and poor grazing management. With feedlots, this takes the ruminants out of the ecosystem context. With poor grazing, that also reduces the effectiveness of the ecosystem offsets.



But , as this research from India notes, the biggest problem with messing up the context for where ruminants use to roam is tillage, bare ground and synthetic inputs for Ag production (especially industrial Ag production for commodity crops as well as tilled organic for annual production) since these methods and inputs destroys the capacity of the soils in these ecosystems to function as GHG sinks for both carbon AND methane.

I survived for a week once on bugs for the most part Earthworms and such not to bad .

a reply to: nonspecific

A lot of what is fed to ruminant livestock is what we humans cannot eat out of crop plants, or they are grazed on what is called marginal cropland, meaning it isn't suitable for crop intensive agriculture. So we put ruminants on it so they can convert that grasses and other plants that can grow on it until food we can eat.

If you stopped using it raise ruminant livestock, other ruminant animals would move in to make use of it, and they would produce the same kinds and volumes of greenhouse gasses that our livestock does. Did you think there were only a very few buffalo roaming the plains?

I suppose I was asking what the methane produced per kilo of edible protein was for both cattle and cockroaches.

Without that its a pretty pointless comparison really.


a reply to: putnam6

originally posted by: nonspecific
I suppose I was asking what the methane produced per kilo of edible protein was for both cattle and cockroaches.

Without that its a pretty pointless comparison really.


a reply to: putnam6

I don't know just saying there is plenty of evidence that insects produce loads more methane than livestock, I've added a link that states termites produce 11% of the world's methane alone. Unfortunately, cockroach methane production studies are eluding me so far.

however, HuffPost declared them the fartiest animal in Britain, I assume Britain has cattle and other livestock

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...

Cockroaches have been revealed as the fartiest animal in Britain, a nugget of knowledge one hopes never to witness in person.

The skittling insects were named and shamed by Rentokil as releasing more methane in relation to their body weight than any other creature in Britain.

The American cockroach, a common pest throughout the UK, can give off up to 35g a year of methane; more than 43 times their average body weight. However the firm put paid to the myth that cockroaches fart every 15 minutes, with experts at the pest control company concluding it was much less.


Cockroaches don't fart every 15 minutes, but they are EXTREMELY windy

Colm Moore, Rentokil Technical Manager, said: “Cockroaches, along with other insects such as centipedes and beetles, are all major producers of methane. Cockroaches, however, are the only one which is considered a pest in the UK, as they are carriers of harmful bacteria, particularly Salmonella.”

Cows are more usually renowned for their poisonous pong, with the malignant methane of ruminant livestock contributing to 8% of all British greenhouse gases.

In June, Defra asked the National Physical Laboratory in Teddington to audit cow burps and farts as part of a £12.6m project to further understand what role agricultural methods play in climate change. What a job.

As you digest these gaseous facts, flick through the slideshow below, to bring you up to speed with the world's fartiest animals.

Yeah I'd already had a quick google and found the same articles before you replied.

I don't really care as I don't have a horse in the race but anyone wanting to use the methane output as some kind of argument for either not eating them or eating steak instead would really need some actual figures or its apples and oranges given the massive difference in the size and lifecycles of both potential lunch menu items.


a reply to: putnam6

a reply to: putnam6
Try looking up whether eating insects and bugs make you fart more.

You will find nothing..... it's like search engines are dyslexic or something these days.

I picked up 500 lbs of an old Angus and will split it with everyone at ats if "the bug thing" happens.
The marbling is redonkuluos.
It's the least I can do.

I like eating sea bugs, especially shrimp. I can eat a pound of peel and eat shrimp just boiled in salty water and cooled.

originally posted by: Mandroid7
I picked up 500 lbs of an old Angus and will split it with everyone at ats if "the bug thing" happens.
The marbling is redonkuluos.
It's the least I can do.

Wow, I am way more greedier than you. I am not sharing my half head of limosine with anyone other than my family. If my kids want to eat bugs, they can refuse my Christmas Beef present and eat all the bugs they want. Don't actually like Angus that much, but angus crossed with some other types of beef is pretty decent.

a reply to: rickymouse

Yum...this thread is starting to suck for my diet.
Whatever...Here is an excellent bug recipe I stole.
It's unreal, way easier than the long shell cooking process.
bisque recipe

originally posted by: nonspecific
Yeah I'd already had a quick google and found the same articles before you replied.

I don't really care as I don't have a horse in the race but anyone wanting to use the methane output as some kind of argument for either not eating them or eating steak instead would really need some actual figures or its apples and oranges given the massive difference in the size and lifecycles of both potential lunch menu items.


a reply to: putnam6

Nor do I Id eat bugs if it's prepared properly what "bugs" me is the "wing" of this moooovement stating it would be good to lower the worldwide methane.

Hell, I can't eat as much red meat as I used to anyway, as long as the crickets I get have the nutrients needed it tastes okay and doesn't screw up my digestion. Just don't say it's for the methane. It's almost like they are selling it too hard...