Does this study i did surprise you?!

Question: Does this study i did surprise you?

i asked the vegan category (asking vegans specifically) if they grew any of their own food and the hunting category if they grew or raised any of their own food. I assumed a higher percentage of vegans grew there own food because a leading reason for people to take on a vegan lifestyle is to leave less of an impact environmentally. (by reducing fossil fuel consumption, using space efficiently, using no or less artificial chemicals than large scale farming practices) however, i found that the opposite is closer to the truth. in the vegan category i got six answers. four out of the six grew some of their own food, only 1 seemed to grow a substantial amount. in the hunting category, a much less active one i should add, i got 12 answers. 11 out of 12 grew or raised some of their own food, the exception being an elderly woman who didn't have the space to garden. most of those who answered in the hunting category gardened and raised personal livestock on a surprising scale with a tremendous amount of variety. so what do you think of this? how could the difference be explained?

Answers:

To be very honest, I think the premise of your study is skewed. People are vegan/vegetarians for reasons other than environmental. Just because someone gardens, it does not mean that they are doing it for the environment - it could be a hobby they took up just as one might, say, collect stamps. For one's own pleasure, rather than environmental reasons. Also something like a garden is a luxury that can be enjoyed for those with the time and the space for it.
Again I don't know what your sample space was, but for your numbers to have relevance (even if I discount the underlying faulty premise) your samples must be random and chosen from a large sample space.
I for one am a vegetarian, primarily because I cannot thinking of killing an animal to fill my stomach. And I firmly believe that a lot of vegans/vegetarians have chosen this lifestyle out of compassion, and not purely from an environmental perspective.
I appreciate the time you have taken to collect these statistics, I just don't think the conclusion drawn from them is accurate.

your study fell down when you "assumed"
you assumed wrongly

so your study is a moot point

definition of "study"
The pursuit of knowledge, as by reading, observation, or research. 2. Attentive scrutiny. 3. A branch of knowledge

your "study" wasnt based of fact, it was based on what you "assumed"

it has no merit

Your study is biased and is a convenience study, you are studying only a small portion of each population. You have no idea if anyone was telling the truth or not, or if they just wanted to make themselves look good. I consider the data flawed.

your sample size is way to small to draw any reliable conclusions

yap

The consumer Foods information on foodaq.com is for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for medical advice or treatment for any medical conditions.
The answer content post by the user, if contains the copyright content please contact us, we will immediately remove it.

Does this study i did surprise you?!

Food's Q&A Resources