Why Meat Is Madness

gozunda

Taking a good look at this "meat is maddness" propaganda - what is of note is that Ireland as a island has had a succesful history of extensive livestock farming from mesolithic times onwards.

Whilst meat eating may have been seasonal the production of milk and dairy products was of utmost importance to the early irish. These foods formed a principle part of diet of the people of Ireland. The population not only survived but thrived on this diet up to at least early Christian times.

In later centuries a decline in livestock farming and a growth of a dependence on crops such as the potato and a much more restricted range of foodstuffs ultimately ended in disaster only in the decades after the famine.

Now we have these new 'visionaries' telling us that an agricultural system that has a long history of success and which is suited to irish soils, seasonal changes and provides a wide range of high quality produce for both local and international markets is now wrong and somehow unhealthy.

I wonder how many of the vegan brigade have ever managed field scale production of crops and vegetables in an Irish climate and survived on that produce through periods of the year when no crops or foodstuffs can be grown without massive inputs of fertilisers or the heating of covered production in polytunnels.

Again an important but missing component of this 'brave new world' proposed by this writer and others like him is how it is proposed to manage soil fertility where no fym or other organic materials would be available and ultimately the removal of grassland cover. Evidently artificial fertilisers would not be permitted due to their manufacture being dependant on carbon inputs. The vision of depleted soils brings to mind the dust bowl disaster of the 1930s as suggested by other posters.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl

Rather than telling the rest of us what to do I would suggest that the new visionaries go and try their new system of food production and come back and let us know how they got on - if there any of them remaining that is ...

yosemitesam1

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Why do we need to maintain grasslands? Why would grasslands be better for the environment than unused land and whats it got to do with climate change? If we didn't grow food for animals to eat we could eat the food ourselves and save the energy wasted on producing meat.

The 5 billion or so hectares of grassland in the world need to be managed if they are to maximise the amount of carbon stored, how much carbon do you think can be stored over that sort of an area?? an awful lot I would say

_Brian

gozunda wrote: »

Taking a good look at this "meat is maddness" propaganda - what is of note is that Ireland as a island has had a succesful history of extensive livestock farming from mesolithic times onwards.

Whilst meat eating may have been seasonal the production of milk and dairy products was of utmost importance to the early irish. These foods formed a principle part of diet of the people of Ireland. The population not only survived but thrived on this diet up to at least early Christian times.

In later centuries a decline in livestock farming and a growth of a dependence on crops such as the potato and a much more restricted range of foodstuffs ultimately ended in disaster only in the decades after the famine.

Now we have these new 'visionaries' telling us that an agricultural system that has a long history of success and which is suited to irish soils, seasonal changes and provides a wide range of high quality produce for both local and international markets is now wrong and somehow unhealthy.

I wonder how many of the vegan brigade have ever managed field scale production of crops and vegetables in an Irish climate and survived on that produce through periods of the year when no crops or foodstuffs can be grown without massive inputs of fertilisers or the heating of covered production in polytunnels.

Again an important but missing component of this 'brave new world' proposed by this writer and others like him is how it is proposed to manage soil fertility where no fym or other organic materials would be available and ultimately the removal of grassland cover. Evidently artificial fertilisers would not be permitted due to their manufacture being dependant on carbon inputs. The vision of depleted soils brings to mind the dust bowl disaster of the 1930s as suggested by other posters.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl

Rather than telling the rest of us what to do I would suggest that the new visionaries go and try their new system of food production and come back and let us know how they got on - if there any of them remaining that is ...

I do agree with your general point.
However I do disagree with the ever intensification of our process. There are more incidences of cattle being housed for longer and longer times to facilitate high intensity farming. Feeds stuf in some cases are moving away from grass based diets. Near me cattle are finished on cakes, bread and chocolate waste among their feed.

Commercial market pressures to scale up and produce more and more for lower margins is definitely affecting the production systems in a negative way. I disagree with dairy Cows being housed 24/7/365 and grass belting drawn into them.

This excessive intensification isn't at farmers own request but rather a reaction to market forces in order to remain profitable. The consumer is getting what they want cheaper and cheaper products - but at what cost to the products!

El_Duderino 09

Buford T. Justice V wrote:

In huge swathes of the world, grassland is the tertiary ecosystem and is that way for a reason. In the 1930s in the USA, large areas of grassland used for tillage crops were blown away during years of drought conditions, coining the term 'Dust Bowl'. Here is a short documentary about the conditions.

Sure. If you just ignore it, it could he eroded.

Couldn't it just be planted with the type of plants that will take care of themselves and left alone? I'm not talking about manicured fields that will be destroyed in a drought if not maintained.

If we cut down meat consumption we wouldn't need a lot of the land we use now as so much of it is farmed to feed animals which are then farmed for us. Very inefficient and intensive use of land.

gozunda

_Brian wrote: »

I do agree with your general point.
However I do disagree with the ever intensification of our process. There are more incidences of cattle being housed for longer and longer times to facilitate high intensity farming. Feeds stuf in some cases are moving away from grass based diets. Near me cattle are finished on cakes, bread and chocolate waste among their feed.

Commercial market pressures to scale up and produce more and more for lower margins is definitely affecting the production systems in a negative way. I disagree with dairy Cows being housed 24/7/365 and grass belting drawn into them.

This excessive intensification isn't at farmers own request but rather a reaction to market forces in order to remain profitable. The consumer is getting what they want cheaper and cheaper products - but at what cost to the products!

It remains that livestock farming is one of the most suited types of agriculture enterprises for Ireland due to high rainfall levels and grass growth. I did not say the system was perfect and I would suggest that like most areas of enterprise there are always presures to expand and intensify. Extensive livestock farming benefits the two issues of food quality and environmental considerations.

Imo using starch / sugar-based carbohydrates increase the risk of gut problems and animal health . Some producers 'may' feed other foodstuffs but these will never be a substitute for good feeding management. Asfaik this type of feed is not recommended.

El_Duderino 09

yosemitesam1 wrote:

The 5 billion or so hectares of grassland in the world need to be managed if they are to maximise the amount of carbon stored, how much carbon do you think can be stored over that sort of an area?? an awful lot I would say

It depends onto whether you want to factor in the carbon used to maintain that land. The way to store most carbon is to make it self sustaining and leave it alone. The real saving comes in the second order effects of using land to feed animals to feed humans.

That's only if you care about the argument that you put forward about storing carbon.

Harika

gozunda wrote: »

Taking a good look at this "meat is maddness" propaganda - what is of note is that Ireland as a island has had a succesful history of extensive livestock farming from mesolithic times onwards.
<<-snip->>

Yes and no, meat was always important, but more important were oats and barley, what makes sense if you look at the calorie intake and time meat takes to become the equivalent of calories in grain, fruits and so on. In these times, people also didn't have three times a day meat, but for special occasions. My grandparents told me that they also didn't have daily meat, but once on Sunday and that was it.
So those "propaganda" you mention basically points out to the madness we experience atm, having meat on a daily base, while to keep it cheap, animals are kept in a horrifying style, and if you are fine with that, they are pumped full of antibiotics to keep the diseases in control and hormones to grow them faster. Those antibiotics and hormones, are already having an effect on us humans.
If you now take back a step and look at the whole situation, you can easily see that we are consuming too much meat. What worries me is that even with all the food scandals recently and the available information, the idea of even reducing meat intake is resisted heavily.

laoch na mona

for whats it worth Irelands ability to continue producing enough grass for grazing and silage may not be guaranteed, longer and wetter winters are set to become the norm so fodder production won't be as guaranteed. Think how much trouble a late spring caused a few years ago, we could have that again next winter

Farming in Ireland is unique, the problem is the more intensive model which dominates world agriculture, it increases pollution, lowers the quality of meat, damages the ecosystem, and still doesn't make the farmer any better off.

People don't seem to remember that less then a hundred years ago most people on this Island couldn't afford to eat meat 3 times a day everyday, and when they did have meat it was usually salted bacon. Of course the is the issue of equality, you can't tell people meat will once again be a luxury that the poor/landless won't have access to and expect them to be okay with that.

Globally something has to change how this will be done is the interesting question

yosemitesam1

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It depends onto whether you want to factor in the carbon used to maintain that land. The way to store most carbon is to make it self sustaining and leave it alone.

The majority of grasslands are run very extensively and don't receive fertilizer or any inputs. The sort of high input system you see in Ireland/New Zealand is only carried out on a tiny fraction of the total grassland area.

gozunda

Harika wrote: »

Yes and no, meat was always important, but more important were oats and barley, what makes sense if you look at the calorie intake and time meat takes to become the equivalent of calories in grain, fruits and so on. In these times, people also didn't have three times a day meat, but for special occasions. My grandparents told me that they also didn't have daily meat, but once on Sunday and that was it.
So those "propaganda" you mention basically points out to the madness we experience atm, having meat on a daily base, while to keep it cheap, animals are kept in a horrifying style, and if you are fine with that, they are pumped full of antibiotics to keep the diseases in control and hormones to grow them faster. Those antibiotics and hormones, are already having an effect on us humans.
If you now take back a step and look at the whole situation, you can easily see that we are consuming too much meat. What worries me is that even with all the food scandals recently and the available information, the idea of even reducing meat intake is resisted heavily.

If you read again- carefully this time - you will see I did not say 'meat' I referred to 'livestock' farming and meat that was eaten seasonally.

I said

The production of milk and dairy products was of utmost importance to the early irish. These foods formed a principle part of diet of the people of Ireland. The population not only survived but thrived on this diet up to at least early Christian times.

Dairy products were one of the principle primary foods produced in Ireland in earlier times. With cattle been seasonal slaughtered as it was not possible to keep non breeding stock over winter months.

In later times the Irish population became dependant on one main vegetable crop - the potato and take a look what happened when those crops failed.

In my experience cattle reared in Ireland have the benefit of extensive rearing methods and are NOT kept in "horrifying style". Yes animals like humans are treated for disease however vetinary treatment is highly regulated.

Ireland has always had a succesful and indigenous livestock based Agriculture producing high quality food products. Farmers producing milk and meat products cannot be blamed for 'people eating too much meat' - that is a personal health issue that can only controlled by an individual themselves unless you are suggesting some kind of police state that monitors an individuals food intake. The same individuals could just as easily over feed on cream buns and fizzy drinks.

So yes poorly hashed together sensationalism like that article "meat is madness" are 'propaganda'. And no I don't agree we are eating "too much meat". Like all good foodstuffs- a balanced diet is key.

Note: I believe <<-snip->> terminology is normally reserved as a mod function. A more correct (and polite) way to indicate abbreviation of quoted text is to use ellipses like this ...

Harika

gozunda wrote: »

Like all good foodstuffs- a balanced diet is key.

I agree with that and was looking around if I find sources that claim that Irish people in general eat a healthy diet. And I only found articles that we are not and next to too much sugar and processed foods, meat is the next point that is consumed too much. I am very open to any source that claims that overall the meat consummation in Ireland is perfect for the overall health or even should be increased.

Buford T. Justice XIX

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sure. If you just ignore it, it could he eroded.

Couldn't it just be planted with the type of plants that will take care of themselves and left alone? I'm not talking about manicured fields that will be destroyed in a drought if not maintained.

If we cut down meat consumption we wouldn't need a lot of the land we use now as so much of it is farmed to feed animals which are then farmed for us. Very inefficient and intensive use of land.

You missed the whole point. It ALREADY HAS the type of plants that takes care of themselves. Grasses. Grass that is deep rooted to cater for the infrequent rainfall and resistant to burning that happens on occasion even in the best managed grassslands. That ecosystem depends on ruminants (buffalo replaced by cattle) to transfer nutrients and alternate grazing systems to allow certain grass and other species to grow and prosper.

Or is your point that we should destroy the grassland ecosystem to put in place some artificial ecosystem and destroy the ecology of the system already in place?

And what exactly is this supposed-better system that you are advocating that would cater for the climatic extremes that exists already?

Harika wrote: »

Yes and no, meat was always important, but more important were oats and barley, what makes sense if you look at the calorie intake and time meat takes to become the equivalent of calories in grain, fruits and so on. In these times, people also didn't have three times a day meat, but for special occasions. My grandparents told me that they also didn't have daily meat, but once on Sunday and that was it.
So those "propaganda" you mention basically points out to the madness we experience atm, having meat on a daily base, while to keep it cheap, animals are kept in a horrifying style, and if you are fine with that, they are pumped full of antibiotics to keep the diseases in control and hormones to grow them faster. Those antibiotics and hormones, are already having an effect on us humans.
If you now take back a step and look at the whole situation, you can easily see that we are consuming too much meat. What worries me is that even with all the food scandals recently and the available information, the idea of even reducing meat intake is resisted heavily.

I was reading an article lately saying that the cutting of raw meat into thin slices for human consumption vastly increased the release times for nutrients in the meat and that cooking of meat increased that further although much later in time than slicing did.

As regards meat consumption, the total intake of meat is dependent on the the lifestyle of the consumers. Hunter-gatherers would have a large and regular meat intake as they would be hunting on a near daily basis and preserving large portions of that meat for consumption later in the year when prey wouldn't be as common or easy to hunt. More sedentary lifestyles would have a range of animals kept for meat, from pigs fed on waste foods, chickens, sheep and cattle along with game and rabbits. When an animal was killed, some would be consumed, some would be preserved and some would be shared out in the community and later returned in kind when others would be killing. This was quite common in Ireland even as far as the 70s where I remember pigs and cattle being killed and shared out and receiving the same in return.

As far as resistance to meat intake being common, increasingly more and more research is coming out in support of meat consumption, especially in regard to weight loss. The whole 'animal fat is bad for you, m'kay' has been shown to be incorrect and based on flawed interpretation of results.

Harika

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

This was quite common in Ireland even as far as the 70s where I remember pigs and cattle being killed and shared out and receiving the same in return.

In the 70s how often did you have meat then?

Harika

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

You missed the whole point. It ALREADY HAS the type of plants that takes care of themselves. Grasses. Grass that is deep rooted to cater for the infrequent rainfall and resistant to burning that happens on occasion even in the best managed grassslands. That ecosystem depends on ruminants (buffalo replaced by cattle) to transfer nutrients and alternate grazing systems to allow certain grass and other species to grow and prosper.

Or is your point that we should destroy the grassland ecosystem to put in place some artificial ecosystem and destroy the ecology of the system already in place?

And what exactly is this supposed-better system that you are advocating that would cater for the climatic extremes that exists already?

I want to add here, that Irish animal farmers, and EU in general, need food imports to feed their animals. From grassland alone, we wouldn't be able to sustain the meat output that we are having atm. So where does this food come from? brazil/argentina, where the rain forest is burned down to plant GMO soja, that is exported to EU to feed our cattle, chickens and pigs. I am not against GMO but always laugh when people avoid GMO food but don't care if the burger was fed with GMOs.

djmc

Harika wrote: »

I want to add here, that Irish animal farmers, and EU in general, need food imports to feed their animals. From grassland alone, we wouldn't be able to sustain the meat output that we are having atm. So where does this food come from? brazil/argentina, where the rain forest is burned down to plant GMO soja, that is exported to EU to feed our cattle, chickens and pigs. I am not against GMO but always laugh when people avoid GMO food but don't care if the burger was fed with GMOs.

Can't disagree with that Some people are more particular about where they source their meat choosing organic or grass fed only meat which costs more to produce.
Most people just want cheap convenient meat and don't care if it's from down the road or bits of 20 different pieces of chicken from thiland blended up with chemicals covered in salt and sugar and sealed in breadcrumbs which can get final processing here and be passed of as Irish because it was wrapped here.

When I was younger we always killed some of our own animals for ourselves
Still have the big chest freezer but it's empty most of the time nowadays.
I try to source meat from local butcher when I can but am also guilty of buying handy food from the supermarkets pizzia packet ham processed sliced meat etc.

Farmers will produce whatever the market demand's which at the moment is the cheapest food possible

Zillah

djmc wrote: »

I find it funny sometimes how so many people are so far removed from nature that they no longer know what they are.
There is a reason our eyes are not on the sides of our heads and we have a set of canine teeth in our mouths.
Wild animals know this just by the look of us.

Uh huh. And you use those predator eyes to chase down deer in the woods, do you?

There's absolutely nothing natural about farming, and especially the intensity and conditions of modern farming. We've taken nature and subjected it to industrialisation - don't kid yourself that there is anything natural about it. Our natural state was to pick off a couple of stragglers in a vast and thriving ecosystem that barely noticed our presence. We've demolished most of that ecosystem and replaced it with industrialisation. Ireland used to be trees coast to coast.

We need farming to support our civilisation, but don't for a second try to claim there is anything natural about raising millions of animals in captivity for slaughter.

gozunda

Harika wrote: »

I want to add here, that Irish animal farmers, and EU in general, need food imports to feed their animals. From grassland alone, we wouldn't be able to sustain the meat output that we are having atm. So where does this food come from? brazil/argentina, where the rain forest is burned down to plant GMO soja, that is exported to EU to feed our cattle, chickens and pigs. I am not against GMO but always laugh when people avoid GMO food but don't care if the burger was fed with GMOs.

I think you have identified at least part of the problem there with one caveat - that Irish livestock are fed on a mainly grass fed diet supplemented by concentrates which include barley, wheat, maize and yes soya. Other feedstuffs include beat pulp, silage and hay. Much of the additional diet in terms of hay and silage are produced here as are some of the concentrates.

Why is soya been promoted? Soya production worldwide has been growing year on year and most of it crop is controlled by multinational petrol chemical interests.

As you pointed out a significant proportion of harvested soya comes from South America where virgin rain forest has been cleared and turned over to vast areas of monoculture systems devoted to soy bean production.

Do you what is really interesting about soya? In its raw state the soy bean contain substances which can lead to a shortage of amino acids in the body. It is in effect inedible and poisonous if eaten raw in sufficient quantities.

Couple this with the fact that soya production uses hexane to extract the plant protein

• "Hexane is used to process nearly all conventional soy protein ingredients and edible oils and is prohibited when processing organic foods."

• Soybeans are bathed in hexane as part of their processing by food manufacturers.

• "Hexane is a neurotoxic chemical that poses serious occupational hazards to workers, is an environmental air pollutant, and can contaminate food."

Source: http://www.naturalnews.com/026303_soy_protein_hexane.html#ixzz45hp0pwc9g

Much of the soybean produced is diverted into the human food chain often as a cheap filler. Next time you buy a pan loaf - check the ingredients. You might be on for a surprise.

OK soybeans are used for animal feed especially in countries where cattle don't benefit from an extensive grazing feed system. In Ireland thankfully our ability to grow grass means that such feeds do not form a significant part of that system.

But more importantly soya production has been promoted as a health food! A health food allegedly better than extensive grass fed beef. Go into your local 'health' food shop and look at the rows upon rows of 'soya milk' 'textured vegetable protein' soya burgers, soya mince etc etc. Who wins? I wouldn't touch the stuff with a barge pole.

If we follow John Fitz gibbons ideology we will all be eating soybean which is significantly more responsible for environmental destruction and the emission of green house gases through the destruction of natural carbon sinks and the subseqent growth of vast monocultures of petrochemical dependant crops.

merryberry

Is the problem the fact we have way too many animals or that our emission reduction target too high. I think it would b unfair to blame an agri sector for responding to a growing global demand for meat. It is efficient in terms of its ghg emmisions and because these emissions are biological, it is very difficult to reduce without reducing the herd. Better education on the demand side

Zillah

merryberry wrote: »

Is the problem the fact we have way too many animals or that our emission reduction target too high. I think it would b unfair to blame an agri sector for responding to a growing global demand for meat. It is efficient in terms of its ghg emmisions and because these emissions are biological, it is very difficult to reduce without reducing the herd. Better education on the demand side

Well that's the problem with capitalism: it's very hard to fight incentive. There are no easy answers to the problem, but it's also a little irresponsible to just shrug and say the market demands it. We are talking about the potential loss of trillions of dollars to the global economy over the next century because of climate change - ignoring the toll on human life, loss of habitat, and extinction of species - but also, in the long run, the question of life and human civilisation on this planet at all. This could be the biggest question facing industrialised society since the threat of nuclear winter.

Our great-great-grandchildren might be sitting in class discussing the reasons for why our generation deliberately perpetuated behaviours that we knew beyond a shadow of a doubt were doing terrible damage to the planet.

merryberry

Zillah wrote: »

Well that's the problem with capitalism: it's very hard to fight incentive. There are no easy answers to the problem, but it's also a little irresponsible to just shrug and say the market demands it. We are talking about the potential loss of trillions of dollars to the global economy over the next century because of climate change - ignoring the toll on human life, loss of habitat, and extinction of species - but also, in the long run, the question of life and human civilisation on this planet at all. This could be the biggest question facing industrialised society since the threat of nuclear winter.

Our great-great-grandchildren might be sitting in class discussing the reasons for why our generation deliberately perpetuated behaviours that we knew beyond a shadow of a doubt were doing terrible damage to the planet.

But do u agree with that it isn't just agriculture that is contributing to this global problem, that people need to eat and that farmers need to make a livelihood. I'm no expert on the topic but I don't see any solution to the problem of climate change

gozunda

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sure. If you just ignore it, it could he eroded.

Couldn't it just be planted with the type of plants that will take care of themselves and left alone? I'm not talking about manicured fields that will be destroyed in a drought if not maintained.

If we cut down meat consumption we wouldn't need a lot of the land we use now as so much of it is farmed to feed animals which are then farmed for us. Very inefficient and intensive use of land.

So if we are not going to have livestock or somehow reduce this sector and we are not going to grow anything on this land -what exactly are we going to eat?

To produce non animal derived low protein low concentrated foods for a population of 6.5 billion people and increasing will need more land not less. Ploughing up grassland to grow crops for humans to need will lead to increased carbon release.

Not all animals are kept purely for meat production. The dairy industry is an important part of irish and global food production. In Ireland this sector is dependant on grassland. Irish grassland systems are extensive and not intensive.

What do you propose that a) farmers should or grow produce and b) what are people going to eat?

ganmo

Zillah wrote: »

Uh huh. And you use those predator eyes to chase down deer in the woods, do you?

There's absolutely nothing natural about farming, and especially the intensity and conditions of modern farming. We've taken nature and subjected it to industrialisation - don't kid yourself that there is anything natural about it. Our natural state was to pick off a couple of stragglers in a vast and thriving ecosystem that barely noticed our presence. We've demolished most of that ecosystem and replaced it with industrialisation. Ireland used to be trees coast to coast.

We need farming to support our civilisation, but don't for a second try to claim there is anything natural about raising millions of animals in captivity for slaughter.

Whats natural about talking to something that sends a signal to space and then back to earth only to make a noise nearby the first thing.

whats natural about sitting into a 1500kg car to transport your 90kg 20 miles and then back to where you started

We are so far from being natural that arguing about whats natural or not is pointless.

djmc

Zillah wrote: »

Uh huh. And you use those predator eyes to chase down deer in the woods, do you?

There's absolutely nothing natural about farming, and especially the intensity and conditions of modern farming. We've taken nature and subjected it to industrialisation - don't kid yourself that there is anything natural about it. Our natural state was to pick off a couple of stragglers in a vast and thriving ecosystem that barely noticed our presence. We've demolished most of that ecosystem and replaced it with industrialisation. Ireland used to be trees coast to coast.

We need farming to support our civilisation, but don't for a second try to claim there is anything natural about raising millions of animals in captivity for slaughter.

When people first came to this island they started cutting down trees and keeping animals in captivity for slaughter.
Still goes on today but at a more intensive scale over the last century.
I leave the chasing down deer in the woods to the hunters and don't judge them or vegan's for their lifestyle choices.
I never had hunters try to force their will on me that I should join them in their hunts all the same. I have no illusions about what I am and will reserve my right to eat meat if I choose.
I won't be convinced I am a herbivore when I believe that I am an omnivore.
As long as there is a market is there for food and people won't pay the price for farmers to make a living I can't see things changing.
You would be better to talk to the supermarket multinationals as they have the power to change the market by choosing what they sell.
Intensive farming may not be natural by neither are the animals in that system as the won't survive without management.
Not all farmers farm an intensive system either plenty of small part time farmers keeping a few cows or sheep in a low cost system.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Harika wrote: »

In the 70s how often did you have meat then?

Twice a day most days except fridays when we would have fish and possibly fish fingers for supper as a treat.

Our lives were different then. We were constantly active, feeding calves, cycling to school, playing soccer, football and hurling, cycling home, doing homework then feeding calves, bedding animals, picking stones, weeding the garden, picking spuds, climbing trees, stacking bales wandering across the countryside, cycling to visit friends. No playstation or xboxes then.

You simply had to have an energy rich diet to survive and that meant meat with the juices dripping off it onto the plate. You couldn't even contemplate the notion of organic couscous or soya milk because there wasn't money to pursue those romantic, faddy notions so popular today. You had full fat milk with your dinner, cream off the top of the tank with a bit of jelly for a rare desert, 'hairy' bacon, stew, all with loads of fat congealing on the top.

Good days:)

Harika wrote: »

I want to add here, that Irish animal farmers, and EU in general, need food imports to feed their animals. From grassland alone, we wouldn't be able to sustain the meat output that we are having atm. So where does this food come from? brazil/argentina, where the rain forest is burned down to plant GMO soja, that is exported to EU to feed our cattle, chickens and pigs. I am not against GMO but always laugh when people avoid GMO food but don't care if the burger was fed with GMOs.

Speaking of Kerry alone, we grow 50% of our supplementary feeds in the county alone with the vast majority of other supplementary feedstuffs being high protein supplements like soya to balance the diet and provide an economic supplement to the major deficiency in ruminant diets in Ireland.

And, fyi, rainforest isn't burned down to produce soya. The soya is grown in former livestock grazing areas which are then displaced to rougher grazing bordering rainforest. And then displaced further when demand for soya increases again. So it's actually the soya causing the rainforest destruction and the livestock feed is increasingly an unwanted (by the consumer) byproduct of consumer led demand for soya.

merryberry

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

rainforest isn't burned down to produce soya. The soya is grown in former livestock grazing areas which are then displaced to rougher grazing bordering rainforest. And then displaced further when demand for soya increases again. So it's actually the soya causing the rainforest destruction and the livestock feed is increasingly an unwanted (by the consumer) byproduct of consumer led demand for soya.

This is what is called imported deforestation....

Zillah

ganmo wrote: »

Whats natural about talking to something that sends a signal to space and then back to earth only to make a noise nearby the first thing.

whats natural about sitting into a 1500kg car to transport your 90kg 20 miles and then back to where you started

We are so far from being natural that arguing about whats natural or not is pointless.

Your tone implies you think you're arguing against me, but you're backing up my point. It was djmc that was using nature to argue in favour of eating meat. What is or isn't natural doesn't justify our decisions. I'm biologically an omnivore, in that I can eat meat as well as plants, as my ancestors did for countless generations. But we're not obligate meat-eaters, like, say, a cat, which will get sick and die if it doesn't eat meat. We can be perfectly healthy without eating meat, regardless of what our ancestors did.

merryberry wrote: »

But do u agree with that it isn't just agriculture that is contributing to this global problem, that people need to eat and that farmers need to make a livelihood. I'm no expert on the topic but I don't see any solution to the problem of climate change

Of course: we have to eat. Each region of the planet has its own unique qualities that make it more or less suitable for different types of food production, and not every scrap of land being used to raise animals could be converted to growing crops, but the fact remains that raising animals is an extremely expensive and wasteful way to produce food. For every calorie of beef we create the animal had to eat ten calories of food - food that could have been eaten directly by humans.

We could significantly reduce agriculture's contribution to global warming by scaling down animal farming and replacing it with other crops where possible.

There's no argument to be made against the feasibility of it, at the end of the day our problem is that people want to eat meat and they don't care what the consequences are. They don't like to admit that, so they come up with other rationalisations, like claiming its part of our rich heritage, or it's natural (whatever the hell that has to do with anything), or make untenable arguments about why it wouldn't work.

Climate change isn't solely caused by animal rearing, of course. We are an oil-based economy, but we're already making extremely good strides towards renewable energy with virtually no carbon footprint, but we should be looking at all of the sources of greenhouse gases and making efforts every where that is possible, which includes the staggering number of animals being reared.

Zillah

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

And, fyi, rainforest isn't burned down to produce soya. The soya is grown in former livestock grazing areas which are then displaced to rougher grazing bordering rainforest. And then displaced further when demand for soya increases again. So it's actually the soya causing the rainforest destruction and the livestock feed is increasingly an unwanted (by the consumer) byproduct of consumer led demand for soya.

Isn't something like 85% of the global soya crop used as animal feed though? It wouldn't make sense to claim that the remaining 15% is somehow driving the phenomenon.

merryberry

Zillah wrote: »

Your tone implies you think you're arguing against me, but you're backing up my point. It was djmc that was using nature to argue in favour of eating meat. What is or isn't natural doesn't justify our decisions. I'm biologically an omnivore, in that I can eat meat as well as plants, as my ancestors did for countless generations. But we're not obligate meat-eaters, like, say, a cat, which will get sick and die if it doesn't eat meat. We can be perfectly healthy without eating meat, regardless of what our ancestors did.



Of course: we have to eat. Each region of the planet has its own unique qualities that make it more or less suitable for different types of food production, and not every scrap of land being used to raise animals could be converted to growing crops, but the fact remains that raising animals is an extremely expensive and wasteful way to produce food. For every calorie of beef we create the animal had to eat ten calories of food - food that could have been eaten directly by humans.

We could significantly reduce agriculture's contribution to global warming by scaling down animal farming and replacing it with other crops where possible.

There's no argument to be made against the feasibility of it, at the end of the day our problem is that people want to eat meat and they don't care what the consequences are. They don't like to admit that, so they come up with other rationalisations, like claiming its part of our rich heritage, or it's natural (whatever the hell that has to do with anything), or make untenable arguments about why it wouldn't work.

Climate change isn't solely caused by animal rearing, of course. We are an oil-based economy, but we're already making extremely good strides towards renewable energy with virtually no carbon footprint, but we should be looking at all of the sources of greenhouse gases and making efforts every where that is possible, which includes the staggering number of animals being reared.

I like all ur challenging thoughts. For ireland, is it not unique in the sense that we have an agricultural sector based on grass hence we use this to our advantage. Other countried are not lucky to be in our position.

If we are to reduce our herd profile can u suggest alternative land uses. Don't say crops. We are not competitive and leads to land use change which can also contribute to ghg emmisions. I like the idea of grass to biomass, but much like forestry, is there a will in farming and energy sector to mobilise it.

yosemitesam1

Zillah wrote: »

For every calorie of beef we create the animal had to eat ten calories of food - food that could have been eaten directly by humans.

QUOTE]

but of that 10 calories it will only be somewhere between 0 and 5 that will be based on grains a good part of which will be based on waste products. something to remember about veg growing is they are far from environmentally friendly with very heavy cultivations, much more dangerous pesticides etc which might not allow them to scale up and be better for the environment.

gozunda

Zillah wrote: »

Your tone implies you think you're arguing against me, but you're backing up my point. It was djmc that was using nature to argue in favour of eating meat. What is or isn't natural doesn't justify our decisions. I'm biologically an omnivore, in that I can eat meat as well as plants, as my ancestors did for countless generations. But we're not obligate meat-eaters, like, say, a cat, which will get sick and die if it doesn't eat meat. We can be perfectly healthy without eating meat, regardless of what our ancestors did.

Re natural - What it does do is limit our available choices. And one of those choices is to do so is to eat meat. We can be also perfectly healthy whilst eating meat as well.

Zillah wrote: »

Of course: we have to eat. Each region of the planet has its own unique qualities that make it more or less suitable for different types of food production, and not every scrap of land being used to raise animals could be converted to growing crops, but the fact remains that raising animals is an extremely expensive and wasteful way to produce food. For every calorie of beef we create the animal had to eat ten calories of food - food that could have been eaten directly by humans.

Not true. In ireland we eat meat from livestock eg beef that has produced by cattle reared on a largely grass based diet. We can not avail of the calories from grass because humans cannot 'naturally' digest grass.

As a high protein food - beef provides with an excellent source of good quality protein. And no digging up all the fields in Ireland and planting turnips won't work. Horticultural production is seasonal and digging up grassland will do even more damage in terms of release of carbon. Very few of our soils are suited to Horticultural or grain production. Grass is very well suited to our climate and livestock can now be kept all year round providing a plentiful source of fresh local food.

Zillah wrote: »

we could significantly reduce agriculture's contribution to global warming by scaling down animal farming and replacing it with other crops where possible.

Growing crops is not a carbon neutral activity. After digging up the grasslands and to obtain maximum efficency in crop growth to keep up with an ever increasing population it would be necessary to add organic or artifical fertilisers. Currently livestock provide much of that organic input. No livestock? What about artifical fertilisers then? Artifical fertilisers again are defintly not carbon neutral and i presume would not be used either in such a world.

Zillah wrote: »

There's no argument to be made against the feasibility of it, at the end of the day our problem is that people want to eat meat and they don't care what the consequences are. They don't like to admit that, so they come up with other rationalisations, like claiming its part of our rich heritage, or it's natural (whatever the hell that has to do with anything), or make untenable arguments about why it wouldn't work.

There are consequences to everything we do from driving cars to having babies and surprise -no people don't tend to over think the consequences. If they did we would properly all commit harri karri.

Of course there are arguments for the eating of meat. There are arguments for and against everything. And it is part of our rich heritage. The very word for road in irish - boher - comes from the cow. There are many other cultural and heritage links to livestock farming in this country. Why should we not be proud of our history and culture. Other countries don't denigrate their cuisine and native foods. Why should we?

Zillah wrote: »

Climate change isn't solely caused by animal rearing, of course. We are an oil-based economy, but we're already making extremely good strides towards renewable energy with virtually no carbon footprint, but we should be looking at all of the sources of greenhouse gases and making efforts every where that is possible, which includes the staggering number of animals being reared.

There is a fairly old saying in ecology - that the only environmentally friendly human is a dead one. And yes i know that's extreme but the point that it makes is that humans have so far changed the planet that without a drastic reduction in the population things cannot change. We have probably already passed tipping point. But that does not mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water or in this case the cow.