Vegans and Vegetarians Think They Don’t Kill Animals but They Do

kunst nugget

Came across this article which I thought might be interesting for After Hours. Claudio Bertonatti, a naturalist in Argentina wrote an article called The Vegan Confusion in which he tells us that eating only vegetables does not prevent the death of animals and that vegans and vegetarians concentrate only on the welfare of domesticated animals while being ignorant of the effect that their lifestyle choices have on wild animals.

What drove you to write the article?

In Argentina, I encounter many people who claim to be defenders of nature because they don’t eat meat or wear leather. They think that by being vegan or vegetarian they’re preventing animals from dying. It’s not true.

Why?

From the moment that humans began to raise cattle and adopt agriculture we generated an impact. There is no animal species whose survival doesn’t result in the death of other animals, whether directly or indirectly. I understand that this can be a painful realization. I’d also like to live in an ideal world, but that’s not the reality. Many vegans and people who only wear cotton seem to believe they don’t cause any deaths, but they do.

Indirect deaths?

Wheat, rice, corn. Most vegans eat these things. The first impact of mass cultivation is deforestation: we force nature out to make room for crops. In Argentina, they set fire to the jungle, burning nests with flamethrowers. Then they must defend the sown land from the birds who come to feed; many landowners do this by scattering poisoned grains. After that, the wild herbivores come looking for the first shoots, so the landowners put up electric fences or hunt the animals down with guns.

What happens during harvest?

The land is fumigated to combat fungi, insects and other plants. The animals that have been driven out move on to other areas which already support animals: the hotel is fully booked. So, the animals go to neighbouring crop fields and another wave of impacts is generated.

By contrast, he says, in fields dedicated to livestock there are more species of other animals.

There are lots of wild grasslands in Argentina. You can go for a walk there and find everything: amphibians, reptiles, birds. Of course, I’d be lying if I said there’s the same variety of animals as you’d get if the cows weren’t there. The farmer also persecutes wildlife and kills any animals he considers harmful to production. Even so, the impact is less. When I say this, a lot of people feel I’m cornering them.

In what sense?

In the sense that there’s no escape: if you eat meat, you kill animals, but you also kill them by eating plants. A lot of people who care about environmental issues look for good guys and bad guys, but it’s not like that: it’s far more complicated.

http://www.playground.plus/food/vegans-and-vegetarians-think-they-dont-kill-animals-but-they-do/

While omnivores are just as much to blame for animal deaths in terms of crop production, I think he's trying to highlight the problem of adopting a moral or ethical stance without actually properly researching or thinking about the impact that lifestyle choice has. To my eyes, it seems like a pretty pragmatic article addressing some of the grey issues that surround what many think of as a black and white issue. I'm sure some on here will be able to highlight the flaws in the argument and I'm interested to see what they are.

So, people of boards, what do you think?

FortySeven

Vegans should clearly commit suicide to limit their impact on the environment.

Veggies can be turned but the vegans are lost to us.......

Lovely Bloke

I think people should just do what they want, once they aren't hurting other people.

Animals be damned.

Fratton Fred

Because of the increased fibre they eat, Vegans also produce more Chloro Farto Carbons than everyone else. It is these CFCs that are causing global warming.

apparently.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

What harm are they doing to you?

Pherekydes

LexieOnRale wrote: »

What harm are they doing to you?

My tree house was chopped down to make way for a rice paddy. :mad:

Stigura

THIS.

And, yes; He is Right. You are Wrong

OldNotWIse

kunst nugget wrote: »

Came across this article which I thought might be interesting for After Hours. Claudio Bertonatti, a naturalist in Argentina wrote an article called The Vegan Confusion in which he tells us that eating only vegetables does not prevent the death of animals and that vegans and vegetarians concentrate only on the welfare of domesticated animals while being ignorant of the effect that their lifestyle choices have on wild animals.



http://www.playground.plus/food/vegans-and-vegetarians-think-they-dont-kill-animals-but-they-do/

While omnivores are just as much to blame for animal deaths in terms of crop production, I think he's trying to highlight the problem of adopting a moral or ethical stance without actually properly researching or thinking about the impact that lifestyle choice has. To my eyes, it seems like a pretty pragmatic article addressing some of the grey issues that surround what many think of as a black and white issue. I'm sure some on here will be able to highlight the flaws in the argument and I'm interested to see what they are.

So, people of boards, what do you think?

And that is where you are wrong. Most visitors here will be simply bashing vegans and engaging in plant-loving whataboutery.

Shenshen

Has it been 2 days already?

RobertKK

I suspect vegans are anti-cat too.

cattle are so tasty, whether it is cow's milk or their meaty backsides...

ScumLord

I think an urban lifestyle creates a certain disconnect with the reality of the natural world. We tend to forget we're not a separate entity from nature. We're actually a major player in the natural world, almost up there with weather and solar cycles at this stage, what we do matters. We can't just have a set of beliefs and ideals and expect them to work in the real world. If we start or stop doing anything it will have a major impact on the natural world. US not eating meat would mean that the globes top predator has disappeared. We already have examples of how detrimental removing predators can be to an environment. We can't just assume that not taking part will make things any better for other creatures.


Overall though the real problem is rampant consumerism. We're quantifying everything into a monetary value and seeing everything from bits of dirt to reading your phone while having a shyte as a commodity that needs to be exploited. We the people might complain that big business is destroying the planet but we the consumer are the ones actively encouraging and funding that destruction.

CaptainR

(Lisa) “I’m going to become a vegetarian” (Homer) “Does that mean you’re not going to eat any pork?”
“Yes”
“Bacon?”
“Yes Dad”
Ham?”
“Dad all those meats come from the same animal”
“Right Lisa, some wonderful, magical animal!”

OldNotWIse

ScumLord wrote: »

I think an urban lifestyle creates a certain disconnect with the reality of the natural world. We tend to forget we're not a separate entity from nature. We're actually a major player in the natural world, almost up there with weather and solar cycles at this stage, what we do matters. We can't just have a set of beliefs and ideals and expect them to work in the real world. If we start or stop doing anything it will have a major impact on the natural world. US not eating meat would mean that the globes top predator has disappeared. We already have examples of how detrimental removing predators can be to an environment. We can't just assume that not taking part will make things any better for other creatures.


Overall though the real problem is rampant consumerism. We're quantifying everything into a monetary value and seeing everything from bits of dirt to reading your phone while having a shyte as a commodity that needs to be exploited. We the people might complain that big business is destroying the planet but we the consumer are the ones actively encouraging and funding that destruction.

I might be wrong or perhaps misunderstood your post, but given that most animals reared for food live and die in factory farms that are essentially removed from the "circle of life" I don't really see how not eating meat will effect it. A factory farm exists as a discrete entity where animals are bred, live and then are killed. Is it not a simple case of supply and demand. If they stopped eating meat, there would be no demand to breed more. If they stopped breeding animals for food today, and ate through the current supply until it was gone, then no longer bred any more factory cows,pigs, chickens etc - how would that interfere with the environment (aside from drastically reducing their carbon emissions)?

I agree with you on the rampant consumerism. People insist of having meat not just every day but even more than once a day, when in reality a couple of times a week would suffice.

fizzypish

Stigura wrote: »

THIS.

And, yes; He is Right. You are Wrong

Ya bolix. This reminds me of when I was a young fella, topping one of the fields on the tractor. Accidentally mowed a rabbit. Managed to stop the power drive in time so as to simply cut its leg off rather than completely disembowel the poor ****er. Still died but in a less horrendous way. AWWW **** and now you've reminded me of the time I was walking a greyhound and a pheasant chick ran across the path. Rather than grabbing the lead up short and restraining the dog I lunged to protect the chick (yes I'm a moron) thus providing the dog ample lead to lunge. Awwwwwwww this is gonna cost me a fortune in therapy...

robarmstrong

Vegans drink water, that's a fish's home you sick twisted deviants!!!!!!!

OldNotWIse

robarmstrong wrote: »

Vegans drink water, that's a fish's home you sick twisted deviants!!!!!!!

And probably has fish pee in it eeeeeewwwwww

ScumLord

OldNotWIse wrote: »

If they stopped eating meat, there would be no demand to breed more. If they stopped breeding animals for food today, and ate through the current supply until it was gone, then no longer bred any more factory cows,pigs, chickens etc - how would that interfere with the environment (aside from drastically reducing their carbon emissions)?

It wouldn't go down that easy. Nothing ever happens without consequences.

I'm against intensive farming, for the most part cattle and sheep in this country aren't intensively farmed.

At the moment we're putting pressure on the ecosystems, especially ecosystems that are alien to our domestic animals. But Europe and the middle east have been farming for a long time, ecosystems have actually adapted to the fact farming happens. Removing farming would have a knock on effect on creatures and plants that have adapted to those cycles.

Cattle provide all sorts of other items and goods that go into other industries. So all those would collapse.

If wool disappeared we'd likely have to come up with alternatives which would mean growing something else or using synthetic alternatives that might be less sustainable and more polluting. The list of knock on effects would be endless. I can't even begin to think of them all.

That doesn't mean I don't think we should reduce meat use and pay more for meat. I think we should bring in standards for intensive farming ASAP, increase welfare and make meat more expensive. But we should keep the domestic animals, we have a partnership that benefits us both which is how nature works, it's turning out we didn't enslave many of the domestic animals, they actually came to us.

OldNotWIse

ScumLord wrote: »

It wouldn't go down that easy. Nothing ever happens without consequences.

I'm against intensive farming, for the most part cattle and sheep in this country aren't intensively farmed.

At the moment we're putting pressure on the ecosystems, especially ecosystems that are alien to our domestic animals. But Europe and the middle east have been farming for a long time, ecosystems have actually adapted to the fact farming happens. Removing farming would have a knock on effect on creatures and plants that have adapted to those cycles.

Cattle provide all sorts of other items and goods that go into other industries. So all those would collapse.

If wool disappeared we'd likely have to come up with alternatives which would mean growing something else or using synthetic alternatives that might be less sustainable and more polluting. The list of knock on effects would be endless. I can't even begin to think of them all.

That doesn't mean I don't think we should reduce meat use and pay more for meat. I think we should bring in standards for intensive farming ASAP, increase welfare and make meat more expensive. But we should keep the domestic animals, we have a partnership that benefits us both which is how nature works, it's turning out we didn't enslave many of the domestic animals, they actually came to us.

I think if they could speak, there would be many millions and millions of farmed animals that would disagree with you on that one.

FortySeven

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I think if they could speak, there would be many millions and millions of farmed animals that would disagree with you on that one.

If we were all vegan there would not be any of these species to talk. No need = no feed.

Edups

LexieOnRale wrote: »

What harm are they doing to you?

Found the vegan

Shenshen

ScumLord wrote: »

It wouldn't go down that easy. Nothing ever happens without consequences.

I'm against intensive farming, for the most part cattle and sheep in this country aren't intensively farmed.

At the moment we're putting pressure on the ecosystems, especially ecosystems that are alien to our domestic animals. But Europe and the middle east have been farming for a long time, ecosystems have actually adapted to the fact farming happens. Removing farming would have a knock on effect on creatures and plants that have adapted to those cycles.

Cattle provide all sorts of other items and goods that go into other industries. So all those would collapse.

If wool disappeared we'd likely have to come up with alternatives which would mean growing something else or using synthetic alternatives that might be less sustainable and more polluting. The list of knock on effects would be endless. I can't even begin to think of them all.

That doesn't mean I don't think we should reduce meat use and pay more for meat. I think we should bring in standards for intensive farming ASAP, increase welfare and make meat more expensive. But we should keep the domestic animals, we have a partnership that benefits us both which is how nature works, it's turning out we didn't enslave many of the domestic animals, they actually came to us.

I couldn't agree more with the bolded part.
It's a funny thing, every time there's a discussion on animal welfare or vegetarianism or veganism on this forum, one of the things that gets rolled out is the "Look at how happy the sheep and cows in the fields are" argument. And personally, I'm sure they're happy as Larry for most of their lives, with the exception of the last hours or days (depending how far away from the abattoir they were reared).
However, these lucky creatures do not account for the bulk of meat consumption in this country. 74% of meat consumed here is poultry and pork. And I would bet that not many people see chickens and pigs frolicking in the fields on a daily basis.

On top of that, Ireland actually imports beef from the UK (37% of the beef the UK exports ends up here http://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/irish-beef-tops-uk-beef-imports-while-we-took-37-of-the-uks-beef-exports/#) - so we ship happy cows off abroad, and import cheaper beef from probably less happy cows.

I would love it if people were a little more conscious of what they eat, and treat meat not as a commodity to be had 3 times a day 7 days a week for next to no money at all, but as a treat to be enjoyed.

I'll never forget my grandmother telling me that when she was little, a Sunday roast was 2 pigeons shared among a family of 7...

mathie

"The first impact of mass cultivation is deforestation: we force nature out to make room for crops. In Argentina, they set fire to the jungle, burning nests with flamethrowers. Then they must defend the sown land from the birds who come to feed; many landowners do this by scattering poisoned grains. After that, the wild herbivores come looking for the first shoots, so the landowners put up electric fences or hunt the animals down with guns."

What a pile of ...

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat

"Animal protein production requires more than eight times as much fossil-fuel energy than production of plant protein while yielding animal protein that is only 1.4 times more nutritious for humans than the comparable amount of plant protein, according to the Cornell ecologist's analysis.

Tracking food animal production from the feed trough to the dinner table, Pimentel found broiler chickens to be the most efficient use of fossil energy, and beef, the least. Chicken meat production consumes energy in a 4:1 ratio to protein output; beef cattle production requires an energy input to protein output ratio of 54:1. (Lamb meat production is nearly as inefficient at 50:1, according to the ecologist's analysis of U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics. Other ratios range from 13:1 for turkey meat and 14:1 for milk protein to 17:1 for pork and 26:1 for eggs.)"

TLDR Don't feed animals plants and eat them yourself saves you having to get your deforestation on.

You know what a vegan is, right? A vegetarian with no sense of humour.

Shenshen

Deleted User wrote: »

You know what a vegan is, right? A vegetarian with no sense of humour.

I can't help thinking that partially that must be because none of the jokes are new...

It must be like sitting in an interminable Michael Mcintyre show.

_Brian

Shenshen wrote: »

I couldn't agree more with the bolded part.
It's a funny thing, every time there's a discussion on animal welfare or vegetarianism or veganism on this forum, one of the things that gets rolled out is the "Look at how happy the sheep and cows in the fields are" argument. And personally, I'm sure they're happy as Larry for most of their lives, with the exception of the last hours or days (depending how far away from the abattoir they were reared).
However, these lucky creatures do not account for the bulk of meat consumption in this country. 74% of meat consumed here is poultry and pork. And I would bet that not many people see chickens and pigs frolicking in the fields on a daily basis.

On top of that, Ireland actually imports beef from the UK (37% of the beef the UK exports ends up here http://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/irish-beef-tops-uk-beef-imports-while-we-took-37-of-the-uks-beef-exports/#) - so we ship happy cows off abroad, and import cheaper beef from probably less happy cows.

I would love it if people were a little more conscious of what they eat, and treat meat not as a commodity to be had 3 times a day 7 days a week for next to no money at all, but as a treat to be enjoyed.

I'll never forget my grandmother telling me that when she was little, a Sunday roast was 2 pigeons shared among a family of 7...

We keep our own chickens for eggs and pigs for meat.
Other than the serious improvement in the quality of the animals life, the unbelievable difference in taste is wonderful. The bacon is like nothing you can buy in the shops, they have a shed for shelter but also access to outside space to root around and eat whatever they find.

The eggs are much better coloured, taste stronger and more filling that commercially produced eggs.

However, I'd say the bacon Is more expensive than commercially produced stuff so most people wouldn't be interested.

Animal welfare isn't always down to vegan verses meat eaters. If consumers shopped a bit less on price and more for sustainable farming practices then they would both get better tasting foods, support local farmers and improve overall animal husbandry by choosing animals that are reared roaming outdoors.

ScumLord

Shenshen wrote: »

On top of that, Ireland actually imports beef from the UK (37% of the beef the UK exports ends up here http://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/irish-beef-tops-uk-beef-imports-while-we-took-37-of-the-uks-beef-exports/#) - so we ship happy cows off abroad, and import cheaper beef from probably less happy cows.

I've never seen British meat on the shelves here, not cuts of meat anyway. So I'd wonder if that meat is being processed into ready meals and being exported out again? I wouldn't really accept that cattle know what's coming to them either. They're used to being transported, that's something familiar to them so it probably wouldn't alarm them all that much. They don't know what an abattoir is, they're not used to the smells in there, which might put them on edge on some instinctual level but they've no reason to think they're going to die. I'm sure the vet smells just as odd to them.

mathie wrote: »

"The first impact of mass cultivation is deforestation: we force nature out to make room for crops. In Argentina, they set fire to the jungle, burning nests with flamethrowers. Then they must defend the sown land from the birds who come to feed; many landowners do this by scattering poisoned grains. After that, the wild herbivores come looking for the first shoots, so the landowners put up electric fences or hunt the animals down with guns."

What a pile of ...

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat

"Animal protein production requires more than eight times as much fossil-fuel energy than production of plant protein while yielding animal protein that is only 1.4 times more nutritious for humans than the comparable amount of plant protein, according to the Cornell ecologist's analysis.

Tracking food animal production from the feed trough to the dinner table, Pimentel found broiler chickens to be the most efficient use of fossil energy, and beef, the least. Chicken meat production consumes energy in a 4:1 ratio to protein output; beef cattle production requires an energy input to protein output ratio of 54:1. (Lamb meat production is nearly as inefficient at 50:1, according to the ecologist's analysis of U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics. Other ratios range from 13:1 for turkey meat and 14:1 for milk protein to 17:1 for pork and 26:1 for eggs.)"

TLDR Don't feed animals plants and eat them yourself saves you having to get your deforestation on.

We can't really grow most grains here all that well. We can't grow a lot of things because it's just too wet, and the guys that do grow those things run the risk of losing entire crops to bad weather. So we're looking at importing the vast majority of those crops. This breakdown is supposed to make us think monetarily of animals and food, it only really makes sense if you're looking at land as purely a commodity to be exploited.

You say plant protein is better than animal protein and I'm sure there are plants that have higher protein content than animals but that's probably not true across the board. They've probably selected a specific plant and set it against animals. It's not like if I grow apples (which I couldn't grow in my part of the country, not in a financially viable way for the food industry at least) that I'm going to be able to replace meat in my diet with just those apples. Can we even grow this super plant they've used in the research?

I don't think this study takes everything into account and can be applied to Ireland in the same way it can be applied to the US. Bottom line is Ireland can produce great meat. Not so much for a lot of crops.

Shenshen

ScumLord wrote: »

I've never seen British meat on the shelves here, not cuts of meat anyway. So I'd wonder if that meat is being processed into ready meals and being exported out again? I wouldn't really accept that cattle know what's coming to them either. They're used to being transported, that's something familiar to them so it probably wouldn't alarm them all that much. They don't know what an abattoir is, they're not used to the smells in there, which might put them on edge on some instinctual level but they've no reason to think they're going to die. I'm sure the vet smells just as odd to them.

As I said, I suspect that this would be the cheaper end of the scale, it could go into all sorts of things, from sausages to ready-meals, to bulk-bought meat for fast food outlets.
Things where the packaging doesn't make it immediately obvious to the customer where the meat is from, if there is any packaging at all. I'm not sure they'd count it as import unless it was consumed here?

Shenshen

ScumLord wrote: »

Bottom line is Ireland can produce great meat. Not so much for a lot of crops.

While that's certainly true, there are a lot more crops that could be grown here but aren't.
I always die a little inside when I see asparagus from Peru and garlic from China on the supermarket shelves

I suppose it is still cheaper that way, but something inside me balks at the thought that these things have travelled further than I do in any given year, when they could in theory be grown just down the road.

FortySeven

Shenshen wrote: »

As I said, I suspect that this would be the cheaper end of the scale, it could go into all sorts of things, from sausages to ready-meals, to bulk-bought meat for fast food outlets.
Things where the packaging doesn't make it immediately obvious to the customer where the meat is from, if there is any packaging at all. I'm not sure they'd count it as import unless it was consumed here?

I worked in a cold storage warehouse where pallets of meat were split and rebuilt mixed with pallets from all over Europe. Mostly to homogonise fat content and meat quality. Ie. Mix lean blocks with fatty blocks to create a pallet. Most went to McDonald's after they were relabled as Irish.

diomed

How can you tell if someone is a vegan?
You don't have to, they will tell you.

ScumLord

Shenshen wrote: »

As I said, I suspect that this would be the cheaper end of the scale, it could go into all sorts of things, from sausages to ready-meals, to bulk-bought meat for fast food outlets.
Things where the packaging doesn't make it immediately obvious to the customer where the meat is from, if there is any packaging at all. I'm not sure they'd count it as import unless it was consumed here?

It would essentially be "consumed" by a business into a new product. Exporting it doesn't change the fact it was imported.

Of course it doesn't really say how the meat is imported. Maybe it's imported as cheap beef patties that you'd get in a chipper, if it is it's probably a disingenuous statistic because those patties probably aren't just meat in the same way a cut of beef is. Most chippers have a sign somewhere stating they're meat is Irish, my local does, even McDonalds do that. It really wouldn't surprise me at all if most that imported meat ends up leaving the country again in a package. For all I know it's coming here simply to be packaged for export, the fact we produce so much meat might mean we're competitive on stuff like that.

FortySeven

ScumLord wrote: »

It would essentially be "consumed" by a business into a new product. Exporting it doesn't change the fact it was imported.

Of course it doesn't really say how the meat is imported. Maybe it's imported as cheap beef patties that you'd get in a chipper, if it is it's probably a disingenuous statistic because those patties probably aren't just meat in the same way a cut of beef is. Most chippers have a sign somewhere stating they're meat is Irish, my local does, even McDonalds do that. It really wouldn't surprise me at all if most that imported meat ends up leaving the country again in a package. For all I know it's coming here simply to be packaged for export, the fact we produce so much meat might mean we're competitive on stuff like that.

Ireland produces high quality lean meat. Meat is packaged in 25 kilo frozen blocks and labelled by fat content and quality. Companies specify required fat content and pallets are mixed to create the right percentage.

We mostly mixed with fatty French meat. It leaves repackaged and relabled as Irish when it could be half and half.

diomed

Taking a bit of a diversion here, but still on the subject of misdirected concern for nature, and animals.

When there is a fox hunt you get people protesting about the poor cuddly fox being chased and sometimes being killed.
Chasing the fox are horses and hounds. The horses are vegetarian but the hounds eat meat. What meat? There are many surplus horses in horse country. Often there are stud farms that breed hundreds of horses, but many of these are not good enough to race. Fill in the blanks.

ScumLord

Shenshen wrote: »

While that's certainly true, there are a lot more crops that could be grown here but aren't.
I always die a little inside when I see asparagus from Peru and garlic from China on the supermarket shelves

I suppose it is still cheaper that way, but something inside me balks at the thought that these things have travelled further than I do in any given year, when they could in theory be grown just down the road.

Yeah, it seems crazy to me that something grown on the other side of the world can end up being cheaper than something from 200 miles down the road. It's all down to the way our economy works. When you think about all the resources that go into getting an apple to me from Brazil, it just seems like a false economy that that apple can cost less than the one that's grown less than 200 miles away. It seems like trickery.

I drove down through France and Spain this summer and it's shocking the amount of food they grow there. Just about every bit of available land has something growing on it. The north of france is veg of all sorts and as you move south you start seeing sun floors, wheat, grapes, into spain you start seeing olives, oranges and other fruits. It really was every bit of available land too, it was bizarre the places you'd see wheat growing. So many houses had a bit of everything growing in their back gardens.

Ireland looks barron from a farming perspective in comparison. I have a friend with a piece of land and he's been trying to find a crop he can grow on it. He was shot down by Bulmers because it rains to much. I'm sure if farmers could grow crops on their land they would. These days they don't even need all the equipment, just hire in a guy to do the harvest. But the risk is too high, we can produce animals at very little risk.

I think Ireland should decide to go for high end organic meat, become known for it globally. Really, top end restaurants around the world should be demanding high quality Irish meat.

kunst nugget

ScumLord wrote: »

I think Ireland should decide to go for high end organic meat, become known for it globally. Really, top end restaurants around the world should be demanding high quality Irish meat.

IIRC, Irish beef has pretty decent reputation abroad because most of the cattle are grass fed, thanks to the climate, and pasture raised which gives a much better taste to the beef than the grain fed version you'd get in the likes of the states.

_Brian

ScumLord wrote: »

Yeah, it seems crazy to me that something grown on the other side of the world can end up being cheaper than something from 200 miles down the road. It's all down to the way our economy works. When you think about all the resources that go into getting an apple to me from Brazil, it just seems like a false economy that that apple can cost less than the one that's grown less than 200 miles away. It seems like trickery.

I drove down through France and Spain this summer and it's shocking the amount of food they grow there. Just about every bit of available land has something growing on it. The north of france is veg of all sorts and as you move south you start seeing sun floors, wheat, grapes, into spain you start seeing olives, oranges and other fruits. It really was every bit of available land too, it was bizarre the places you'd see wheat growing. So many houses had a bit of everything growing in their back gardens.

Ireland looks barron from a farming perspective in comparison. I have a friend with a piece of land and he's been trying to find a crop he can grow on it. He was shot down by Bulmers because it rains to much. I'm sure if farmers could grow crops on their land they would. These days they don't even need all the equipment, just hire in a guy to do the harvest. But the risk is too high, we can produce animals at very little risk.

I think Ireland should decide to go for high end organic meat, become known for it globally. Really, top end restaurants around the world should be demanding high quality Irish meat.

Huge swathes of Ireland neither has the soil or climate to grow crops. We have a small beef farm but farm on what would be catagorised as marginal land, daub clay soils with only 4inches of topsoil in most places, it just about grows grass. Beef on a small scale is the only option currently.

ScumLord

kunst nugget wrote: »

IIRC, Irish beef has pretty decent reputation abroad because most of the cattle are grass fed, thanks to the climate, and pasture raised which gives a much better taste to the beef than the grain fed version you'd get in the likes of the states.

The problem is Americans have become accustomed to that high fat meat that corn feeding produces. I remember hearing Joe Rogan go on about a steak he had in N.Ireland and he thought it was bland because it wasn't full of fat. If you tell the food snobs it's the best and charge well for it they'll get used to the taste and then encourage others that they really need to be buying Irish meat because it's so much better for you.

_Brian

In Ireland we have given too much over to buying our meat in supermarkets.

This purchasing of meat from essentially one or two processors in the industry has seriously skewed the beef industry which is now controlled by essentially one man.

This persons company now dictates to farmers the weights, types and ages of cattle that are required rather than farmers breeding the best animals for taste and customer satisfaction. The. The farmer spends two years rearing the animal that the companies require only for at the last minute the goal posts tonne moved and then they must take a sub standard price for their product which is no longer required.

If more consumers sought out local butchers who also kill their own animals. This is a system that is sustainable. The animals are reared locally, only transported a short distance and are chosen by the butcher to be animals that will taste good for the consumer. This should be the norm and would benifet the consumers greatly with better foods at only marginally increased prices.

_Brian

I do sometimes feel that the whole "plant protein is best" lobby has sinister backgrounds. I feel it's being pushed by processors who are interested in us consuming more and more highly processed foods supplied from labs rather than farms, and it has to come from half way round the world.

kunst nugget

ScumLord wrote: »

The problem is Americans have become accustomed to that high fat meat that corn feeding produces. I remember hearing Joe Rogan go on about a steak he had in N.Ireland and he thought it was bland because it wasn't full of fat. If you tell the food snobs it's the best and charge well for it they'll get used to the taste and then encourage others that they really need to be buying Irish meat because it's so much better for you.

That's strange because I've heard him advocating the quality of grass fed steak many times on his podcast and praise it over the standard grain-fed versions that you'd normally get in the US. Maybe it just wasn't a good steak…

Discodog

diomed wrote: »

Taking a bit of a diversion here, but still on the subject of misdirected concern for nature, and animals.

When there is a fox hunt you get people protesting about the poor cuddly fox being chased and sometimes being killed.
Chasing the fox are horses and hounds. The horses are vegetarian but the hounds eat meat. What meat? There are many surplus horses in horse country. Often there are stud farms that breed hundreds of horses, but many of these are not good enough to race. Fill in the blanks.

Ok so fox hunting is cruel for the hounds as well as the fox & horse breeders are just as cruel :pac:

ScumLord

_Brian wrote: »

If more consumers sought out local butchers who also kill their own animals. This is a system that is sustainable. The animals are reared locally, only transported a short distance and are chosen by the butcher to be animals that will taste good for the consumer. This should be the norm and would benifet the consumers greatly with better foods at only marginally increased prices.

I'd totally agree. The problem is those butchers are becoming rare. We had one in our town but he had to close up shop during the recession. I think there would need to be a push at government level to make it happen and make it the norm. The problem is Ireland has pretty high standards which means it can be expensive to get the right equipment.

I always give the example of having to buy a certified ruler for work. It was a typical 12" steel ruler, the only difference was it had a cert to say it was tested and calibrated to be correct. It's very likely it came off the same line as the ruler everyone else buys and all that happened was a machine checked it against another calibrated ruler. Ruler cost £100, sterling! Those are the kind of markups you're going to see on food production machinery. Running the machines probably means paying a FSAI auditor 2 grand a year to come out and check what your doing is up to standard. So the cost are going to mount up for a small time butcher.

I'm not saying standards are bad, they're a good thing and the auditing is a good thing, but the money that changes hand just for someone to give you the nod can be madness.

ScumLord

kunst nugget wrote: »

That's strange because I've heard him advocating the quality of grass fed steak many times on his podcast and praise it over the standard grain-fed versions that you'd normally get in the US. Maybe it just wasn't a good steak…

He knows it's better, I think he actually started hunting for his meat. It may have been his introduction to non corn feed beef and he was just commenting on how different it was. But it shows that organic meat isn't going to be an easy sell to people used to fatty meats.

_Brian

ScumLord wrote: »

I'd totally agree. The problem is those butchers are becoming rare. We had one in our town but he had to close up shop during the recession. I think there would need to be a push at government level to make it happen and make it the norm. The problem is Ireland has pretty high standards which means it can be expensive to get the right equipment.

I always give the example of having to buy a certified ruler for work. It was a typical 12" steel ruler, the only difference was it had a cert to say it was tested and calibrated to be correct. It's very likely it came off the same line as the ruler everyone else buys and all that happened was a machine checked it against another calibrated ruler. Ruler cost £100, sterling! Those are the kind of markups you're going to see on food production machinery. Running the machines probably means paying a FSAI auditor 2 grand a year to come out and check what your doing is up to standard. So the cost are going to mount up for a small time butcher.

I'm not saying standards are bad, they're a good thing and the auditing is a good thing, but the money that changes hand just for someone to give you the nod can be madness.

You see there is no reason we have any more stringent legislation than France that you mentioned before as we're both EU members working of the same legislation.

However lobbying here by vested interests have made local artisan food production a total nightmare. Go to a French market and you will see much, much more home produced goods and meats being sold from refrigerated vans.

Discodog

My friend in England rears organic free range pork. It's slaughtered on the farm & processed. They have a farm shop & sell at farmer's markets as well as to high end restaurants. It's very successful & the pigs have a great life.

K.Flyer

ScumLord wrote: »

[..]I wouldn't really accept that cattle know what's coming to them either. They're used to being transported, that's something familiar to them so it probably wouldn't alarm them all that much.

How often are cattle transported? How is it familiar?
If they are born, bred and raised on a farm then most likely the only time they are to be transported is to the slaughter house.
Herded with electronic prods and crammed tight into the back of a truck for the one and final journey.

They don't know what an abattoir is, they're not used to the smells in there, which might put them on edge on some instinctual level but they've no reason to think they're going to die.

Having spent many years doing maintenance work in several slaughter houses I would disagree.
The cattle again are herded with electronic prods to keep them tight in line behind each other. As they get closer to the killing box the loud noises and smell of blood hits them as well as the noises coming from the cattle up ahead of them. They then start to get very jumpy and noisey. When they get pushed into the kill box, they start kicking and try to get out, knowing they are trapped and some of them make a peculiar howling sound which appears to get the cattle behind them distressed and the cycle continues.
The cattle may not know what a slaughter house is, but I believe that they sense that they are about to die when they are getting closer to the killing box.

_Brian

K.Flyer wrote: »

How often are cattle transported? How is it familiar?
If they are born, bred and raised on a farm then most likely the only time they are to be transported is to the slaughter house.
Herded with electronic prods and crammed tight into the back of a truck for the one and final journey.

Having spent many years doing maintenance work in several slaughter houses I would disagree.
The cattle again are herded with electronic prods to keep them tight in line behind each other. As they get closer to the killing box the loud noises and smell of blood hits them as well as the noises coming from the cattle up ahead of them. They then start to get very jumpy and noisey. When they get pushed into the kill box, they start kicking and try to get out, knowing they are trapped and some of them make a peculiar howling sound which appears to get the cattle behind them distressed and the cycle continues.
The cattle may not know what a slaughter house is, but I believe that they sense that they are about to die when they are getting closer to the killing box.

TBH as a farmer a lot of what you describe is what happens any time cattle are herded into small enclosed spaces.
We bring them in maybe 6 times a year where they are restrained and treated for parasites or for compulsory vetinary testing and they just don't enjoy being cornered.

Electronic cattle prods are not the norm either.

osarusan

kunst nugget wrote: »

IIRC, Irish beef has pretty decent reputation abroad because most of the cattle are grass fed, thanks to the climate, and pasture raised which gives a much better taste to the beef than the grain fed version you'd get in the likes of the states.

Indeed. I remember reading something about an Argentinian beef producer, whose beef was selling for premium prices in America, and being hailed as really special top-class beef.

Somebody was sent down to Argentina to find out just how they were producing such great beef, and lo and behold, all they were doing was leaving the animals out into the fields in the sun and fresh air to eat grass at their own pace.

Buford T. Justice XIX

ScumLord wrote: »

I'd totally agree. The problem is those butchers are becoming rare. We had one in our town but he had to close up shop during the recession. I think there would need to be a push at government level to make it happen and make it the norm. The problem is Ireland has pretty high standards which means it can be expensive to get the right equipment.

I always give the example of having to buy a certified ruler for work. It was a typical 12" steel ruler, the only difference was it had a cert to say it was tested and calibrated to be correct. It's very likely it came off the same line as the ruler everyone else buys and all that happened was a machine checked it against another calibrated ruler. Ruler cost £100, sterling! Those are the kind of markups you're going to see on food production machinery. Running the machines probably means paying a FSAI auditor 2 grand a year to come out and check what your doing is up to standard. So the cost are going to mount up for a small time butcher.

I'm not saying standards are bad, they're a good thing and the auditing is a good thing, but the money that changes hand just for someone to give you the nod can be madness.

We get our sheep and heifers killed, cut and bagged by a local butcher (who also happens to be a friend). There were 4-5 butchers around the locality who would each specialise in particular animals at different times of the year.

But every year new regulations would begin to be enforced and each would have to spend tens of thousands to comply with and over 10 years they closed as they couldn't actually make a living from butchering any more. All of a sudden, the inspectorate realised if they were all shut down then they wouldn't have a job any more and they tried to take a more nuanced view of the regulations but it was too late as the abattoirs had all shut bar one.

I could go on a rant about the regulations here but it would achieve nothing, the very same as the regulations themselves are just an exercise in box-ticking on a couple of A4 pages.

Edups

K.Flyer wrote: »

How often are cattle transported? How is it familiar?
If they are born, bred and raised on a farm then most likely the only time they are to be transported is to the slaughter house.
Herded with electronic prods and crammed tight into the back of a truck for the one and final journey.

Having spent many years doing maintenance work in several slaughter houses I would disagree.
The cattle again are herded with electronic prods to keep them tight in line behind each other. As they get closer to the killing box the loud noises and smell of blood hits them as well as the noises coming from the cattle up ahead of them. They then start to get very jumpy and noisey. When they get pushed into the kill box, they start kicking and try to get out, knowing they are trapped and some of them make a peculiar howling sound which appears to get the cattle behind them distressed and the cycle continues.
The cattle may not know what a slaughter house is, but I believe that they sense that they are about to die when they are getting closer to the killing box.

They can get upset and stressed but that's mostly the new smells and sounds. One thing that really made me feel kind of sick to my stomach was when I was in training for Slaney the training coordinator said something like, "we don't like to stress them out," which I thought well that's nice .."it ruins the meat". Ah. Lovely.

I think the funny side of rearing animals for slaughter is no one bats an eyelid (myself included) towards a cow, pig, chicken, Turkey, lamb, goose etc being killed but we often scoff in disgust that some Asian countries eat dog and cat, but that's some awful tragedy... I have to mention I'm neither vegetarian or vegan, but it's just an amusing hypocrisy. If we started slaughtering dogs in the morning in Abitorrs they'd be shut down and ransacked in 10 minutes. I often have to wonder why is a dogs life more valuable than a cows? The same people who eat meat would be sick on the spot if you said "before slaughtering the dog we bring it for a walk and play fetch"

ScumLord

Edups wrote: »

I think the funny side of rearing animals for slaughter is no one bats an eyelid (myself included) towards a cow, pig, chicken, Turkey, lamb, goose etc being killed but we often scoff in disgust that some Asian countries eat dog and cat, but that's some awful tragedy... I have to mention I'm neither vegetarian or vegan, but it's just an amusing hypocrisy. If we started slaughtering dogs in the morning in Abitorrs they'd be shut down and ransacked in 10 minutes. I often have to wonder why is a dogs life more valuable than a cows? The same people who eat meat would be sick on the spot if you said "before slaughtering the dog we bring it for a walk and play fetch"

Cats and dogs don't really have more worth. Cats are routinely killed just for showing up in a place. Dogs are killed just because people get tired of them. A cow has value, you wouldn't kill one just because you've decided you don't want it anymore, someone will probably pay for it. Try selling an unwanted dog.

Eating Cats and dogs isn't ideal from a nutritional point of view, most predators don't make good food because they accumulate toxins. The temperament of cattle makes keeping them for food easier. Cats and dogs will always try to run away, with cows they'll pretty much stay put if there's food. It's dumb to eat small animals that we've engineered to be companion pets. There's a reason we keep the animals we do for food. They're way better.