Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The final journey
Options
Comments
-
This from the Online dictionary
It is also true that violence does not have to be premeditated or otherwise - it is a possible consequence of any act causing harm. Ergo harvesting a field where it is known there are lots of bunnies and other animals and which causes death and destruction can be said to be violent. The skinning alive of bunnies and subsequent predation by raptors is by any descriptor - a violent death.
On the other hand in animal agriculture here we have humane slaughter - where such suffering is minimised within a controled environment. Do you really think that these bunnies fare better because their slaughter was unintentional?
The use of hyperbole such as "set out with the intention each year to kill 70 billion animals" is also an absurd use of words.
Animals are farmed and yes are slaughtered as part of the process of farming. Animals die for the purpose of directly providing food for people something that cannot be claimed for the billions of bunnies and other animals slaughtered in the process of the type of food production that many vegans ironically support as acceptable ....
No hyperbole. Meat farming supports the raising animals to be slaughtered in epic scales. This is just going to continue to grow.
As previously mentioned bunnies are killed in the clearing and displacement to support meat farming so which results in less killing? At least bunny has the chance of dodging farm machinery, the same can't be said for the pig faced with a bolt gun and a knife to the the throat.0 -
No hyperbole. Meat farming supports the raising animals to be slaughtered in epic scales. This is just going to continue to grow.
As previously mentioned bunnies are killed in the clearing and displacement to support meat farming so which results in less killing? At least bunny has the chance of dodging farm machinery, the same can't be said for the pig faced with a bolt gun and a knife to the the throat.
It is true that animal agriculture closely has grown to meet the planet's epic population of humans which it helps support. Animal agriculture has grown in scale along with all other forms of food production including that eaten by vegans.
In Ireland and in many other areas of the world grassland is a permanet climatic and topograhic vegetation which requires no 'clearing or displacement'. In Europe the US and many other countries it is the arable and horticultural forms of food production which most often necessitates the destruction of habitats, whole ecosystems and the death of animals and organisms through ploughing tillage and harvesting (Ireland doesn't have the same scale of arable farming due to unsuitable climate and soils)
Are you really comparing humane slaughter with the being mowed down by huge industrialised machinery skinned alive and then predated as in the example given? Do you think that a bunny or other wild animal deserves such a lottery running the regular risk of violent death so others can eat as opposed to the care and management of the pig who is dispatched quickly and cleanly?0 -
Can I get a link on those billions of bunny deaths per year?
This study from 1993 found that only 1 out of 33 mice used in a study were killed by combine harvester over 4 separate sites. It also asserts that the lack of woodland caused by animal agriculture, being 16 times less land efficient, is the reason most are in the fields in the first place.https://ac.els-cdn.com/000632079390060E/1-s2.0-000632079390060E-main.pdf?_tid=57ae6d38-80c3-4098-8ce1-10fa7716a812&acdnat=1534873242_9d41cb2dfa853c5fc87c975ec0ecea49
Do you have any reason to doubt the piece by a fellow vegan above who describes the type of massacre of animals involved in harvesting crops - No?
Certainly I would agree with her when she says that.
.It still annoys me when my fellow vegans act as though their lifestyle is 100% cruelty free and that no animals die in the process of making their food.
From what I've seen of large-scale intensive cultivation - animals do frequently and regularly get killed or maimed during the cultivation - yes It happens. This recent review of this in Australia highlights many of the current issues.
http://theconversation.com/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-theres-more-animal-blood-on-your-hands-4659
Regarding that study you put up - I'm afraid I could not see any of the inferences you presented as it is firmly wedged behind an impressive pay to view firewall.
A partial(?) abstract only is visible. It states:Abstract
The effects of cereal harvesting on the ecology of wood mice Apodemus sylvaticus were investigated at three arable study sites in Oxfordshire from 1987 to 1991 using both radio-tracking and live-trapping methodologies. The process of harvesting itself had little direct effect on the mice, but the removal of the cover afforded by the crop greatly increased predation pressure on the mice. After harvest, mice either emigrated from the arable ecosystem or reduced activity. Nevertheless, over half (17 of 32) of the mice radio-collared before harvest were taken by predators in the first week following harvest. Together with emigration, this produced an 80% decrease in the population. Post-harvest activities such as stubble burning subsequently further increased mortality. The dramatic increase in prey availability may benefit predators of small mammals in the cereal ecosystem such as tawny owls Strix aluco and weasels Mustela nivalis.
From that one small (and rather dated) study it appears that over half the mice were predated after the crop being harvested due to loss of cover. A fairly significant proportion we can only presume. Other post harvesting operations such as stubble burning also increased mortality up to 80%!. The one bit of good news from the study was that predators got more to eat due to the harvest operations!
I would add that been small and very very fast (ever try to catch a mouse?) that your ordinary field mouse would be more likley to escape first pass operations than other larger mammals such as rabbits and hares etc.
My major criticism of such single view studies is that animal and other organism losses start long before harvest - with spraying of vegetation to kill it then ploughing and harrowing. Then there are the many small animals which die from poisoning by pesticides sprayed whilst the crop is growing. Then there is the harvesting and post harvesting operations where many more animals will also be killed.
I don't see anything at all about the study asserting "that the lack of woodland caused by animal agriculture"???
This was a UK study afaik and land clearances there as in Ireland are many many millennia old and certainly cannot be put down to 'animal agriculture' one way or the other.
As for the addition of the piece stating that "animal agriculture, being 16 times less land efficient, is the reason most are in the fields in the first place." is straight from vegan slogans 101 - Lol.
I would suggest we need a lot more of this type of study. Studies which look at what happens from pre-cultivation right through to harvest and beyond. Not pretty or nice to read but they will provide for better understanding of what those on the ground are reporting.0 -
Do you have any reason to doubt the piece by a fellow vegan above who describes the type of massacre of animals involved in harvesting crops - No?
Certainly I would agree with her when she says that.
From what I've seen of large-scale intensive cultivation - animals do frequently and regularly get killed or maimed during the cultivation - yes It happens. This recent review of this in Australia highlights many of the current issues
Nobody here is denying that some animals get killed in cultivation...
You're telling me that billions of rabbits get killed every year and can't provide a source.
As an aside, in general I would have more reason to doubt a quora response than a scientific paper. Fellow vegan also means very little to me. Does fellow meat eater mean something to you? Take an extreme example. Pol Pot believed that non-agarian folk should be exterminated. Why would I blindly believe something said by a "fellow vegan". Like that weird video you linked in the other thread. Absolute nonsense.
Anyway, I'm not denying the above quote, of course it happens.Regarding that study you put up - I'm afraid I could not see any of the inferences you presented as it is firmly wedged behind an impressive pay to view firewall.
The entire thing is free to view. There's no paywall.A partial(?) abstract only is visible. It states:
From that one small (and rather dated) study it appears that over half the mice were predated after the crop being harvested due to loss of cover. A fairly significant proportion we can only presume. Other post harvesting operations such as stubble burning also increased mortality up to 80%!. The one bit of good news from the study was that predators got more to eat due to the harvest operations!
Yes, animals eat other animals in nature. I said that if so much land wasn't being used for grazing, there would be far far more woodland for these creatures to live and they wouldn't be resorting to wheat fields.I would add that been small and very very fast (ever try to catch a mouse?) that your ordinary field mouse would be more likley to escape first pass operations than other larger mammals such as rabbits and hares etc.
Yeah those rabbits and hares are known for being awful slow pokes.My major criticism of such single view studies is that animal and other organism losses start long before harvest - with spraying of vegetation to kill it then ploughing and harrowing. Then there are the many small animals which die from poisoning by pesticides sprayed whilst the crop is growing. Then there is the harvesting and post harvesting operations where many more animals will also be killed.
Nobody is denying that this happens. Perhaps it won't always have to happen with more humane pesticides. Veganism is about intent to reduce harm.As for the addition of the piece stating that "animal agriculture, being 16 times less land efficient, is the reason most are in the fields in the first place." is straight from vegan slogans 101 - Lol.
Nothing wrong with truth. Animal agriculture is horribly inefficient and this will never change. If you cared about other humans you wouldn't be wasting water, land and air resources needlessly.I would suggest we need a lot more of this type of study. Studies which look at what happens from pre-cultivation right through to harvest and beyond. Not pretty or nice to read but they will provide for better understanding of what those on the ground are reporting.
Yes and as always, if you could provide a single reputable source for any of the nonsense you go on about that would be wonderful.0 -
.....
As you said "
Yes it does. Billions of animals and other organisms - (including rabbits) are killed in this way. (At least read the original comment)Eathrin wrote:I'm not denying the above quote, of course it happens.
Your sources for agricultural knowledge ref. 'efficiency' use of land etc etc appear to come from vegan websites and are at best generalities.
The article you linked remains 'pay to view'.
Your conclusions and what was given in the abstract (the only bit available to read) do not match
You should first answer the many questions asked above before continuing to demand others answer yours.0 -
Advertisement
-
Look, you're quite clearly trolling. You dismiss fact based research and fail to provide any proper information of your own. Anything you do acknowledge you attempt to discredit with falsities. Oxford University is not a "vegan website". Why do you even post here if you're going to make up such drivel?0
-
-
Do you know what ad hominem means? I'm not attacking your character, I'm attacking the content of what you post. That's fair game.0
-
Do you know what ad hominem means? I'm not attacking your character, I'm attacking the content of what you post. That's fair game.
^^
Arguing for the sake of arguing despite obvious evidence otherwise is devisive and pointless.
Definition of ad hominemAd hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
A small example of your ad hominem and deliberate dissonance from above
'nonsense you go on about'
'Why do you even post here if you're going to 'make up such drivel?'
'If you cared about other humans'
'trolling'
In doing so you've have completely
derailed what was shaping up as a good discussion. Well done you.0 -
Finally getting back to the discussion and to clarify - the article linked by you Eathrin is pay to view only.
I have included a screenshot of that link below.
The word 'purchase' at the top of the screen is clearly indicated.
As I am interested in fair discussion - I emailed someone I know in academia and they were able to access same from their university account.
You saideathrin wrote:This study from 1993 found that only 1 out of 33 mice used in a study were killed by combine harvester over 4 separate sites. It also asserts that the lack of woodland caused by animal agriculture, being 16 times less land efficient, is the reason most are in the fields in the first place.
Nowhere on that paper is there any reference or mention that (sic) -
"It also asserts that the lack of woodland caused by animal agriculture, being 16 times less land efficient, is the reason most are in the fields in the first place."
The above was an insertion by you with the aim of attempting to weigh the above argument. Unfortunately it to amounts to little more than gross misinformation.
What the paper does say is:. The wood mouse Apodemus sylvaticus, a generalist small mammal with catholic dietary (Pelz 1989) and habitat (Wolton & Flowerdew, 1985) requirements, has been particularly successful at exploiting farmland and occurs in that habitat throughout the year (Green, 1979; Tew, 1989; Loman, 1991).
The paper also details that a large percentage of the mice (approx 80%) mice were killed as a consequence of harvesting through the removal of cover and predation and also caused by stubble burning and associated harvest activities.
All fair enough and interesting findings imo.
However no genuine discussion of any subject should have to be supported by deliberate misinformation or ad hominemy imo.
For a detailed and fair discussion of the role of animal agriculture wildlife and the future I would recommend the following publication.
http://wildancestors.blogspot.com/2013/01/meat-benign-extravagance.html?m=1
I am now adding you to my ignore list.0 -
Advertisement
-
That’s like in Game of Thrones when the Unsullied children are told to look after a puppy for a year and then have to kill it.
Do they get him to eat the lamb afterward? Seems pretty unnecessary and traumatic for an eight year old regardless of your view on meat farming.
I worked in an animal shelter for a summer when I was 18 and the first thing I learnt was to stay a bit detached, because some of the animals would get sick and die. An eight year old isn’t equipped to maintain emotional detachment from a creature under their care.0 -
Leah Wet Stoicism wrote: »That’s like in Game of Thrones when the Unsullied children are told to look after a puppy for a year and then have to kill it.
Do they get him to eat the lamb afterward? Seems pretty unnecessary and traumatic for an eight year old regardless of your view on meat farming.
I worked in an animal shelter for a summer when I was 18 and the first thing I learnt was to stay a bit detached, because some of the animals would get sick and die. An eight year old isn’t equipped to maintain emotional detachment from a creature under their care.
Afaik from reading the article and one other news article - one of the lambs was sold on with the insinuation that it would 'eventually' be sent for slaughter. The article also indicated that these were high quality animals and that buyers were paying more than the normal rate and most likley would go for breeding. So I'm unsure what the actual outcome was tbh.
The other lamb was taken home.
The lamb wasn't being killed there and then. The kid had an understandable reaction to his sheep been sold. And yes even farmers whose animals do develop an attachment to animals in their care with feeding and looking after an animal requireing a lot of interaction. And for farmers, part of that is ensuring that when the time comes animals are dispatched in as a humame manner as possible.0 -
What's your point exactly?^^
Arguing for the sake of arguing despite obvious evidence otherwise is devisive and pointless.
Definition of ad hominem
A small example of your ad hominem and deliberate dissonance from above
'nonsense you go on about'
'Why do you even post here if you're going to 'make up such drivel?'
'If you cared about other humans'
'trolling'
In doing so you've have completely
derailed what was shaping up as a good discussion. Well done you.0 -
What's your point exactly?
Exactly McGiver.
Board rules: "This is a supportive community."
There are a number of posters who come here merely to cause trouble, either because of their vested interests or because they've way too much time on their hands and, possibly, both.
Anyone hostile to others' choices goes straight to my ignore list.0 -
davidjtaylor wrote: »Exactly McGiver.Board rules: "This is a supportive community." There are a number of posters who come here merely to cause trouble, either because of their vested interests or because they've way too much time on their hands and, possibly, both.Anyone hostile to others' choices goes straight to my ignore list.
Exactly what? More ad hominem is it?
Boards rule afaik is comment on the post not the poster.
Its a great pity that some do not wish to discuss the topic in hand but rather attack those that are attempting to do so.
Imo respect/manners go a long way. It's a pity that some treat any difference of opinion as 'hostile' 'vested interests' 'too much time" (sic)...0 -
davidjtaylor wrote: »Exactly McGiver.
Board rules: "This is a supportive community."
There are a number of posters who come here merely to cause trouble, either because of their vested interests or because they've way too much time on their hands and, possibly, both.
Anyone hostile to others' choices goes straight to my ignore list.
I'm not here to cause trouble. I'm here because i don't like to see falsified information being bandied about by non-meat/animal product eaters so I will get involved in discussions if I feel like something should be set straight.
I've said it before & I'll say it again. Everyone is welcome to eat as they wish, it's the ways some people have of going about it and trying to scare others into the same which I find abhorrent.
IMO it's this sort of consumer we should both be talking to. The majority of farmers want to raise their animals as best they can, but it's the consumer driven low prices that are making that more & more difficult each year.If you’ve a family to feed I don’t care about how it’s raised as I’m price sensitive.
(I'm not posting the full quote in order to not drag him into the discussion but you can find it if you want to search)0 -
Lady Haywire wrote: »it's the consumer driven low prices that are making that more & more difficult each year.
Low prices are three-sided - consumer-driven, supermarket-driven and CAP-driven.
CAP in all its ramifications I would ditch today, possibly with the exception of enterprises under €100,000 a year turnover and a CAP 'cap' of €100,000 max.
Supermarkets are the devil in disguise, which is why they don't get any of my money. As a consumer, I like to support local people and pay a fair price.
The people who 'have a family to feed and are price-sensitive', that's a different story entirely, more to do with low pay and little to do with this forum. Indeed, veganism is the cheapest way to feed yourself and your family by far.0 -
davidjtaylor wrote: »Low prices are three-sided - consumer-driven, supermarket-driven and CAP-driven.
CAP in all its ramifications I would ditch today, possibly with the exception of enterprises under €100,000 a year turnover and a CAP 'cap' of €100,000 max.
Supermarkets are the devil in disguise, which is why they don't get any of my money. As a consumer, I like to support local people and pay a fair price.
The people who 'have a family to feed and are price-sensitive', that's a different story entirely, more to do with low pay and little to do with this forum. Indeed, veganism is the cheapest way to feed yourself and your family by far.
You'd probably be surprised to know how many farmers would prefer if there was no CAP payments too. It is a system which does need to be modernised & brought up to date as it's woefully biased.
I grow a good chunk of my own veg too, I'm not a manic meat-eater going around preaching the goodness of animal products. I just prefer to see a fair discussion about what goes on behind the scenes. That is all. Food waste is my biggest pet peeve yet that is a discussion for another forum.0 -
Lady Haywire wrote: »You'd probably be surprised to know how many farmers would prefer if there was no CAP payments too.
Maybe I would! Farmers round here love it...it's brought more destruction and loss of wildlife than all other factors combined.Lady Haywire wrote: »It is a system which does need to be modernised & brought up to date as it's woefully biased.
Yes, the bias, that's probably a more focused objection that my general one.0 -
^^^Lady Haywire wrote:I'm not here to cause trouble. I'm here because i don't like to see falsified information being bandied about by non-meat/animal product eaters so I will get involved in discussions if I feel like something should be set straight.
Thisdavidjtaylor wrote: »Maybe I would! Farmers round here love it...it's brought more destruction and loss of wildlife than all other factors combined.
And it also subsides cheap food for many, even where many of us may not agree with those polices or otherwise.
I've also seen it written that veganism 'assumes economic security, ready access to cheap imported foodstuffs and the leisure to construct an 'identity'.
I'm sure that is not true of all vegans. However many rely on cheap imported vegan foodstuffs which are produced for peanuts in countries with few if any environmental or ethical standards.
Farmers in Ireland have to jump through hoops to produce any type of food - animal as well as vegetable. Attacks on farmers as 'vested interests' etc are little more than inflated garbage considering the global impacts of multi-billion dollar industry involved in highly processed foodstuffs.0 -
Advertisement
-
davidjtaylor wrote:The people who 'have a family to feed and are price-sensitive', that's a different story entirely, more to do with low pay and little to do with this forum. Indeed, veganism is the cheapest way to feed yourself and your family by far.
If you only buy raw ingredients and cook your own meals. Vegan health food store stuff is incredibly expensive because it's somehow "cool", so it's essentially luxury food item.0 -
Advertisement