Why you should not buy wool.

ElKavo

Some distressing scenes here, it will be very interesting to see if any prosecutions follow. Truly disgusting stuff.

https://ind.pn/2oev0yV

davidjtaylor

Sigh. People treat animal world as their Abu Graib.

Thanks for that ElKavo.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

That's awful altogether, but i think i will still continue to buy wool. Wool comes from more than one source and not every farmer is cruel, actually, i'd argue that cruel farmers are in the very small minority.

davidjtaylor

Johanna Unkempt Protein wrote: »

That's awful altogether, but i think i will still continue to buy wool. Wool comes from more than one source and not every farmer is cruel, actually, i'd argue that cruel farmers are in the very small minority.

You make your own choices of course, but remember the vegan aim: to eliminate animal exploitation in all its forms.

Sheep left to their own devices (i.e., prior to human selective breeding/wild sheep) moult naturally and never need shearing.

There are plenty of cruelty-free alternatives to wool (except where slave labour is used or animals are destroyed/driven out of their habitat for its growth of course).

ganmo

The shearer we get refuses to hire lads that are rough with sheep. Proper technique is key to stopping the sheep from wriggling.

if the wool isn't taken off the sheep they suffer from the heat and in Ireland and Uk this year and last the wool cheque didn't cover the cost of the shearers.

Can any of ye tell me why it was PETA Asia that was doing this and not a UK arm of it?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Yea, unfortunately the idea of a utopia is just not realistic. Build no houses, wear only self made clothes, don't farm any crops etc etc.

The use of animals has existed for as long as people lived on this planet, and will continue to exist until we are no more. Eliminating animal exploitation is simply impossible. In some cases, campaigning for more humane ways of harvesting animals is more achievable. Cruelty will always exist unfortunately.

What's the substitute for wool?

killanena

Hemp is a substitute but I still agree with everything your saying.

davidjtaylor

Johanna Unkempt Protein wrote: »

Yea, unfortunately the idea of a utopia is just not realistic. Build no houses, wear only self made clothes, don't farm any crops etc etc.

Who said that? :rolleyes:

Johanna Unkempt Protein wrote: »

The use of animals has existed for as long as people lived on this planet, and will continue to exist until we are no more.

You're right in what you say - but that doesn't make it right to carry on with it.

Johanna Unkempt Protein wrote: »

Eliminating animal exploitation is simply impossible.

I disagree. I have eliminated animal exploitation from my life. That is, that exploitation which I can control, such as what I eat, wear, use. I live an ordinary life.

Johanna Unkempt Protein wrote: »

What's the substitute for wool?

All sorts of clothing, shoes and household items can be made from hemp, cotton, linen, bamboo, recycled plastic, cork, Tencel, even wood, seaweed and soya beans!

ElKavo

Johanna Unkempt Protein wrote: »

That's awful altogether, but i think i will still continue to buy wool. Wool comes from more than one source and not every farmer is cruel, actually, i'd argue that cruel farmers are in the very small minority.

But how do you know that your wool doesn't come from this source? or others who are harvested in the same way?

ElKavo

killanena wrote: »

Hemp is a substitute but I still agree with everything your saying.

Not only that but it is a great substitute, replenishes the soil it grows in, doesn't need pesticides, causes far less in greenhouse gas emissions (only in harvesting) and uses less water than sheep. This is obviously not mentioning the animal cruelty side of things either.

ElKavo

ganmo wrote: »

The shearer we get refuses to hire lads that are rough with sheep. Proper technique is key to stopping the sheep from wriggling.

if the wool isn't taken off the sheep they suffer from the heat and in Ireland and Uk this year and last the wool cheque didn't cover the cost of the shearers.

Can any of ye tell me why it was PETA Asia that was doing this and not a UK arm of it?

Do you watch all of the sheep being sheared personally? or are you just taking the word of someone who is paid probably by the head.

As for your PETA question, only PETA can answer that. You could send them a message directly here ==> https://secure.peta.org.uk/page/21193/data/1?locale=en-GB

ganmo

ElKavo wrote: »

Do you watch all of the sheep being sheared personally? or are you just taking the word of someone who is paid probably by the head.

As for your PETA question, only PETA can answer that. You could send them a message directly here ==> https://secure.peta.org.uk/page/21193/data/1?locale=en-GB

yes shearers shear. I need to be there to keep the pen full and pull away the wool

RE hemp - you've forgotten about ground prep and sowing. and typically sheep are not on the level ground suited to tillage machinery

ElKavo

ganmo wrote: »

yes shearers shear. I need to be there to keep the pen full and pull away the wool

RE hemp - you've forgotten about ground prep and sowing. and typically sheep are not on the level ground suited to tillage machinery

Even still, we as a species need to think, we have enormous potential to get around the two points you raise. not all hilly ground even needs to be farmed, if we gave up some of the pasture lands which are hugely inefficient etc.

I read a very interesting study on land use in agriculture a good few months ago which had an interactive map of the world which shows how much land is required by food production methods relative to total land available. In that study it showed that Ireland's methods would take more land than is available just for food, let alone housing etc.

I live in the middle of sheep country, I have seen first hand how violent farmers are towards kids and ewes. It sickens me TBH, and most of the ground they are grazing on is pretty much level. But I do take the point that sheep can get to some places that machinery cant. Again I do think that the imperative is on us, humans, to fix the stinking mess we have made of the planet. Just sticking our fingers in our ears and saying we've always done it this way just wont cut it tbh.

Anyway it is getting off thread topic now.

davidjtaylor

ElKavo wrote: »

Anyway it is getting off thread topic now.

I agree but I also reiterate your point. Most people seem to think that land not being 'used' in some way is a waste, is 'inefficient' or some other excuse.

Hence some taxpayers, ahem, resent feeding money to sheep farmers (any farmers really) because their land is, ermmm, 'difficult.'

ganmo

ElKavo wrote: »

Even still, we as a species need to think, we have enormous potential to get around the two points you raise. not all hilly ground even needs to be farmed, if we gave up some of the pasture lands which are hugely inefficient etc.

I read a very interesting study on land use in agriculture a good few months ago which had an interactive map of the world which shows how much land is required by food production methods relative to total land available. In that study it showed that Ireland's methods would take more land than is available just for food, let alone housing etc.

I live in the middle of sheep country, I have seen first hand how violent farmers are towards kids and ewes. It sickens me TBH, and most of the ground they are grazing on is pretty much level. But I do take the point that sheep can get to some places that machinery cant. Again I do think that the imperative is on us, humans, to fix the stinking mess we have made of the planet. Just sticking our fingers in our ears and saying we've always done it this way just wont cut it tbh.

Anyway it is getting off thread topic now.

can you send me a link to that map/report

ElKavo

ganmo wrote: »

can you send me a link to that map/report

PM Sent

gozunda

ganmo wrote: »

The shearer we get refuses to hire lads that are rough with sheep. Proper technique is key to stopping the sheep from wriggling.

if the wool isn't taken off the sheep they suffer from the heat and in Ireland and Uk this year and last the wool cheque didn't cover the cost of the shearers.

Can any of ye tell me why it was PETA Asia that was doing this and not a UK arm of it?

I read the above article - No one I know would allow or agree with that type of behaviour.
Some of the comments do however bring up issues with PETA

Of course these people should be prosecuted, but PETA are all about trying to misrepresent entire industries based on the actons of a few... in the article it says they are "claiming the scenes were commonplace in the industry." but the article only cites evidence from 2 companies on less than a quarter of a single percent of the sheep farms of the UK. The article then goes on to talk in general terms about the sheep industry, this is a way of linking the abuse by these two companies to the whole industry. This is fairly basic distortive reporting.

Tbh I am wary of any reporting from PETA due to past incidents relating to their methods such as this reported by the HuffPost

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/killing-animals-petas-open-secret_us_59e78243e4b0e60c4aa36711

I'm not a fan of theirs tbh - not because of what they do but because of this type of double standard ...

gozunda

ElKavo wrote: »

Even still, we as a species need to think, we have enormous potential to get around the two points you raise. not all hilly ground even needs to be farmed, if we gave up some of the pasture lands which are hugely inefficient etc.

I read a very interesting study on land use in agriculture a good few months ago which had an interactive map of the world which shows how much land is required by food production methods relative to total land available. In that study it showed that Ireland's methods would take more land than is available just for food, let alone housing etc.

...

Is it not perhaps somewhat ironic that the above mentioned study uses such land in its (much) generalised findings regarding global food production?

ElKavo

gozunda wrote: »

Is it not perhaps somewhat ironic that the above mentioned study uses such land in its (much) generalised findings regarding global food production?

No.

gozunda

ElKavo wrote: »

No.

Take more land out of production = less area to produce food ...

ElKavo

gozunda wrote: »

Take more land out of production = less area to produce food ...

You have missed the whole point of the study.

Animal ag is hugely inefficient.

ganmo

ElKavo wrote: »

You have missed the whole point of the study.

Animal ag is hugely inefficient.

no its red meat is hugely land inefficient

I was surprised that poultry was less efficient than pork tbh

gozunda

ElKavo wrote: »

You have missed the whole point of the study.
Animal ag is hugely inefficient.

I disagree - from the detail of the study - it states it's purpose was to determine "how much of the world’s land was needed in order to feed the global population with the average diet of a given country." There is no mention of the word 'efficiency ...

The major problem with that study is that it incorrectly presumes that all land is the same and can be used to produce 'the average diet" of a 'given country.

This assumption makes the study effectively meaningless. Plus no where in that study is the word "efficiency" is even mentioned.

It does not need to be stated that 'land' and by consequence the local climate related to that land is not a constant. Globally there are huge variations with what and the methods by which food is produced

I note that the author of said report is herself a regular promoter of veganism. Therefore hardly an impartial report imo.

Going down the route of an argument promoting agricultural 'efficiency' which you refered to - is in effect an argument for intensive agricultural production where every last ounce is squeezed out of the land to the detriment of both the environment and ecology . Something that I personally find rather strange considering the criticism which is levied at intensive farming by the same interests.

Donnielighto

gozunda wrote: »

I disagree - from the detail of the study - it states it's purpose was to determine "how much of the world’s land was needed in order to feed the global population with the average diet of a given country." There is no mention of the word 'efficiency ...

The major problem with that study is that it incorrectly presumes that all land is the same and can be used to produce 'the average diet" of a 'given country.

This assumption makes the study effectively meaningless. Plus no where in that study is the word "efficiency" is even mentioned.

It does not need to be stated that 'land' and by consequence the local climate related to that land is not a constant. Globally there are huge variations with what and the methods by which food is produced

I note that the author of said report is herself a regular promoter of veganism. Therefore hardly an impartial report imo.

Going down the route of an argument promoting agricultural 'efficiency' which you refered to - is in effect an argument for intensive agricultural production where every last ounce is squeezed out of the land to the detriment of both the environment and ecology . Something that I personally find rather strange considering the criticism which is levied at intensive farming by the same interests.

If you are min maxing you are looking at making something most efficient. If they aren't looking at how much land could be used as ainimum then what's the point of the study? Minimum would imply most efficient given they are using consumption as their target, and that's fixed in the model.

gozunda

Donnielighto wrote: »

If you are min maxing you are looking at making something most efficient. If they aren't looking at how much land could be used as ainimum then what's the point of the study? Minimum would imply most efficient given they are using consumption as their target, and that's fixed in the model.

It remains there is no mention of efficiency at all which imo is strange. However inter alia if that report is promoting efficiency and the production of the maximum output using only a minimum of land - then that that efficiency requires the use of the most intensive agricultural methods and a very high level of inputs. The study most importantly also ignores that lands ability to produce is not a constant and hence renders the study more or less pointless.

Imo it's not whether the efficiency argument is relevant or not rather the author is looking to ground an argument against extensive animal agricultural production - which ironically has been shown to have less environmentsl impact compared to intensive agricultural practises and is definitly better for animal welfare in that animals are kept in natural conditions such as in the case of sheep in upland areas

ganmo wrote: »

no its red meat is hugely land inefficient. I was surprised that poultry was less efficient than pork tbh

Beef production could possibly only be deemed 'inefficient' in a scenario where something like a high yield crop suitable for human consumption can be grown on the same ground as that used for grazing.

Where crop production suitable for human consumption is not possible due to topography and / or climate - then beef production is not inefficient. As humans cannot consume grass - then using a ruminant to do so is the best use and most 'efficent" use of that type of land to produce food.