Vegans and soil health

patsy_mccabe

This is a question I've always wanted to ask vegans. I'll lay my cards on the table first, I'm a part time suckler farmer in the west of ireland.

Question - Have any of you given much thought to what would happen overall soil health if you remove all the animals from agricultural land.

Lets face it, if there is no market for meat or animal derived products, then all livestock would disappear from farms. If so, there would no longer be any organic fertiliser (animal manure and urine). So the soil would be fed with just chemical fertiliser and herbicides. Ask any tillage farmer and they will tell you that the organic matter (carbon) becomes seriously depleted as a result.

In ecological terms, it would be like removing all grazing animals from the Serengeti.

davidjtaylor

We’re doing great work here using rotation, green manures, shredded branches and composting everything (including our own vegan poo and piss). The only ‘imported’ ingredients are straw for mulching and a very rare foray to the coast for seaweed.

It works for us as gardeners (21 years this year) growing a sizable portion of our food. It’s been shown to work on a larger scale (see The Vegan Organic Network).

Our experience has taught that it’s unwillingness to go that extra kilometre (!) ie, to alter one’s perspective and willingness that’s lacking, not animal input.

Support for veganic growing is non-existant. Compare that to animal industries or even forestry.

ganmo

davidjtaylor wrote: »

We’re doing great work here using rotation, green manures, shredded branches and composting everything (including our own vegan poo and piss). The only ‘imported’ ingredients are straw for mulching and a very rare foray to the coast for seaweed.

It works for us as gardeners (21 years this year) growing a sizable portion of our food. It’s been shown to work on a larger scale (see The Vegan Organic Network).

Our experience has taught that it’s unwillingness to go that extra kilometre (!) ie, to alter one’s perspective and willingness that’s lacking, not animal input.

Support for veganic growing is non-existant. Compare that to animal industries or even forestry.

be careful that you don't grow food on the ground that got human manure in the last 12 months

gozunda

davidjtaylor wrote: »

We’re doing great work here using rotation, green manures, shredded branches and composting everything (including our own vegan poo and piss). The only ‘imported’ ingredients are straw for mulching and a very rare foray to the coast for seaweed.

It works for us as gardeners (21 years this year) growing a sizable portion of our food. It’s been shown to work on a larger scale (see The Vegan Organic Network).

Our experience has taught that it’s unwillingness to go that extra kilometre (!) ie, to alter one’s perspective and willingness that’s lacking, not animal input.

Support for veganic growing is non-existant. Compare that to animal industries or even forestry.

The organic components of soils are as much derived from animal processes as they are from plants. Most plants, including food plants, have evolved to to make use of the rapid nutrient recycling provided by animal waste products. 

Animals and especially grazing animals are an important and often essential part of soil creation and improvement. Where for example - the trampling of vegetation by animals provides for a rapid incorporation of organic material into the soil layer and grazing of vegetation stimulates the soil food web and further promotes soil biodiversity

Throughout earths history animals have played an essential role in the earth life processes much of which is derived from soils.

It is a fact that reductions in the use of herbivore waste such as manures have a dramatic and in many instances a negative effect on plant composition, primary soil productivity, nutrient cycling, soil biota and ecosystem processes.

I find it quite incredible that a small minority food preference, which is against all forms of animal agriculture seriously promotes the idea that all animal inputs should be avoided and effectively banished on the basis it does not match a specific set of moral beliefs.

Alterings one’s 'perspective or willingness' to consider veganism as a life choice is not going to change the fact that the earths biomass and soil resources are more or less equally shared between the plant and animal kingdoms. That is perhaps the thing that humans have not managed to irrevocably alter so far. Advocating for such change based on moral leanings of a few is not only illogical but also wrong.

davidjtaylor

A friend of mine mentioned some bits and pieces Patsy. I’m not an expert here, bear in mind.

He said that veganic growers tend to use rock phosphate and sulphate of potash to replace the P and K and grow legumes which fix nitrogen. Some crops are grown to plough in too. This could eliminate the need for petroleum-based fertilisers.

A question for you Patsy. How many animals do you have and what acreage is required to feed each one over a year, do you know?

_Brian

davidjtaylor wrote: »

A friend of mine mentioned some bits and pieces Patsy. I’m not an expert here, bear in mind.

He said that veganic growers tend to use rock phosphate and sulphate of potash to replace the P and K and grow legumes which fix nitrogen. Some crops are grown to plough in too. This could eliminate the need for petroleum-based fertilisers.

A question for you Patsy. How many animals do you have and what acreage is required to feed each one over a year, do you know?

Ground like ours here in Cavan is great for extensive beef rearing. It’s not suitable for crops but it grows a wide variety of grasses which improves pasture reared beef.

Mooooo

davidjtaylor wrote: »

A friend of mine mentioned some bits and pieces Patsy. I’m not an expert here, bear in mind.

He said that veganic growers tend to use rock phosphate and sulphate of potash to replace the P and K and grow legumes which fix nitrogen. Some crops are grown to plough in too. This could eliminate the need for petroleum-based fertilisers.

A question for you Patsy. How many animals do you have and what acreage is required to feed each one over a year, do you know?

Sulphate of potash is produced by the reaction of potassium chloride and sulfuric acid. Organic matter is the big thing really for large scale production of crops etc. A cow to the acre is a general rule of thumb, dependant on ground type to grow and utilise grass

gozunda

_Brian wrote: »

Ground like ours here in Cavan is great for extensive beef rearing. It’s not suitable for crops but it grows a wide variety of grasses which improves pasture reared beef.

Similar here. Very heavy clay soil with a locally high watertable.

I am into the local history and always have a good laugh at the thought of what happened after the 1641 rebellion when the land was divided up for all the newly arrived English.

The ones who got the land around here would have came from the rich arable parts of England. They must have cried when they got here lol. The land they took brought no joy and they returned to England bankrupt in the early 17th hundreds.

Five hundred years of drainage and improvement have done little to change things tbh. The clay is still clay and the water table remains high but is manageable with proactive drainage. Grass grows well. Arable and horticultural crops as a rule don't. Horses for courses...

_Brian

davidjtaylor wrote: »

A friend of mine mentioned some bits and pieces Patsy. I’m not an expert here, bear in mind.

He said that veganic growers tend to use rock phosphate and sulphate of potash to replace the P and K and grow legumes which fix nitrogen. Some crops are grown to plough in too. This could eliminate the need for petroleum-based fertilisers.

A question for you Patsy. How many animals do you have and what acreage is required to feed each one over a year, do you know?

Very hard to farm most soils without adding organic matter in the form of manure to improve it.

I would worry allot about the long term fertility and viability of farming without manure to keep organic matter added. Mob grazing is an interesting concept that we somewhat practice here.

On land that can’t be ploughed growing cover crops or green manures isn’t an option either. And repeated ploughing isn’t right for soil structure and microbe activity.

Chemical fertilisers are definitely being overdone, as is the use of pesticides. We do use some of both here but do limit it to a minimum.

patsy_mccabe

For all vegans that think you can simply remove all farm animals worldwide and not have a significant effect to the natural balance of things, have a look at the following video, partcularily 25 mins in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzDISuJdfZk&list=FLlDUYWg4lJYkQS-VwtsR7mQ&index=9&t=0s

davidjtaylor

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

For all vegans that think you can simply remove all farm animals worldwide and not have a significant effect to the natural balance of things, have a look at the following video, partcularily 25 mins in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzDISuJdfZk&list=FLlDUYWg4lJYkQS-VwtsR7mQ&index=9&t=0s

Fascinating though it is, the video has small relevance here, Patsy.

Carroll, in describing trophic cascades (you should look up the equally intriguing faecal plumes; these are from whales, another keystone species that we persecute to the peril of many others), reinforces the notion that land should be owned by wildlife, rather than the monospecific landscapes we cultivate.

He highlights the interesting discovery - 20 minutes in - that inoculating human-bred cattle on the Serengeti prevented millions of deaths in other species: this has parallels with TB in cattle here.

You could have a read of this booklet for more information about stock-free growing.

emaherx

davidjtaylor wrote: »

Fascinating though it is, the video has small relevance here, Patsy.

Carroll, in describing trophic cascades (you should look up the equally intriguing faecal plumes; these are from whales, another keystone species that we persecute to the peril of many others), reinforces the notion that land should be owned by wildlife, rather than the monospecific landscapes we cultivate.

He highlights the interesting discovery - 20 minutes in - that inoculating human-bred cattle on the Serengeti prevented millions of deaths in other species: this has parallels with TB in cattle here.

You could have a read of this booklet for more information about stock-free growing.

You mention monoculture but most beef here would be raised on species rich pastures if these lands could magically be turned into croplands, that would lead into more monoculture not less.

Any links to booklets that don't push that same nonsense about cattle producing more greenhouse gases than all of transport emissions? It's amazing how all these information booklets hold so tight to a certain article written in 2006, even it's original authors admit that it's completely flawed.

As is the claim that livestock use so much more land than growing crops as if all the land for livestock could be used for growing veg instead.


The idea that more people would turn to farming in order to produce a more plant based diet for the entire population is a bit of a vegan eutopian dream that will never come to be (it's near impossible to get most of the population to prepare its own meals from scratch occasionally let alone grow it)

_Brian

emaherx wrote: »

The idea that more people would turn to farming in order to produce a more plant based diet for the entire population is a bit of a vegan eutopian dream that will never come to be (it's near impossible to get most of the population to prepare its own meals from scratch occasionally let alone grow it)

Absolutely this...
If the population went vegan in the morning large commervial entities would take over the mono culture food supply..


We should be encouraging a food culture that has many varied diets including vegan, vegeterian and meat consumption.. Encouraging people tp prepare fresh foods from raw ingredients, locally produced and sourced.

davidjtaylor

A brief video giving examples of veganic growing.

davidjtaylor

Here's a link for more videos if you want to educate yourself about veganic growing.

_Brian

I like allot of what is being said about the importance of soil microbiology. I think modern intensive farming is missing a trick there and worse many practices damage the soil environment.

Much of Irish land is not capable of being cropped with grass or trees being the only option. We would become a country incapable of feeding itself. Jobs and income from farming would be lost.

My personal position is that humans are better for the inclusion of qualirlty animal products in their diet in addition to as wide a variety of fruits and veg as is possible. This is based on scientific nutritional evidence and experience not a whim or website.

There is much talk of exploitation of animals as if they would have a drastically different life without farming.
Properly farmed animals are content, happy and healthy. They are farmed with a profit in mind yes, but this can amd is mostly done with the highest of welfare standards. Nobody accepts poor farming practices, it’s not good enough and needs to be rooted out.

The vegan position is just an opinion, it’s not an immovable fact, it’s not been proven the only way for humans to survive. It’s not been proven better for people or tue environment.
it is not a better lifestyle than farming or eating meat, it’s a vegans opinion that it is better. That’s a perfectly acceptable opinion.
What isn’t acceptable is when radical elements force their opinions, when they abuse others with different opinions. Often lies and mistruths are spread against others.
Inflammatory inaccurate language such as murder, rape, babies are used to describe farming practice, this isn’t intentional, these are human related terms used to stir a response in people who don’t realise they are being manipulated.

What is being talked in many of those videos is possible on some soil and land types, but on many farms where animals are grazed it’s just impossible. Beleive me, I’d love to be able to plough and grow say rape or potatoes where profitable crops are but it’s just impossible, yet I can grow really good species rich meadows perfect for grazing livestock. Producing a wonderful product for a healthy balanced diet.

The world is a large and varied place, we are all entitled to our opinions and positions, because one group feels they do not want to benifet from animal products does not give them the right to deny that to others or denigrate them for their choice.

gozunda

_Brian wrote: »

I like allot of what is being said about the importance of soil microbiology. I think modern intensive farming is missing a trick there and worse many practices damage the soil environment.

Much of Irish land is not capable of being cropped with grass or trees being the only option. We would become a country incapable of feeding itself. Jobs and income from farming would be lost.

My personal position is that humans are better for the inclusion of qualirlty animal products in their diet in addition to as wide a variety of fruits and veg as is possible. This is based on scientific nutritional evidence and experience not a whim or website.

There is much talk of exploitation of animals as if they would have a drastically different life without farming.
Properly farmed animals are content, happy and healthy. They are farmed with a profit in mind yes, but this can amd is mostly done with the highest of welfare standards. Nobody accepts poor farming practices, it’s not good enough and needs to be rooted out.

The vegan position is just an opinion, it’s not an immovable fact, it’s not been proven the only way for humans to survive. It’s not been proven better for people or tue environment.
it is not a better lifestyle than farming or eating meat, it’s a vegans opinion that it is better. That’s a perfectly acceptable opinion.
What isn’t acceptable is when radical elements force their opinions, when they abuse others with different opinions. Often lies and mistruths are spread against others.
Inflammatory inaccurate language such as murder, rape, babies are used to describe farming practice, this isn’t intentional, these are human related terms used to stir a response in people who don’t realise they are being manipulated.

What is being talked in many of those videos is possible on some soil and land types, but on many farms where animals are grazed it’s just impossible. Beleive me, I’d love to be able to plough and grow say rape or potatoes where profitable crops are but it’s just impossible, yet I can grow really good species rich meadows perfect for grazing livestock. Producing a wonderful product for a healthy balanced diet.

The world is a large and varied place, we are all entitled to our opinions and positions, because one group feels they do not want to benifet from animal products does not give them the right to deny that to others or denigrate them for their choice.

Much of the anti-farming videos which have been posted presume much by those who do evidently not have the first clue about growing crops on a commercial scale.

The presumption that less land will he used as what is being fed to animals will be diverted to humans - this ignores the fact that much of that which is fed to animals are the by-products of the human food industry. Added to that are the crops not fit for human consumption and the vast areas of climatic grassland only suitable for grazing. But such facts are most often blatantly ignored...

henryporter

gozunda wrote: »

Much of the anti-farming videos which have been posted presume much by those who do evidently not have the first clue about growing crops on a commercial scale.

The presumption that less land will he used as what is being fed to animals will be diverted to humans - this ignores the fact that much of that which is fed to animals are the by-products of the human food industry. Added to that are the crops not fit for human consumption and the vast areas of climatic grassland only suitable for grazing. But such facts are most often blatantly ignored...

Perhaps you can elucidate on the evidence behind these ‘facts’

ganmo

elucidate
???

gozunda

henryporter wrote: »

Perhaps you can elucidate on the evidence behind these ‘facts’

Is there reason for the tone condescension in that comment or am I picking you up wrong?

henryporter

ganmo wrote: »

elucidate
???

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Elucidate

Sorry for using such big words - I thought this was a discussion forum

ganmo

Ah yes the age old tactic of using a word when more common word would do just find

Perhaps you need more practice in communication as it's vital for a speaker/poster to ensure their point is understood I lived up to my part as the listener/reader by communicating that I didn't understand

stefanovich

ganmo wrote: »

Ah yes the age old tactic of using a word when more common word would do just find

Perhaps you need more practice in communication as it's vital for a speaker/poster to ensure their point is understood I lived up to my part as the listener/reader by communicating that I didn't understand

Perhaps it is practise that gave him a good vocabulary?

henryporter

ganmo wrote: »

Ah yes the age old tactic of using a word when more common word would do just find

Perhaps you need more practice in communication as it's vital for a speaker/poster to ensure their point is understood I lived up to my part as the listener/reader by communicating that I didn't understand

You must be referring to the practice of 'Defining deviancy down' as once mentioned by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, wherein successive generations accept lower standards (in discourse, politics, education etc.), and that then becomes the norm from which to 'deviate down' even further.

I'd rather adhere to the practice of learning than trying to limit my vocabulary to yours thanks.

gozunda

henryporter wrote: »

You must be referring to the practice of 'Defining deviancy down' as once mentioned by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, wherein successive generations accept lower standards (in discourse, politics, education etc.), and that then becomes the norm from which to 'deviate down' even further.

I'd rather adhere to the practice of learning than trying to limit my vocabulary to yours thanks.

You never answered my query as to your comment btw

gozunda wrote: »

Is there reason for the tone condescension in that comment or am I picking you up wrong?

Perhaps you would clarify ...

Otherwise, I'll just have to assume lower standards of discourse are becoming the norm....

stefanovich

Not a vegan but let's face it. You are killing an animal against its will for profit. The reason you make a profit is because people like eating meat. Most of the people eating meat are entirely divorced from the suffering of the animal in death. We need to be respectful at the least to that creature being sacrificed for our benefit. Less meat equals less suffering and the less meat people eat the healthier they generally are. Karma?


All these farmers complaining reminds me of cigarette manufacturers or coal factory owners complaining about the changing times.

Let's face it, farming is we know it is unsustainable and quite obscene. It's the people who are innovating and challenging the status quo that will profit in the future.

My preference would be for meat to return to the table only for special occasions.

davidjtaylor

stefanovich wrote: »

All these farmers complaining reminds me of cigarette manufacturers or coal factory owners complaining about the changing times.

But, like the banking industry, they wield enough power to ensure bail-outs or, at the very least, special treatment.

jh79

stefanovich wrote: »

Not a vegan but let's face it. You are killing an animal against its will for profit. The reason you make a profit is because people like eating meat. Most of the people eating meat are entirely divorced from the suffering of the animal in death. We need to be respectful at the least to that creature being sacrificed for our benefit. Less meat equals less suffering and the less meat people eat the healthier they generally are. Karma?


All these farmers complaining reminds me of cigarette manufacturers or coal factory owners complaining about the changing times.

Let's face it, farming is we know it is unsustainable and quite obscene. It's the people who are innovating and challenging the status quo that will profit in the future.

My preference would be for meat to return to the table only for special occasions.

A healthy diet can have 490g of cooked red / processed meat a week. Given that a 8oz steak =180g, 3 slices of roast beef = 90g , a kebab = 130g , a healthy diet shouldn't be that hard to achieve for even the most ardent carnivore.

Having meat on special occasions isn't any healthier than the above. No need to restrict your diet to such extremes if you're worried about your health.

silverharp

stefanovich wrote: »

Not a vegan but let's face it. You are killing an animal against its will for profit. The reason you make a profit is because people like eating meat. Most of the people eating meat are entirely divorced from the suffering of the animal in death. We need to be respectful at the least to that creature being sacrificed for our benefit. Less meat equals less suffering and the less meat people eat the healthier they generally are. Karma?


All these farmers complaining reminds me of cigarette manufacturers or coal factory owners complaining about the changing times.

Let's face it, farming is we know it is unsustainable and quite obscene. It's the people who are innovating and challenging the status quo that will profit in the future.

My preference would be for meat to return to the table only for special occasions.

you are aware of the carnage growing and harvesting grain does to local wild life? or is a cow because its big more inherently valuable than a field mouse because its small?. also not following as cigarettes are inherently unhealthy, meat is the polar opposite.

lalababa

stefanovich wrote: »

Not a vegan but let's face it. You are killing an animal against its will for profit. The reason you make a profit is because people like eating meat. Most of the people eating meat are entirely divorced from the suffering of the animal in death. We need to be respectful at the least to that creature being sacrificed for our benefit. Less meat equals less suffering and the less meat people eat the healthier they generally are. Karma?


All these farmers complaining reminds me of cigarette manufacturers or coal factory owners complaining about the changing times.

Let's face it, farming is we know it is unsustainable and quite obscene. It's the people who are innovating and challenging the status quo that will profit in the future.

My preference would be for meat to return to the table only for special occasions.

Irish people eat too much meat from a human health POV. Irish beef farmers are making a loss. Their losses are eating into their farm payments (BPS). Irish meat processers have a stranglehold on cattle availability. They have a massive supply source in a closed market and can dictate price. Fertilizer and pesticides are over used and detrimental to the environment.
These farmers should cut way down to almost minimum on suckler and beef numbers, and use no fertilizer or pesticides. They then would become organic. The factory supply would tighten up and the price would increase, there would be an increase also for organic. The soil environment would improve. The meat would be "healthier/tastier". Will this happen..sort of..some logical farmers will....alot won't...because it's seen as a comedown to decrease farm head. Then add the increase in numberd of calfs from Dairy to beef.

Subcomandante Marcos

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

This is a question I've always wanted to ask vegans. I'll lay my cards on the table first, I'm a part time suckler farmer in the west of ireland.

Question - Have any of you given much thought to what would happen overall soil health if you remove all the animals from agricultural land.

Lets face it, if there is no market for meat or animal derived products, then all livestock would disappear from farms. If so, there would no longer be any organic fertiliser (animal manure and urine). So the soil would be fed with just chemical fertiliser and herbicides. Ask any tillage farmer and they will tell you that the organic matter (carbon) becomes seriously depleted as a result.

In ecological terms, it would be like removing all grazing animals from the Serengeti.

There would still be plenty of organic fertilizers, crop residues composted do a grand job as do decomposition of cover crops. Dual cropping traditional grains with legumes will give you more nitrogen in the soil than cow poop ever will.

The idea that without FYM you have no organic nutrient augmentation is plainly incorrect.

henryporter

gozunda wrote: »

You never answered my query as to your comment btw



Perhaps you would clarify ...

Otherwise, I'll just have to assume lower standards of discourse are becoming the norm....

Nor you mine - preferable to feign offense than support the argument? Must be the Joe Healy school of debate?

Markcheese

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

There would still be plenty of organic fertilizers, crop residues composted do a grand job as do decomposition of cover crops. Dual cropping traditional grains with legumes will give you more nitrogen in the soil than cow poop ever will.

The idea that without FYM you have no organic nutrient augmentation is plainly incorrect.

What's dual cropping?

gozunda

henryporter wrote: »

Nor you mine - preferable to feign offense than support the argument? Must be the Joe Healy school of debate?

It's a question with regard to your original comment - perhaps rather than grandstanding - you could answer it.

Is there reason for the tone of condescension in that comment or am I picking you up wrong?

I could throw jibes as well - but I wouldn't lower myself tbh.

Subcomandante Marcos

Markcheese wrote: »

What's dual cropping?

Growing two crops at once in the same area. It's a fairly self evident name. You could also call it intercropping if there's more than two crops. Throw in some wild flowers along medians to attract predators of pests and maybe some cover crops between seasons and you have a good old fashioned CSA package going that have your soil microbes and fungi having a grand auld hooli.

gozunda

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

Growing two crops at once in the same area. It's a fairly self evident name. You could also call it intercropping if there's more than two crops. Throw in some wild flowers along medians to attract predators of pests and maybe some cover crops between seasons and you have a good old fashioned CSA package going that have your soil microbes and fungi having a grand auld hooli.

Land based animals and especially large herbivores have played an integral part of soil formation and replensishment since long before humans evolved. In many countries livestock still fulfil many of the same roles with regard to soil viability and fertility that their precedents once did.

The arrogance of a very small number of humans who claim to know better and now wish to dictate that such symbiosis should be erased simply because they dont like meat goes well beyond the incredible tbh.

Subcomandante Marcos

gozunda wrote: »

Land based animals and especially herbivores have played an integral part of soil formation and replensishment since long before humans evolved. In many countries livestock still fulfil many of the same roles with regard to soil viability and fertility that their precedents once did.

The arrogance of a very small number of humans who now wish to dictate that such symbiosis should be erased simply because they dont like meat goes beyond the incredible tbh.

Jesus you have no hint of irony in this, it's amazing.

How much inorganic fertilizer and other nutrients do you add to your grasslands every year? How much slurry do you spread? How many acres do you mow with a combine? How often do you cut back hedgerows?

Everything you're doing is destroying any semblance of natural symbiosis that night have existed in the past.

The idea that your method of farming is "natural" or "holistic" or better for soil health than organic crop farming is, frankly, laughable. Organic beef production with proper FYM management would be a giant step forward from "traditional" intensive beef rearing.


As an aside I'm bit a believer in organic farming as a savour of all, it's useful where it's useful but it's not suitable everywhere.

I work in the promotion of climate smart agricultural practices. I often advise farmers in areas with soil degradation or erosion issues to use FYM from animals and crop residues to improve soil health, and in the cases of many sub Saharan farmers to use micro dosing of inorganic fertilizer alongside FYM when planting in low/no tillage systems to help the regeneration of soil nutrients in increase their productivity and food security.

In Ireland, climate smart and economically smart practices would include using (and wasting) less inorganic fert. Having FYM management that isn't straight out of the 17th century, stop over spreading slurry and ruining water courses, stop hedgerow destruction, and cut down herd sizes and stop over producing beef to the point where the sector is completely dependent on subsidies. In the next decade the Dairy sector is going to have a dramatic change in its makeup, lots of farmers will go to the wall. The beer sector isn't far behind it.

Adapt or die lads, the choices are your own.

yellowlabrador

It's a myth that vegan or vegetarian diets would stop cruelty or save the planet.
https://metro.co.uk/2019/04/04/women-india-pay-price-cashew-nut-demand-vegan-diets-rise-9110415/

gozunda

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

Jesus you have no hint of irony in this, it's amazing.

How much inorganic fertilizer and other nutrients do you add to your grasslands every year? How much slurry do you spread? How many acres do you mow with a combine? How often do you cut back hedgerows?
Everything you're doing is destroying any semblance of natural symbiosis that night have existed in the past. The idea that your method of farming is "natural" or "holistic" or better for soil health than organic crop farming is, frankly, laughable. Organic beef production with proper FYM management would be a giant step forward from "traditional" intensive beef rearing.

To paraphrase ...

Jesus you have no hint of irony in this, it's amazing.

Do you believe for one moment than industrial scale arable and horticultural production do not involve massive amounts of inorganic fertilizer and other nutrients added every year. In arable areas do you believe that no slurry is spread? How many acres do you think is mowed with a combine? How often hedgerows cut back or removed to create giant fields for cropping ?

Everything humans have done has changed of natural symbiosis that might have existed in the past. And yet livestock in replacing wild herbivores still does play an important part in maintaining soil vitality and fertility

That you believe that industrial scale cropping which would replace livestock would be "natural" or "holistic" or better for soil health is, frankly laughable.

And before you go on another rant - I do not disagree with organic practices. What I do disagree with is the ridiculous notion that veganism will somehow bring in some magical agricultural utopia of unicorns and fairy dust. Or as one deranged commentator put it "nothing gets harmed on a broccoli farm' :rolleyes:

Unearthly

yellowlabrador wrote: »

It's a myth that vegan or vegetarian diets would stop cruelty or save the planet.
https://metro.co.uk/2019/04/04/women-india-pay-price-cashew-nut-demand-vegan-diets-rise-9110415/

Ah here

A report originating from the lowest common denominator paper Daily Mail

gozunda

Unearthly wrote: »

Ah here

A report originating from the lowest common denominator paper Daily Mail

Heres a similar report from one of many plant eaters favourite newspaper

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/nov/02/cashew-nut-workers-pay-conditions-profits

Is that good enough?

Subcomandante Marcos

Are Cashew nuts the preserve of vegans now?

What the actual feck lads?

Story: people in developing countries being exploited so westerners can have cheap things.

Story in your heads:. OMG VEGANS ARE KILLING INDIAN WOMEN!!!

and what does it have to do with soil health? Unless you want me to have a chat with ye how western diets and consumption are driving climate change that is leading to wide spread soil erosion and massive risks of desertification in India?

Unearthly

gozunda wrote: »

Heres a similar report from one of many plant eaters favourite newspaper

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/nov/02/cashew-nut-workers-pay-conditions-profits

Is that good enough?

Yes it's a more mature, less sensationalist report that highlights a problem but doesn't blame vegans for it

gozunda

Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »

Are Cashew nuts the preserve of vegans now?What the actual feck lads?Story: people in developing countries being exploited so westerners can have cheap things. Story on your heads:. OMG VEGANS ARE KILLING INDIAN WOMEN!!!and what does it have to do with soil health? Unless you want me to have a chat with ye how western diets and consumption are driving climate change that is leading to wide spread soil erosion and massive risks of desertification in India?

It's a news story. No need to loose the head tbh.

As an update before going on that rant about how 'western diets and consumption are driving climate change' you may be interested to learn that China is the the number one emitter of greenhouse gases, a world leading importer of soybeans from South America oh and India, Brazil and China have more cattle than any western country. (And yes China imports large quantities of Brazillian meat for domestic consumption as well).

But of course all this is the fault of us bad nasty westerners with our western diets and consumption driving climate change

Even though the worlds number one cause of greenhouse emissions happens to be transport and fossil fuel use. But then none of that suits the propaganda ...

gozunda

Unearthly wrote: »

Yes it's a more mature, less sensationalist report that highlights a problem but doesn't blame vegans for it

Is that the same newspaper which is paid to publish anti farming / news stories by a vegan think tank?

https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/watch-out-watch-out-the-guardians-about.278002/

Unearthly

gozunda wrote: »

Is that the same newspaper which is paid to publish anti farming / news stories by a vegan think tank?

No idea. Couldn't care less

jh79

lalababa wrote: »

Irish people eat too much meat from a human health POV. Irish beef farmers are making a loss. Their losses are eating into their farm payments (BPS). Irish meat processers have a stranglehold on cattle availability. They have a massive supply source in a closed market and can dictate price. Fertilizer and pesticides are over used and detrimental to the environment.
These farmers should cut way down to almost minimum on suckler and beef numbers, and use no fertilizer or pesticides. They then would become organic. The factory supply would tighten up and the price would increase, there would be an increase also for organic. The soil environment would improve. The meat would be "healthier/tastier". Will this happen..sort of..some logical farmers will....alot won't...because it's seen as a comedown to decrease farm head. Then add the increase in numberd of calfs from Dairy to beef.

Organic isn't healthier. A myth built on the natural fallacy.

yellowlabrador

Are there any vegan gardeners who have grown all their own food, and have managed this for several years?A lot of our imported food is grown under terrible non sustainable conditions. I'm thinking avocados, bananas, soya, various nuts, grains, so a local diet only. I know beekeeping is not allowed but what about worm farms?

henryporter

gozunda wrote: »

It's a question with regard to your original comment - perhaps rather than grandstanding - you could answer it.



I could throw jibes as well - but I wouldn't lower myself tbh.

A valid question asking you to provide any evidence for the 'facts' you espouse is neither condescending nor grandstanding, but of course it's easier to feel maligned than respond civilly to the original question.

gozunda

henryporter wrote: »

A valid question asking you to provide any evidence for the 'facts' you espouse is neither condescending nor grandstanding, but of course it's easier to feel maligned than respond civilly to the original question.

Is there reason for the tone of condescension in that comment or am I picking you up wrong?

I wasn't the only one who called that out btw. I asked you to clarify your comment - you didn't bother and then attempted a smart answer.

You may wish to look up the meaning of the word 'civilly', as from your first and subsequent comments I can only assume have no idea what it means. Thanks all the same.

ganmo

This conversation has gone down a well worn path.
Irish farmers are improving their practices regarding soil health, dribble bar spreading slurry and targeted use of fertiliser. Irish farmers aren't overusing fertilisers with half of soil samples results showing poor fertility.
The removal of hedgerows happened decades ago and any farmer seen doing so now has to plant an equal length somewhere else. The removal of the hedges allowed for the increased use of mechanization which was necessary in a high labour cost environment.
There are small farms that use free labour from the woofing organisation that would fail without it.