Vegan AMA

Aoife77

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Is it because something else got them first? Heart disease is not the only killer. Where do vegans get iron b12 etc?

Iron can be found in lentils, chickpeas, beans, tofu, cashews, chia seeds, linseed, hemp seeds, pumpkin seeds, green leafy veg, quinoa and fortified plant milks. That ones not so hard. Modern hygiene practices make b12 difficult for us all to consume these days. Its present in animal products as the animal would be exposed to the bacteria during it's lifetime. This isn't always the case though because of said hygiene practices and animals need to be supplemented with b12. As i understamd it b12 used be more available in plant foods too but we're so damn clean now. Pesticides also don't help with this. Fun fact, I know one person with a b12 deficiency and she has eaten animal products all of 50+ years. Better safe than sorry with a supplement

jh79

Aoife77 wrote: »

As far as I'm aware it's still a legal requirement. In an ideal world the answer will always be no to animal testing, I think we can all agree on that. I'm not sure what the alternatives are though. I suppose an obvious one would be to use ingredients that have been ready been tested so the data already exists. Many tests could also be done lab grown tissue. I don't actually think animal testing is effective anyway. Animals don't get all the same diseases as us and don't react to things the way we do do not can be pretty redundant. Human trials make more sense for somethings. What do you think?

As far as i know there are no alternatives. Certain animals have been shown to be good models for human illnesses. We are talking about novel drugs so there is no previous to draw on. Big difference between a cell line in a petri dish and a fully functioning animal.

You give a rat/ dog / rabbit or horse a drug and then look at the various organs for abnormalities etc. Can't do that with a petri dish.

Suppose if you value animals as equals to humans them skip them otherwise a necessary evil. Can't recreate an entire vascular system in the lab.

If its any consolation, ethics commitees don't make it easy in Irish universities. A poorly designed study wouldn't get the go ahead.

Aoife77

bilbot79 wrote: »

I understand where youre coming and I often harbour concerns about animal welfare but I just don't think it's realistic to think we can be vegan as a society. Less meat yes, vegan no. I think meat should be very expensive and vegetables very cheap

I don't think we'll ever have a vegan society. Not in my lifetime anyway. There will always be someone hunting or keeping chickens or whatever. The mass production has to stop though. I think it could well be already too late but I don't think that gives us a free pass not to try. I do think the consequences will catch up with us and when the government finally decides to act it will have to be very dramatically and people will be pissd. Better to improve drastically now? As regards animal welfare, I don't think there is an ethical way to kill an animal. Their only instinct is to live and look after their babies and we take that away from them. So I agree and disagree with you

gozunda

Tilikum17 wrote: »

I haven’t even opened that thread but your post is absolute cringe. A grown man/woman that’s gets upset about people being mean on after hours.
Go & spend time with your kids & Stop going into after hours if you’re that much of a soft cock.After hours is not to be taken seriously.
Also, you keep typing ‘I don’t care what anyone eats’ yet you’re on this forum posting more than any vegetarian/vegan. You post more on here than the farming forum. (And you’re supposed to be a farmer) There’s more to life than boards.

Tilikum to be fair - your record on this is very poor imo. Perhaps you should be a bit more reflective about what you are trying to do and how that is reactive rather that thought out or logical.

And to clarify - not that it is any of your business - I have way more posts in the farming forum. I post here mostly on farming, food and agriculture and a small number of other topics. Do you understand that? Or do you chose to be deliberately bitter and twisted?

The issue is not on this forum btw - it is the multitude of other threads where a small number of veg*n posters seem to believe they can **** all over other posters. Tbh I think it's good that this behaviour has bubbled to the surface. The more this type of thing is ignored - the more some believe they have a god given right to be a dick - so your reference above although crude and gratuitous is somehow apt. But there you go - there's more to life than(bill)boards....

Anyway I'll say no more other than to suggest you actually take a good long read of the OPs reply. You may learn something.

G

Aoife77

jh79 wrote: »

As far as i know there are no alternatives. Certain animals have been shown to be good models for human illnesses. We are talking about novel drugs so there is no previous to draw on. Big difference between a cell line in a petri dish and a fully functioning animal.

You give a rat/ dog / rabbit or horse a drug and then look at the various organs for abnormalities etc. Can't do that with a petri dish.

Suppose if you value animals as equals to humans them skip them otherwise a necessary evil. Can't recreate an entire vascular system in the lab.

If its any consolation, ethics commitees don't make it easy in Irish universities. A poorly designed study wouldn't get the go ahead.

Ya I get you. Humans are the fudging worst though. Get them to sign a waiver to go straight to humans trials and they'll sue anyway if they have a negative side effect. Doesn't inspire confidence in the eyes of the scientist. The process could definitely be improved drastically but as you say ethics committee are stringent. Lawful practices don't guarantee ethical actions

davidjtaylor

Most animal testing is for unnecessary stuff like food additives and cosmetics. The proportion of animal testing for new, untried medicines is tiny.

A bigger question is why people need all these drugs anyway (not to mention food additives and cosmetics) and that money should really go towards prevention. But hey, no corporation rakes in billions from brocolli.

davidjtaylor

BTW, I can’t help but roll my eyes when people routinely portray other species as lesser beings, not comparable to us in so many ways, expendable, merely worthy of torturing in testing facilities - yet say they’re sufficiently like us to make the results meaningful. I mean, irony how are you?

jh79

davidjtaylor wrote: »

Most animal testing is for unnecessary stuff like food additives and cosmetics. The proportion of animal testing for new, untried medicines is tiny.

A bigger question is why people need all these drugs anyway (not to mention food additives and cosmetics) and that money should really go towards prevention. But hey, no corporation rakes in billions from brocolli.

Flawed argument, diseases such as cancer / heart disease would exist anyways just at lower levels. The treatments would still need to be tested on animals.

jh79

davidjtaylor wrote: »

BTW, I can’t help but roll my eyes when people routinely portray other species as lesser beings, not comparable to us in so many ways, expendable, merely worthy of torturing in testing facilities - yet say they’re sufficiently like us to make the results meaningful. I mean, irony how are you?

Would you volunteer for a clinical trial knowing the drug had not been tested in an animal model first?

loveisdivine

This article details some of the current options for alternative to animal testing. Whilst not wiping it out completely they can drastically reduce the number of animals used.

https://www.livescience.com/65401-animal-testing-alternatives.html

Jellybaby1

How do vegans feel about wearing wool? I've seen sheep on hot days, which haven't been shorn. They are weighed down with the weight of the wool. It seems kinder to shear them. When they are shorn they move around much easier. They need sheep shearers (humans) to do this for them.

davidjtaylor

jh79 wrote: »

Would you volunteer for a clinical trial knowing the drug had not been tested in an animal model first?

If the illness was desperate, yes. If not I’d look for alternatives. I’ve avoided drugs all my life and I’m not young.

davidjtaylor

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

How do vegans feel about wearing wool? I've seen sheep on hot days, which haven't been shorn. They are weighed down with the weight of the wool. It seems kinder to shear them. When they are shorn they move around much easier. They need sheep shearers (humans) to do this for them.

Sheep in the wild lose their heavy coats in the summer. Leave the sheep population to themselves in their own space and all breeds would revert to normality eventually and, quite possibly, fairly quickly.

Jellybaby1

davidjtaylor wrote: »

Sheep in the wild lose their heavy coats in the summer. Leave the sheep population to themselves in their own space and all breeds would revert to normality eventually and, quite possibly, fairly quickly.

Are you saying sheep naturally moult? Honestly never heard that they do. So why would I see sheep so heavily laden then if that is true? I'm not getting at you or vegans, but I honestly wonder what a vegan world would really be like.

gozunda

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

Are you saying sheep naturally moult? Honestly never heard that they do. So why would I see sheep so heavily laden then if that is true? I'm not getting at you or vegans, but I honestly wonder what a vegan world would really be like.

99.9 % of domestic breeds of sheep don't 'molt'.

The idea that domestic flocks could just be turned loose on the hills or wherever and they would quickly de-evolve back to a wild state is ludicrous. Not only many millions of sheep (if they managed to survive) over countless generations would risk suffer the effects of agonising flystrike, grossly matted fleeces, carrying years of wool, etc - it would take untold countless generations of sheep (with a slim possibility) to revert to losing their coats without human intervention. It rubbish like this that makes me really mad and has no thought for the welfare of such animals :mad:

https://www.thebreeze.co.nz/home/must-see/20181/07/massive-unshorn-sheep-dubbed-aussie-version-of-nz-s-shrek.html

Pawwed Rig

In a vegan world domesticated animal would die out. Would a cow for example survive a winter without hay/silage?

Interesting AMA OP thanks for doing.

Question - are you averse to animal products or is it just products from exploited animals. For example if you found a dead wild deer would you be averse to tanning it or using the antlers as a coat rack or whatever?

Zelka

People ate lots of meat in the past when for the most part the reared the animals as well.

Jellybaby1

gozunda wrote: »

99.9 % of domestic breeds of sheep don't 'molt'.

The idea that domestic flocks could just be turned loose on the hills or wherever and they would quickly de-evolve back to a wild state is ludicrous. Not only many millions of sheep (if they managed to survive) over countless generations would risk suffer the effects of agonising flystrike, grossly matted fleeces, carrying years of wool, etc - it would take untold countless generations of sheep (with a slim possibility) to revert to losing their coats without human intervention. It rubbish like this that makes me really mad and has no thought for the welfare of such animals :mad:

https://www.thebreeze.co.nz/home/must-see/20181/07/massive-unshorn-sheep-dubbed-aussie-version-of-nz-s-shrek.html

Yes, I would feel this is the case all right. Although I'm curious about the vegan world, there is not a lot being said to make me think it would ever be the utopia that vegans believe it could be. I've always believed if prehistoric man had to wait for food to grow humanity never would have survived.

Pawwed Rig

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

I've always believed if prehistoric man had to wait for food to grow humanity never would have survived.

Food grows all over the place and would have been 'gathered' pre farming. There was not many people about so it was sustainable. That said starvation was not uncommon in winter so maybe not what we want to go back to.

loveisdivine

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

In a vegan world domesticated animal would die out. Would a cow for example survive a winter without hay/silage?

Interesting AMA OP thanks for doing.

Question - are you averse to animal products or is it just products from exploited animals. For example if you found a dead wild deer would you be averse to tanning it or using the antlers as a coat rack or whatever?

I wouldn't really be averse to it, but I wouldn't do it or encourage it. A dead wild deer would provide food for many other wild animals, even the antlers will be eaten by various rodents etc, they need it more than I do for a pretty decoration etc.

With regard to domesticated farm animals not being able to survive in the wild etc, I've discussed this with other vegans and we were all pretty much in agreement on it. Basically, domestic farm animals have been selectively bred for certain qualities that make them completely unsuitable for wild living, they are so far removed from their wild counterparts that that kindest thing to do would be to phase out breeding of these animals, care for any that are left in sanctuaries etc and let these domesticated breeds die out. Unnatural amounts of wool and milk, grotesquely fast and large growth etc are not things we should subject animals too.

davidjtaylor

Domesticated sheep have been bred to have coats all year round. They do not moult.

In a vegan world, they would be cared for in their own spaces until the end of their natural lives, but mixed with wild sheep. Eventually the pedigree sheep would disappear.

The ludicrous claims by meat eaters that existing animals would suffer at the hands of vegans doesn't make logical sense.

gozunda

davidjtaylor wrote: »

Domesticated sheep have been bred to have coats all year round. They do not moult.
In a vegan world, they would be cared for in their own spaces until the end of their natural lives, but mixed with wild sheep. Eventually the pedigree sheep would disappear.
The ludicrous claims by meat eaters that existing animals would suffer at the hands of vegans doesn't make logical sense.

To be fair David- you said

davidjtaylor wrote: »

Sheep in the wild lose their heavy coats in the summer. Leave the sheep population to themselves in their own space and all breeds would revert to normality eventually and, quite possibly, fairly quickly.

The facts are that the majority of those advocating getting rid of all farmed animals (with some notable exceptions) have little no experiences or practical knowledge of their care and management. Some of the suggestions I have seen proposed border on the ludricous.

Thankfully it is highly unlikely that any of these suggestions will come to pass. Domestic animals have evolved alongside humans - we are as dependant on them for many things as they are of use. Should this change? No I dont believe it should. That we have a duty of care to these animals is obvious, however the idea that they should be eradicated or even left to themselves in some unspecified wilderness is little better than science fiction imo

henryporter

jh79 wrote: »

As far as i know there are no alternatives. Certain animals have been shown to be good models for human illnesses. We are talking about novel drugs so there is no previous to draw on. Big difference between a cell line in a petri dish and a fully functioning animal.

You give a rat/ dog / rabbit or horse a drug and then look at the various organs for abnormalities etc. Can't do that with a petri dish.

Suppose if you value animals as equals to humans them skip them otherwise a necessary evil. Can't recreate an entire vascular system in the lab.

If its any consolation, ethics commitees don't make it easy in Irish universities. A poorly designed study wouldn't get the go ahead.

There are alternatives - e.g. https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.wired.com/2016/06/chips-mimic-organs-powerful-animal-testing/amp.

jh79

henryporter wrote: »

There are alternatives - e.g. https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.wired.com/2016/06/chips-mimic-organs-powerful-animal-testing/amp.

There might be in the future. At the moment animal testing is the only option.

Jellybaby1

We are in danger of losing some wild life already and we are all being told we must do something about this now. I am very concerned about what we could lose. I don't think a world where the cow or the sheep will become an endangered species is a particularly attractive world either. The animal rights groups will have a lot to say about that too.

stefanovich

You would think that what we evolved to eat should be the most nourishing and healthy. What was that exactly? I suppose for the majority of time we did not have farming so what does that leave? Things you can forage for and things you can kill?

davidjtaylor

Jellybaby1 wrote: »

We are in danger of losing some wild life already and we are all being told we must do something about this now. I am very concerned about what we could lose. I don't think a world where the cow or the sheep will become an endangered species is a particularly attractive world either. The animal rights groups will have a lot to say about that too.

What you’re arguing for here, Jellybaby1, is the preservation of pedigrees, human creation.

Domesticated animals should be allowed to mix with wild cousins, invoking the same tenet that benign human observers of the wild use - no interference.

gozunda

davidjtaylor wrote: »

What you’re arguing for here, Jellybaby1, is the preservation of pedigrees, human creation. Domesticated animals should be allowed to mix with wild cousins, invoking the same tenet that benign human observers of the wild use - no interference.

Unfortunatly that's not what the veg*n movement derived "Wild anti suffering" (WAS) movement is currently advocating. The proposal is to eradicate / genetically alter all animals which eat meat because eating meat is viewed as 'murder'. / "meat is murder"
This Idea is widespread and being promoted by various thinkers and activists btw. Even with domestic animals PETA in the US have an active programme of taking pets / domestic animals and killing them because they are human creations and believe they are better of dead even where they are cared for.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/killing-animals-petas-open-secret_b_59e78243e4b0e60c4aa36711

Jellybaby1

davidjtaylor wrote: »

What you’re arguing for here, Jellybaby1, is the preservation of pedigrees, human creation.

Domesticated animals should be allowed to mix with wild cousins, invoking the same tenet that benign human observers of the wild use - no interference.

I now get what this means, that what I see as 'nature' and 'normal' is actually what vegans say is 'abnormal'? That the sheep I see in the field, is far removed from what they were originally? So can you say how long ago the domestic breeding of sheep began, would you say thousands or tens of thousands of years ago, or longer? If so, then the crops we eat are also far removed from what they originally were. Are we to return to the original crops as well with old methods which are inefficient these days considering the population numbers depending on food. I see the 'no dig' method of growing vegetables has become popular and seems to work very well, but would that work for commercial crop growing on a large scale? This is all very interesting.

davidk1394

Hi Aoife. What was the main reason for you going vegan ?
While shopping do you try buy Irish or whatever is best value ?

Would you consider food miles, packaging and cropping practices when buying food ?

I have a sheep farm but changing to dairy as sheep are unprofitable. The main reason for a shift to dairying in the country is money.If you became the minister for agriculture and the environment in the morning, and all livestock farms became tillage farms would you subsidize them for loss in earning because tillage isn’t as profitable as dairy ?