Farming and the Veganism: Where love and hate collide.

Panch18

NcdJd wrote: »

Just looking up the term "Cruelty-Free" and it is applied to products not tested on animals, like shampoos and cosmetics....

So my take on that is that the likes of saying things like Cruelty Free Sausages is just a makey uppy term designed to annoy and bait other boards users.

That’s exactly what it is designed to do - it’s a pure tool to bait

It is an absolute disgrace that it is allowed - and written into the charter

Panch18

Buford T. Justice XIX wrote: »

I have no idea, Panch. We mods play with a straight deck here, always have. It doesn't always earn plaudits from those we deal with but that's outside our control, we do our best for those in our charge, unpleasant as it may be at times for us and them.

Sometimes issues are beyond our remit to rectify but we do as much as we can, though it often feels both thankless and fruitless.

No doubt Buford you and Greyside do a fantastic job moderating the farming forum

It is certainly appreciated by me and everyone on here I would say

_Brian

Faith wrote: »

I assure you that I'm not a liar, but the individuals that I spoke to have no requirement to declare themselves to you.

Such an assurance from the moderator of a forum that explicitly labels all farmers as cruel to animals is a watery thing at best.

Asking someone’s opinion and genuinely listening and taking it on board are very different.

It’s a disgusting slur on all farming families and to be party to that shows few standards at all.

gozunda

NcdJd wrote: »

Just looking up the term "Cruelty-Free" and it is applied to products not tested on animals, like shampoos and cosmetics....

So my take on that is that the likes of saying things like Cruelty Free Sausages is just [ a makey uppy term designed to annoy and bait other boards users.

^^^^

This. Its a marketing term referring to the testing of shampoos & cosmetics on live animals.

Cruelty-free products should not be confused with vegan

https://blog.publicgoods.com/what-does-cruelty-free-actually-mean/

It was adopted by a small number to circumnavigate the prohibition on offensive language.

And as used it's actually insulting to those vegetarians etc who drink real milk and eat eggs etc

Say my name

Is that feedback thread in the helpdesk locked?

NcdJd

Say my name wrote: »

Is that feedback thread in the helpdesk locked?

No SNM, the comments are approved first before being posted. Quick reply doesn't work but Quote or Post button does.

Say my name

NcdJd wrote: »

No SNM, the comments are approved first before being posted. Quick reply doesn't work but Quote or Post button does.

I'll look in tomorrow then so.

weisses

gozunda wrote: »

Touting"? I've read the original research, thanks. Btw we had moved on to crops and what is fed to all types of animals

So to avoid going going down the same route as the sheep thing previously and I'm going to park that.

Soy?



No. It doesn't. But lets look at that issue.

And just to knock that much repeated veganism

Soy is grown in many countries around the world. Not just Brazil etc

The facts are that soy beans are approx 20% oil and 80% meal. The oil is pressed from from the bean first and is currently the most valuable oil on the global commodities market. This oil is primarily used in the human food industry

What gets left over after the oil is squeezed out is the meal and the husks. And yes much of this gets used for animal feeds. That's all types of animals from dog food to horse food and yes feed for all types of farm animals.

Even if this none of the meal was fed to animals (of all types) soy would still be grown for its oil.
Should the meal and husks just be dumped ?

But just wait - currently the US is the world leader in growing soy. They also process their crop into oil and use what left over for a variety of purposes including feed for all types of animals.

The soy grown in Brazil is interesting in that it primarily is used in their own domestic market and exported to China.

For 2019 - the total Soybean production in Brazil was given as approx 122 million metric tons

Domestic soybean consumption in Brazil for 2019 was given at 48.6 million metric tons

In the same year, China purchased 58 million million metric tons of Brazilian soybeans

Combined exports to China and domestic use equals to approx 87%
(106.6 million metric tons) of the total 122 million metric tons of soybeans grown in 2019

Leaving just approx 13 % of all Brazilian soybeans exported to other countries globally - of which the main importers were the Netherlands, Iran and Spain Thailand and Turkey.

I'd suggest maybe those vegans who are who are so concerned about the rainforest get onto the governments of China and Brazil and give them a bloody good telling off before screaming about farming here ...

Personally I don't like soy. And I dont think it should be grown in countries like Brazil. Europe fine (even though growing conditions aren't ideal) the US etc etc fair enough..

Point still stands that rainforrest is cut to provide soy for animal feed ..I dont care where it is used

_Brian

weisses wrote: »

Point still stands that rainforrest is cut to provide soy for animal feed ..I dont care where it is used

If animals stopped eating this feed them another use would be found for it. The soy would still be grown, the valuable oil extracted and the waste just used in a different way. Nothing is really solved just the emotions of vegans appeased rather than any logic.

An outright boycott on goods produced in countries current deafforesting the rainforests is the only way enough pressure can be applied to stop their destruction. Anything else is just meaningless.

Panch18

Say my name wrote: »

I'll look in tomorrow then so.

Your post is on there now Say

It seems to be random as to how long a post takes? I suppose depending on how many mods are online or something like that

weisses

For vegans farming animals is perceived as cruel. I see no issue for some people using the words cruel or cruelty in their own forum.

You have no issues here putting all vegans under the same banner apparently suffering from mass hysteria. reading through the posts here I can almost safely say that its not the vegans who suffer from mass hysteria. Example below

The hate being pushed against non believers is visceral

There's even websites advocating that believers go out and convert others. And some wonder why others comment on this stuff?

There are loads of people out there who just don't use animal products and are getting on with daily life just like anyone else

weisses

_Brian wrote: »

If animals stopped eating this feed them another use would be found for it. The soy would still be grown, the valuable oil extracted and the waste just used in a different way. Nothing is really solved just the emotions of vegans appeased rather than any logic.

An outright boycott on goods produced in countries current deafforesting the rainforests is the only way enough pressure can be applied to stop their destruction. Anything else is just meaningless.

If animals don't eat it ..A large portion of the soy wouldn't be needed anymore ...your scenario above is just wish full thinking

A drastic cut in meat consumption would do the trick .... choices, choices

_Brian

weisses wrote: »

For vegans farming animals is perceived as cruel. I see no issue for some people using the words cruel or cruelty in their own forum.

You have no issues here putting all vegans under the same banner apparently suffering from mass hysteria. reading through the posts here I can almost safely say that its not the vegans who suffer from mass hysteria. Example below




There are loads of people out there who just don't use animal products and are getting on with daily life just like anyone else

Honestly I’m not surprised at vegans wanting this. Hate and disrespect for farmers seems to be central to the ethos of the organisation or religion or whatever.

I feel it’s being biased of the boards.ie team in general allowing a group have in their charter hate speech about another group. As I said earlier. If vegans were saying in their charter that Travellers were cruel it would be removed swiftly and stomped out.

_Brian

weisses wrote: »

If animals don't eat it ..A large portion of the soy wouldn't be needed anymore ...your scenario above is just wish full thinking

A drastic cut in meat consumption would do the trick .... choices, choices

The oil is where the value is and it’s used wisely not in animal feeds. It’s dreaming to think that the byproduct wouldn’t find another outlet.

Genghis Cant

A lot of spuds are planted in areas of Meath, in recent years in particular the red deer population is exploding. The deer are doing a lot of harm to the crop. The local hunting fraternity get it hard to control the damage. The same damage in fields or rape and corn crops, again by deer but also bird , rodent and rabbit to name a few.
This is on top of the damage done by plough to our soil inhabitants, worms, grubs, insects, spiders etc. Further population damage done by spray , insecticide use, bee , butterfly, moth etc

There's as much " cruel " about eating spuds grains and veg as the meat I had for my dinner.

Btw. I'm choosy where I get my meat from. I have welfare concerns and for that reason I rarely eat chicken or pork. I like to think I hold myself to very high standards.

emaherx

weisses wrote: »

Point still stands that rainforrest is cut to provide soy for animal feed ..I dont care where it is used

This is the misquoted source most used about soya.
https://www.oilseedandgrain.com/soy-facts

About 85 percent of the world’s soybeans are processed, or "crushed," annually into soybean meal and oil. Approximately 98 percent of the soybean meal that is crushed is further processed into animal feed with the balance used to make soy flour and proteins. Of the oil fraction, 95 percent is consumed as edible oil; the rest is used for industrial products such as fatty acids, soaps and biodiesel.

BS like this
https://www.truthordrought.com/soybean-myths

The fact is that 85% of the world's soybean crop is used as animal feed (Oilseed & Grain News)

Notice the original states 85% crushed into oil and feed for livestock and 95% of the oil is for human consumption the other 5% is biofuel/ industrial use. The misquoted version blatantly omits some important details.

Without animal agriculture the oil would still be produced and the meal would mostly be waste.


Its amazing how livestock farmers globally get the blame for tillage farmers in brazil who'd be just as happy to cut down rainforest to grow oats for vegan oat milk if enough demand appeared in the market.

greysides

_Brian wrote: »

Such an assurance from the moderator of a forum that explicitly labels all farmers as cruel to animals is a watery thing at best.

Asking someone’s opinion and genuinely listening and taking it on board are very different.

It’s a disgusting slur on all farming families and to be party to that shows few standards at all.

Mod:

Okay, where do I start?

I understand the frustration felt over this current issue. I do understand that Brian (among others) has been fighting his corner and, from his point of view, hitting a blank wall. Emotions are understandably high.

That's why I'll let this slide and use it as an advisory to all, but be in no doubt this constitutes Personal Abuse and would normally be infracted.

Remember the rule to play the man, not the ball?

Those who are dealing with the current issue on every level are trying their best to reach an accommodation that is acceptable to all. There may not be one, but it is being sought.

They are putting in a lot of time that is taken away from family life and free time to try to achieve this.

There are a lot of assertions and counter-assertions to be considered, not to mention two diametrically opposed views to try to accommodate. To make mistakes is human... sometimes to recognise then and correct them would need divinity. I've made mistakes in my handling of some things (My apologies, Gozunda). Others have too.

However, I've never doubted that everyone is playing their part in good faith and within their limitations.

So, please, tone down the rhetoric. Ultimately it only makes resolution more difficult.

Also, remember that this is just an internet forum, if things here get fraught, flick a switch, walk the dog, annoy the wife. That's real life!

Buford T. Justice XIX

emaherx wrote: »

This is the misquoted source most used about soya.
https://www.oilseedandgrain.com/soy-facts





BS like this
https://www.truthordrought.com/soybean-myths



Notice the original states 85% crushed into oil and feed for livestock and 95% of the oil is for human consumption the other 5% is biofuel/ industrial use. The misquoted version blatantly omits some important details.

Without animal agriculture the oil would still be produced and the meal would mostly be waste.


Its amazing how livestock farmers globally get the blame for tillage farmers in brazil who'd be just as happy to cut down rainforest to grow oats for vegan oat milk if enough demand appeared in the market.

Just a point of clarity, e.

It's oat juice, milk is a strictly controlled term for use with animal derived milks.

I'd hate to think we would also be allowing posters to be breaking the law by referring to that juice as milk.

Carry on:)

emaherx

Buford T. Justice XIX wrote: »

Just a point of clarity, e.

It's oat juice, milk is a strictly controlled term for use with animal derived milks.

I'd hate to think we would also be allowing posters to be breaking the law by referring to that juice as milk.

Carry on:)

I do apologise and will accept any punishment you deem fit.

_Brian

emaherx wrote: »

I do apologise and will accept any punishment you deem fit.

Careful or you’ll be asked to use it

Buford T. Justice XIX

emaherx wrote: »

I do apologise and will accept any punishment you deem fit.

I consider you suitably admonished.

Go forth and sin no more.

NcdJd

_Brian wrote: »

Careful or you’ll be asked to use it

He'll end up as dog food like what happened to Fungi the dolphin...

emaherx

weisses wrote: »

If animals don't eat it ..A large portion of the soy wouldn't be needed anymore ...your scenario above is just wish full thinking

A drastic cut in meat consumption would do the trick .... choices, choices

Maybe they can just grow the portion of the crop that is oil? It would be a neat trick.

Genghis Cant

Panch18 wrote: »

No doubt Buford you and Greyside do a fantastic job moderating the farming forum

It is certainly appreciated by me and everyone on here I would say

Dunno about that. Only for myself and blue the place would fall asunder.
Blue comes up with all the good ideas and the 2 buck's above run off with them. :=) :=)

gozunda

weisses wrote: »

For vegans farming animals is perceived as cruel. I see no issue for some people using the words cruel or cruelty in their own forum.

You have no issues here putting all vegans under the same banner apparently suffering from mass hysteria. reading through the posts here I can almost safely say that its not the vegans who suffer from mass hysteria. Example below

The hate being pushed against non believers is visceral

There's even websites advocating that believers go out and convert others. And some wonder why others comment on this stuff?

There are loads of people out there who just don't use animal products and are getting on with daily life just like anyone else

And where exactly in that comment does it say "mass hysteria"?

There's a huge difference in referring to actual behaviour I've observed in the v&v forum and accusing an entire sector of engaging in animal cruelty. But you know that already.

greysides

Panch18 wrote: »

No doubt Buford you and Greyside do a fantastic job moderating the farming forum

It is certainly appreciated by me and everyone on here I would say

Thanks.

For the record, the four of us bear the responsibility for moderating the forum.

Just Buford and I take the credit though....


:cool:

greysides

Genghis Cant wrote: »

Dunno about that. Only for myself and blue the place would fall asunder.
Blue comes up with all the good ideas and the 2 buck's above run off with them. :=) :=)

SNAP!

NcdJd

emaherx wrote: »

Maybe they can just grow the portion of the crop that is oil? It would be a neat trick.

Or genetically reverse engineer the Soy Beans to grow backwards... use tankers to extract the oil before the beans appear on the plant.. then reverse the combines out of the fields before the beans appear on them ?

I should patent this before Bayer cop on to it...

*heads off to the patent website*

emaherx

NcdJd wrote: »

Or genetically reverse engineer the Soy Beans to grow backwards... use tankers to extract the oil before the beans appear on the plant.. then reverse the combines out of the fields before the beans appear on them ?

I should patent this before Bayer cope on to it...

*heads off to the patent website*

Its no use unless you can reverse fell the rainforest though!

Xtrail14

Will ye not just try wafer thin ham.