Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Lewis Hamilton went vegan after watching this documentary

13

Comments

  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,183 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Eathrin wrote: »
    Soybeans can be produced at 52. 5 bushels per acre x 60 lbs. per bushel = 3,150 dry soybeans per acre
    Soybeans protein content (dry) is 163.44 grams per pound
    The protein content per acre of soybeans is 163.44 g x 3,150 lb. = 514,836 g per acre
    I still wouldn't touch soy products with a ten foot bargepole. Too many strong hints of issues with pseudo oestrogens having hormonal effects, particularly in men. Never mind that Asians who have been eating this stuff for thousands of years don't eat nearly so much of it as we've started to in the West and in a different(fermented) form. It's also added to so much of our processed food. It's fed to livestock because it's cheap and fattens them up quickly and given the increase of obesity in the west and declining fertility, Soy? No thank you.
    kylith wrote: »
    Sorry, I read that as sarcasm :o

    Regarding deforestation; the four main things driving it are beef, soybeans, palm oil, and logging for timber.

    And don't forget water consumption K. Cotton is a very thirsty crop and bad for the environment(hemp would be the far better bet but...) and Almond milk the diet hipsters new choice? It takes over a gallon of fresh water to grow a single nut. Green? My hoop.
    Of course, we need to take a global view of these things, and eating less meat will certainly help, as will ensuring that you buy local produce as much as possible. There's no need to buy Argentinian beef when Irish is world-class.
    +1000. We should be growing as much as possible locally. Ireland has a relatively small population and could pretty much feed itself, but if people insist on eating "exotic" and not so exotic foods flown half way around the world then their green credentials aren't worth jack. When you see spuds in Irish supermarkets coming from Israel and Holland flown over on planes you have to wonder.
    RWCNT wrote: »
    I'd heard it cited in a video ages ago and had a brief look through it, on second glance it seems to be saying that meat eating kick-started the development of our brains but that starch played an important role in the development that took place thereafter.
    Oh root veggies were important food sources alright RW, but they came along later. Depended on local climatic conditions too.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Also watch this if you want to be convinced 9/11 was an inside job



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,382 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Otherwise we would have remained an odd short arsed bipedal ape with big flat teeth and a fat belly in Africa.
    I think I know that guy. Except for the ‘Africa’ bit.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    This part is good

    https://youtu.be/wIONctjKPzc?t=1011

    Eating an egg a day is the same as smoking five cigarettes


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,382 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    This part is good

    https://youtu.be/wIONctjKPzc?t=1011

    Eating an egg a day is the same as smoking five cigarettes
    About as true as ‘eating a cigarette a day is the same as smoking five eggs’.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    endacl wrote: »
    About as true as ‘eating a cigarette a day is the same as smoking five eggs’.

    I'm glad you can do it that way, cos those eggs are a bastard to keep lit.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I have it on in the background. The amount of time he rings up websites asking them why they haven't got the dangers displayed, only for the website to unable to answer the question. He thinks the silence after asking an obtuse question to some random customer care operative is proving his point. I think its the fourth time he has done this in 30 minutes.

    https://youtu.be/wIONctjKPzc?t=1863


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    I have it on in the background. The amount of time he rings up websites asking them why they haven't got the dangers displayed, only for the website to unable to answer the question. He thinks the silence after asking an obtuse question to some random customer care operative is proving his point. I think its the fourth time he has done this in 30 minutes.

    https://youtu.be/wIONctjKPzc?t=1863

    Always bugs me when they do that on programmes; call customer care and ask how they make whatever's inside. Customer care is only trained on what to do if your complaint is that the tin of beans you bought is actually full of spaghetti hoops.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    Wibbs wrote: »
    an odd short arsed bipedal ape with big flat teeth and a fat belly.

    I've brought a few of these home in my time - I never thought to ask were they vegetarians though. (There's no meat in jagermeister I presume:D)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    kylith wrote: »
    Always bugs me when they do that on programmes; call customer care and ask how they make whatever's inside. Customer care is only trained on what to do if your complaint is that the tin of beans you bought is actually full of spaghetti hoops.

    Food unwrapped is brutal for it. How the hell is the girl who answers the phones going to know the ins and outs of pineapple production, or where exactly the sugar in ketchup comes from!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Food unwrapped is brutal for it. How the hell is the girl who answers the phones going to know the ins and outs of pineapple production, or where exactly the sugar in ketchup comes from!

    Exactly the one I was thinking of! What the feck does Mary answering the phone in Margate know about the process of growing Israeli artichokes?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 861 ✭✭✭ElKavo


    Wibbs wrote: »
    I still wouldn't touch soy products with a ten foot bargepole. Too many strong hints of issues with pseudo oestrogens having hormonal effects, particularly in men. Never mind that Asians who have been eating this stuff for thousands of years don't eat nearly so much of it as we've started to in the West and in a different(fermented) form. It's also added to so much of our processed food. It's fed to livestock because it's cheap and fattens them up quickly and given the increase of obesity in the west and declining fertility, Soy? No thank you.

    Any evidence to support that? I would say that making statements like that without having anything to back it up is pretty reckless.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19524224

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20378106

    Soy consumption has also been linked to lower rates of prostate cancer, unlike milk

    Also Vegan men typically have higher levels of testosterone Link & Link 2 than Meat eaters and Vegetarians. Along with the lower prostate cancer risk, I can't see a down side.

    On a side note since I became Vegan and consume a plant based diet I have found it far easier to build muscle and loose fat without having to consume huge amounts of calories, like I had to do while I was on an omni diet. But hey maybe that's just me. I also sleep like a baby and my libido is much higher than it was previously. Which in fairness my OH might not be too happy about LOL #Sexpest

    And don't forget water consumption K. Cotton is a very thirsty crop and bad for the environment(hemp would be the far better bet but...) and Almond milk the diet hipsters new choice? It takes over a gallon of fresh water to grow a single nut. Green? My hoop.

    Cotton is a very thirsty crop, Hemp would be far more beneficial as a crop for a whole host of uses, it grows quicker too. Although what cotton has to do with Vegans specifically i'm not sure. There are a myriad of other plants that can be grown in Ireland that would be suitable for "milks" Hemp again being a great choice.
    +1000. We should be growing as much as possible locally. Ireland has a relatively small population and could pretty much feed itself, but if people insist on eating "exotic" and not so exotic foods flown half way around the world then their green credentials aren't worth jack. When you see spuds in Irish supermarkets coming from Israel and Holland flown over on planes you have to wonder.

    Agree 100%, but you can grow quiona in Ireland...
    http://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/irish-farms-take-part-in-quinoa-trials/
    And it is much better for the soil too. There are loads of crops that can be grown here that would be suitable for everyone to eat not just Vegans. Crops that would be far less damaging to the environment better for health and obviously would not exploit animals.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    I watched about twenty minutes of that documentary and could not believe how bad it was. Full of pseudoscience and dubious citations eg. personal blogs rather than scientific studies.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,611 ✭✭✭Mooooo


    It's true we can grow most crops here however due to the length of the growing season it's harvesting crops is the issue. Crops ripen in the autumn and rainfall increases here. Also due to our wetter climate crops are under greater pressure from fungi etc. Not all crops reach the quality for food production, its the rest that goes towards animal feed. Grass is about the best thing we can grow here in the majority of land, most of my land here is too wet to grow anything else, whereas livestock can be managed and silage saved around the weather most years.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Because E people have found through experience that they usually are acts of preachy pretentiousness, with a side order of holier than thou ballsology thrown in.

    Ah, I dunno. I have a few friends that I didn’t know were vegetarian until long after I met them. And one of them told me that people are often immediately defensive and uppity towards her when she does say she is a vegetarian even if it only comes up incidentally. Say if she turns down a few appetisers on the trot at a party and someone asks her why and says it’s because they all contained meat, people have got thick with her over it. Even though she didn’t make a big deal about it and just answered when she was asked. Some veggies and vegan can be preachy but people can arsey towards them a lot too unprovoked.

    Anyone who harps on about what they eat is annoying, be they omnivore, vegetarian or vegan.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    kylith wrote: »
    I'd think that dairy and eggs would be seen as better than eating meat. After all neither causes any harm to the animal.

    I’m a fully paid up omnivore but I’m not at all convinced that intensive dairy production doesn’t involve a little cruelty. I ignore the output of organisations such as PETA but I am interested in animal welfare as an omnivore.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,527 ✭✭✭✭AMKC
    Ms


    Fair play to him. Too much dairy is bad for you do just like everything else. I know people who could drink it but don't as they prefer soya milk and feel better for it. I used to drink lots of it but also do not know but that's a different story. I do love my meat do nothing like a nice pork or lamp chop or a yummy steak.

    Live long and Prosper

    Peace and long life.



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,183 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    ElKavo wrote: »
    Any evidence to support that? I would say that making statements like that without having anything to back it up is pretty reckless.
    "Reckless"? Bit dramatic no? It's not as if someone not eating soya is going to be injured by it. Never mind that it was my personal opinion.
    Soy consumption has also been linked to lower rates of prostate cancer, unlike milk
    Wouldn't surprise me. I personally tend to avoid milk save for a drop in tea. The thoughts of drinking a glass of it makes me a bit ill. I'm weird mind you. :D
    Also Vegan men typically have higher levels of testosterone Link & Link 2 than Meat eaters and Vegetarians. Along with the lower prostate cancer risk, I can't see a down side.
    Maybe read your own links? One says and I quote: No differences in hormone levels were found between meat-eaters and lacto-ovo-vegetarians, suggesting that vegetarian diets may not alter prostate cancer risk, but the relatively low IGF-I levels in vegans might reduce their risk of prostate cancer. the other is entirely to go with IGF in women. Neither claim higher free testosterone(the important bit) in men on a vegan diet. It does claim that vegans have higher test, but this is offset by hormone bonders.

    _Dara_ wrote: »
    Ah, I dunno. I have a few friends that I didn’t know were vegetarian until long after I met them. And one of them told me that people are often immediately defensive and uppity towards her when she does say she is a vegetarian even if it only comes up incidentally. Say if she turns down a few appetisers on the trot at a party and someone asks her why and says it’s because they all contained meat, people have got thick with her over it. Even though she didn’t make a big deal about it and just answered when she was asked. Some veggies and vegan can be preachy but people can arsey towards them a lot too unprovoked.

    Anyone who harps on about what they eat is annoying, be they omnivore, vegetarian or vegan.
    Oh sure. I have personally found vegetarians to be the least "vocal" with vegans and I love meat I do types the most vocal.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Eathrin wrote: »
    Did we not lose an enormous amount of woodland to agriculture in the past few centuries? It was probably more diverse back in the day.

    Also as I've said before, we really wouldn't need all that much cropland to make up for the loss. Livestock farming, as I've said before, is a terribly inefficient use of land, water and food.

    I suspect you have read some rather generalised accounts regarding agricultural production and woodland clearance.

    Firstly - woodland in Ireland was largely cleared by early settlers in Ireland from the early bronze age onwards with most of the natural woodland cleared by the middle of the 17 century.

    The land was cleared to cater for the needs of an increasing rural population by the 1800's.

    The information you have presented above is at best inaccurate. I have seen this stuff copied again and again without reference to relevant (country specific) agricultural data and it makes for less than convincing (vegan) propaganda.

    Regarding the issue of making up the shortfall from livestock farming - this is not a linear calculation.

    Crops suitable for Irish conditions such as barely and oats produce a significantly smaller volume of edible material than let's say beef or other animal protein on a weight for weight basis.

    Crops are by definition an extensive form of agricultural produce and require relatively large amount of land for their production. In addition for the purposes of organic production signicificant amounts of land needs to be left fallow in rotation to maintain soil nutrient levels and maintain fertility. To produce only crop based material would require more not less land pressed into intensive production.

    In Ireland much of our land is not suitable or is at best marginal for crop growth. This matter is also constrained by our climatic conditions which make crop production conditions extremly difficult.

    I really don't care who "said it before" the statement below concerning livestock production being inefficient is grossly incorrect.

    You said:
    Livestock farming, as I've said before, is a terribly inefficient use of land, water and food.

    First of all in our climate and topography -livestock farming makes use of large areas of the country both upland and lowland which are not suitable and will never be for growing commercial food crops.

    Most 'food' fed to livestock is in fact the waste products of the human food industry. These waste products are by definition non human good grade waste products that would otherwise go to waste or dumped.

    As for water- In Ireland a significant proportion of livestock such as cattle and sheep obtain a significant amount of their feed requirements from grazing of what is in effect natural type vegetation viz. grass and grass products such as hay and silage. The important fact here is that Irish grassland is not artificially watered. Repeat that is zero irrigation for grassland in Ireland. None. Nada. No irrigation. No water involved.

    Now some of your statement may be true for some lot fed beef in the US or other agricultural production methods in some other countries but it does not hold here.

    Please do your own research and do not I repeat do not simply copy and paste what is in effect inaccurate and misleading copy detailed as 'fact'.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 437 ✭✭Vela


    gozunda wrote: »
    Nothing wrong in choosing a plant based diet as preference - what I can't stand is the stench of sanctimony from extreme vegan preachers.

    I've been a vegetarian for 22 years, and a vegan for 8 of them. Nothing pisses me off more than the whole militant vegan bull****. I made a choice for myself, just like people make their own choices every day, and I couldn't give two fcuks what anyone else does or doesn't eat! I've often known people for ages before they even realised I was a vegan.

    What I'm saying is, we're not all that annoying :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    gozunda wrote: »
    Now some of your statement may be true for some lot fed beef in the US or other agricultural production methods in some other countries but it does not hold here.

    I think that at one point or another everyone uses US research in some regard, simply because it is the nation where a lot of research has been done. However, in things such as this US research is simply not applicable due to the massive difference between Irish, or even european, agriculture and the US counterpart.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    Wibbs wrote: »
    or in the case of Niki Laura, fiery death?

    Niki Lauda is still very much alive.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Vela wrote: »
    I've been a vegetarian for 22 years, and a vegan for 8 of them. Nothing pisses me off more than the whole militant vegan bull****. I made a choice for myself, just like people make their own choices every day, and I couldn't give two fcuks what anyone else does or doesn't eat! I've often known people for ages before they even realised I was a vegan.

    What I'm saying is, we're not all that annoying :)

    Yup - I agree with that- hence the 'extreme' reference included. I lived happily on a vegetarian diet for almost 14 years largely as a result of economic necessity :pac: I
    have no problem with any plant based diets - just extreme preaching of some and poorly researched information presented as gospel. It's an absolute turn off for me ...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 14,311 ✭✭✭✭weldoninhio


    I’ve often wondered. Are vegans allowed bite their nails??


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    I’ve often wondered. Are vegans allowed bite their nails??

    It's not just the nails which might give rise to some ethical problems ...


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,076 ✭✭✭Eathrin


    gozunda wrote: »
    I suspect you have read some rather generalised accounts regarding agricultural production and woodland clearance.

    Firstly - woodland in Ireland was largely cleared by early settlers in Ireland from the early bronze age onwards with most of the natural woodland cleared by the middle of the 17 century.

    The land was cleared to cater for the needs of an increasing rural population by the 1800's.

    The information you have presented above is at best inaccurate. I have seen this stuff copied again and again without reference to relevant (country specific) agricultural data and it makes for less than convincing (vegan) propaganda.

    Regarding the issue of making up the shortfall from livestock farming - this is not a linear calculation.

    Crops suitable for Irish conditions such as barely and oats produce a significantly smaller volume of edible material than let's say beef or other animal protein on a weight for weight basis.

    Crops are by definition an extensive form of agricultural produce and require relatively large amount of land for their production. In addition for the purposes of organic production signicificant amounts of land needs to be left fallow in rotation to maintain soil nutrient levels and maintain fertility. To produce only crop based material would require more not less land pressed into intensive production.

    In Ireland much of our land is not suitable or is at best marginal for crop growth. This matter is also constrained by our climatic conditions which make crop production conditions extremly difficult.

    I really don't care who "said it before" the statement below concerning livestock production being inefficient is grossly incorrect.

    You said:


    First of all in our climate and topography -livestock farming makes use of large areas of the country both upland and lowland which are not suitable and will never be for growing commercial food crops.

    Most 'food' fed to livestock is in fact the waste products of the human food industry. These waste products are by definition non human good grade waste products that would otherwise go to waste or dumped.

    Now some of your statement may be true for some lot fed beef in the US or other agricultural production methods in some other countries but it does not hold here.

    Please do your own research and do not I repeat do not simply copy and paste what is in effect inaccurate and misleading copy detailed as 'fact'.


    Yes, I am aware that conditions and practices are different in Ireland and the US. I suggest you do some of that research yourself because you're absolutely incorrect to say that pound for pound crops produce less edible food when looking at the amount of land they take up. Cows, requiring in usually well in excess of one acre each, yield about 500 pounds of edible meat and are usually reared to 2-3 years of age. One one acre, one can expect to grow about 10-11,000 pounds of edible crops per year

    Furthermore, I am aware again that in Ireland cattle are predominantly grass fed from the land. In fact, I'd agree that livestock farming in Ireland is far far more efficient than in other parts of the world. However, if we are to take a global view of things then the issue of food waste is enormous as is water consumption.

    "The production of one kilogram of beef requires 15,414 litres of water on average. The production of one kilogram of vegetables, on the contrary, requires 322 litres of water."

    Sources


    http://www.gardensofeden.org/04%20Crop%20Yield%20Verification.htm
    http://igrow.org/livestock/beef/how-much-meat-can-you-expect-from-a-fed-steer/
    https://www.farmersjournal.ie/average-slaughter-age-of-cattle-drops-slightly-in-northern-ireland-201273
    http://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat

    I can appreciate that this is a multi faceted issue that is not very black and white at all and I can appreciate a lot of what you say, but dismissing my arguments completely as propaganda, without consideration for what harm is being done, is irresponsible.

    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" - Aristotle


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Eathrin wrote: »
    Yes, I am aware that conditions and practices are different in Ireland and the US. I suggest you do some of that research yourself because you're absolutely incorrect to say that pound for pound crops produce less edible food when looking at the amount of land they take up. Cows, requiring in usually well in excess of one acre each, yield about 500 pounds of edible meat and are usually reared to 2-3 years of age. One one acre, one can expect to grow about 10-11,000 pounds of edible crops per year

    Earthin - I am qualified in this subject and I know what I am referring to. Unfortunately you provided vague generalised statements on the inefficiencies of livestock farming with no qualification as to where those conditions pertained or their relevance to where they applied. That is propaganda.

    The problem with your calculations is that you have failed to detail that a standing crop such as wheat includes a significant amount of crop waste in terms of stalks, leaves, husks etc etc. Once reduced to available edible parts crops on average produce less available edible material on a gross weight basis than livestock. You also leave out the fact that not all livestock are cattle and animals such as sheep are often killed out at under a year old.
    Eathrin wrote: »
    Furthermore, I am aware again that in Ireland cattle are predominantly grass fed from the land. In fact, I'd agree that livestock farming in Ireland is far far more efficient than in other parts of the world. However, if we are to take a global view of things then the issue of food waste is enormous as is water consumption.

    Again look at the matter with a more critical eye. In areas such as the American mid west and the middle East huge areas of crops are artificially irrigated. Much of this water is abstracted from natural aquifers or other bodies of water. These crops would not grow in these areas except for the massive amounts of inputs used in growing these crops. Serious environmental complications such as salisisation of the soil from evaporating water means that many such areas will be eventually rendered unsuited to cultivation. With regard to 'food waste'which is used to feed animals - much of it is simply not edible by humans. Such products may include the non edible parts of crops or produce which does not meet human food safe standards and other non human grade produce.

    pluggingwate.jpg

    Irrigation_595.jpg

    The image shows arid soils being artificially irrigated using abstracted water from reservoirs for the purpose of large-scale commercial crop growth.
    Eathrin wrote: »
    "The production of one kilogram of beef requires 15,414 litres of water on average. The production of one kilogram of vegetables, on the contrary, requires 322 litres of water."

    We do not water grassland in this country as I have said. Grass as a crop in Ireland grows naturally because of temperate climate. It is a permanent crop who does not require yearly ploughing and replanting. These conditions also pertain to many other areas globally. Grass fed livestock especially in areas where it is not suitable to grow other crops on a commercial basis is one of the most efficient way of producing high quality food. Even if so wished it is not always possible to swap to commercial crop growth from livestock production so those figures can only apply hypothetically.

    The stories you provided in your links again miss many of the real conditions pertaining to crop growth worldwide, detail non irrigated conditions for crop growth and include figures garnered from US agricultural production methods. Those figures are irrelevant for much of the world.
    Eathrin wrote: »
    I can appreciate that this is a multi faceted issue that is not very black and white at all and I can appreciate a lot of what you say, but dismissing my arguments completely as propaganda, without consideration for what harm is being done, is irresponsible.

    No pointing out that a spade is a spade - is what it is. It would be irresponsible not to point out that much of the information given as fact for agricultural production by pro vegan interests is at best misleading. I do not wish to malign anyone only to counter that which is incorrect.

    And as detailed - I have in the past adopted a vegetarian diet. I have no issue with anyone adopting any type of plant based diet however it is not helpful to push or advocate for a specific type of dietary ideology through the dissemination of information which on closer inspection fails the most basic of level of scrutiny.

    As for classical quotes ....
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" - Aristotle

    Aristotle also said
    "Philosophy can make people sick"


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,076 ✭✭✭Eathrin


    gozunda wrote: »
    Earthin - I am qualified in this subject and I know what I am referring to. Unfortunately you provided vague generalised statements on the inefficiencies of livestock farming with no qualification as to where those conditions pertained or their relevance to where they applied. That is propaganda.

    The problem with your calculations is that you have failed to detail that a standing crop such as wheat includes a significant amount of crop waste in terms of stalks, leaves, husks etc etc. Once reduced to available edible parts crops on average produce less available edible material on a gross weight basis than livestock. You also leave out the fact that not all livestock are cattle and animals such as sheep are often killed out at under a year old.



    Again look at the matter with a more critical eye. In areas such as the American mid west and the middle East huge areas of crops are artificially irrigated. Much of this water is abstracted from natural aquifers or other bodies of water. These crops would not grow in these areas except for the massive amounts of inputs used in growing these crops. Serious environmental complications such as salisisation of the soil from evaporating water means that many such areas will be eventually rendered unsuited to cultivation. With regard to 'food waste'which is used to feed animals - much of it is simply not edible by humans. Such products may include the non edible parts of crops or produce which does not meet human food safe standards and other non human grade produce.

    The image shows arid soils being artificially irrigated using abstracted water from reservoirs for the purpose of large-scale commercial crop growth.

    We do not water grassland in this country as I have said. Grass as a crop in Ireland grows naturally because of temperate climate. It is a permanent crop who does not require yearly ploughing and replanting. These conditions also pertain to many other areas globally. Grass fed livestock especially in areas where it is not suitable to grow other crops on a commercial basis is one of the most efficient way of producing high quality food. Even if so wished it is not always possible to swap to commercial crop growth from livestock production so those figures can only apply hypothetically.

    The stories you provided in your links again miss many of the real conditions pertaining to crop growth worldwide, detail non irrigated conditions for crop growth and include figures garnered from US agricultural production methods. Those figures are irrelevant for much of the world.

    No pointing out that a spade is a spade - is what it is. It would be irresponsible not to point out that much of the information given as fact for agricultural production by pro vegan interests is at best misleading. I do not wish to malign anyone only to counter that which is incorrect.

    And as detailed - I have in the past adopted a vegetarian diet. I have no issue with anyone adopting any type of plant based diet however it is not helpful to push or advocate for a specific type of dietary ideology through the dissemination of information which on closer inspection fails the most basic of level of scrutiny.

    As for classical quotes ....

    I don't know if you see the hypocrisy in that you are the one not providing any sources to back up your arguments here. I have provided plenty for you to see that you are being needlessly dismissive.

    If you had read the material in the links, you would see that I was comparing weights of vegetables to meat. Being extremely rough with my maths, you should be able to see that the vegetables provide about 40 times as much edible produce per acre per year than the meat. If we're talking about protein substitutes, lima beans, which have roughly 1/3 the amount of protein as beef, can yield about 10 times more in weight than beef per acre, so we're talking about 3.5 times the amount of protein per acre there.

    The reason I chose beef is that it accounts for about 60% of Ireland's agricultural output and also is the biggest contributor to climate change.

    If we're talking about a diverse agricultural output and maximising efficiencies, then livestock certainly have their place in the equation. I'm not denying there is plenty of waste material in wheat. I am qualified to talk about what is efficient and current methods are so far from it.

    Also, did you know that about 50% of grain grown worldwide is fed to livestock? That's all taken into account when we talk about how much water goes into rearing livestock. They wouldn't be growing the grain in the first place if it weren't for all the mouths to feed.

    When we compare Ireland to the rest of the world what are we really trying to say anyway? I think you ignored what I said before when I agreed that livestock farming in Ireland is clearly more efficient than in the US for example, though telling me that we're not as bad as X,Y or Z or sure at least we're doing better than A,B and C is a terrible basis for any argument. But what do we take from that? We're still not talking about rearing intelligent living things for slaughter. I don't think you mentioned climate change once. Are these all problems for someone else to deal with?


    http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?newsID=20772#.WPH_LWdFfIU

    http://demandware.edgesuite.net/bbbw_prd/on/demandware.static/-/Library-Sites-JSSSharedLibrary/default/dw2a706e5e/assets/information/vegetables-direct-seeded-crop-seed-quantity-yield-chart.pdf

    http://www.askaboutireland.ie/enfo/sustainable-living/farming-in-ireland-overvi/


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,183 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Niki Lauda is still very much alive.

    And why I continued with "or in the case of Niki Laura, fiery death? Fcuk you"

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,717 ✭✭✭YFlyer


    The problem with your calculations is that you have failed to detail that a standing crop such as wheat includes a significant amount of crop waste in terms of stalks, leaves, husks etc etc. Once reduced to available edible parts crops on average produce less available edible material on a gross weight basis than livestock. You also leave out the fact that not all livestock are cattle and animals such as sheep are often killed out at under a year old.

    And the same crops with similar yields given to animals.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,076 ✭✭✭Eathrin


    YFlyer wrote: »
    The problem with your calculations is that you have failed to detail that a standing crop such as wheat includes a significant amount of crop waste in terms of stalks, leaves, husks etc etc. Once reduced to available edible parts crops on average produce less available edible material on a gross weight basis than livestock. You also leave out the fact that not all livestock are cattle and animals such as sheep are often killed out at under a year old.

    And the same crops with similar yields given to animals.

    I feel like I addressed both of those points already. Fair enough, lots of standing crop waste will go to animal feed, and that is a good efficient use of said waste. But (i) crop farming encompasses far more than just growing wheat and (ii) a whole lot of produce like corn is grown in the US specifically for animal feed, this is an extremely inefficient use of resources.

    We produce less than 10% Sheep meat than we do Beef so again, that is why I use cattle in the example. Doing some napkin maths again, a lamb taking up 0.1 acre yielding 50 pounds of edible meat gives 500 pounds per acre again. The methane production of a sheep isn't all that much greener than a cow. Pigs and chickens would be far greener meats than beef and mutton/lamb however.

    http://www.bordbia.ie/industry/buyers/industryinfo/agri/pages/default.aspx

    http://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/ball-is-in-the-farmers-court-to-deliver-the-ideal-lamb-carcass/


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Eathrin wrote: »
    I don't know if you see the hypocrisy in that you are the one not providing any sources to back up your arguments here. I have provided plenty for you to see that you are being needlessly dismissive.

    There is no 'hypocrisy' if the references you presented are largely irrelevant to that which you have claimed.

    The main problem with many available online references you gave is that they are either irrelevant to the point made eg using US based studies to make pan global statements or contain author bias. That still stands.

    If you wish certainly we can have a battle of references. What I was doing was pointing out the flaws in the logic of your arguments.

    The Garden Eden reference was particularly enlightening especially it's author :D

    See http://www.gardensofeden.org/Bio.htm

    Overall I found your references eclectic at best

    You also appear not to have read or understood anything I posted and are now repeating yourself with added "detail: :rolleyes:
    Eathrin wrote: »
    If you had read the material in the links, you would see that I was comparing weights of vegetables to meat. Being extremely rough with my maths, you should be able to see that the vegetables provide about 40 times as much edible produce per acre per year than the meat. If we're talking about protein substitutes, lima beans, which have roughly 1/3 the amount of protein as beef, can yield about 10 times more in weight than beef per acre, so we're talking about 3.5 times the amount of protein per acre there.

    Eathin- I did peruse your links and found that you included US data and other non standardised outputs. .

    The problem with your calculations is that you are using a per acre factor. Now the issue with that is that it sets acres as a delimitator. In Ireland (as many other countries) land availability is not a set limit to production.

    If we were to only grow and eat that which we could maximise on a per acre basis we would in all probability have the same diet as in the 1840s i.e. the potato or maybe weeds and we would make clothes made from rushes and the fibre of dock leaves!

    Let me explain production figures I presented in my last post using an example.

    Now take an scenario where you are being banished to a remote location for a set amount of time and that you can choose to have either a ton of unprocessed beef or a ton of unprocessed wheat to survive on. (This presumes you've been given proper storage facilities of course).

    Now knowing that the available edible parts of a ton of wheat are infact only a small part of that tonnage with stalks, husks and leaves not been edible. You would be left with the ears of corn only - representing a relatively small proportion of that tonnage.

    The unprocessed beef whilst having some parts such as the those like the hide which can not be eaten - the remainder fron the meat down to the bones, intestines, brain etc can all be used. The bones can be cooked to extract the marrow etc and all the other parts can be used in some fashion or other.

    Additionally you cannot compare the generalised (average) agricultural outputs you gave in your example. Your calculations spectacularly fail to detail the type of vegetable and therefore the specific output or whether the vegetables (type unspecified) are grown outdoors, under cover or by some other method e.g. hydoponically. Without that data any such comparisons are null and void.
    Eathrin wrote: »
    The reason I chose beef is that it accounts for about 60% of Ireland's agricultural output and also is the biggest contributor to climate change.

    Again you have failed to understand the point I made earlier. I detailed that it is in fact all human activities combined which contribute to climate change. Those activities are as a result of the sheer magnitude of the total human population and as I've said before everything else is moving the deck chairs on the Titanic.

    Inputs such as fertilisers and processing of crops are also significant contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. You have ignored that for some reason. You also fail to factor in massive amounrs of fossil fuels used in the intensive land preparation, ploughing and harvesting required for tillage.

    The fact is that Ireland's temperate climate and topography do not give us the leeway to all decide to up sticks and grow lima beans or whatever - that is a reality.
    Eathrin wrote: »
    If we're talking about a diverse agricultural output and maximising efficiencies, then livestock certainly have their place in the equation. I'm not denying there is plenty of waste material in wheat. I am qualified to talk about what is efficient and current methods are so far from it.Also, did you know that about 50% of grain grown worldwide is fed to livestock? That's all taken into account when we talk about how much water goes into rearing livestock. They wouldn't be growing the grain in the first place if it weren't for all the mouths to feed

    The water of which you mention in regard to beef is a significant environmental issue with regard to crops grown in arid regions and which you have failed to factor into any if your calculations. I note again you refer to grain fed livestock figures from the US and importantly leavevout that much of the "grain" used to feed livestock is actually the waste products left over after processing.
    Eathrin wrote: »
    When we compare Ireland to the rest of the world what are we really trying to say anyway? I think you ignored what I said before when I agreed that livestock farming in Ireland is clearly more efficient than in the US for example, though telling me that we're not as bad as X,Y or Z or sure at least we're doing better than A,B and C is a terrible basis for any argument. But what do we take from that? We're still not talking about rearing intelligent living things for slaughter. I don't think you mentioned climate change once. Are these all problems for someone else to deal with?

    *careful now your real bias is showing ...

    As stated in Ireland cattle have a largely grass based diet. It does not help that your arguments are all over the place and jump from average figures to global and then to localised production

    As you are jumping all over the place in an effort to promote veganism would you then tell impoverished goat herders in Afghanistan or Yak herd owners in Tibet to desist from the production of livestock because you believe that people should not rear animals for food? Seriousley?

    Perhaps you could research this area in greater detail and not rely so much on your own bias to tell others what they should do or not do.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Eathrin wrote: »
    I feel like I addressed both of those points already. Fair enough, lots of standing crop waste will go to animal feed, and that is a good efficient use of said waste. But (i) crop farming encompasses far more than just growing wheat and (ii) a whole lot of produce like corn is grown in the US specifically for animal feed, this is an extremely inefficient use of resources.

    We produce less than 10% Sheep meat than we do Beef so again, that is why I use cattle in the example. Doing some napkin maths again, a lamb taking up 0.1 acre yielding 50 pounds of edible meat gives 500 pounds per acre again. The methane production of a sheep isn't all that much greener than a cow. Pigs and chickens would be far greener meats than beef and mutton/lamb however.

    Back to Ireland now from travelling the globe?

    That is one of the main problems with your ideas - is that it appeared to be based on some notional idea of farm production taken from a muddle of information derived from different sources - none of which makes for convincing argument.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,076 ✭✭✭Eathrin


    gozunda wrote: »
    There is no 'hypocrisy' if the references you presented are largely irrelevant to that which you have claimed.

    The main problem with many available online references you gave is that they are either irrelevant to the point made eg using US based studies to make pan global statements or contain author bias. That still stands.

    If you wish certainly we can have a battle of references. What I was doing was pointing out the flaws in the logic of your arguments.

    The Garden Eden reference was particularly enlightening especially it's author :D

    See http://www.gardensofeden.org/Bio.htm

    Overall I found your references eclectic at best

    You can find the exact same information anywhere else that was presented on the garden of eden. You're picking apart the author to discredit the information. It's pathetic.
    http://demandware.edgesuite.net/bbbw_prd/on/demandware.static/-/Library-Sites-JSSSharedLibrary/default/dw2a706e5e/assets/information/vegetables-direct-seeded-crop-seed-quantity-yield-chart.pdf

    Bord Bia, the United Nations, the farmers journal... clearly all very biased sources. Why bother with you...

    The problem with your calculations is that you are using a per acre factor. Now the issue with that is that it sets acres as a delimitator. In Ireland (as many other countries) land availability is not a set limit to production.

    If we were to only grow and eat that which we could maximise on a per acre basis we would in all probability have the same diet as in the 1840s i.e. the potato or maybe weeds and we would make clothes made from rushes and the fibre of dock leaves!

    We probably wouldn't, hilariously enough! I talked about efficiency, not pure weight maximisation. Why have a balanced diet when you can just eat one crop forever? Stupid me :D

    Now take an scenario where you are being banished to a remote location for a set amount of time and that you can choose to have either a ton of unprocessed beef or a ton of unprocessed wheat to survive on. (This presumes you've been given proper storage facilities of course).

    Still banging on about wheat...
    Now knowing that the available edible parts of a ton of wheat are infact only a small part of that tonnage with stalks, husks and leaves not been edible. You would be left with the ears of corn only - representing a relatively small proportion of that tonnage.

    The unprocessed beef whilst having some parts such as the those like the hide which can not be eaten - the remainder fron the meat down to the bones, intestines, brain etc can all be used. The bones can be cooked to extract the marrow etc and all the other parts can be used in some fashion or other.
    I'll take your point there. However as an aside, I think you'll find the average person banished to a remote location won't be too thrilled at the prospect of having to slaughter a cow, much less at having to eat the brain, boil the bones etc. Even if we assume that the entire weight of a cow is all edible material, it doesn't even come close to the vegetables in useful edible produce.

    Additionally you cannot compare the generalised (average) agricultural outputs you gave in your example. Your calculations spectacularly fail to detail the type of vegetable and therefore the specific output or whether the vegetables (type unspecified) are grown outdoors, under cover or by some other method e.g. hydoponically. Without that data any such comparisons are null and void.

    You can check out the different outputs at your own pace. I gave you the average. There's plenty of variety there. Hardly null and void. That's not how this works.
    Again you have failed to understand the point I made earlier. I detailed that it is in fact all human activities combined which contribute to climate change. Those activities are as a result of the sheer magnitude of the total human population and as I've said before everything else is moving the deck chairs on the Titanic.

    Do you think I'm thick? All human activities contribute to climate change, yes. I don't see what your point is? Livestock farming is by many estimates the biggest contributor. Energy production is a major contributor, private vehicles are a major contributor, overfishing is a major contributor. Overpopulation exacerbates the problem, but is not the cause. The root cause are the things we would be doing if there was one billion people or seven billion people. Does that make it okay to continue doing harmful things, knowing they are wrong?

    From what I gather from what you said, the earth is doomed anyway, so there's no point in even trying. Would that be fair to say?
    Inputs such as fertilisers and processing of crops are also significant contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. You have ignored that for some reason. You also fail to factor in massive amounrs of fossil fuels used in the intensive land preparation, ploughing and harvesting required for tillage.

    I certainly wouldn't try to deny these dangers. Tell you what, maybe you can produce an well sourced argument for me that compares the environmental impact of livestock farming vs crop farming?

    The fact is that Ireland's temperate climate and topography do not give us the leeway to all decide to up sticks and grow lima beans or whatever - that is a reality.

    That's true. Good thing there's a lot of countries in the world.

    The water of which you mention in regard to beef is a significant environmental issue with regard to crops grown in arid regions and which you have failed to factor into any if your calculations. I note again you refer to grain fed livestock figures from the US and importantly leavevout that much of the "grain" used to feed livestock is actually the waste products left over after processing.

    Read my posts again.
    *careful now your real bias is showing ...
    I try to be as unbiased as possible in my arguments.
    Just because I have certain beliefs doesn't mean my arguments are biased. I reckon that you work in farm related activities? You probably have a bit more bias than I, whether you realise that or not.
    As stated in Ireland cattle have a largely grass based diet. It does not help that your arguments are all over the place and jump from average figures to global and then to localised production
    You've not read my posts very well
    As you are jumping all over the place in an effort to promote veganism

    I never once argued that we should all be vegan. I'm not vegan myself.
    would you then tell impoverished goat herders in Afghanistan or Yak herd owners in Tibet to desist from the production of livestock because you believe that people should not rear animals for food? Seriousley?

    No. I think you'll find that they have less choice than we do.
    Perhaps you could research this area in greater detail and not rely so much on your own bias to tell others what they should do or not do.

    I intend to continue my research for a long time to come. I never intend to bring bias to any argument. I don't think you want to hear things which challenge your notions of what is right and what is wrong.
    gozunda wrote: »
    Back to Ireland now from travelling the globe?
    I'll mind my language. Sorry if I caused offence.
    That is one of the main problems with your ideas - is that it appeared to be based on some notional idea of farm production taken from a muddle of information derived from different sources - none of which makes for convincing argument.

    I don't think it would matter what my sources were, what they said or what ideas I had to be honest. I can't imagine what it would take to convince you of something which challenged your view of the world. Try and have an honest conversation with yourself sometime. What do you get out of things staying the same and what do you get out of things changing? Can you leave these out of your arguments?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Eathrin wrote: »
    You can find the exact same information anywhere else that was presented on the garden of eden. You're picking apart the author to discredit the information. It's pathetic. Bord Bia, the United Nations, the farmers journal... clearly all very biased sources. Why bother with you...

    With the garden of Eden reference there was clear author bias and additionally the figures did not specify type of cultivation methods etc so not a good reference no. Many of the others you had included were irrelevant in that they referred to either US or non standard output figures etc. So not particularly good references either.
    Eathrin wrote: »
    We probably wouldn't, hilariously enough! I talked about efficiency, not pure weight maximisation. Why have a balanced diet when you can just eat one crop forever? Stupid me :

    The per acre figures are not a useful measure of comparison as I explained. The issue at hand is being able to make for a valid comparison. Additionally concentrating purely on efficiency is not always the best answer.
    Eathrin wrote: »
    Still banging on about wheat...

    Well you do know that wheat covers more of the planet than any other crop. You brought in the issue of grain as well.
    Eathrin wrote: »
    I'll take your point there. However as an aside, I think you'll find the average person banished to a remote location won't be too thrilled at the prospect of having to slaughter a cow, much less at having to eat the brain, boil the bones etc. Even if we assume that the entire weight of a cow is all edible material, it doesn't even come close to the vegetables in useful edible produce.

    The cattle are already been killed / dispatched in this example just as the wheat has been cut / harvested. Practically every part of a cow can be eaten or used. Vegetable produce varies hugely. Many crops have significant non edible material.
    Eathrin wrote: »
    You can check out the different outputs at your own pace. I gave you the average. There's plenty of variety there. Hardly null and void. That's not how this works.

    It does not make sense if the reader had to do that themselves. The argument fails because of that n
    Eathrin wrote: »
    Do you think I'm thick? All human activities contribute to climate change, yes. I don't see what your point is? Livestock farming is by many estimates the biggest contributor. Energy production is a major contributor, private vehicles are a major contributor, overfishing is a major contributor. Overpopulation exacerbates the problem, but is not the cause. The root cause are the things we would be doing if there was one billion people or seven billion people. Does that make it okay to continue doing harmful things, knowing they are wrong?

    You dont wish for me to really answer that first question? :pac: The point is that for every additional human there is a corresponding rise in greenhouse gases as consequent demand for good, goods and services increases.more humans more greenhouse gasses ad infinitum ...
    Eathrin wrote: »
    From what I gather from what you said, the earth is doomed anyway, so there's no point in even trying. Would that be fair to say?

    No it's not imo. The earth will most likely get on just fine if we are not here.
    Eathrin wrote: »
    That's true. Good thing there's a lot of countries in the world.
    Read my posts again.
    I try to be as unbiased as possible in my arguments.
    Just because I have certain beliefs doesn't mean my arguments are biased. I reckon that you work in farm related activities? You probably have a bit more bias than I, whether you realise that or not.

    The 'bias' was related to your comment of "slaughtering intelligent animals" btw. I have been both a vegetarian and a meat eater. I have learned from both. On the most basic level many animals eat other aninals. It's part of nature and a recycling of nutrients .
    Eathrin wrote: »
    No. I think you'll find that they have less choice than we do.

    In Ireland we are also seriously constrained by our environment in terms of what we can and cannot produce from the land.
    Eathrin wrote: »
    I intend to continue my research for a long time to come. I never intend to bring bias to any argument. I don't think you want to hear things which challenge your notions of what is right and what is wrong.

    May I suggest not only research - start at the coal face. Grow your own vegetables. Cultivate the soil. Work on a number of different agricultural and horticultural enterprises here and abroad to find out how what the reality of agricultural production methods are. I do not think of such issues in terms of right or wrong btw but I do dislike logical torpitude.
    Eathrin wrote: »
    I certainly wouldn't try to deny these dangers. Tell you what, maybe you can produce an well sourced argument for me that compares the environmental impact of livestock farming vs crop farming?

    The point was that many of the standard arguments against livestock farming ignore these issues. So again it is very difficult to make a valid comparison
    Eathrin wrote: »
    You've not read my posts very well
    I never once argued that we should all be vegan. I'm not vegan myself..

    I found a lot of the arguments were jumbled. Rather than concentrating on a mumber of significant aspects of livestock production everything was being thrown into the mix. One of your first posts was in defence of veganism and many of the remainder continued in the same vein.
    Eathrin wrote: »
    I don't think it would matter what my sources were, what they said or what ideas I had to be honest. I can't imagine what it would take to convince you of something which challenged your view of the world. Try and have an honest conversation with yourself sometime. What do you get out of things staying the same and what do you get out of things changing? Can you leave these out of your arguments?

    My views and opinions have changed hugely over the years. I am a sucker for a good argument. However don't get me wrong - I don't have the answers but still have plenty of questions.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,102 ✭✭✭greencap


    bazz26 wrote: »
    Jesus, would you get over yourself and lighten up a bit.

    No, sorry, he was entirely right.

    I found your comment highly objectionable and offensive.

    Nothing vegan related, just the abominable unoriginality.

    And now, due to the restrictions of this site, I must inform you via typed text that I am pointing at your earlier comment while placing my tongue between my lower lip and teeth and making the 'nuurrrr' sound in a mocking mannner.

    Harsh, yes, but necessary.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,076 ✭✭✭Eathrin


    gozunda wrote: »
    With the garden of Eden reference there was clear author bias and additionally the figures did not specify type of cultivation methods etc so not a good reference no. Many of the others you had included were irrelevant in that they referred to either US or non standard output figures etc. So not particularly good references either.



    The per acre figures are not a useful measure of comparison as I explained. The issue at hand is being able to make for a valid comparison. Additionally concentrating purely on efficiency is not always the best answer.



    Well you do know that wheat covers more of the planet than any other crop. You brought in the issue of grain as well.



    The cattle are already been killed / dispatched in this example just as the wheat has been cut / harvested. Practically every part of a cow can be eaten or used. Vegetable produce varies hugely. Many crops have significant non edible material.



    It does not make sense if the reader had to do that themselves. The argument fails because of that n



    You dont wish for me to really answer that first question? :pac: The point is that for every additional human there is a corresponding rise in greenhouse gases as consequent demand for good, goods and services increases.more humans more greenhouse gasses ad infinitum ...



    No it's not imo. The earth will most likely get on just fine if we are not here.



    The 'bias' was related to your comment of "slaughtering intelligent animals" btw. I have been both a vegetarian and a meat eater. I have learned from both. On the most basic level many animals eat other aninals. It's part of nature and a recycling of nutrients .



    In Ireland we are also seriously constrained by our environment in terms of what we can and cannot produce from the land.



    May I suggest not only research - start at the coal face. Grow your own vegetables. Cultivate the soil. Work on a number of different agricultural and horticultural enterprises here and abroad to find out how what the reality of agricultural production methods are. I do not think of such issues in terms of right or wrong btw but I do dislike logical torpitude.



    The point was that many of the standard arguments against livestock farming ignore these issues. So again it is very difficult to make a valid comparison



    I found a lot of the arguments were jumbled. Rather than concentrating on a mumber of significant aspects of livestock production everything was being thrown into the mix. One of your first posts was in defence of veganism and many of the remainder continued in the same vein.



    My views and opinions have changed hugely over the years. I am a sucker for a good argument. However don't get me wrong - I don't have the answers but still have plenty of questions.

    Thank you for your answers but you've made it clear to me that you're not a person worth having debate with.I'm sure you'll be delighted at my exit and feel that you've "won" somehow and I somewhat pity you for that.

    I wouldn't dare to say everything you've said is wrong. Debate doesn't work like that. There are few black and whites in this world. I do think you need to get your head out of your ass a bit though and start to entertain thoughts you mightn't have always had. Or don't, you might make a good politician. You can't dismiss everything you disagree with as jumbled or null and void. Sure, there are a lot of real world factors that numbers cannot do a good job of representing, but that doesn't mean they're not valid numbers in their own right. Good luck.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,303 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Eathrin wrote: »
    Thank you for your answers but you've made it clear to me that you're not a person worth having debate with.I'm sure you'll be delighted at my exit and feel that you've "won" somehow and I somewhat pity you for that.
    I do think you need to get your head out of your ass a bit though and start to entertain thoughts you mightn't have always had. Or don't, you might make a good politician.

    Somewhere near the bottom

    disagreement-hierarchy.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Eathrin wrote: »
    Thank you for your answers but you've made it clear to me that you're not a person worth having debate with I'm sure you'll be delighted at my exit and feel that you've "won" somehow and I somewhat pity you for that. I wouldn't dare to say everything you've said is wrong. Debate doesn't work like that. There are few black and whites in this world. I do think you need to get your head out of your ass a bit though and start to entertain thoughts you mightn't have always had. Or don't, you might make a good politician. You can't dismiss everything you disagree with as jumbled or null and void. Sure, there are a lot of real world factors that numbers cannot do a good job of representing, but that doesn't mean they're not valid numbers in their own right. Good luck.

    Well I believe others have responded to the above more than adequately.

    However Just one quote comes to mind:
    If one does not understand a person, one tends to regard him as a fool

    C.G. Jung

    Goodnight.


  • Registered Users Posts: 49 joefromireland


    Well, it is 12 minutes since the OP posted and they have not indicated that they are vegan, so the OP is not vegan.

    No, I am not vegan
    After watching the documentary What the health and watching this video which talks about debunking it, perhaps a plant-based diet is a good idea for your health.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭Chrongen


    jacksie66 wrote: »
    That documentary is ridiculous. It claims eating a few eggs a day is the same as smoking a box of fags. Even has a clip of a woman serving fried cigarettes to her kids. Pure militant vegan nonsense.

    Also that thread name is pure click bait.


    The scientific proof in the documentary is pretty irrefutable. Meat and specifically processed meat is full of carcinogens. Also the sick people who went on a plant based diet all showed dramatic improvements in their health.

    That's hardly militant vegan nonsense.

    If you quit drinking alcohol you will also show marked signs of improved health. Is that militant teetotal nonsense?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭Chrongen


    Lia_lia wrote: »
    That documentary was ridiculous. A load of sh*te.

    Some people get so easily swayed by these types of documentaries. I don't get it.

    And I say this as someone that doesn't eat meat... :pac:


    I watched it. What was sh1te/ridiculous about it? Was the whole thing lies? Just curious.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭Chrongen


    RustyNut wrote: »
    They are easy to identify, sunken eyes, bad skin underweight and will be preaching some hippy crap to anyone who will listen. :D

    Does that include the 300 million vegetarians in India?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭Chrongen


    Probably because of the amount of preachy vegans who think that everyone else is going to have the same life changing epiphany they had after watching some bollocks YouTube documentary. I'm not saying you're coming across that way, that's just what tends to annoy a lot of people about vegans.

    1) Fair point, and we do eat too much meat. What happens if we all just stop though? What do we do with all the animals? Would sustainable farmibg methods not be viable?

    2) Nature is unnecessarily cruel. Our bodies get more from a mixed and balanced diet. As people mentioned already, protein availability from plant sources is a problem.

    3) One certainly can as a vegetarian, but I've yet to see compelling evidence that one can as a vegan. YouTube documentaries and anecdotes are not compelling evidence. Consumption of too much meat is linked to cancer, sure, but then consumption of too much of a lot of things can be bad for you. The key is balance.

    4) Meat is also a great source of nutrition for the same growing population though. Again, sustainable farming and balanced diets seem to me to be a more reasonable solution than going all out vegan.


    Where do herbivorous animals get their protein?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,684 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    Chrongen wrote: »
    Where do herbivorous animals get their protein?

    We're not herbivorous animals, so your question is about as relevant as asking why we don't just photosynthesize.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,183 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Chrongen wrote: »
    Where do herbivorous animals get their protein?
    For a start we're not a herbivorous animal. We can't break down cellulose for one thing. Even our body shape reflects this, chimps and gorillas who are much more herbivorous have much longer digestive tracts(IIRC 50% longer in chimps). Ours lay closer to carnivores than herbivores. Which one would expect in an opportunistic omnivore like us.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭Chrongen


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Ugh this "documentary" has been debunked thoroughly, it is absolutely 100% garbage science based in a vegan fantasy land

    Can you point out any sources for the debunking? What actually has been exposed as lies in the documentary? Thanks for any link or study.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭Chrongen


    kylith wrote: »
    I don't know the figures as I havent' worked it out, but I do know that the dozen hens my brother keeps produce so many eggs he now gives them away to neighbours, and a dexter cow will produce 10-12 litres of milk daily. So at ~5 eggs per hen per week plus 10l of milk per cow per day my problem in that regard would appear to be one of oversupply.

    How much grass/hay and water must that cow consumer per day?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Chrongen wrote: »
    How much grass/hay and water must that cow consumer per day?

    Guides for small breed cattle indicate 1 acre of land per adult cow.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,633 ✭✭✭✭Buford T. Justice XIX


    Chrongen wrote: »
    How much grass/hay and water must that cow consumer per day?
    This argument is getting silly now!

    A 600kg dairy animal will consume 18KG/day, rising from 9kgs forage post calving + 3-4kgs ration to balance the energy deficit between consumption of forage energy and energy output to 20+kgs at peak.

    The intakes can vary from 15-22 kgs depending on forage quality and animal merit.

    The average intakes, again depending on forage quality and animal genetic merit, varies from 15-22kgs on average throughout the lactation.

    Again, those are Irish figures.

    Very few ruminants consume hay for the simple reason that quality hay is difficult at best to preserve in Ireland.

    Your figures and use hay as a forage item show the source of your figures which have practically zero relevance in Ireland as production is based almost exclusively on grass based forages with 10-15% of production coming from ration. Incidentally, as has been pointed out ad nauseam already, those rations are largely byproducts from human consumption or those grown for human consumption which didn't make the higher standards required for use in human diets.

    Water use.
    This genuinely has me laughing. Look outside the window right now and what do you see. Water! Water everywhere! Water is not a limiting resource in Ireland. Any use of water from wells for cattle is more than adequately replenished by rainfall levels in the country.

    The constant harping on about water use in Ireland, to me, negates any authority that posters try to muster to defend their message. The figures may have relevance to the arguments used in the US where the majority of figures seem to reference extraction from the Ogallala aquifer or the depleted Californian aquifers. They have ZERO relevance to Ireland where, unless you were hiding in an underground compound for the last three months, rainfall levels were significantly above normal levels. Just look out the window!


Advertisement