Lewis Hamilton went vegan after watching this documentary

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

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/

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

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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

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.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

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?

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?