An Taisce Green Schools

emaherx · 06-04-2019 09:54AM

markodaly wrote: »

Again, I will repeat that beef and dairy farmer (but especially beef) is a wholly inefficient way to produce protein, not to mention calories. Just because it has a positive impact regarding the retention of carbon in the soil, does not gloss over this fact.

Most efficient way to get protein from land that is only good for growing grass!

yosemitesam1 · 06-04-2019 09:54AM

markodaly wrote: »

So its not Soybean production that is the issue, its poor management and inadequate crop rotation.

Yet, we blame Soy bean.

What was the land like before cattle farming there? Maybe it should have been left alone and not cleared.

Exactly the same with cattle. What's needed is a mixture of grazing animals and a mixture of crops.
The land being grazed by cattle should have a diverse species composition and not be totally reliant on fertiliser to grow.
The land growing crops should have a rotation of crops and have breaks of grass for grazing, should be direct drilled (not tilled) and should use cover crops between cash crops.

That is the foundation of a sustainable environmentally friendly food production model.

The pampas is circa 50 million ha in size and is one of the world's major food producing regions, would be better from an environmental POV if all the worlds great grasslands were never cropped and left to nomadic hunters/graziers but we're long gone past that.

grassroot1 · 06-04-2019 09:55AM

Do you think maybe the real problem is over population of humans rather than whether we eat animal protein or not.

That's probably the nettle nobody wants to grasp

yosemitesam1 · 06-04-2019 10:07AM

markodaly wrote: »

I can accept that, but that is down more so to managing crop rotation and managing land as a whole.
And in fairness, again, it is looking at the overall problem through a telescope, one misses the wider picture.

Again, I will repeat that beef and dairy farmer (but especially beef) is a wholly inefficient way to produce protein, not to mention calories. Just because it has a positive impact regarding the retention of carbon in the soil, does not gloss over this fact.

It's like saying, a glass of red is good for the heart, so one drinks a bottle of wine a day. The argument about beef vs soy (or other plant-based alternatives) is like that.

Just because there are some net positives about beef, does not gloss over the fact that too much production and consumption is bad.
Just because there are some net negatives about Soy (or plant-based alternatives) does not negative the positives about its use and consumption.

Depends how you calculate the efficiency. Ruminants eat a lot of waste from soybean processing etc that otherwise would be dumped.

Comparing digestible calories on a like for like basis per acre of land use is also very important. It's far too easy to compare an average figure for beef including all sorts of non productive land but only include the best of the best for crops which could have the extra advantage of more fertilizer, irrigation etc.

Soil carbon is very important as it adds up to huge amounts. You could easily be talking about 300-500t co2 per ha difference between a hectare of permanent grassland versus long term cropping. Multiply it by the millions of ha under cultivation...

Balf · 06-04-2019 10:12AM

gozunda wrote: »

My point was directed at your various generalised references to domestic supply and also to a lack of self sufficiency in horticultural produce and where I pointed out that in respect of beef, sheep meat, raw milk etc our agricultural sector is largely self sufficient.

That's not speaking to the fact that we have a heavy dependence on food imports, and that the main focus of our farm sector is on exports.

As to the productivity of the sector, another poster did repeat the myth that Irish food exports feed 40 million. I've shown that to be bunk, and I notice you're not contesting that.

gozunda wrote: »

Its interesting that it takes others to see the value of the Irish agriculture sector that Ireland tops the US as the country best able to feed It's people. But then that doesn't suit the propaganda does it?

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-food-security/

You need to read that link and get a better understanding of what that study says.

It rates both Singapore and UK as having high food security. They are two countries famously not self sufficient in food.

We get a high ranking simply because the Irish taxpayer funds a lot of food research. That's what your linked article says.

We know, from the prospect of Brexit, that our farm sector isn't able to feed us.

Injuryprone · 06-04-2019 10:32AM

Balf wrote: »

Think about your beef example. We export about 540 million kg of beef in a year. Agreed?

You mention a figure of 40 million people. Our exports would give each of those people about 13.5 kg of beef each, or 30 lb per year.

That's two quarter pounder burgers a week, without the Bundy, onions or ketchup.

Well short of what you'd need to be fed. But probably as much beef as you'd want.

Hate to burst your little bubble....

The 10% of our production that isn't exported satisfies the needs of our 4.5m people.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to extrapolate that the 90% would equate to 40m people.

People don't survive on beef alone, you know.

Buford T. Justice XIX · 06-04-2019 11:39AM

markodaly wrote: »

I can accept that, but that is down more so to managing crop rotation and managing land as a whole.
And in fairness, again, it is looking at the overall problem through a telescope, one misses the wider picture.

Again, I will repeat that beef and dairy farmer (but especially beef) is a wholly inefficient way to produce protein, not to mention calories. Just because it has a positive impact regarding the retention of carbon in the soil, does not gloss over this fact.

It's like saying, a glass of red is good for the heart, so one drinks a bottle of wine a day. The argument about beef vs soy (or other plant-based alternatives) is like that.

Just because there are some net positives about beef, does not gloss over the fact that too much production and consumption is bad.
Just because there are some net negatives about Soy (or plant-based alternatives) does not negative the positives about its use and consumption.

As Yosemite pointed out above, a simple crop rotation isn't going to work. Even with cover crops during the post harvest and pre planting period, you still have 4-6 weeks of bare and reducing exposure of soil to contend with.

The main principle of crop rotation was harvesting the fertility of the soil with crops followed by a fallow period with no crop for 2 or more years or a grass crop with cattle or sheep to rebuild SOM.

As I said before, the vast majority of Irish land simply isn't suitable for cropping but is immensely suited for grass. Which is what's growing in the areas suitable for it.

You simply will not rebuild soil fertility with non animal crops without taking a hit on either no edible food fallow periods or grass producing meat and milk built into the rotation.

BarryD2 · 06-04-2019 12:18PM

gozunda wrote: »

Bord Bia's given remit is to promote high quality locally produced food and support native industries and jobs. Bord Bia employ experts in the area of agriculture, food production and nutrition. And btw that covers all kind of produce whether plant or animal based.

An Bord Bia are a marketing organisation, full stop.

Nothing wrong with that but let's take that into account - one man's marketeer is another's propagandist.

What An Bord Bia says is not gospel handed down from the bible. It's plain old marketing and advertising. That's their job and there's plenty of public money invested in their work.

So it just comes across as a bit rich that some in the farming community (whom I sympathise with broadly, particularly smaller farming enterprises) are complaining about other sources of public information.

The Green Schools thing is not about giving up meat and/or dairy completely, just suggesting moderation. The IFA would want to be careful because the way they're coming across in this, is that of a bully. A pressure group that wants to suppress some forms of public messages against others which they approve of. That's a sure fire way to lose the public.

Panch18 · 06-04-2019 12:35PM

grassroot1 wrote: »

Do you think maybe the real problem is over population of humans rather than whether we eat animal protein or not.

That's probably the nettle nobody wants to grasp

And that is the correct answer

Too many people wanting too good a lifestyle

Nekarsulm · 06-04-2019 12:58PM

grassroot1 wrote: »

Do you think maybe the real problem is over population of humans rather than whether we eat animal protein or not.

That's probably the nettle nobody wants to grasp

That is the real cause with our environmental impact on the earth.
Another statistic I read about was that almost 33% of all food produced is wasted.

gozunda · 06-04-2019 01:14PM

Balf wrote: »

That's not speaking to the fact that we have a heavy dependence on food imports, and that the main focus of our farm sector is on exports.

We try to do the best we can with what we have. We can't grow bananas, quinoa or avocados. Most of our arable land is at the limit of commercial grade production with regard to our climate. What we produce is based mainly on grassland systems as the most efficient means of production. Hence we are able to produce enough of many of these products for domestic consumption but also enough to export which helps support and keep valuable jobs in the food production sector.

Attacking Irish agriculture because it is able to take advantage of these natural conditions to produce high quality food and produce a surplus makes no sense whatsoever

Balf wrote: »

As to the productivity of the sector, another poster did repeat the myth that Irish food exports feed 40 million. I've shown that to be bunk, and I notice you're not contesting that.You need to read that link and get a better understanding of what that study says. It rates both Singapore and UK as having high food security. They are two countries famously not self sufficient in food.We get a high ranking simply because the Irish taxpayer funds a lot of food research. That's what your linked article says.We know, from the prospect of Brexit, that our farm sector isn't able to feed us.

I'm am not arguing any other posters pov in relation to your discussion with them. I'm sure they are well able to do that themselves.

And yes I read the article linked and I'm happy that Ireland has a high rate of food security.
based on a range of criteria including
Affordability
Availability
Quality And Safety
Natural Resources And Resilience

What the article also says is

Ireland has outspent the U.S. in relative terms on public research and development on agriculture over the past five years, increasing farming’s share of gross domestic product even as its economy has grown, according to data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development.

So it's not only spending on R&D but the application of the same R&D on improving the agriculture sector that is important.

Dont like that? Thats tough - I'd suggest perhaps writing a letter to the author of the article pointing out any problems as you see them.

Gawddawggonnit · 06-04-2019 01:38PM

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

It's a very easy claim to prove, tbh. Every time soil is tilled, the resultant exposed soil and its carbon containing humus is exposed to oxygen which degrades to organic matter into its constituent parts.

This gives a production boost to the following crop but with a caveat, every time it's done, the resultant boost is lessened. Over time, as the soil organic matter (SOM) decreases, the yields from the crop will be reduced. More and more inorganic fertilisers will have to be added to try to maintain yields but it simply will not be possible.

It's old news at this stage but I'll fire up a link again. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/britain-facing-agricultural-crisis-as-scientists-warn-there-are-only-100-harvests-left-in-our-farm-9806353.html

Conversely, grass is the only method available to return SOM back to normal levels. The grass roots and leaves dying and regrowing and the dung from grazing animals provide to food resources that allow soil microbiota to function, grow and proliferate.

The temperate zones of the world where the majority of surplus foods are grown are a mix of grasslands and forests that were converted to arable production with the invention of the plough so the inherent fertility being used for those crops grown on it are directly a result of previous managed grasslands and forests storing carbon in the soils.

You can ignore it for a long time if you wish but, since the buffering capacity of the worlds oceans is now at an end, the only remaining low tech and efficient way to reduce the record levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is to store it in soils. Grasslands and forests are the only way it's going to happen unless the western world decides to massively reduce their hunger for cheap power from fossil fuels.

TL;DR? Tilling land releases stored carbon in large quantities to supply nutrients to crops grown there and continually releases carbon back into the atmosphere. Grasslands do the exact opposite.

Direct drilling doesn’t till the land...and is now being used on a global basis.

Cover crops used as mulch with the inclusion of legumes WILL improve soil organic matter and fertility faster and more efficiently than grass and also capture carbon better than grass.

C4 crops like maize, sorghum, millet etc are highly efficient at removing carbon from the atmosphere and storing it in the soil.

LOL, just saying Chief, as there’s some amount of bs and propaganda spouted in this thread....

gozunda · 06-04-2019 01:44PM

BarryD2 wrote: »

An Bord Bia are a marketing organisation, full stop.
Nothing wrong with that but let's take that into account - one man's marketeer is another's propagandist.What An Bord Bia says is not gospel handed down from the bible. It's plain old marketing and advertising. That's their job and there's plenty of public money invested in their work.

Absolute Horlicks

Bord Bia remit covers a number of different areas including research and development which employs scientists and experts to work in the area of food research and which also helps promote Irish produce and provides support to the Irish agricultural and horticultural sector.

BarryD2 wrote: »

So it just comes across as a bit rich that some in the farming community (whom I sympathise with broadly, particularly smaller farming enterprises) are complaining about other sources of public information.

Since when did An Taisce become a known provider of dietary advice? Exactly how many climatologists, food scientists or experts are An Taisce employing and when did they take on a role of policing what people are eating as opposed to preserving Ireland built heritage etc?

Perhaps they shouldnt be openly promoting aspects of a vegan belief system with absolutely nothing to do with Climate Change whilst ignoring some of the more important aspects of climatic action such as food waste which they do not even mention in that ridiculous 'resource pack'(sic). Why do you think that is?

BarryD2 wrote: »

The Green Schools thing is not about giving up meat and/or dairy completely, just suggesting moderation. The IFA would want to be careful because the way they're coming across in this, is that of a bully. A pressure group that wants to suppress some forms of public messages against others which they approve of. That's a sure fire way to lose the public.

An Taisce are coming across an organisation that is not only producing and promoting poor quality information but who are also acting well outside their own remit.

If you support their initiative in promoting vegan beliefs under the guise of climate change information then we should also welcome creationists into our schools to teach about evolution. After all fair is fair ..

Buford T. Justice XIX · 06-04-2019 02:32PM

Gawddawggonnit wrote: »

Direct drilling doesn’t till the land...and is now being used on a global basis.

Cover crops used as mulch with the inclusion of legumes WILL improve soil organic matter and fertility faster and more efficiently than grass and also capture carbon better than grass.

C4 crops like maize, sorghum, millet etc are highly efficient at removing carbon from the atmosphere and storing it in the soil.

LOL, just saying Chief, as there’s some amount of bs and propaganda spouted in this thread....

Great for you in France, Dawg, different climate and soils here on the edge of Europe. At best, we're marginal for growing Maize, Sorghum and Millet and prone to having difficult harvesting conditions every 5 or 6 years(and that might be optimistic) with the commensurate difficulties in ensiling and preservation that ensure from that. We don't have long periods of settled, predictable weather that you're blessed with.

As has been said here before, we can grow just about anything in Ireland. We just have difficulty in harvesting it.

Out of curiosity, have you any figures and links to the improvement in capture and storage of carbon in soils from those alternative crops?

Edit: And some links to soils with a maritime climate would be great for clarity instead of continental climate figures.

Balf · 06-04-2019 03:09PM

gozunda wrote: »

We can't grow bananas, quinoa or avocados..

We import potatoes.

gozunda wrote: »

Attacking Irish agriculture because it is able to take advantage of these natural conditions to produce high quality food and produce a surplus makes no sense whatsoever.

There is no attack. There is defensiveness when plain facts are stated, like Irish farms don't export enough food to feed 40 million or anything like that.

gozunda wrote: »

Dont like that? Thats tough - I'd suggest perhaps writing a letter to the author of the article pointing out any problems as you see them.

It would be easier if you just relaxed and recognised the food supply issue highlighted by Brexit

emaherx · 06-04-2019 03:18PM

Balf wrote: »

We import potatoes.

Thankfully we no longer depend just on home grown potatoes for our nutritional needs, because after a year like last we would be in serious trouble now.

evolving_doors · 06-04-2019 03:21PM

How much water does it take to produce cattle for beef or milk (till end of life)?
What's the stats on that anyone know?

gozunda · 06-04-2019 03:30PM

Balf wrote: »

We import potatoes.There is no attack. There is defensiveness when plain facts are stated, like Irish farms don't export enough food to feed 40 million or anything like that.
It would be easier if you just relaxed and recognised the food supply issue highlighted by Brexit

Yes we do import horticultural produce funnily enough. And no we dont produce potatoes year around either ie imported 'new potatoes'. Potato crops have failed here due to adverse conditions most notably black '47.

Eitherway you may be interested in learning that Ireland is practically self sufficient in potatoes for human consumption (aka ware potatoes)

The investment in long-term storage facilities for maincrop potatoes has resulted in Ireland being practically self-sufficient in ware potatoes. This investment has resulted in the availability of quality maincrop variety potatoes from storage all year round.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.bordbia.ie/industry/buyers/industryinfo/hort/HorticultureSectorProfiles/Sector%2520Profile%2520-%2520Potatoes.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi3npDU6rvhAhWmRhUIHTAHBu8QFjAAegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw3gzWdOS8qF41v5Fmi5S-5N

Btw I made no mention of 40 million or whatever- thats some other poster afaik. It would be easier if you didnt employ hyperbole and took a good look at the actual facts.

gozunda · 06-04-2019 03:43PM

evolving_doors wrote: »

How much water does it take to produce cattle for beef or milk (till end of life)?
What's the stats on that anyone know?

The issue of water usage is very much dependant on the type of system and climatic availability of water versus use of abstracted water.

In Ireland much of the needs of beef cattle or dairy enterprises are met through actual rainfall

The project demonstrated that intensification of Irish animal production systems through high utilisation of rain water resources for the production of milk, beef and sheep meat are sustainable from a water use perspective.

Rain water for the production of grass made up 85% of the total water footprint in dairy systems,
88% in beef systems and 87% in sheep production systems. This is a key competitive advantage for Irish agriculture in terms of sustainable food production since the majority of these products are exported to less water rich regions.

Utilising green water resources that are plentiful in Ireland for the production of milk, beef
and sheep meat indicates that recent intensification measures in Food Harvest 2020 and Food Wise 2025 are sustainable from a water use perspective.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.teagasc.ie/media/website/publications/2018/6190_TechnologyUpdae_JohnUpton_WaterConservation.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwif4OKY5bvhAhUoSBUIHUOhDosQFjANegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw0tHNJ7PwynTsJHBR51aOTC

evolving_doors · 06-04-2019 03:50PM

gozunda wrote: »

The issue of water usage is very much dependant on the type of system and climatic availability of water versus use of abstracted water.

In Ireland much of the needs of beef cattle or dairy enterprises are met through actual rainfall

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.teagasc.ie/media/website/publications/2018/6190_TechnologyUpdae_JohnUpton_WaterConservation.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwif4OKY5bvhAhUoSBUIHUOhDosQFjANegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw0tHNJ7PwynTsJHBR51aOTC

Surely someone has some idea!

Like 5 gallons a day for a cow or something?

gozunda · 06-04-2019 04:16PM

evolving_doors wrote: »

Surely someone has some idea!

Like 5 gallons a day for a cow or something?

Read the link - it has average figures given by enterprise type. I presumed you were referring to Irish conditions and not US figures or wherever which are usually bandied about ...

Say my name · 06-04-2019 10:18PM

Might be relevant to the thread.

https://daily.jstor.org/can-cows-help-mitigate-climate-change-yes-they-can/

markodaly · 06-04-2019 11:32PM

grassroot1 wrote: »

Do you think maybe the real problem is over population of humans rather than whether we eat animal protein or not.

That's probably the nettle nobody wants to grasp

I would not disagree with that, but unless you are advocating culling people, then we need to think of better and more sustainable ways to feed them.

More Beef and Dairy is not that.

markodaly · 06-04-2019 11:37PM

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

As Yosemite pointed out above, a simple crop rotation isn't going to work. Even with cover crops during the post harvest and pre planting period, you still have 4-6 weeks of bare and reducing exposure of soil to contend with.

The main principle of crop rotation was harvesting the fertility of the soil with crops followed by a fallow period with no crop for 2 or more years or a grass crop with cattle or sheep to rebuild SOM.

As I said before, the vast majority of Irish land simply isn't suitable for cropping but is immensely suited for grass. Which is what's growing in the areas suitable for it.

You simply will not rebuild soil fertility with non animal crops without taking a hit on either no edible food fallow periods or grass producing meat and milk built into the rotation.

I take those points on board.

However, is beef and dairy farming the best use of this grassland?
I take on board that one cannot just turn this grassland into a soy plantation either in the short term or long term.

I am not sure the default answer to having land, that needs to be grass is beef as if we keep the status quo.

markodaly · 06-04-2019 11:45PM

evolving_doors wrote: »

How much water does it take to produce cattle for beef or milk (till end of life)?
What's the stats on that anyone know?

There are some stats here.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/10/how-much-water-food-production-waste

Beef, as you would expect, is near the top of the list.

auspicious · 07-04-2019 12:11AM

"...A 5-ounce steak has 300 calories, while a cup of pinto beans has 265. But the steak comes with 44 grams of protein, 120 milligrams of cholesterol, and 12 grams of fat, much of it saturated. In contrast, the beans contain 15 grams of protein, no cholesterol, and only 1 gram of fat, which is polyunsaturated. The steak has no carbohydrates and no fiber; the beans have 26 grams of complex carbohydrates and 15 grams of dietary fiber. The beans have more potassium and less sodium than the steak; the iron content of the two foods is identical, but your body is more efficient at absorbing iron from animal sources. Add the enormous price differential to your comparison and you'll see that beans are a much better nutritional bargain than steak..."

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/meat-or-beans-what-will-you-have-part-i-meat

gozunda · 07-04-2019 05:40AM

markodaly wrote: »

There are some stats here.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/10/how-much-water-food-production-waste
Beef, as you would expect, is near the top of the list.

Interestingly from that article chocolate is the greatest user of water as a crop! The figures quoted for beef are calculated on US lot fed beef systems and do not reflect extensive razing systems involving considerable amounts of rainwater. It also does not differentiate between the type or final weight of cattle reared. By comparison the figures given in the guardian article are largely irrelevant with regard to Irish conditions. See previous comment on studies on this under Irish conditions for relevant figures.

Also:
https://www.beefcentral.com/news/does-it-really-take-20000l-of-water-to-produce-1kg-of-beef/

gozunda · 07-04-2019 06:16AM

auspicious wrote: »

"...A 5-ounce steak has 300 calories, while a cup of pinto beans has 265. But the steak comes with 44 grams of protein, 120 milligrams of cholesterol, and 12 grams of fat, much of it saturated. In contrast, the beans contain 15 grams of protein, no cholesterol, and only 1 gram of fat, which is polyunsaturated. The steak has no carbohydrates and no fiber; the beans have 26 grams of complex carbohydrates and 15 grams of dietary fiber. The beans have more potassium and less sodium than the steak; the iron content of the two foods is identical, but your body is more efficient at absorbing iron from animal sources. Add the enormous price differential to your comparison and you'll see that beans are a much better nutritional bargain than steak.."

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/meat-or-beans-what-will-you-have-part-i-meat

Exactly what has a crop (pinto beans) which is Native to Mexico and grows best in warm and / or subtropical regions, which is not tolerant of frost or waterlogged conditions got to do with rearing beef cattle in Ireland based on extensive grassland production?

Are you seriously suggesting that we give up the efficient use of Irish grasslands, sit on our collective fat rear ends, and instead purchase pinto beans or similar from South America where I'm fairly sure even more ecologically fragile lands can be pushed into service to feed these types of stupid uninformed food fads? We may also ignore the massive carbon footprint of flying the necessary quantities of these beans around the world to replace Irish produced beef.

Ignoring the above biased comparison - Meat including beef as part of a balanced diet is recognised as a healthy source of protein

Fresh, lean beef is rich in various vitamins and minerals, especially iron and zinc. Therefore, moderate intake of beef can be recommended as part of a healthy diet

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/foods/beef

But hey lets not let reality get in the way of the usual rubbish presented in these discussions....

Let's all just eat pinto beans - yum.

wrangler · 07-04-2019 06:40AM

markodaly wrote: »

There are some stats here.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/10/how-much-water-food-production-waste

Beef, as you would expect, is near the top of the list.

Surely the water required by the animal is just passing through and returned to the environment, it's not as if it disappears into the abyss

''But hey lets not let reality get in the way of the usual rubbish presented in these discussions...''.

emaherx · 07-04-2019 06:46AM

auspicious wrote: »

"...A 5-ounce steak has 300 calories, while a cup of pinto beans has 265. But the steak comes with 44 grams of protein, 120 milligrams of cholesterol, and 12 grams of fat, much of it saturated. In contrast, the beans contain 15 grams of protein, no cholesterol, and only 1 gram of fat, which is polyunsaturated. The steak has no carbohydrates and no fiber; the beans have 26 grams of complex carbohydrates and 15 grams of dietary fiber. The beans have more potassium and less sodium than the steak; the iron content of the two foods is identical, but your body is more efficient at absorbing iron from animal sources. Add the enormous price differential to your comparison and you'll see that beans are a much better nutritional bargain than steak..."

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/meat-or-beans-what-will-you-have-part-i-meat

You do know that people can eat beef and beans right? You'd think reading this thread that people eat nothing but beef, I actually don't know anyone who eats beef on a daily basis and certainly no one who would consider beef a staple of their diet. Of coarse a healthy diet involves lots of plants we are omnivores.

An Taisce Green Schools

Comments