nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Why Meat Is Madness

Red Cloud

John Gibbons Irish Times Review Section Saturday April 9.
Re hashing numerous influential scientific and think thank research for Beef and Dairy sectors that could cause chaos if they get traction in Brussels, Dublin, and world trade talks over next few years.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Harika

gozunda wrote: »

Not true. In ireland we eat meat from livestock eg beef that has produced by cattle reared on a largely grass based diet. We can not avail of the calories from grass because humans cannot 'naturally' digest grass.

Partially true, how many of those grass areas could be transformed to be more effective from a calorie point of view and grow barley, wheat ... ? Sure there are areas where it doesn't make sense to grow something and put animals there to feast and grow, overall is meat just not as effective as a plants.

El_Duderino 09

Buford T. Justice V wrote:

You missed the whole point. It ALREADY HAS the type of plants that takes care of themselves. Grasses. Grass that is deep rooted to cater for the infrequent rainfall and resistant to burning that happens on occasion even in the best managed grassslands. That ecosystem depends on ruminants (buffalo replaced by cattle) to transfer nutrients and alternate grazing systems to allow certain grass and other species to grow and prosper.

No no. You missed the point about the land being left alone and not needing to be maintained. Your argument was about carbon stored in grassland. If that's what you care about, then retiring some land would be the ultimate way to store carbon.

Buford T. Justice V wrote:

Or is your point that we should destroy the grassland ecosystem to put in place some artificial ecosystem and destroy the ecology of the system already in place?

It's very simple, meat production is an inefficient use of land. You need to grow crops to feed to animals to feed to humans. Both of which use land. If humans reduced meat consumption, we would need to use less land worldwide to feed ourselves at any population compared to increased mean consumption. Thus more land could be turned from farmland to unused land. That's why I said about planting self sustaining plants and walking away.

El_Duderino 09

gozunda wrote:

So if we are not going to have livestock or somehow reduce this sector and we are not going to grow anything on this land -what exactly are we going to eat?

Plant matter and less meat. I don't know how many ways to phrase this point so someone let me know of you don't understand it. Growing crops to feed to animals is a really inefficient use of land compared to growing crops to feed to humans. Therefore, growing crops for humans alone , old require LESS land worldwide.

gozunda wrote:

To produce non animal derived low protein low concentrated foods for a population of 6.5 billion people and increasing will need more land not less. Ploughing up grassland to grow crops for humans to need will lead to increased carbon release.

Nope. It would require less land to only feed humans. I'll post the links to the research if you want but only if you want to read them.

gozunda wrote:

What do you propose that a) farmers should or grow produce and b) what are people going to eat?

Overall, since we would be moving away from the less efficient method of feeding people, there would be less work for farmers and less land needed to do the job. People would eat a more plant baded diet and less meat. It's not complicated.

tractorporn

Anywhere where it is viable to grow cereals or vegetables the land is already being used for that purpose ie the east coast. If there was money to be made in growing anything other than grass farmers would be already doing it!

Talk to any of the guys like Kenneth Keavey off rare breed, who are doing field scale veg in the west of Ireland and the will tell you just how much hard slog and hardship it is growing veg in such a wet environment.

Only for the premium for organic produce I doubt that these enterprises would be viable.

Capercaillie

gozunda wrote: »

So if we are not going to have livestock or somehow reduce this sector and we are not going to grow anything on this land -what exactly are we going to eat?

To produce non animal derived low protein low concentrated foods for a population of 6.5 billion people and increasing will need more land not less. Ploughing up grassland to grow crops for humans to need will lead to increased carbon release.

Not all animals are kept purely for meat production. The dairy industry is an important part of irish and global food production. In Ireland this sector is dependant on grassland. Irish grassland systems are extensive and not intensive.

What do you propose that a) farmers should or grow produce and b) what are people going to eat?

Takes a lot more land to produce meat than cereal crops. meat has a much higher Carbon footprint as well.

In Ireland only small percentage of land is good for cereals. However in practically all areas of Country 30 years ago most farmers would have grow a few spuds/turnips/oats etc. Now just cattle/sheep.

Going by an IFA definition Irish grassland system is extensive. Reality is most are intensive and progressively more intensive.

newacc2015

Harika wrote: »

Partially true, how many of those grass areas could be transformed to be more effective from a calorie point of view and grow barley, wheat ... ? Sure there are areas where it doesn't make sense to grow something and put animals there to feast and grow, overall is meat just not as effective as a plants.

Are you aware the cereal and other crops need oil based fertilizer, chemicals to alter soil pH, pesticides, herbicides etc. Where as most cattle here are grass fed ( I think Kerrygold says their cows are feed a diet of 89% grass, which is not imported and would have a fraction of chemicals used on it compared to cereals).

What are you going to do with people who want to eat beef? Tell them to eat barley instead? We produce beef in Ireland,as there is a demand for beef

gozunda

Harika wrote: »

Partially true, how many of those grass areas could be transformed to be more effective from a calorie point of view and grow barley, wheat ... ? Sure there are areas where it doesn't make sense to grow something and put animals there to feast and grow, overall is meat just not as effective as a plants.

From a horticultural point of view only a very small proportion of irish land is suitable to grow economic crops of wheat or barley. I would direct you to the nationwide soil use surveys undertaken by teagasc for details on a county by county basis. We lack both a suitable climate and matching soil types for large scale commercial production on the scale that is seen in the south of England. And without animal based fertilisers or artificial ones what exactly are we going to use to promote good growth and prevent soil degradation?

The calories produced by plants have on average less protein and less calories. Therefore we have too eat more of them to feel full. Many diets work on the principle of advocating eating protein as it makes you feel fuller for longer. Meat is very effective in providing a good quality protein source. Of course meat is usually eaten not on its own but with vegetables as well. This obviously provides the basis of most balanced diets in this country.

It is also a fact that ploughed land releases significant amount of sequestered carbon which as has been pointed out will not help with the aim of reducing carbon gas emissions.

It remains that other our climate and the majority of soils favour grass growth over other types of production. Humans cannot eat grass.

ganmo

im not sure if the we need more land for food is going to happen.
what will we do for fuel? we need wood or some other fuel which will take a huge amount of land

El_Duderino 09

gozunda wrote:

The calories produced by plants have on average less protein and less calories. Therefore we have too eat more of them to feel full. Many diets work on the principle of advocating eating protein as it makes you feel fuller for longer. Meat is very effective in providing a good quality protein source. Of course meat is usually eaten not on its own but with vegetables as well. This obviously provides the basis of most balanced diets in this country.

Animals have to eat huge amouts of plant protein to produce protein for humans. It takes 4 grams of grain protein for a turkey to produce one gram of Turkey protein. It's worse for all the animals up to lamb which takes in 54 grams of protein which can be consumed by humans. Humans could just eat that protein themselves. I assure you, I've researched this.

There's no way to spin it that farming and eating meat is more efficient than eating plants. It doesn't work from an environmental perspective and it doesn't work from the protein perspective you brought up here.

ganmo

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Animals have to eat huge amouts of plant protein to produce protein for humans. It takes 4 grams of grain protein for a turkey to produce one gram of Turkey protein. It's worse for all the animals up to lamb which takes in 54 grams of protein which can be consumed by humans. Humans could just eat that protein themselves. I assure you, I've researched this.

There's no way to spin it that farming and eating meat is more efficient than eating plants. It doesn't work from an environmental perspective and it doesn't work from the protein perspective you brought up here.

Where are you getting your figures? 4 grams per what?

All the grain that is fed to chickens turkeys and pigs can be diverted to humans...if the quality standards drop. Ruminants can utilise the protein in grass which isn't useful to humans.

How much red meat is in joe soaps diet in Ireland twice or 3 times a week at most I reckon

gozunda

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Plant matter and less meat. I don't know how many ways to phrase this point so someone let me know of you don't understand it. Growing crops to feed to animals is a really inefficient use of land compared to growing crops to feed to humans. Therefore, growing crops for humans alone , old require LESS land worldwide.

No it is not 'really inefficient" to grow 'grass' as a crop as we do in Ireland. Our climate and soils are most suited to grass growth. We can't eat grass so ergo we manage livestock who can eat grass. And it's not just meat that is produced but a vast range of dairy products too! Seriously that is not too difficult to understand.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Nope. It would require less land to only feed humans. I'll post the links to the research if you want but only if you want to read them.

Crops and vegetables are less rich in protein (which makes us feel full) and calories. Therefore we would have to use lots more ploughed up grassland (releasing lots of sequestered carbon) to produce more crops to feed everyone (and btw Irish soils in the main are not suitable for this type of production)

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Overall, since we would be moving away from the less efficient method of feeding people, there would be less work for farmers and less land needed to do the job. People would eat a more plant baded diet and less meat. It's not complicated.

As explained we can't eat grass! And therfore it is not less efficient. Livestock provide not just meat but dairy products and leather / wool as well. Very little if anything gets wasted with products not meeting high human standards of production being used in the pet food industry.

Have you ever worked in a horticultural enterprise? Do you believe crops grow themselves? Horticultural production has extremely high manpower and extensive land requirements. Some jobs can be automated but many such as picking, sorting, storing and handling requires serious input by both workers and farmers!

Meat and dairy products are high quality foodstuffs. In ireland these foodstuffs are produced from a grass land based agriculture. There is nothing wrong with eating meat unless you have an philosophical or ethical objection to doing so . And that's fine - don't eat it but those beliefs should not be used to dictate what others should do or eat..

There is no shortage of food worldwide. The problem is one largely of distribution and corruption. Many people starve in poor countries because corrupt governments syphon food away and / or spend resources on enriching themselves. I am fooked if these boyos are getting my bit of steak as well.

gozunda

Capercaillie wrote: »

Takes a lot more land to produce meat than cereal crops. meat has a much higher Carbon footprint as well.

In the absence of high quality protein such as meat we need to eat lots more plant protein to
obtain the same nutrients and calories. Huge areas of grass land would have to be turned ovet to Horticultural production to make up this deficit.

Howevet this is not possible as Irish soils and our climate are NOT suited in the main to the growing of 'cereal crops'! Ploughing up existing grassland will also release massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. And without organic wastes from livestock what are we going to use exactly to help grew these large areas of crops? Artifical fertilisers you say? Sorry no can do because they cause even more carbon release into the atmosphere.

So what do we get? An agricultural sector based on crops not suited to the climate or soils and soils that quickly become degraded through lack of organic matter. No thanks.

In Ireland only small percentage of land is good for cereals. However in practically all areas of Country 30 years ago most farmers would have grow a few spuds/turnips/oats etc. Now just cattle/sheep.

If you check you will find that small areas of suitable soils in Ireland are indeed used for cereal and horticultural production even now. Family based production of a few spuds / turnips to feed themselves have no comparison to intensive horticultural production needed to feed an entire population.

Going by an IFA definition Irish grassland system is extensive. Reality is most are intensive and progressively more intensive.

Our systems are extensive ie based largely on grass production and are not thereore intensive. Teagasc also provides the same definition. Are they wrong as well?

El_Duderino 09

ganmo wrote:

Where are you getting your figures? 4 grams per what?

Just exactly what I said. 4 grams of grain protein produced and fed to turkey, per gram of meat protein for humans. That ratio goes up to 54 grams of grain protein eaten by lamb per gram of lamb protein eaten by humans. Getting the figures from peer reviewed research. Where do you get yours?

ganmo wrote:

All the grain that is fed to chickens turkeys and pigs can be diverted to humans...if the quality standards drop. Ruminants can utilise the protein in grass which isn't useful to humans.

True that grass can't be eaten by humans. Grass would be unnecessary if it wasn't for grazing livestock.

ganmo wrote:

How much red meat is in joe soaps diet in Ireland twice or 3 times a week at most I reckon

No idea how much. What's your point?

gozunda wrote:

No it is not 'really inefficient" to grow 'grass' as a crop as we do in Ireland. Our climate and soils are most suited to grass growth. We can't eat grass so ergo we manage livestock who can eat grass. And it's not just meat that is produced but a vast range of dairy products too! Seriously that is not too difficult to understand.

Yeah the use of dairy and other animal products helps. But the point stands that growing animals for human consumption is less efficient than simply growing veg crops for human consumption.

gozunda wrote:

Crops and vegetables are less rich in protein (which makes us feel full) and calories. Therefore we would have to use lots more ploughed up grassland (releasing lots of sequestered carbon) to produce more crops to feed everyone (and btw Irish soils in the main are not suitable for this type of production)

Forget making you feel full. I'm taking about calories involved in terms of goring crops for second order consumption by humans. You need fertiliser, Machinery, fuel, pesticides, water, transport, just to grow crops for animals to eat. Then you need to farm the animals for humans to eat.

gozunda wrote:

Meat and dairy products are a high quality foodstuff. In ireland it is profuced from a grass land based agriculture. There is nothing wrong with eating meat unless you have an philosophical or ethical objection to doing so . And that's fine - don't eat it but don't tell others what they should do either.

No need to be prescious. I haven't told you anything about my diet and I haven't told you to do anything.

El_Duderino 09

gozunda wrote:

In the absence of high quality protein such as meat we need to eat lots more plant protein to obtain the same nutrients and calories. Huge areas of grass land would have to be turned ovet to Horticultural production to make up this deficit.

This is where you're missing the trick. It would actually take LESS land than is currently used worldwide. All the food produced for animals could be fed directly to humans. That process would be more efficient than the current setup.

merryberry

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

This is where you're missing the trick. It would actually take LESS land than is currently used worldwide. All the food produced for animals could be fed directly to humans. That process would be more efficient than the current setup.

No because you then have find ways to deal with land emissions. Plant more trees??? Then your left with less land and societal displacement

El_Duderino 09

merryberry wrote:

No because you then have find ways to deal with land emissions. Plant more trees??? Then your left with less land and societal displacement

I don't know what you mean by land emissions.

Miname

merryberry wrote: »

No because you then have find ways to deal with land emissions. Plant more trees??? Then your left with less land and societal displacement

And with all those millions of extra lives that are saved from obesity it's going to take an awful lot more land to grow all those extra crops. I wonder if we just gave up meat grew cannabis and smoked the heads off ourselves and while out of it come up with the next brainwave on how to solve the worlds problems.

_Brian

I think this has decended into an argument about people all becoming vegetarians and not farming beef any more.. A senseless argument

Fact is that people want to eat meat, I love meat and have no intention at all of reducing my consumption. Now, I would like my meat to come from a 100% grass fed system if possible and would be willing to pay a premium to have this.
We rear our own pigs outdoors for meat and there is no comparison to the commercially produced pigs regarding taste and texture. It costs us more to do this but well worth it. Likewise eggs, eggs from our own chickens are nicer and feed more compared to commercially produced eggs.

Farmers produce to a demand made by supermarkets. The pity I see in the system is the "sheep effect" where the general public have become brainwashed that the supermarkets know best and have the consumers interests at heart when they dictate the production systems to be used by farmers. This couldn't be farther from the truth - the supermarkets are manipulating the consumers into accepting rubbish products as "premium", products that are intensively farmed and as a result are not as good quality or nutritionally as traditionally produced meats, and the continuous intensification in farming is negative environmentally.

Here's an example of the insulting practices that the multiples are using to manipulate consumers....
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/wordofmouth/2016/mar/22/tescos-fictional-farms-a-marketing-strategy-past-its-sell-by-date

Our system is slowly moving towards the US style of farming and I personally think that's where the "madness" is in the system. Meats can be much more sustainably farmed and the quality of the produce would improve in parallel, but the key is the marketing chain between the farm gate and the plate would need to take a smaller margin and the consumer needs to expect to pay a little more also - two scenarios I doubt we'll ever see.

gozunda

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

...

True that grass can't be eaten by humans. Grass would be unnecessary if it wasn't for grazing livestock.

The grass grows both naturally and as part of an agricultural production system that produces a wide range of good quality foodstuffs- what is wrong with that?

Yeah the use of dairy and other animal products helps. But the point stands that growing animals for human consumption is less efficient than simply growing veg crops for human consumption.

We are talking about a largely grass based agricultural system in Ireland due to climatic and soil conditions. We CANNOT eat grass! We manage livestock who do. Livestock very very efficiently turn grass into products which can be eaten by humans!

From an environmental perspective digging up vast areas of grass land to produce plants not suited to the climate or soil which will release even more sequestered carbon is bonkers.

Forget making you feel full. I'm taking about calories involved in terms of goring crops for second order consumption by humans. You need fertiliser, Machinery, fuel, pesticides, water, transport, just to grow crops for animals to eat. Then you need to farm the animals for humans to eat.

If you don't feel full - you will eat more. Therefore you will need more plant based foods. And in Ireland our agricultural production is largely based on calories from grass which are useless to us but transformed into edible protein through dairy and livestock production.

You also need " fertiliser, Machinery, fuel, pesticides, water, transport, just to grow crops for humans to eat. And with much more crops required for humans when no one is allowed to eat meat there will be lots more "fertiliser, Machinery, fuel, pesticides, water, transport, just to grow crops for humans"

Harika

gozunda wrote: »

If you don't feel full - you will eat more. Therefore you will need more plant based foods. And in Ireland our agricultural production is largely based on calories from grass which are useless to us but transformed into edible protein through dairy and livestock production.

Fullness is not triggered by the amount of calories you take in but if your stomach reports to the brain it is full. Else sugar or soy beans would be far more effective than meat to make you feel full. Proteins keep you longer not hungry but the same you experience with whole wheat grain as the body takes longer to digest it and a constant stream of nutrients is given and blood sugar stays high.

gozunda wrote: »

You also need " fertiliser, Machinery, fuel, pesticides, water, transport, just to grow crops for humans to eat. And with much more crops required for humans when no one is allowed to eat meat there will be lots more "fertiliser, Machinery, fuel, pesticides, water, transport, just to grow crops for humans"

Most of it can also be said about animals, just swap fertilisers with antibiotics and hormons. Anyway only very radical people will want to ban eating meat altogether, as it makes no sense.

gozunda

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

This is where you're missing the trick. It would actually take LESS land than is currently used worldwide. All the food produced for animals could be fed directly to humans. That process would be more efficient than the current setup.

And that is where you are completley wide of the mark.

The first issue here relates to grassland and livestock production in Ireland and the very efficient agricultural system that this actually is. Get rid of the livestock and it will be necessary to plough up vast stretches of grassland just to grow some poor seasonal crops in areas not suited to that type of production. All because it 'may' be more efficient somewhere else.

The resulting carbon release from the need to plough up grass land to produce crops for humans is being ignored. The fact that ireland would be nearly wholey dependant on foreign production is being ignored. The fact that that there is no worldwide shortage of food is being ignored. The fact that meat can be good for you is being ignored.

The argument that grain should be fed directly to humans because to feed it to animals is less efficient is not an argument against livestock production but rather is an argument in theory only. There are many things that humans do that which could be claimed as innefficient such as using cars, going on holidays, looking after those who cant look aftet themselves but that is absolutley no argument to get rid of these things in totality simply because they are deemed 'inefficient'.

El_Duderino 09

_Brian wrote:

I think this has decended into an argument about people all becoming vegetarians and not farming beef any more.. A senseless argument

I don't think anyone has argued that. I do enjoy watching the cognitive dissonance at play when people try to make the argument that producing meat is more efficient than simply growing veg.

gozunda wrote:

If you don't feel full - you will eat more. Therefore you will need more plant based foods. And in Ireland our agricultural production is largely based on calories from grass which are useless to us but transformed into edible protein through dairy and livestock production.

Ok the argument I'm making takes that into consideration. Are you saying that a vegetarian diet requires more calories or is this just anicdote?

gozunda wrote:

You also need " fertiliser, Machinery, fuel, pesticides, water, transport, just to grow crops for humans to eat. And with much more crops required for humans when no one is allowed to eat meat there will be lots more "fertiliser, Machinery, fuel, pesticides, water, transport, just to grow crops for humans"

Sure. You need to produce those things to grow veg crops but you don't need nearly as many of them compared with producing veg to feed to animals then producing a separate food line for humans.

You can feed 1 calorie of grain to an animal but you won't get a fraction of that calorie back from the animal in meat. You could feed that calorie directly to a human and they can use it directly. See how it works?

Genghis Cant

Harika wrote: »

Most of it can also be said about animals, just swap fertilisers with antibiotics and hormons. Anyway only very radical people will want to ban eating meat altogether, as it makes no sense.

I get tired seeing reference to hormone use in here. It's long long gone, and rightly so.
Certainly in beef and lamb production it's simply not used.
Antibiotics are prescription only. There could be an argument made for there overuse but I don't believe there is widespread abuse.

Capercaillie

gozunda wrote: »

In the absence of high quality protein such as meat we need to eat lots more plant protein to
obtain the same nutrients and calories. Huge areas of grass land would have to be turned ovet to Horticultural production to make up this deficit.

So meat is less of a Carbon footprint than cereal crops. Where are you getting that information from?

Howevet this is not possible as Irish soils and our climate are NOT suited in the main to the growing of 'cereal crops'!

I already said that.

And without organic wastes from livestock what are we going to use exactly to help grew these large areas of crops? Artifical fertilisers you say? Sorry no can do because they cause even more carbon release into the atmosphere.

The vast majority of livestock farmers are spreading fertilizer.

Our systems are extensive ie based largely on grass production and are not thereore intensive. Teagasc also provides the same definition. Are they wrong as well?

IFA/Teagasc/DAFM spouting the same rubbish that Irish agriculture is mostly extensive. Don't see many corncrake, grey partridge, skylarks, redshanks, corn bunting in Irish agriculture.

Capercaillie

Genghis Cant wrote: »

I get tired seeing reference to hormone use in here. It's long long gone, and rightly so.
Certainly in beef and lamb production it's simply not used.
Antibiotics are prescription only. There could be an argument made for there overuse but I don't believe there is widespread abuse.

Hormones are banned mainly for trade reasons, not for health risks.

Genghis Cant

Capercaillie wrote: »

Hormones are based mainly for trade reasons, not for health risks.

What?

gozunda

Harika wrote: »

Fullness is not triggered by the amount of calories you take in but if your stomach reports to the brain it is full. Else sugar or soy beans would be far more effective than meat to make you feel full. Proteins keep you longer not hungry but the same you experience with whole wheat grain as the body takes longer to digest it and a constant stream of nutrients is given and blood sugar stays high.

To be clear it is protein (not calories) that makes you feel full - more so than carbohydrates according to a number of nutritional studies.

Most of it can also be said about animals, just swap fertilisers with antibiotics and hormons.

Anyway only very radical people will want to ban eating meat altogether, as it makes no sense.

I was paraphrasing what the previous poster said about crops produced for livestock to show that yes it could be applied to anything.

The last I agree with.

Bass Reeves

Capercaillie wrote: »

So meat is less of a Carbon footprint than cereal crops. Where are you getting that information from?

I already said that.
The vast majority of livestock farmers are spreading fertilizer.

IFA/Teagasc/DAFM spouting the same rubbish that Irish agriculture is mostly extensive. Don't see many corncrake, grey partridge, skylarks, redshanks, corn bunting in Irish agriculture.

The reasons that a lot of our bird population has disappeared is as much to do with the rise of the crow population over the last 30+ years as it has to do with farming practice I think. 30 years ago if you say 2-3 crows around a farm yard it was a large amount. Grey crows were quite rare. Over the last 20 years crows have been allowed to breed unchecked, they have no natural predator. To see the flocks of them that abound around the country following silage wagons and balers is obscene.

The average bullock slaughtered in Ireland will have eaten about 1 ton of grain ( and maybe less) @85% dry matter that is 850kgs. Beef cattle as you state are a poor a converter compared to chicken or pork. At a best case senario they will convert at about 8-1 through out there life and it could exceed 14-1. The average bullock will kill about 650kgs. Best and worst case conversions are 5;2 tons and 9.1 tons of DM. I am not sure about what the grain intakes elsewhere in the world.

The US uses Hormones and kills cattle at lighter weights with I imagine higher grain intakes. Brazil cuts down rain forests to produce grassland to produce beef. Across Europe maize is used as the base product to finish cattle. Lamb in Ireland converts at a higher rate again but grain use in production is very low.

In the case of pork a bout a 4-1 conversion rate is the norm. At a slaughter weight of 110kg this means the average pig consumes about 470kgs of grain (400kgs DM) before slaughter. However you then have to take in the intake of the sow which may add about 30-50 kg of DM intake to the average pig. Most beef in Ireland comes from cattle that are from dairy cows so the calf is a byproduct of the industry, IMO sucklers are a very inefficient method of beef production

From an Irish point of view Beef and lamb may have a lower carbon footprint than pork or chicken. It is the same with milk production as we produce mostly off grass it leaves out footprint much lower than many assume.

If we could reduce the number of crows ( an average crow need to consume 1kg of DM/day) we really reduce our carbon footprint and we might hear the lark calling, in the morning again

Arthur Daley

The meat industry is a powerful lobby group. So any attempt to tackle animal agriculture inefficiencies vs. plant/vegetarian based diets will be met with howls of protest. Meat eaters love their meat, and to some extent let people at it. we all have our choices to make.

But for me I've watched too many documentaries on netflix and read too much about big food and animal agriculture that has informed my own choice towards cutting down/out meat. The 'cowspiracy' documentary is a particular eye opener.

gozunda

Capercaillie wrote: »

So meat is less of a Carbon footprint than cereal crops. Where are you getting that information from?

This clearly referred not to the crops themselves but rather digging up vast areas of grassland to grow crops in the stead of livestock farming thereby releasing large amounts of sequestered carbon.

Capercaillie wrote: »

...
The vast majority of livestock farmers are spreading fertilizer.

They are also using significant amounts of organic animal matter to maintain soil fertility. The issued raised there referred to what would be used to maintain soil fertility in the event of a crop only based horticulture being adopted due to concerns over carbon production. Obviously artificial fertilisers and organic animal matter would not be available in such a system. The question that arises from this issue is how an environmental disaster of depleted soils could be avoided?

IFA/Teagasc/DAFM spouting the same rubbish that Irish agriculture is mostly extensive. Don't see many corncrake, grey partridge, skylarks, redshanks, corn bunting in Irish agriculture.

Tbh I would take the verdict of those qualified to make that judgement. "Extensive " btw relates to areal extent of production not the presence or absence of selected wildfowl.

I note the demonising of all farmers under the banner of "Irish agriculture" as a fairly risable attempt to promote a banning of all animal use.