Why Meat Is Madness

At the end of the day shutting down Irish farming or industry will simply mean production moving abroad to countries like Brazil etc. where few if any standards are adhered too. This is something climate extremists like Gibbons fail to grasp despite the steady loss of heavy industry etc. across the EU on the back of climate policies that have achieved little other than to make EU energy prices some of the most expensive in the world. We can already see the results of this with the demise of the British and Italian steel industries on the back of lower cost producers outside the EU

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.



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?



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?

Where your grain argument falls down in this country is the fact that our production systems for beef and dairy are predicated on minimizing use of grain. My cows will consume around 6 tonnes of dry matter per head this year. Less than one tonne will be grains/protein crops and of that up to 20% of it will be by products from food processed for human consumption. At a stretch 40% of my land could be used for grain production none is suitable for horticulture. Globally your argument probably holds water but not in this country. It is not a case of reducing beef and dairy production and simply reconfiguring to horticulture.

freedominacup wrote:

Where your grain argument falls down in this country is the fact that our production systems for beef and dairy are predicated on minimizing use of grain. My cows will consume around 6 tonnes of dry matter per head this year. Less than one tonne will be grains/protein crops and of that up to 20% of it will be by products from food processed for human consumption. At a stretch 40% of my land could be used for grain production none is suitable for horticulture. Globally your argument probably holds water but not in this country. It is not a case of reducing beef and dairy production and simply reconfiguring to horticulture.

That might well be the case in Ireland. Globally, there's no question about it.

merryberry wrote: »

B#ll $hit

Growth promoters/"hormones" widely used in US and other Countries. Are people dying/becoming ill from these products by consuming animals that have been given these products? Which hormones are bad?

Zillah wrote: »

Isn't something like 85% of the global soya crop used as animal feed though? It wouldn't make sense to claim that the remaining 15% is somehow driving the phenomenon.

Basing any argument on gross percentages without looking at the detail behind such figures is always problematic and in this instance are completely incorrect.

The actual figures show that about 85% of the world’s soya beans are processed, or "crushed," to produce soya bean oil.  The soya meal produced is actually a waste product of the process of extracting soya oil from the soya beans.

The oil component of crushed soya beans is primarily used for human consumption, although the proportion used for biodiesel production is growing rapidly, especially in the U.S.

That waste product of the oil extraction process ie 'the meal' is used to make animal feed. It would appear that most but not all of the waste 'meal' is indeed being diverted into animal and pet foods.

However Soya bean meal is also used to produce “soya protein" for human consumption. The meal is incredibly cheap to make and it can be made into flours, stabilize ingredients in processed foods, and absorb water and fat

All the soya foods including soya milk, textured vegetable protein, soya burgers etc are all made from soya meal from the waste process of the soya oil industry and are inclusive of the 85% figure quoted. 

Of the 15% not used to make soya oil - approximately 6% is used directly as human food, mostly in Asia. Other uses such as additives and derivatives for various industries account the remaining 9%.

So the soya meal is being used to feed animals is in fact a waste product of human based food production. So all those acres in the Brazilian rain forest are not been cut down to fuel animal feed rather to produce soya oil for human consumption.

http://www.soyatech.com/soy_facts.htm
http://blog.paleohacks.com/is-soy-bad-for-you/#

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That might well be the case in Ireland. Globally, there's no question about it.

Rubbish. Ireland is only one country in point. There are many many areas of the world that are neither have suitable soils nor the climatic conditions to produce either economic quantity of grain or horticultural crops. Many countries with marginal soils and adverse climates depend on livestock farming in a similar the way Ireland does. We are not unique.

If anything it is oil and grain monoculture type production that can often be most damaging to the environment.

Vast monocultures dependent on petrol chemical inputs which exclude all other plant and animal species are hugely detrimental and lead to widescale environmental degradation.

The huge monocultures of soya beans in South America are primarily used to grow soya beans for soya oil production for humans. To feed the world's growing population your argument proposes the expansion of these type of agricultural processes to the further detriment of many eco systems.

Unfortunately the 'meat is madness/murder 'mantra of the vegan movement is so hell bent on the banning all animal use - it ultimately attempts to put a one size fits all solution on everything even where that is based on no applied logic whatsover.

As for the old 'conversion efficiency' chestnut - it is obvious that the 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 after themselves but that is absolutley no argument to get rid of these things in totality simply because they are deemed 'inefficient' as compared to some derived global estimate.

Can we have a thread titled why meat is delicious?

_Brian wrote: »

C'mon up to Cavan and you'll see that just aint true. Statements like this just discredit any shred of a point being made..

Parts of Ireland are suitable to grow some crops... but whole counties are not suitable for growing crops, do you think whole counties just opt out of cereal growing because we don't like the look of them in the fields..

Come to an area with 4/6 inches of clay topsoil and try grow something other than grass... see how that works out.

I have fields which still need the traces of the last attempt to grow cereals and crops. Back in the early 1940's when DeVelera's Compulsory Tillage was imposed upon farmers, and a set % of each farm was required to be ploughed for crop.
Now on a sunny evening, you can still see the shadows cast by the "Two ridge lands" still in existance, no matter how slight. Or drive a tractor at any speed over them and you can certainly feel them.
There is a bloody good reason cereals haven't been grown here for 70 years.

_Brian wrote: »

here's a really common one...

CTC (Chlorotetracycline) Its a prescription only antibiotic here in Ireland frequently used for respiratory illness in stock. it can only be gotten from a Vet to treat a specific outbreak and its damn expensive too. Its use has to be recorded on the farm by the farmer and records made available for inspection. Which animals treated, how much and for how long.

In the US it is cheaply available already added to cattle feed as along with its medicinal properties it stimulates the appetite and produced up to 20% increases in live weight gain.
See here for an example of it being sold as feedstuff.

Depending on what sources you read but it seems upwards of 40,000 people in the US alone die from Antibiotic resistant infections every year, and yet they allow the routine addition of CTC to animal feeds !!

http://www.sustainabletable.org/257/antibiotics
http://consumersunion.org/news/the-overuse-of-antibiotics-in-food-animals-threatens-public-health-2/

The general EU consumer has no idea what is happening in the cheap n nasty meats being allowed to saturate our markets, bureaucrats weigh up the pros and cons and make trade deals based in financial balance sheets.
If we don't continue to produce the top quality products (and strive to improve them further) then you can be sure the demand will be easily filled from countries with little or no tractability and control.

Antibiotic resistance is as big a problem here as it is in US. Chlortetracycline as you said routinely used in Ireland, so much so that only 30% of Pasteurella multocida is susceptible to it. The other 70% is resistant

Arthur Daley wrote: »

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.

Only watched cowspiracy by chance last night ha! Very interesting film and in fairness some very well made points. I love my meat and dairy too much to go vegan though haha. Only criticism I'd have is about the ag sector emissions, they are largely considered to be zero sum, against say fossil fuels which are clearly releasing stored carbon from the ground.

An equally as interesting documentary about how messed up the US food industry is is "food inc", that would wholesale turn you off getting any sort of processed meat/burger etc ever again!

gozunda wrote: »

Perspectives need to be balanced by informed opinion in order to back up a point of view. So in that case no it would not be classed as a 'biased perspective' but an argument that challenges the dogma that 'meat is madness/murder'.

The author is actually a vegetarian and environmental lawyer

See:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/actually-raising-beef-is-good-for-the-planet-1419030738

A self-professed vegetarian cattle rancher. This position makes about as much sense as a civil rights activist who proudly promotes slave labour. Unfortunately most beef is not raised responsibly, nor 100% on grass, both of which are allegedly key to mitigating the negative environmental impacts.

gozunda wrote: »

Ahh a comparison akin to the old "Animal trade/ Slave trade" mantra of the more extreme vegan philosophy!

The author was referring to grass fed beef in those areas that like Ireland are most suitable for grass growth. Like the old hairy soya bean /rainforest chestnut thrown at livestock rearing the author puts forward argued reasons (with references)why many of the issues raised by the anti meat movement are at best questionable and open to considered scepticism and correction.

For example

Gozunda. In last 2 years widespread scrub removal/drainage. How does that fit with this

Research by the Soil Association in the U.K. shows that if cattle are raised primarily on grass and if good farming practices are followed, enough carbon could be sequestered to offset the methane emissions of all U.K