Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Why Meat Is Madness

1235»

Comments

  • #122
    Capercaillie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,732 ✭✭✭Capercaillie


    selectamatic wrote: »
    Are you honestly trying to infer that there will be a reduction in land reclamation and drainage if we all start farming crops?
    No of course not. Pointing out that the shows that if cattle are raised primarily on grass they are are not as "green" as they protray.


  • #123
    selectamatic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,110 ✭✭✭selectamatic


    Capercaillie wrote: »
    No of course not. Pointing out that the shows that if cattle are raised primarily on grass they are are not as "green" as they protray.

    True, however agriculture as a whole isn't truely green be it beef, dairy, cereal etc. I just feel a small scale part time livestock farming is in fact the greenest form of agriculture applicable to my locality (north Roscommon) what I'd have to do to natural "rough" grasslands to make them suitable for crop production would be detrimental to my local environment. There is no one size fits all solution. A curtailment of intensive farming such as some of the us style feedlots starting to creep into Ireland would be of benefit to the environment for sure but population growth necessitates such intensive practices be it meat production or cereal/crop. Neither are green, but a huge swing from one form of agriculture to the other would cause even more damage than carrying on as is.


  • #124
    Username John
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,237 ✭✭✭Username John


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

    But your version of green has a lot of country left go wild - that's nothing to do with eatin animals or not surely?

    I don't understand this aversion you have to people clearing their own land. If you want to leave yours go wild, no problem. But surely if a farmer wants to clear scrub off his own ground, it's nothing to do with you?


  • #125
    gozunda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


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

    Ok what "widespread scrub removal"? Where? What is defined as "widespread". How is this linked?

    The article above refers to the US in reference to grassfed livestock and the quote relates to the UK in relation to carbon management and grassland. Unquantified statements do not make for specific arguments against livestock farming.

    There is no one 'global' argument that holds that livestock farming is 'bad'. Much of the pseudo scientific arguments against meat production appear to be based on intensive grain fed / feed lot type cattle enterprises and even there the 'evidence" against these type of enterprise is based on details which don't stand up to scrutiny.

    I am increasingly seeing the use of many spurious 'environmental' arguments based on part or poorly interpretated information similar to that presented on soya cultivation in south America in an attempt to bolster a particular ethical philosophy against the use of livestock in general and meat consumption in particular.

    I would prefer to see a well reasoned ethical reasoning than the use of psudeo arguments tbh.


  • #126
    Capercaillie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,732 ✭✭✭Capercaillie


    Username John wrote: »
    But your version of green has a lot of country left go wild - that's nothing to do with eatin animals or not surely?

    I don't understand this aversion you have to people clearing their own land. If you want to leave yours go wild, no problem. But surely if a farmer wants to clear scrub off his own ground, it's nothing to do with you?
    Widespread burning of scrub(mostly illegal) and scrub removal/land drainage has been incentivised by the illegibilty of land for the SFP.
    A couple of problems with it. Destroys biodiversity, increased flooding, huge Carbon release.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    gozunda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    Capercaillie wrote: »
    Widespread burning of scrub(mostly illegal) and scrub removal/land drainage has been incentivised by the illegibilty of land for the SFP.
    A couple of problems with it. Destroys biodiversity, increased flooding, huge Carbon release.

    So you are saying 'scrub removal" is been driven by eu / national grant type schemes. So how does relate to livestock farming causing this and therefore being 'bad'?


  • #128
    Birdnuts
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,896 ✭✭✭Birdnuts


    Capercaillie wrote: »
    Widespread burning of scrub(mostly illegal) and scrub removal/land drainage has been incentivised by the illegibilty of land for the SFP.
    A couple of problems with it. Destroys biodiversity, increased flooding, huge Carbon release.

    That really has nothing to do with the crops versus meat debate. More about the dysfunctionality of the current CAP and the outmoded/backward policies of those who run the DAFM


  • #129
    merryberry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 332 ✭✭merryberry


    Capercaillie wrote: »
    Widespread burning of scrub(mostly illegal) and scrub removal/land drainage has been incentivised by the illegibilty of land for the SFP.
    A couple of problems with it. Destroys biodiversity, increased flooding, huge Carbon release.

    I agree with you here. There are perverse incentives in the CAP that encourage scrub removal to enable land eligibility. I would guess that it tends to be more accelerated around CAP programme transitions driven by speculation. There are safeguards like the EIA agriculture regulations but the thresholds are too large to trigger mandatory EIA, for example, EIA is mandatory for >50ha when removing scrub; the average Farm size in Ireland is well below this. An ag minister would be very reluctant to lower these thresholds for fear of backlash from the farming community.


  • #130
    gozunda
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,996 ✭✭✭✭gozunda


    merryberry wrote: »
    I agree with you here. There are perverse incentives in the CAP that encourage scrub removal to enable land eligibility. I would guess that it tends to be more accelerated around CAP programme transitions driven by speculation. There are safeguards like the EIA agriculture regulations but the thresholds are too large to trigger mandatory EIA, for example, EIA is mandatory for >50ha when removing scrub; the average Farm size in Ireland is well below this. An ag minister would be very reluctant to lower these thresholds for fear of backlash from the farming community.

    What ever about the rights and wrongs of EU payments and scrub removal

    It is absolutley sweet fx all to do with the 'meat is maddness/murder' argument ...


  • #131
    merryberry
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 332 ✭✭merryberry


    gozunda wrote: »
    What ever about the rights and wrongs of EU payments and scrub removal

    It is absolutley sweet fx all to do with the 'meat is maddness/murder' argument ...

    True it is off topic...just was responding to the poster


  • Advertisement
Advertisement