Veganism: Who is behind the Agenda?

Sardonicat · 10-12-2019 3:28pm

auspicious wrote: »

Same way cow's is fortified with vitamins B, D, E, folic acid and calcium..?

I get the impression you think I'm trying to be smart. I'm not. I have absolutely no idea how foods are fortified or how the vitamins and minerals used are sourced or where from. If foods are fortified with calcium where does it come from?

auspicious · 10-12-2019 3:31pm

Sardonicat wrote: »

I get the impression you think I'm trying to be smart. I'm not. I have absolutely no idea how foods are fortified or how the vitamins and minerals used are sourced or where from. If foods are fortified with calcium where does it come from?

I don't.
I don't know either. I'm sure there's vids on youtube.

ganmo · 10-12-2019 4:00pm

auspicious wrote: »

Same way cow's milk is fortified with vitamins B, D, E, folic acid and calcium..?

There are fortified milks available but they only have added vitamins.
Sources of calcium for fortification are either the minerals removed when making whey protein or limestone quarries from the ground

Waffletraktor · 10-12-2019 7:28pm

Say my name wrote: »

Have we reached the point yet where the stronger pasturalist nomads invade on horseback and eliminate the settled farmers and towns?
Asking for a friend.

These chaps certainly had that view!
https://player.fm/series/wrath-of-the-khans-series-dan-carlins-hardcore-history-2420352

Say my name · 10-12-2019 7:51pm

Waffletraktor wrote: »

These chaps certainly had that view!
https://player.fm/series/wrath-of-the-khans-series-dan-carlins-hardcore-history-2420352

I was actually thinking of the Turks invading Iran and the middle east.

https://youtu.be/YirWYMurJn4

That narrator in the clip above says the Crusades might not have been so much as Christian v's Muslim but as nomadic decending Turks coming from the east and threatening the settled farmers and middle east and then the Roman church putting the call out. The middle eastern farmers Christian or Muslim were all meeting the same fate. And not a vegan among the invaders..

Waffletraktor · 10-12-2019 8:03pm

Say my name wrote: »

I was actually thinking of the Turks invading Iran and the middle east.

https://youtu.be/YirWYMurJn4

That narrator in the clip above says the Crusades might not have been so much as Christian v's Muslim but as nomadic decending Turks coming from the east and threatening the settled farmers and middle east and then the Roman church putting the call out. The middle eastern farmers Christian or Muslim were all meeting the same fate. And not a vegan among the invaders..

From the Mongol pods it more or less the same, once the ball got rolling anyone who got in the way were viewed as game to be hunted until the chinese eventually showed they could be farmed instead.

Say my name · 10-12-2019 8:43pm

Waffletraktor wrote: »

From the Mongol pods it more or less the same, once the ball got rolling anyone who got in the way were viewed as game to be hunted until the chinese eventually showed they could be farmed instead.

I had to actually Google there if the Turks and Mongols weren't the same people such was the close timeline. And before that it was Attila the Hun.
The Turks seemingly killed off all before them for land for grazing. And the Mongols were kind of making the conquered fight for them.
Some great similarities between the plains Indians of north America and the Mongols and Turks of Asia bar maybe a native American leader like Genghis Khan.

djmc · 10-12-2019 10:42pm

emaherx wrote: »

Wild aurochs have been extinct for quite a while cattle are their closest living descendant. They are so close infact to the original aurochs that there is a project to selectively breed auroch traits back into cattle for re-wilding.

Farmers know that most breeds of cattle and horses would not live over the winter without food and shelter. I dont claim to know about a vegan diet but I do know about farming and farm animals.
Here is a farmers point of view https://blackfieldfarm.com/what-is-vegan-food-about/

barnaman · 11-12-2019 12:25am

auspicious wrote: »

Same way cow's milk is fortified with vitamins B, D, E, folic acid and calcium..?

The biggest problem with Veganism v Vegetarianism is that its just not possible to to be truly Vegan. Veganism relies on fortified foods. An essential vitamin for life is B12. The source of B12 is bacteria that live in plant eating animals guts. Ominvores get it through meat or animals products, Vegans get it from fortified cereals.

https://veganhealth.org/vitamin-b12-vegan-sources/

"The vitamin B12 component in B12 supplements and fortified foods is made by bacteria and sourced from bacteria cultures; it is not taken from animal products"

The problem is the bacteria cultures, propionibacterium shermanii, are all cultured on a lactate medium! Essentially whey (as a waste product from cheese making) :rolleyes:

emaherx · 11-12-2019 8:24am

djmc wrote: »

Farmers know that most breeds of cattle and horses would not live over the winter without food and shelter. I dont claim to know about a vegan diet but I do know about farming and farm animals.
Here is a farmers point of view https://blackfieldfarm.com/what-is-vegan-food-about/

Thanks, I needed a farmers point of view!

I was referring to a program in a warmer climate using older breeds in central Europe where some areas are loosing natural grassland due to small farmers simply giving up and leaving the landscape with no natural grazing animals.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/return-of-the-aurochs

Christy42 · 11-12-2019 8:26am

barnaman wrote: »

The biggest problem with Veganism v Vegetarianism is that its just not possible to to be truly Vegan. Veganism relies on fortified foods. An essential vitamin for life is B12. The source of B12 is bacteria that live in plant eating animals guts. Ominvores get it through meat or animals products, Vegans get it from fortified cereals.

https://veganhealth.org/vitamin-b12-vegan-sources/

"The vitamin B12 component in B12 supplements and fortified foods is made by bacteria and sourced from bacteria cultures; it is not taken from animal products"

The problem is the bacteria cultures, propionibacterium shermanii, are all cultured on a lactate medium! Essentially whey (as a waste product from cheese making) :rolleyes:

Source for that last paragraph? I am curious as it is it something I have come across before.

El_Duderino 09 · 11-12-2019 12:13pm

jaymla627 wrote: »

If you had bought 10k worth of beyond meat shares in July they would now be worth a little over 3k, the steam is going out of the vegan fake meat market before it even gets going...

If that was really the case, there wouldn't be the level of fear amongst those whose produce meat.

Plus consider if there wasn't social welfare payments to prop up meat production, it might not be viable for a lot of producers. If the same subsidies were given to Beyond Meat and they didn't have to worry about the profit margin, then they might well take a fair chunk of the market share.

Meat and dairy had all the advantages from historical advantage to traditional events like Sunday roast including meat and then they get subsidised if it's not profitable. But still non meat and non dairy alternatives like oat milk continue to grow their market share.

Mock all you want, but if there wasn't credible reason to worry, there wouldn't be threads like this one.

Xcellor · 11-12-2019 12:26pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If that was really the case, there wouldn't be the level of fear amongst those whose produce meat.

Plus consider if there wasn't social welfare payments to prop up meat production, it might not be viable for a lot of producers. If the same subsidies were given to Beyond Meat and they didn't have to worry about the profit margin, then they might well take a fair chunk of the market share.

Meat and dairy had all the advantages from historical advantage to traditional events like Sunday roast including meat and then they get subsidised if it's not profitable. But still non meat and non dairy alternatives like oat milk continue to grow their market share.

Mock all you want, but if there wasn't credible reason to worry, there wouldn't be threads like this one.

And even with subsidies there are still protests complaining it's loss making.

gozunda · 11-12-2019 1:18pm

Xcellor wrote: »

And even with subsidies there are still protests complaining it's loss making.

Cherry pick away xcellor - the facts are that a huge range of agricultural produce whether vegetables, fruit or animal produce have been forced into minimum price production.

Not just meat but vegetable growers are also being forced to supply at the lowest possible price. Historical subsidies were put in place to provide cheap food with the producer losing out to the middleman. So not much changes there

Tbh I always find it hilarious that we have those who don't gave a clue about agriculture or farming informing those that do how things are and rubbing their hands in anticipation of some fantasy utopian vision where we all eat some vaguely plant related processed ****e courtesy of some large corporate interest.

Excuse me of I dont share your enthusiasm.

gozunda · 11-12-2019 1:37pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If that was really the case, there wouldn't be the level of fear amongst those whose produce meat.
Plus consider if there wasn't social welfare payments to prop up meat production, it might not be viable for a lot of producers. If the same subsidies were given to Beyond Meat and they didn't have to worry about the profit margin, then they might well take a fair chunk of the market share. Meat and dairy had all the advantages from historical advantage to traditional events like Sunday roast including meat and then they get subsidised if it's not profitable. But still non meat and non dairy alternatives like oat milk continue to grow their market share.
Mock all you want, but if there wasn't credible reason to worry, there wouldn't be threads like this one.

I love the selective use of language. 'Social welfare payments' when linked to farm produce and 'subsidies' when used in association with large corporate producers lol.

'Fear'? Again the hyperbole there is hilarious. Do you think its 'fear' to want a system which rewards all food producers for the costs of production?

Meat and dairy have an advantage in this county for the very simple reason that is what our climate and topography and soils suit. Dont like that no? I would suggest perhaps setting up your own alternative farming system and let us know how you get on. Best of luck with that.

You might also want to check the thread title btw - it relates to - who is pushing a plant food / vegan agenda. And who is that? A quick check shows it is mainly large corporate interests hell bent on selling us ****e processed foodstuffs. And this is much of the same ****e being eulogised by a small number of zealot like plant food advocates because it suits that old time vegan jazz that meat etc is akin to nuclear waste or similar.

Tbh we need more threads like this one to point out the bs that is being bandied around as fact and bring back a bit of reality to the discussion about food production.

emaherx · 11-12-2019 1:47pm

Xcellor wrote: »

And even with subsidies there are still protests complaining it's loss making.

That makes no sense what so ever. These plant based "meat" producers are not farmers, they will also pay farmers as little as possible for their produce which is most likely subsidized in the country of origin or produced in the third world. Why do you believe they'd pay a fairer price than meat factories do?

It's not just the meat producers that are subsidized. The meat factories and the retailers are not loosing money here. Vegetable/tillage farmers here get a raw deal too.

Xcellor · 11-12-2019 2:46pm

gozunda wrote: »

Cherry pick away xcellor - the facts are that a huge range of agricultural produce whether vegetables, fruit or animal produce have been forced into minimum price production.

Not just meat but vegetable growers are also being forced to supply at the lowest possible price. Historical subsidies were put in place to provide cheap food with the producer losing out to the middleman. So not much changes there

Tbh I always find it hilarious that we have those who don't gave a clue about agriculture or farming informing those that do how things are and rubbing their hands in anticipation of some fantasy utopian vision where we all eat some vaguely plant related processed ****e courtesy of some large corporate interest.

Excuse me of I dont share your enthusiasm.

What cherry picking? No other group of farmers is currently protesting

emaherx · 11-12-2019 2:48pm

Xcellor wrote: »

What cherry picking? No other group of farmers is currently protesting

You mean like right now or just recently?

https://www.farmersjournal.ie/tillage-farmers-continuing-protest-at-glanbia-gates-499763

https://www.farmersjournal.ie/watch-farmers-protest-over-low-vegetable-prices-in-dublin-426921

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.euronews.com/amp/2019/09/17/dairy-farmers-call-for-a-fair-price-for-milk

El_Duderino 09 · 11-12-2019 3:14pm

gozunda wrote: »

I love the selective use of language. 'Social welfare payments' when linked to farm produce and 'subsidies' when used in association with large corporate producers lol.

'Fear'? Again the hyperbole there is hilarious. Do you think its 'fear' to want a system which rewards all food producers for the costs of production?

Meat and dairy have an advantage in this county for the very simple reason that is what our climate and topography and soils suit. Dont like that no? I would suggest perhaps setting up your own alternative farming system and let us know how you get on. Best of luck with that.

Sure, call it welfare or subsidies, farmers get them to help them produce their product, the meat free companies don't get the same level of welfare/subsidy. If the topography is so great and the product is so good, why does it need subsidy to make it viable? If it was pure business then the market would decide if it wants it it not.

The farming lobby is huge in Ireland and Europe (hence all the support for the farming industry) so I think it's a bit rich to point the finger at big business as if you're not being represented. The decades of 'drink milk', 'eat meat' and similar ads on TV and all the media, are hardly small a sign of a small business but I don't suppose you have a problem with that.

I think you have no interest in a system that rewards all food produces. If they started taking some of your welfare/subsidies and gave it to the meat free food producers (meat free burgers or lab grown meat) I think you'd go bananas.

emaherx · 11-12-2019 3:19pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sure, call it welfare or subsidies, farmers get them to help them produce their product, the meat free companies don't get the same level of welfare/subsidy. If the topography is so great and the product is so good, why does it need subsidy to make it viable? If it was pure business then the market would decide if it wants it it not.

The farming lobby is huge in Ireland and Europe (hence all the support for the farming industry) so I think it's a bit rich to point the finger at big business as if you're not being represented. The decades of 'drink milk', 'eat meat' and similar ads on TV and all the media, are hardly small a sign of a small business but I don't suppose you have a problem with that.

I think you have no interest in a system that rewards all food produces. If they started taking some of your welfare/subsidies and gave it to the meat free food producers (meat free burgers or lab grown meat) I think you'd go bananas.

The meat free companies don't get subsidies just like the meat companies don't get subsidies so what? But the farmers do so what's the difference?

El_Duderino 09 · 11-12-2019 3:22pm

emaherx wrote: »

The meat free companies don't get subsidies just like the meat companies don't get subsidies so what? But the farmers do so what's the difference?

Yeah, the difference is that the farmers get them to make their business viable where it wouldn't otherwise be viable.

So mocking the meat free businesses for losing share price is too rich.

emaherx · 11-12-2019 3:24pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah, the difference is that the farmers get them to make their business viable where it wouldn't otherwise be viable.

So mocking the meat free businesses for losing share price is too rich.

But it's true of all food produced on farms meat or otherwise. Why do people compare meat free food companies to beef farmers? When the comparison should be to meat factories where the playing field is a bit more level than you are claiming.

Count Mondego · 11-12-2019 3:34pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah, the difference is that the farmers get them to make their business viable where it wouldn't otherwise be viable.

Meat production is highly profitable, but it's the retailers and processors making the profit. The breakdown of that profit is a different issue entirely.

El_Duderino 09 · 11-12-2019 3:40pm

emaherx wrote: »

But it's true of all food produced on farms meat or otherwise. Why do people compare meat free food companies to beef farmers? When the comparison should be to meat factories where the playing field is a bit more level than you are claiming.

Why compare free to meat producers? Because they're selling products to the same market and one has subsidies to help keep them.in business and the other doesn't. So one has to deal with the realities of supply and demand and the other doesn't. So when the one who's being subsidised mocks the one who isn't being subsidised for their falling share price, it's a bit rich, isn't it?

El_Duderino 09 · 11-12-2019 3:43pm

Count Mondego wrote: »

Meat production is highly profitable, but it's the retailers and processors making the profit. The breakdown of that profit is a different issue entirely.

So do the farmers want a more socialist approach than the free market approach?

ganmo · 11-12-2019 3:58pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sure, call it welfare or subsidies, farmers get them to help them produce their product, the meat free companies don't get the same level of welfare/subsidy. If the topography is so great and the product is so good, why does it need subsidy to make it viable? If it was pure business then the market would decide if it wants it it not.

The farming lobby is huge in Ireland and Europe (hence all the support for the farming industry) so I think it's a bit rich to point the finger at big business as if you're not being represented. The decades of 'drink milk', 'eat meat' and similar ads on TV and all the media, are hardly small a sign of a small business but I don't suppose you have a problem with that.

I think you have no interest in a system that rewards all food produces. If they started taking some of your welfare/subsidies and gave it to the meat free food producers (meat free burgers or lab grown meat) I think you'd go bananas.

The payments to farmers is one of the corner stones of the EU having being agreed upon in the treaty of rome way back in the 1950.
the payments were to ensure there wouldn't be a boom bust cycle of food prices while maintaining a local supply.

without the payments farming in the eu would be much more corporate and nobody wants that

Waffletraktor · 11-12-2019 4:01pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So do the farmers want a more socialist approach than the free market approach?

Imports produced with the same Qa standards and oversight, same production methods and inputs banned in Eu not allowed to be used. Otherwise farms can't compete and the west is just exporting the things problem away.

auspicious · 11-12-2019 4:04pm

barnaman wrote: »

The problem is the bacteria cultures, propionibacterium shermanii, are all cultured on a lactate medium! Essentially whey (as a waste product from cheese making) :rolleyes:

Vegans of course acknowledge the less than adequate processes and outcomes in certain scenarios; take crop deaths for example or vaccinations cultured using FBS sources.
It is difficult to be a purist in anything.

It depends on the b12 brand. Vegan sources are grown on vegetable juices ( e.g. cabbage juice) or fungi ( as is the case with Veg1 from the vegan soceity using Cyanocobalamin ) or molasses as with Engevita nooch.

And of course a natural plant source of b12 has been found
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/parabel-announces-natural-plant-source-of-vitamin-b12-in-water-lentils-and-lentein-plant-protein-1028697181

Count Mondego · 11-12-2019 4:14pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So do the farmers want a more socialist approach than the free market approach?

We don't have a free market approach, we have an oligopoly at the processor level that controls the price and restrictions on live export have left no other avenue of sale.

emaherx · 11-12-2019 4:26pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Why compare free to meat producers? Because they're selling products to the same market and one has subsidies to help keep them.in business and the other doesn't. So one has to deal with the realities of supply and demand and the other doesn't. So when the one who's being subsidised mocks the one who isn't being subsidised for their falling share price, it's a bit rich, isn't it?

Yes same market but both sets of farmers are subsidized!

Neither type of factory is subsidized (although both probably are in some way like most multinational companies) so at least compare factories to factories and farmers to farmers. Comparing a farmer to a factory is utter BS.

roosterman71 · 11-12-2019 4:47pm

Subsidies: They go to landowners, not just farmers. And not just beef/meat farmers. Tillage farmers and vegetable farmers get them too. Cool fact - one of the biggest recipients of these subsidies is non other than Mr. vacuum - James Dyson. The Queen herself gets them too. The president of Hungary and his cronies have been targetted for their mass buying of land to claim subsidies. Furthermore, these subsidies are to keep food prices within reach of the citizens and not have them inflate along with the rest of the economy.

Yet the farmer is the one losing money here as the producers/retailer is a price setter. Farmers have had to expand, get more efficient (no harm there) and do more with rising input costs just to try stand still. Compare the price of milk received by a farmer in the 80s to today. Then do the same comparison for power, insurance, land, heating, feed, fertiliser, etc. The graphs don't align.

The fake meat companies get subsidies too in the form of tax breaks or grants for setting up, etc.

Someone said here a few pages back that you don't need animals to be organic. That was never suggested. Ya need animals for organic manure to spread back on the land (or for bio-energy production). Without it for land you need more artificial fertilizer (oil based) which has negative impacts on soil health, which means crops don't grow as well, which leads to lower yields, which leads to more fertilizer to try boost things, which leads to negative impacts on soil, which leads to ...

Since when was processed food the way forward? Buy locally grown produce from local people. Ya'll be better off

emaherx · 11-12-2019 4:55pm

roosterman71 wrote: »

Subsidies: They go to landowners, not just farmers. And not just beef/meat farmers. Tillage farmers and vegetable farmers get them too. Cool fact - one of the biggest recipients of these subsidies is non other than Mr. vacuum - James Dyson. The Queen herself gets them too. The president of Hungary and his cronies have been targetted for their mass buying of land to claim subsidies. Furthermore, these subsidies are to keep food prices within reach of the citizens and not have them inflate along with the rest of the economy.

Yet the farmer is the one losing money here as the producers/retailer is a price setter. Farmers have had to expand, get more efficient (no harm there) and do more with rising input costs just to try stand still. Compare the price of milk received by a farmer in the 80s to today. Then do the same comparison for power, insurance, land, heating, feed, fertiliser, etc. The graphs don't align.

The fake meat companies get subsidies too in the form of tax breaks or grants for setting up, etc.

Someone said here a few pages back that you don't need animals to be organic. That was never suggested. Ya need animals for organic manure to spread back on the land (or for bio-energy production). Without it for land you need more artificial fertilizer (oil based) which has negative impacts on soil health, which means crops don't grow as well, which leads to lower yields, which leads to more fertilizer to try boost things, which leads to negative impacts on soil, which leads to ...

Since when was processed food the way forward? Buy locally grown produce from local people. Ya'll be better off

Won't be long till someone else claims vegan burgers aren't subsidized, its like the words are invisible to them.

El_Duderino 09 · 11-12-2019 5:27pm

Count Mondego wrote: »

We don't have a free market approach, we have an oligopoly at the processor level that controls the price and restrictions on live export have left no other avenue of sale.

And subsidies. Don't forget them.

Free markets tend toward monopoly. That's just what free markets do. So yes farmers want more socialism or no they don't?

emaherx · 11-12-2019 5:32pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

And subsidies. Don't forget them.

Free markets tend toward monopoly. That's just what free markets do. So yes farmers want more socialism or no they don't?

I think farmers would be happy with no subsidies and a fair price whether producing beef or carrots. Do you want to pay more for your food though?

We currently have subsidies and a monopoly in the form of beef factories and vegetable buyers.

El_Duderino 09 · 11-12-2019 5:39pm

emaherx wrote: »

I think farmers would be happy with no subsidies and a fair price whether producing beef or carrots. Do you want to pay more for your food though?

Yeah I think that would be better. I think we should pay the price things actually cost to be viable. So if that means meat goes up and some people can't afford it, grand. We don't subsidise every business to make sure everyone can afford the product. If meat is expensive and a luxury item or something people have once a week then that's OK. People would just eat other things they can afford. So yeah, I'd agree with you there.

Parishlad · 11-12-2019 5:43pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah I think that would be better. I think we should pay the price things actually cost to be viable. So if that means meat goes up and some people can't afford it, grand. We don't subsidise every business to make sure everyone can afford the product. If meat is expensive and a luxury item or something people have once a week then that's OK. People would just eat other things they can afford. So yeah, I'd agree with you there.

Thanks, this is actually funny.
If food is too expensive then people can eat something else.

El_Duderino 09 · 11-12-2019 5:44pm

Parishlad wrote: »

Thanks, this is actually funny.
If food is too expensive then people can eat something else.

Meat. If meat is too expensive...

emaherx · 11-12-2019 5:53pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Meat. If meat is too expensive...

Why meat?
Because you happen to not like it?

I think sprouts should be made unaffordable, evil little green spheres.

emaherx · 11-12-2019 5:54pm

Parishlad wrote: »

Thanks, this is actually funny.
If food is too expensive then people can eat something else.

Let them eat cake?

emaherx · 11-12-2019 5:57pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

We don't subsidise every business to make sure everyone can afford the product. If meat is expensive and a luxury item or something people have once a week then that's OK. People would just eat other things they can afford. So yeah, I'd agree with you there.

Every one needs to eat, meat is not a luxury item but a nutritious food.

einn32 · 11-12-2019 6:13pm

What I don't get is how crop, vegetable and fruit farming is any better than the meat or milk farming. The chemical fertiliser and pesticide use is huge. Wiping out large amounts of insects, weeds and fungi for example throughout the growing season. Is this an issue for vegans? I remember knocking canola in oz and the spray bar on the swather dosing the stubble with round up! Then sheep would be in around the stubble of oat crops picking up the spilt grain. I don't think a vegan is allowed to eat that oat crop as it came into contact with an animal destined for slaughter? We used to have kangaroos and emu birds go through the header by accident. Surely they shouldn't touch that canola oil?

patsy_mccabe · 11-12-2019 6:53pm

If 2.4 million years of human evolution were compressed into the 24 hours of a clock:

*we've been eating meat for 24 hours
*we've been eating wheat for 6 minutes
*we've been eating ultra-processed food for 4 seconds

What's more likely to be a cause of a modern disease?

gozunda · 11-12-2019 7:08pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah I think that would be better. I think we should pay the price things actually cost to be viable. So if that means meat goes up and some people can't afford it, grand. We don't subsidise every business to make sure everyone can afford the product. If meat is expensive and a luxury item or something people have once a week then that's OK. People would just eat other things they can afford. So yeah, I'd agree with you there.

You really dont have clue eh? It wouldn't just be your personal bete noir "meat" which would rise in price but all agricultural produce. Or is it that you just choose to support veganism which seems to rely on cheap imports of food from other countries many of which have few if any ethical or environmental standards or highly processeed ****e. It would be good to at least try to be seen to be impartial instead of constantly and only bashing animal agriculture because some do not like 'meat' and even those delighted for producers to go to the wall because that seems to suit a tiny minorities lifestyle choice.

Effects · 11-12-2019 7:15pm

patsy_mccabe wrote: »

If 2.4 million years of human evolution were compressed into the 24 hours of a clock:

*we've been eating meat for 24 hours
*we've been eating wheat for 6 minutes
*we've been eating ultra-processed food for 4 seconds

What's more likely to be a cause of a modern disease?

5G phone masts I'd say.

djmc · 11-12-2019 7:36pm

emaherx wrote: »

Thanks, I needed a farmers point of view!

I was referring to a program in a warmer climate using older breeds in central Europe where some areas are loosing natural grassland due to small farmers simply giving up and leaving the landscape with no natural grazing animals.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/return-of-the-aurochs

Sorry it was late and I was tired, lol:o

emaherx · 11-12-2019 7:47pm

djmc wrote: »

Sorry it was late and I was tired, lol:o

I thought it was funny

Christy42 · 12-12-2019 9:39am

einn32 wrote: »

What I don't get is how crop, vegetable and fruit farming is any better than the meat or milk farming. The chemical fertiliser and pesticide use is huge. Wiping out large amounts of insects, weeds and fungi for example throughout the growing season. Is this an issue for vegans? I remember knocking canola in oz and the spray bar on the swather dosing the stubble with round up! Then sheep would be in around the stubble of oat crops picking up the spilt grain. I don't think a vegan is allowed to eat that oat crop as it came into contact with an animal destined for slaughter? We used to have kangaroos and emu birds go through the header by accident. Surely they shouldn't touch that canola oil?

Plants don't require as much room and resources in terms of feed and water etc. No insects tend not to make the cut though you could go organic (this route is terrible for the environment as you need to grow more again). I suspect you are aware they don't mind killing fungi earlier since they are eating crops so no idea why that was put in.

The rest of your post is nonsense for the sake of not liking vegans??

To the person talking about disease. Definitely the prosessed foods. However most of them tend to meat/dairy. So if you cut out meat/dairy you end up with less prosessed food as it simply cuts out the option.

Certainly I agree that good meat isn't bad for you if you don't have ridiculous amounts. I also strongly suspect a lot of vegetarian diets would be better with a bit of chicken now and then. However, while their diet is not perfect, I am sure I have a bit of a glass house in that regard.

emaherx · 12-12-2019 10:19am

Christy42 wrote: »

Plants don't require as much room and resources in terms of feed and water etc. No insects tend not to make the cut though you could go organic (this route is terrible for the environment as you need to grow more again). I suspect you are aware they don't mind killing fungi earlier since they are eating crops so no idea why that was put in.

The rest of your post is nonsense for the sake of not liking vegans??

To the person talking about disease. Definitely the prosessed foods. However most of them tend to meat/dairy. So if you cut out meat/dairy you end up with less prosessed food as it simply cuts out the option.

Certainly I agree that good meat isn't bad for you if you don't have ridiculous amounts. I also strongly suspect a lot of vegetarian diets would be better with a bit of chicken now and then. However, while their diet is not perfect, I am sure I have a bit of a glass house in that regard.

Water claims on animal production are wildly overstated as it includes all water which happens to fall in a field with livestock. For example there is much more water required to make the likes of almond milk in California than Irish dairy milk or a kilo of Irish Beef.

Organic farms use pesticides, they happen to be organic in nature but often more damaging to the environment. Insects are just a sentient as cows so it is a valid argument.

Plenty of processed vegan foods available now, take a beef burger for example which is minced beef some seasoning and egg compare that to the ingredients of a beyond burger with 18 ingredients some specially invented in a lab to make plants taste bloody.

Christy42 · 12-12-2019 10:35am

emaherx wrote: »

Water claims on animal production are wildly overstated as it includes all water which happens to fall in a field with livestock. For example there is much more water required to make the likes of almond milk in California than Irish dairy milk or a kilo of Irish Beef.

Organic farms use pesticides, they happen to be organic in nature but often more damaging to the environment. Insects are just a sentient as cows so it is a valid argument.

Plenty of processed vegan foods available now, take a beef burger for example which is minced beef some seasoning and egg compare that to the ingredients of a beyond burger with 18 ingredients some specially invented in a lab to make plants taste bloody.

Using California as an example is just intentionally picking and choosing to skew the data. California probably shouldn't be doing much growing. Hey veganism isn't perfect. Compare like with like, what are figured like for producing veggies in Ireland vs meat?

Is processed food more available for meat eaters or vegans. That was my only claim. Again veganism or veggie is not perfect here either. Single counterexamples don't negate the trend. I am sure the new fast food veggie burger I have seen advertised is absolute muck. But it is way easier to find a vast selection of processed meat.

You can go onto a fight for the insects but it seems pretty strawman to assume the vegans are.

emaherx · 12-12-2019 10:44am

Christy42 wrote: »

Using California as an example is just intentionally picking and choosing to skew the data. California probably shouldn't be doing much growing. Hey veganism isn't perfect. Compare like with like, what are figured like for producing veggies in Ireland vs meat?

Is processed food more available for meat eaters or vegans. That was my only claim. Again veganism or veggie is not perfect here either. Single counterexamples don't negate the trend. I am sure the new fast food veggie burger I have seen advertised is absolute muck. But it is way easier to find a vast selection of processed meat.

You can go onto a fight for the insects but it seems pretty strawman to assume the vegans are.

It's a exactly the way data is skewed against cattle which was my point. Claims of requiring 20,000 liters to produce 1 kg of beef in Ireland are complete BS because it rains the real figure counting what a cow consumes is 150-200 liters of water. Cattle can graze land and live side by side with nature but a plough destroys everything in it's path. And funny enough the more extensively farmed land is with cattle it increases the claimed land use and water use by the unfair calculations used.

Processed vegan food is on the increase and will only increase more as that market expands.

I don't need to put up a fight for the insects as I'm an omnivore and accept animals die for my food but I'm not hypocritical about it.

Veganism: Who is behind the Agenda?

Comments