'Farming'.

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Yes, i agree with that.
However, you'd have to question the recent explosion of vegan eateries and options around Dublin as to the providence of much of the food and ingredients.

There is no way there isn't cross contamination in many kitchens in terms of ingredients, utensils used and food storage.

Well if it's a vegan place I'd assume they don't have non vegan ingredients around for contamination.


If it's a normal restaurant with a vegan soup and they don't wash the spoon between stirring the vegan soup and the oxtail - I don't think it's going to kill anyone. Some would be upset of course.



I went to a vegan friend's wedding recently. Three options - vegetarian, vegan or beef. Selected when rsvp'ing. Because it was my friend's wedding I said I'd try vegan. As did all my table there. Turned out the staff brought out vegetarian rather than vegan option for us. Did I care? No. I'm neither vegan nor vegetarian. It was a very nice meal though!



A good proportion of the food you eat is presumably "vegan". Everything a vegan eats, you can, and probably do, eat. In general I don't get a lot of peoples' incredulity towards "vegan".

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Yeah, the majority of people's calories are, and at least should be vegan anyway. It makes sense that most calories are not coming from animals unless you rely heavily on animal products.

People often don't like that others are vegan and are put on the defensive by default because by merely existing they think the vegan person is saying they are a bad person. Nobody likes to think they are in the wrong. That's often why if I sit down to a meal and somebody points out that I'm vegan, the line of questioning tends to follow the path of finding something I do wrong or something along those lines.

All "people" are like that ? I don't believe that is generally the case tbh. Some indeed may be like that as you suggest

In my experience the opposite more often holds true where a small number of vegans often don't like that others are non vegan and are put on the defensive by default because by merely existing they think the person eating a normal diet is (the same as) saying they are a bad person.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

You have to trust they are a professional operation, you can't really know. Considering they could get sued and ruin their own business for serving allergens secretly, that also plays a part. People can die from having eggs/dairy etc so it's increasingly taken seriously. ..

And that I believe relates to all businesses including all types of farming.

Anyone can throw unsubstantiated insinuations and accusations. It remains that the majority of farmers - animal and otherwise run professional operations and are mindful of both animals welfare and health.

Considering that farmers and food producers are professionally inspected and must meet a raft of draconian but necessary regulations and standards. They could ruin their own business for providing anything less than good quality food. So yes it's taken very seriously indeed. It's true that people may also die of peanut allergies nut, soy and similar. And that is why issues of food quality and accidental adulteration is legislated for. There are 14 allergens which must be alerted for by law: See: https://www.fsai.ie/legislation/food_legislation/food_information_fic/allergens.html

I believe it goes without saying that people can also die or become sick from many things including adulterated food or food imported from areas with few of any environmental or ethical standards. But for some strange reason - there seems to be little concern for that but more for bashing and belittling only the produce of animal farming in Ireland. Why is that .....

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Who would actually sue over getting a vegan dish that turned out to be non vegan?

There are a lot of chancers around too.
I wonder about a few of our local restaurants and Asian food outlets now offering vegan options and whether they are actually vegan. Considering I'd even question the providence of their regular menu items

One regular slur of Asian restaurants is they are serving cat or dog meat rather than chicken or beef. I can 100% say after eating dog meat last time I was in China that they do not. I’ve tried allot of meats and it was by far the most disappointing and worst to eat I’ve ever tried. Similarly pigeon cannot he passed off as chicken.

Genuine question on the other side.

Are there any examples in Ireland where activists have went out and bought land in order to give animals the life they want the animals to have? even just a small one as an example/prototype?

A farmer with a bit of land is only trying to make a living from it. A person living in the city/town with even a moderately well paying job presumably has a lot more disposable income.

So it would appear a bit rich for the latter to want the former to destroy their livelihood down to nothing when then latter actually has capacity to do what they want to see being done without affecting their own livelihood. But perhaps there are successful examples. I'd be interested to know

I know there are different degrees. I'm talking about the more extreme people

Donald Trump wrote: »

Are there any examples in Ireland where activists have went out and bought land in order to give animals the life they want the animals to have? even just a small one as an example/prototype?

Yes, they're called sanctuaries and there are several I can think of.

davidjtaylor wrote: »

Yes, they're called sanctuaries and there are several I can think of.

I googled and found one. At least they are putting some money where their mouths are.



They have a post though where they welcomed their "First Cow", which was named Cormac, in 2016. So I assume the "cow" was a bull calf. I wonder how they got on with him. Did they castrate him or leave him as a bull? Bulls are dangerous and it's common enough for them to have to be killed if they get aggressive. Castration does have an effect on the growth of an animal.



They have an emotive post describing how the poor baby calf was immediately taken away from the mother so that her milk could be used by humans. Well that's not true because normal procedures invariably mean that you cannot use a cow's milk for human consumption for the first few days after her calf is born. I'm not saying they didn't immediately take the calf away, but it wasn't for that reason if they did so. When someone sees things like that, and they know it is exaggerating or with poetic licence, then it leads them to be skeptical about the rest of what they read!



The other irony is that to feed that calf, they'd have had to depend on milk-replacer which is a by-product of the dairy industry. If they wanted to do it "right" they could also have bought a cow.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Surely the end result is them taking away the calf from the cow so that her milk can eventually be used for humans is what they mean? The intervening intricacies aren't really important in that paragragh, if the milk she produces wasn't destined to be a product it wouldn't be happening etc. That brings me onto another point about your post, since the sanctuary is not commoditizing the animal they'll just do whatever they can that is in the best interest of the animal, for the sake of the animal itself. If they have to do A or B because of that, they just have to deal with the situation. I think it's important to get knowledgeable people which could be farmers or ex farmers involved in people don't have the expertise themselves, until they learn.

Yes but the other side of this is that dairy cows have been selectively bred for many generations to produce more milk than a single calf could consume. That's just the way it is. If the sanctuary "rescued" the cow and her calf together, they would have issues with that excess milk too. If a cow is not milked properly they can get infected and sick.


Milking a cow does not harm a cow. Dairy cows are extremely well looked after and well fed. They are expensive animals and generally don't have hybrid vigour from cross-breeding so need to be treated with care. The calf also receives the milk (or milk replacer - which is made using milk anyway) that it needs. It is not that they take the cow away and take all the milk and leave the calf to die of hunger. They simply take use the surplus milk for people.

There are only two differences between what the farmer does and what the sanctuary does and the farmer does
(1) The animal will be eventually slaughtered for meat.
(2) The farmer has the experience and knowledge to take care of the animal until then. The sanctuary probably does not.



Perhaps you think that (1) is bad and (2) isn't. I think (2) is bad.



For anyone who wants "cows", friesian bull calves (dairy types) are extremely cheap as they are uneconomical and at times are almost given away for free.
https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/friesian-bull-calves-on-donedeal-for-free/


Why are they being given away for free? Because animals are expensive to feed and keep. That particular breed does not produce much meat. You could take those calves, take care of them for 2.5 years, sell them for 1000+ and still make a loss. And that's for people who are working in the industry and have certain economies of scale. Margins are very tight for people trying to make a living.

So other people are of course more than welcome to choose to buy them and take them in as pets. Just know that they will be an expensive pet. And if you want to keep them beyond that time, you'd need to factor in that they will eat even more as a fully grown animal. I have no problem with people who actively want to do that.

auspicious wrote: »

Just a presumptuous statement with no basis.

Likewise I could say, the farmer has the experience and knowledge to take care of the animal but probably doesn't.

Tell me why a farmer would not take care of an animal?
From a purely financial perspective it would make no sense to do so. Margins in farming are very tight. Mis-treated animals do not thrive.

I went to a "animal farm" once. Was supposed to be where people could come and look at different animals. But it wasn't a real farm. Kept as pets. Just some hippy-types who had bought a house on about 20-30 acres. I had never seen animals in such poor physical condition or being kept in such unhealthy conditions. Hey but it's alright isn't it if they believed that they "loved" animals isn't it?


If all you are going to have is ill-informed emotional hyperbole then I'll leave you to it.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Surely the end result is them taking away the calf from the cow so that her milk can eventually be used for humans is what they mean? The intervening intricacies aren't really important in that paragragh, if the milk she produces wasn't destined to be a product it wouldn't be happening etc. That brings me onto another point about your post, since the sanctuary is not commoditizing the animal they'll just do whatever they can that is in the best interest of the animal, for the sake of the animal itself. If they have to do A or B because of that, they just have to deal with the situation. I think it's important to get knowledgeable people which could be farmers or ex farmers involved in people don't have the expertise themselves, until they learn.

Thats a huge assumption tbh. There have been many sanctuaries / rescues set up for domestic animals of which at least some have been found to be grossly negligent in the care of those animals. Some high profile cases and least one involving a boards member that I am aware off. And no I'm not going to name names.

There are many individuals who may believe they have the best intention in 'rescuing animals' but who on the face of it - shouldn't be let with an asses roar (excuse the pun) of any animal.

Conversely many of those who are Involved in animal agricultural not only treat their animals well because it makes sense to do so but also because it is the right thing to do.

ganmo wrote: »

are you calling them large sanctuaries or large animal sanctuaries

I meant the sanctuaries are large, but they have large farm animals too.