|
|
|
Author |
|
Message | |
|
Ty Gwyn
Joined: 22 Sep 2010 Posts: 4613 Location: Lampeter
|
|
|
|
|
Tavascarow
Joined: 06 Aug 2006 Posts: 8407 Location: South Cornwall
|
|
|
|
|
Rob R
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 31902 Location: York
|
|
|
|
|
Rob R
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 31902 Location: York
|
|
|
|
|
Tavascarow
Joined: 06 Aug 2006 Posts: 8407 Location: South Cornwall
|
Posted: Mon Sep 28, 15 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
Rob R wrote: |
Tavascarow wrote: |
Rob R wrote: |
Thanks, that illustrates my point perfectly! 1.5bn cattle divided by a world population of 6.8bn is 0.22 cows per person, meanwhle in the UK we have 9.7 million cattle giving a rate of 0.15 per person, and dropping. |
It doesn't illustrate anything of the sort.
There are so many types of system & environmental considerations there is no way you can extrapolate in that way.
I'm sure there are more cattle per head of population in the USA than the UK. But as the majority are in corn fed feed lots it does nothing to prove your theory we need more cattle not less. |
No, the proof is in the Ings, your figures just demonstrate it in numerical terms.
Again, let me ask you, what is your issue with reversing the order of the solutions and consuming/producing only food from sustainable systems and letting that govern how much and what we eat? And please don't just try to change the subject again. |
Quoting a ratio of head of cattle to numbers of population has nothing whatsoever to do with the numbers of cattle per acre/hectare.
There's no relationship, complete fantasy, codswallop.
|
|
|
|
|
Rob R
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 31902 Location: York
|
Posted: Mon Sep 28, 15 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
Tavascarow wrote: |
Rob R wrote: |
Tavascarow wrote: |
Rob R wrote: |
Thanks, that illustrates my point perfectly! 1.5bn cattle divided by a world population of 6.8bn is 0.22 cows per person, meanwhle in the UK we have 9.7 million cattle giving a rate of 0.15 per person, and dropping. |
It doesn't illustrate anything of the sort.
There are so many types of system & environmental considerations there is no way you can extrapolate in that way.
I'm sure there are more cattle per head of population in the USA than the UK. But as the majority are in corn fed feed lots it does nothing to prove your theory we need more cattle not less. |
No, the proof is in the Ings, your figures just demonstrate it in numerical terms.
Again, let me ask you, what is your issue with reversing the order of the solutions and consuming/producing only food from sustainable systems and letting that govern how much and what we eat? And please don't just try to change the subject again. |
Quoting a ratio of head of cattle to numbers of population has nothing whatsoever to do with the numbers of cattle per acre/hectare.
There's no relationship, complete fantasy, codswallop.
|
So answer the question then, dont justpost a link that contains a relationship that you later describe as codswallop when I discuss it. |
|
|
|
|
Mistress Rose
Joined: 21 Jul 2011 Posts: 15985
|
|
|
|
|
Tavascarow
Joined: 06 Aug 2006 Posts: 8407 Location: South Cornwall
|
Posted: Tue Sep 29, 15 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
Rob R wrote: |
Tavascarow wrote: |
Rob R wrote: |
Tavascarow wrote: |
Rob R wrote: |
Thanks, that illustrates my point perfectly! 1.5bn cattle divided by a world population of 6.8bn is 0.22 cows per person, meanwhle in the UK we have 9.7 million cattle giving a rate of 0.15 per person, and dropping. |
It doesn't illustrate anything of the sort.
There are so many types of system & environmental considerations there is no way you can extrapolate in that way.
I'm sure there are more cattle per head of population in the USA than the UK. But as the majority are in corn fed feed lots it does nothing to prove your theory we need more cattle not less. |
No, the proof is in the Ings, your figures just demonstrate it in numerical terms.
Again, let me ask you, what is your issue with reversing the order of the solutions and consuming/producing only food from sustainable systems and letting that govern how much and what we eat? And please don't just try to change the subject again. |
Quoting a ratio of head of cattle to numbers of population has nothing whatsoever to do with the numbers of cattle per acre/hectare.
There's no relationship, complete fantasy, codswallop.
|
So answer the question then, dont justpost a link that contains a relationship that you later describe as codswallop when I discuss it. |
The quote from the article that I highlighted is relevant (IMHO) to the original post in that there are more domestic livestock now than ever before, & a lot less wildlife.
You on the other hand seem to be saying because the world average is 0.22 cattle per person but only 0.15 here in the UK we are somehow deficit in cattle.
It's way to vague an argument to hold any water. |
|
|
|
|
Rob R
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 31902 Location: York
|
Posted: Tue Sep 29, 15 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
Tavascarow wrote: |
Rob R wrote: |
Tavascarow wrote: |
Rob R wrote: |
Tavascarow wrote: |
Rob R wrote: |
Thanks, that illustrates my point perfectly! 1.5bn cattle divided by a world population of 6.8bn is 0.22 cows per person, meanwhle in the UK we have 9.7 million cattle giving a rate of 0.15 per person, and dropping. |
It doesn't illustrate anything of the sort.
There are so many types of system & environmental considerations there is no way you can extrapolate in that way.
I'm sure there are more cattle per head of population in the USA than the UK. But as the majority are in corn fed feed lots it does nothing to prove your theory we need more cattle not less. |
No, the proof is in the Ings, your figures just demonstrate it in numerical terms.
Again, let me ask you, what is your issue with reversing the order of the solutions and consuming/producing only food from sustainable systems and letting that govern how much and what we eat? And please don't just try to change the subject again. |
Quoting a ratio of head of cattle to numbers of population has nothing whatsoever to do with the numbers of cattle per acre/hectare.
There's no relationship, complete fantasy, codswallop.
|
So answer the question then, dont justpost a link that contains a relationship that you later describe as codswallop when I discuss it. |
The quote from the article that I highlighted is relevant (IMHO) to the original post in that there are more domestic livestock now than ever before, & a lot less wildlife.
You on the other hand seem to be saying because the world average is 0.22 cattle per person but only 0.15 here in the UK we are somehow deficit in cattle.
It's way to vague an argument to hold any water. |
|
|
|
|
|
Rob R
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 31902 Location: York
|
|
|
|
|
Tavascarow
Joined: 06 Aug 2006 Posts: 8407 Location: South Cornwall
|
|
|
|
|
Rob R
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 31902 Location: York
|
Posted: Tue Sep 29, 15 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
Tavascarow wrote: |
The quote from the article that I highlighted is relevant (IMHO) to the original post in that there are more domestic livestock now than ever before, & a lot less wildlife.
You on the other hand seem to be saying because the world average is 0.22 cattle per person but only 0.15 here in the UK we are somehow deficit in cattle.
It's way to vague an argument to hold any water. |
OK, lets just recap my point of view;
1) I believe that we should not import beef
2) I think we should eat more beef from cattle produced here in the UK
3) I don't think we should feed cattle on grain nor increase our reliance on grain fed animals.
4) I do think that the under grazed pastures could be better utilised both in terms of food production and biodiversity.
5) I think that much more marginal land & wetlands, much of it currently drained and used for vegetable/arable production, should be converted back to pasture, especially alongside major watercourses.
What you, perhaps purposefully, failed to mention is that your link compared the biomass of humans to domestic livestock, as well as wildlife. I didn't have biomass of British wildlife to hand, but I did have the populations of both cattle and humans.
Biomass is a good indicator of relative consumption, as it's difficult to consume something that isn't there, so it is relevant to the debate on eating less meat and it indicates that we, as a nation, do not represent the average figures quoted in your worldwide papers.
As I have previously said, numerous times, we can't eat negative meat to compensate for China, so consumption must be taken in context of the country where it is happening and where the supplies are coming from. Someone turning vegan in this country will not impact upon the production of meat in China one little bit, unless they were previously buying their meat from China. If that were the case, switching to sustainably produced British meat would be a better alternative than switching to imported, intensively grown vegetables/products, as there is scope to produce more of the former on British soils without increasing pressure on the land resource at home or abroad.
There is no mechanism in your (original) paper's solutions to ensure that people cutting down on meat consumption (solution 1) switch to my type of farming - it's is equally possible, and more likely, that they would simply go over to more intensive non-animal products. If, however, you reverse the solutions, and put supporting sustainable production systems at the top of the list, you are far more likely to achieve solution 1, eating less, by default.
You haven't even attempted to answer why you are so resistant to this alternative way of looking at it. When I asked you again to answer this query you posted the second link, which I took to be some kind of attempt to justify it. |
|
|
|
|
Rob R
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 31902 Location: York
|
|
|
|
|
Tavascarow
Joined: 06 Aug 2006 Posts: 8407 Location: South Cornwall
|
|
|
|
|
Rob R
Joined: 28 Oct 2004 Posts: 31902 Location: York
|
|
|
|
|
|
Archive
Powered by php-BB © 2001, 2005 php-BB Group Style by marsjupiter.com, released under GNU (GNU/GPL) license.
|