|
|
|
|
 |
Author |
|
| Message | |
|
Tavascarow
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 8407
Location: South Cornwall
|
|
|
|
 |
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 46235
Location: yes
|
|
|
|
|
Tavascarow
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 8407
Location: South Cornwall
|
|
|
|
|
Rob R
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York
|
|
|
|
|
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 46235
Location: yes
|
|
|
|
|
Tavascarow
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 8407
Location: South Cornwall
|
|
|
|
|
Mistress Rose
Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 15985
|
|
|
|
|
Rob R
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 12, 15 11:31 am Post subject: |
 
|
| Tavascarow wrote: |
| Rob R wrote: |
| If only we didn't have such a strong anti red meat lobby. |
Livestock farming is as destructive & damaging as arable in this instance.
My neighbours suckler herd live on fields where two species predominate, rye grass & docks, because he uses herbicides & over-fertilises, no clover!! The cattle get wormed regularly so no insects or birds feed on the cowpats. The hedges are flailed every year regardless. Not a wildlife friendly environment at all IMHO. |
The anti red meat lobby doesn't make that distinction - to them meat is bad no matter what and as such they target the weakest, small scale businesses that are not like the one you describe, first, because they are an easy target.
The potential for wildlife friendly farming is greater with (grazing) livestock than without because arable (and pigs & poultry) are particularly destructive to soils and the ground surface.
I've got a neighbour who doesn't use fert or spray, but the wildlife value isn't great due to the way it is, or rather isn't, managed. He's just one example, though. Comparing like for like, the other farmers around me are not particularly different to the average, but we've had greater pollution in recent years due to a move to more arable farming in the area. |
|
|
|
|
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 46235
Location: yes
|
|
|
|
|
Tavascarow
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 8407
Location: South Cornwall
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 12, 15 12:28 pm Post subject: |
|
| Rob R wrote: |
| Tavascarow wrote: |
| Rob R wrote: |
| If only we didn't have such a strong anti red meat lobby. |
Livestock farming is as destructive & damaging as arable in this instance.
My neighbours suckler herd live on fields where two species predominate, rye grass & docks, because he uses herbicides & over-fertilises, no clover!! The cattle get wormed regularly so no insects or birds feed on the cowpats. The hedges are flailed every year regardless. Not a wildlife friendly environment at all IMHO. |
The anti red meat lobby doesn't make that distinction - to them meat is bad no matter what and as such they target the weakest, small scale businesses that are not like the one you describe, first, because they are an easy target.
The potential for wildlife friendly farming is greater with (grazing) livestock than without because arable (and pigs & poultry) are particularly destructive to soils and the ground surface.
I've got a neighbour who doesn't use fert or spray, but the wildlife value isn't great due to the way it is, or rather isn't, managed. He's just one example, though. Comparing like for like, the other farmers around me are not particularly different to the average, but we've had greater pollution in recent years due to a move to more arable farming in the area. |
A lot of arable is fed to livestock, probably over 50% (I'm guessing). I'm trying to differentiate between local impact & global because in this instance It's local species under threat & being discussed.
Globally our over consumption of red meat is contributing hugely to climate change, as you are well aware.
Which is why I & many like me say we should be eating less red meat & what we do eat should be sourced from environmentally sustainable farms like yours.
But the majority of livestock isn't raised in an environmentally friendly way.
My neighbour isn't an exception he's the norm & if you asked him if he cared for his land & the environment I bet he would say yes, as would most farmers.
I live in an area that's predominately pasture. I haven't seen a kestrel here in about ten years.
Why? Because there are no short tailed field voles. & the reason there aren't is farming practices like my neighbours. |
|
|
|
|
Rob R
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 12, 15 2:07 pm Post subject: |
|
| Tavascarow wrote: |
| Rob R wrote: |
| Tavascarow wrote: |
| Rob R wrote: |
| If only we didn't have such a strong anti red meat lobby. |
Livestock farming is as destructive & damaging as arable in this instance.
My neighbours suckler herd live on fields where two species predominate, rye grass & docks, because he uses herbicides & over-fertilises, no clover!! The cattle get wormed regularly so no insects or birds feed on the cowpats. The hedges are flailed every year regardless. Not a wildlife friendly environment at all IMHO. |
The anti red meat lobby doesn't make that distinction - to them meat is bad no matter what and as such they target the weakest, small scale businesses that are not like the one you describe, first, because they are an easy target.
The potential for wildlife friendly farming is greater with (grazing) livestock than without because arable (and pigs & poultry) are particularly destructive to soils and the ground surface.
I've got a neighbour who doesn't use fert or spray, but the wildlife value isn't great due to the way it is, or rather isn't, managed. He's just one example, though. Comparing like for like, the other farmers around me are not particularly different to the average, but we've had greater pollution in recent years due to a move to more arable farming in the area. |
A lot of arable is fed to livestock, probably over 50% (I'm guessing). I'm trying to differentiate between local impact & global because in this instance It's local species under threat & being discussed.
Globally our over consumption of red meat is contributing hugely to climate change, as you are well aware.
Which is why I & many like me say we should be eating less red meat & what we do eat should be sourced from environmentally sustainable farms like yours.
But the majority of livestock isn't raised in an environmentally friendly way.
My neighbour isn't an exception he's the norm & if you asked him if he cared for his land & the environment I bet he would say yes, as would most farmers.
I live in an area that's predominately pasture. I haven't seen a kestrel here in about ten years.
Why? Because there are no short tailed field voles. & the reason there aren't is farming practices like my neighbours. |
The pressure groups say that, yes, using highly biased estimates that don't relate to reality, such as it taking 2500 gallons of water to produce 1lb of beef. They fail to mention the less convenient facts, such as the massive increase in fresh produce consumption. |
|
|
|
|
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 46235
Location: yes
|
|
|
|
|
Tavascarow
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 8407
Location: South Cornwall
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 12, 15 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
| Rob R wrote: |
| Tavascarow wrote: |
| Rob R wrote: |
| Tavascarow wrote: |
| Rob R wrote: |
| If only we didn't have such a strong anti red meat lobby. |
Livestock farming is as destructive & damaging as arable in this instance.
My neighbours suckler herd live on fields where two species predominate, rye grass & docks, because he uses herbicides & over-fertilises, no clover!! The cattle get wormed regularly so no insects or birds feed on the cowpats. The hedges are flailed every year regardless. Not a wildlife friendly environment at all IMHO. |
The anti red meat lobby doesn't make that distinction - to them meat is bad no matter what and as such they target the weakest, small scale businesses that are not like the one you describe, first, because they are an easy target.
The potential for wildlife friendly farming is greater with (grazing) livestock than without because arable (and pigs & poultry) are particularly destructive to soils and the ground surface.
I've got a neighbour who doesn't use fert or spray, but the wildlife value isn't great due to the way it is, or rather isn't, managed. He's just one example, though. Comparing like for like, the other farmers around me are not particularly different to the average, but we've had greater pollution in recent years due to a move to more arable farming in the area. |
A lot of arable is fed to livestock, probably over 50% (I'm guessing). I'm trying to differentiate between local impact & global because in this instance It's local species under threat & being discussed.
Globally our over consumption of red meat is contributing hugely to climate change, as you are well aware.
Which is why I & many like me say we should be eating less red meat & what we do eat should be sourced from environmentally sustainable farms like yours.
But the majority of livestock isn't raised in an environmentally friendly way.
My neighbour isn't an exception he's the norm & if you asked him if he cared for his land & the environment I bet he would say yes, as would most farmers.
I live in an area that's predominately pasture. I haven't seen a kestrel here in about ten years.
Why? Because there are no short tailed field voles. & the reason there aren't is farming practices like my neighbours. |
The pressure groups say that, yes, using highly biased estimates that don't relate to reality, such as it taking 2500 gallons of water to produce 1lb of beef. They fail to mention the less convenient facts, such as the massive increase in fresh produce consumption. |
Rob if you include the United Nations as a pressure group then yes fine, otherwise no.
I'm not saying people shouldn't eat meat, I'm fully supportive of farmers like yourself that endeavour to produce good quality, sustainably reared meat.
But I struggle to understand why (at least from my understanding) you defend the rest of the industry that you know is far from sustainable, but very damaging to the local environment & the planet as a whole? I've not read any articles that claim how much water it takes to rear a lb of beef so don't know which 'pressure group' you refer. There are huge amounts of science that says the ever increasing demand both in the West & in the emerging countries like China & India is not sustainable.
Modern agricultural practices likewise.
Why deny it? |
|
|
|
|
Rob R
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 12, 15 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
| Tavascarow wrote: |
| Rob R wrote: |
| Tavascarow wrote: |
| Rob R wrote: |
| Tavascarow wrote: |
| Rob R wrote: |
| If only we didn't have such a strong anti red meat lobby. |
Livestock farming is as destructive & damaging as arable in this instance.
My neighbours suckler herd live on fields where two species predominate, rye grass & docks, because he uses herbicides & over-fertilises, no clover!! The cattle get wormed regularly so no insects or birds feed on the cowpats. The hedges are flailed every year regardless. Not a wildlife friendly environment at all IMHO. |
The anti red meat lobby doesn't make that distinction - to them meat is bad no matter what and as such they target the weakest, small scale businesses that are not like the one you describe, first, because they are an easy target.
The potential for wildlife friendly farming is greater with (grazing) livestock than without because arable (and pigs & poultry) are particularly destructive to soils and the ground surface.
I've got a neighbour who doesn't use fert or spray, but the wildlife value isn't great due to the way it is, or rather isn't, managed. He's just one example, though. Comparing like for like, the other farmers around me are not particularly different to the average, but we've had greater pollution in recent years due to a move to more arable farming in the area. |
A lot of arable is fed to livestock, probably over 50% (I'm guessing). I'm trying to differentiate between local impact & global because in this instance It's local species under threat & being discussed.
Globally our over consumption of red meat is contributing hugely to climate change, as you are well aware.
Which is why I & many like me say we should be eating less red meat & what we do eat should be sourced from environmentally sustainable farms like yours.
But the majority of livestock isn't raised in an environmentally friendly way.
My neighbour isn't an exception he's the norm & if you asked him if he cared for his land & the environment I bet he would say yes, as would most farmers.
I live in an area that's predominately pasture. I haven't seen a kestrel here in about ten years.
Why? Because there are no short tailed field voles. & the reason there aren't is farming practices like my neighbours. |
The pressure groups say that, yes, using highly biased estimates that don't relate to reality, such as it taking 2500 gallons of water to produce 1lb of beef. They fail to mention the less convenient facts, such as the massive increase in fresh produce consumption. |
Rob if you include the United Nations as a pressure group then yes fine, otherwise no.
I'm not saying people shouldn't eat meat, I'm fully supportive of farmers like yourself that endeavour to produce good quality, sustainably reared meat.
But I struggle to understand why (at least from my understanding) you defend the rest of the industry that you know is far from sustainable, but very damaging to the local environment & the planet as a whole? I've not read any articles that claim how much water it takes to rear a lb of beef so don't know which 'pressure group' you refer. There are huge amounts of science that says the ever increasing demand both in the West & in the emerging countries like China & India is not sustainable.
Modern agricultural practices likewise.
Why deny it? |
When have I ever defended the rest of the industry? That is perhaps where you are going wrong. I prefer decisions to be made with truth facts, whether that be the rest of the industry or pressure groups such as the UN or others. I chose water as an example to illustrate the problems with their estimations purely because it is something I can measure. Gases are much harder to measure (but even if you take UN figures at face value the effect of eliminating animal agriculture completely results in a net increase of just over 11% GHG emissions) Their figure is 15000 litres of water per kilo of beef produced (source).
Lets just think about that for a second - we're on a metered water supply, every drop, except for the stuff that falls and drains naturally is �1.25 per cube, the UN says that it takes 15 cubes per kilo of beef - that's �18.75 water cost. The beef retails, with a small return (providing we have sufficient volume, it becomes less efficient the less volume you have) at �10.60. As dpack says, if they are counting all the water that falls on the land, what does it matter? it would be falling and stored on the same land anyway, cattle or not.
The other problem with advice such as the above is that the world is a complex place and single figures such as 'it takes x to produce x' are going to be inaccurate for the majority of the world, so they should show their working, otherwise it is a purely abstract figure.
The 'think gobal, act local' approach has severe limitations regarding any move towards a sustainable future. For example, China is a major source of concern for many reasons, and maybe they aren't producing their meat in the most sustainable way, but here in England we cannot eat a negative amount to counteract the excesses of China. Meanwhile people *are* selectively cutting back in this country and harming the viability of sustainable agriculture.
It is perfectly possible for someone in China to be vastly overconsuming meat products while at the same time someone in England is vastly under consuming - the two don't, and never will cancel eachother out, so the damage caused by both is greater. If that then means that we need to import more of our food needs, possibly from China, then the situation is made even worse.
Looking at these figures (which were provided to me by a vegan who was saying that we need to cut out meat completely, incidentally), here in the UK, over the past half century, we have increased our meat consumption, overall, by 11% (though if you combine the sum of dairy and eggs it is actually stable) each, meanwhile fruit & veg has gone up by 52%, much of it imported, yet it is always reported that our diet of meat is making us fat & unhealthy as a nation... |
|
|
|
|
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.
|
View Latest Posts