That doesn't make them grassfed though.
.
So all of them have 'potential' not just beef.
We were eating 1/3 of the amount of these meats.
Rob R
|
Mr vegan has now given me his source for some rather interesting figures being quoted.
56bn a year farm animals dying at a rate of 3,000 per second - at that rate I make it that they'd be all killed in less than 8 months.
By going vegan you can save up to 95 animals a year - at 7bn people on the planet that's an average of 8.42 animals per person per year.
Then there's the 10 year old chickens and 25 year old cows...
|
Mistress Rose
|
The picture included of the person in full clean room gear looking at lettuces is rather worrying in the article on robot growing of lettuce. Japan really seems to have even more of a connection problem with growing food than we do in the UK. If they can't get people to work on the land, they really want to encourage it as a worthwhile career, rather than grow lettuce in sterile conditions using robots. I notice the average age of their farmers is about the same as ours; mid 60s. This often refers to the age of the farm owner/tenant, who may have their children working with them, as it does in the UK.
If the world takes on the challenge of feeding itself by going for small family farms, they are not going to just grow grain, pulses and vegetables. The best model in most places is going to be mixed. You have the animals both for slaughter and for products such as wool, eggs and leather, and use their dung to fertilise the ground. You can then more intensively grow vegetables and perhaps some grain or pulses. Pigs and chickens are fed on scraps and left overs from the harvest and will root around and clean the fallow ground. In some places of course they will be mainly growing crops such as rice, but I can't see either cereals or soya featuring highly in that model.
As for Linda Mcartneys range of vegetarian food, I always found it horrible and overpriced.
|
Tavascarow
|
Mr vegan has now given me his source for some rather interesting figures being quoted.
56bn a year farm animals dying at a rate of 3,000 per second - at that rate I make it that they'd be all killed in less than 8 months.
By going vegan you can save up to 95 animals a year - at 7bn people on the planet that's an average of 8.42 animals per person per year.
Then there's the 10 year old chickens and 25 year old cows... |
Lets break that down & see if it's true.
How many hens get slaughtered after they have finished their laying cycle?
As I've already highlighted for every laying hen there is also a cock bird that met a very early demise.
Then we have broilers that live for six or seven weeks.
I can't find figures for numbers but according to industry stats we are eating (globally) about 10kgs chicken per person per year. If you say your average broiler is 2kg there's five lives before we start.
From Wiki.
Quote: |
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations estimated that in 2002 there were nearly sixteen billion chickens in the world, counting a total population of 15,853,900,000. |
I bet that doesn't include all those little male birds that only lived for a few hours. Or the 20% cull rate from the broiler industry. & is that 16 billion alive at any one time or total for year?
How many bull calves are killed annually from the dairy trade.
& the cull rate of dairy cows is forever increasing as production pressures are ramped.
56 billion sounds like a big figure but probably not.
Rob R
|
It's not the 56bn I'm disputing, but the fact that the figures don't add up to 3000 per second.
And if we each save 95 animals on average by going vegan, that leaves 86 animals that are not killed by humans but are somehow saved by going vegan.
|
LynneA
|
It's not the 56bn I'm disputing, but the fact that the figures don't add up to 3000 per second. |
Maybe it includes the worms, bots & bugs that won't need treating?
dpack
|
i wonder if the heinz" all day breakfast" in a tin is vegan/ sustainably and ethically sourced?
in the light of the reply quoted below
"Heinz:
Dear Ms Stratton
Thank you for getting in touch about Certified Sustainable Palm Oil.
Heinz is on track to convert to 100% certified sustainable palm oil by 2013.
In 2010, Heinz converted our largest global palm oil usage to segregated certified palm oil sources from a new plant in The Netherlands. As a result, Heinz began using segregated certified sustainable palm oil in manufacturing frozen potato products at our Westwick factory. Heinz also reduced our palm oil usage in North America through product reformulation to enhance product health and wellness.
In addition, Heinz is in the process of reducing our global demand for palm oil by 25% in Fiscal Year 2012 (versus the first quarter of Fiscal Year 2011). Our goal is to use palm oil in new products only when there is no technical or commercial alternative. We are also reformulating existing recipes to incorporate alternative environmentally responsible sources.
Heinz will also promote the use of palm oil from sustainable sources through our membership in the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil. This not-for-profit association brings together stakeholders — including palm oil producers, palm oil processors or traders, consumer goods manufacturers, retailers, banks and investors, environmental or nature conservation non-government organizations (NGOs), and social or developmental NGOs — to develop and implement global standards for sustainable palm oil.
Kind Regards
Geoff Kearsley"
"Heinz, you can do better! =0( "
as they seem to have greenwashed their palm oil supply chain(although palm oil is A unhealthy,B planted as a monoculture( often at the expense of other forest),C vile.
what about every other ingredient they use? their chemical pesticide,weedkiller and fertiliser inputs? their global transport footprint ?the product levels of salt and sugars? etc etc etc etc .?
the above is not comprehensive but is a good start might on questions to ask regarding mr vegan's business associates
|
Tavascarow
|
It's not the 56bn I'm disputing, but the fact that the figures don't add up to 3000 per second.
And if we each save 95 animals on average by going vegan, that leaves 86 animals that are not killed by humans but are somehow saved by going vegan. |
No.
56 billion divided by the number of seconds in a year is 1780.
56,000,000,000/52/7/24/60/60=1780.62678063.
& that's animals being slaughtered through slaughterhouses (according to their figures).
If you take the tonnage of fish killed, (over quota discards & landed) those figures aren't that unbelievable IMHO.
3000 a second? Quite feasible.
Prawns & shrimps?
I dread to think how many insects & invertebrates die producing Californian Almond milk, but I doubt bugs count when you're a vegan.
sean
|
Seriously. Step away from the computers.
|
Rob R
|
Aren't we in agreement now?
Mr vegan certainly didn't think that insects mattered, as they aren't sentient, unless they were being killed to feed animals, of course, then they become more important.
Hopefully my next project will please everyone. Vegans included.
|
Tavascarow
|
Aren't we in agreement now?
Mr vegan certainly didn't think that insects mattered, as they aren't sentient, unless they were being killed to feed animals, of course, then they become more important.
Hopefully my next project will please everyone. Vegans included. |
Let me guess you are going to cut out the middle men (sentient cuddly animal) & farm vegans instead.
They taste like pork I've been told.
Rob R
|
I already do farm vegans...
|
dpack
|
many of my favourite dinners are vegan
|
Rob R
|
Quite a positive statistic;
Quote: | twice as much meat will have to be produced by 2050 to keep up with current consumption levels |
If that's all I need to do it won't be a problem - there's at least twice the area of Ings going un/under grazed...
...even before factoring in the extra carrying capacity of rotational grazing.
|
dpack
|
maybe superdoopermoos can save the planet from humans
at least we can try to assist them to do so. .
|
Rob R
|
maybe superdoopermoos can save the planet from humans |
The figures would suggest that, with a 17% increase in emissions if we replace cows with people.
Tavascarow
|
I know in instances like yours the ground couldn't be used for anything other than grazing & you are providing an environmental service at the same time, which is why I'm supportive.
But the majority of beef production involves large amounts of land that could be used to produce more calories for less.
Putting veganism aside, to feed the world in the future we also need to consider conversion rates.
Pork & poultry, although I deplore the methods by which they are kept have conversion rates vastly greater than beef.
With poultry coming in at 2 to 1 & beef at its best at 15 to 1 & where only poorer feedstock is available nearer 50 to 1.
I know there's a big difference between cereal feed & poor fodder but land & water demand are also factors to consider for the future.
I doubt you next to that river will ever need to consider water shortage (quite the contrary) but there are many areas of the world where it is a consideration.
Being able to produce more protein on less land with less water input should be a consideration.
|
Rob R
|
Funnily enough, I considered that option - I've had so much moral support given to me that I thought we could build some intensive chicken sheds and use the cattle up to keep up the greenwash.
There are lots of factors to consider and 'efficiency' is one of those that so often is looked at only in terms of one parameter at a time. Chickens are efficient converters of grain to protein when kept in a certain way, but they don't do much to increase soil organic matter, which in turn is important for water retention... Cattle aren't particularly 'efficient' at converting grass into food, but they can convert it into soil organic matter more efficiently, which then benefits wildlife too.
It's much more efficient to stack farming systems and wildlife together for mutual benefit, as George seemed to be suggesting in his evidence. It's still hard to justify annual cultivation on any level though, the only positive thing that efficiently does is to increase human food production in the short term.
Right at the moment I'm being deafened by starlings in the poplar tree outside...
|
Tavascarow
|
Chickens are efficient converters of grain to protein when kept in a certain way, but they don't do much to increase soil organic matter, which in turn is important for water retention... Cattle aren't particularly 'efficient' at converting grass into food, but they can convert it into soil organic matter more efficiently, which then benefits wildlife too.
|
That's a fair point & I take it on board.
Although the methods used play a major part as well IMHO.
Wouldn't chicken kept on deep, deep litter not produce large amounts of compostable organic matter?
Likewise pigs? (I know you kept yours that way when you had them).
& in both cases no doubt happier & healthier animals in the process.
& are cattle as efficient at increasing soil organic matter if zero grazed on maize silage, & kept on slatted floors, with all their droppings going to a slurry tank?
Seeing the amounts of soil washing into the local stream from the maize fields today I doubt it.
Mistress Rose
|
I think you have answered your own questions Tavascarow. It depends on how you keep your animals. The most efficient in terms of conversion is not the best way for the animals and certainly not the best way for the soil. In cases like Robs, there is no other sensible use for the land than grazing, and it does the land a lot of good too. There are other cases where the ground is too steep, too stony, or the area too bleak to grow crops.
Otherwise, free range chickens and pigs probably do far more for the land with minimum chemical input, both herbicide and fertiliser, and as part of a rotation can be very beneficial. They don't give the best conversion rate that way, but looking at all inputs and outputs it may still add up better.
|
Tavascarow
|
There are many instances like Robs where a farmer is not only producing food but also providing a service through environment management.
One could say all traditional farming did similar at one time.
But in our lifetimes we have seen agriculture become what IMHO is the most destructive environmental force after war.
The damage it does not only goes unpunished but is supported through subsidy, & the average person is oblivious to how they are impacting by supporting said.
Even Vegans with their higher than high moral stance support industrial agriculture that pushes species towards extinction.
Eating & drinking less of something (meat & dairy) shouldn't be ridiculed, but at the same time we should be showing the alternative can be equally destructive.
|
Rob R
|
Eating & drinking less of something (meat & dairy) shouldn't be ridiculed, but at the same time we should be showing the alternative can be equally destructive. |
It should be if the stated aims for eating less are the direct opposit of the outcomes. Vegans who support higher welfare & organic farming tend to say that this is because not everyone will go vegan overnight so they support less damaging/environmentally positive systems. The same can be said for eating less - not everyone is going to do it overnight so the people who do make the switch over to supporting my type of farming should be encouraged to eat more, at least in the short term, so that the sector survives and grows to become a credible force that can oppose more intensive methods. As it is the eat less message is pushing as many, if not more, people over to intensive arable which threatens our wetlands as much as, if not more than, our intensive livestock.
If I produce meat as, basically, a hobby, selling small amounts for a lot of work, no self respecting intensive producer is going to think about making the change to a more holistic approach. But if I earn enough money to invest in new cattle sheds with more space for the stock and spend less money on fert & diesel he's going to start thinking 'hang on a minute...'.
Rob R
|
Chickens are efficient converters of grain to protein when kept in a certain way, but they don't do much to increase soil organic matter, which in turn is important for water retention... Cattle aren't particularly 'efficient' at converting grass into food, but they can convert it into soil organic matter more efficiently, which then benefits wildlife too.
|
That's a fair point & I take it on board.
Although the methods used play a major part as well IMHO.
Wouldn't chicken kept on deep, deep litter not produce large amounts of compostable organic matter?
Likewise pigs? (I know you kept yours that way when you had them).
& in both cases no doubt happier & healthier animals in the process.
The main reason I gave up pigs was that they didn't really fit into my grass system, the land is too heavy and they rely heavily on cultivation for their feed. Also a large proportion of the industry has now moved away from slats and a large number of pigs on the supermarket shelves are now finished in straw yards, from both indoor and outdoor bred herds.
I now think pork (and poultry) should be a niche meat that predominately uses by-products from the human food chain. I am right behind any attempt to encourage people to eat less pork or poultry, but the 'eat less meat' doesn't differentiate, which leads to people making the wrong decisions (often choosing poultry because it's perceived to be healthier, and cutting out beef). However, pigs can add carbon from straw when deep bedded, but then so can cattle. The difference being that cattle are better at self harvesting from a permaculture growing set-up, whereas pig require post-harvest cultivation. Poultry, too, have their niche, but it isn't necessarily in adding carbon. The advantage of cattle is that they graze the good stuff and trample the bad so the carbon rich growth is in contact with the soil and mulching.
& are cattle as efficient at increasing soil organic matter if zero grazed on maize silage, & kept on slatted floors, with all their droppings going to a slurry tank?
Seeing the amounts of soil washing into the local stream from the maize fields today I doubt it.
Undoubtedly not - I don't like the way slurry dominates on dairy farms but can see why it's used. The Environment Agency deserve some criticism in that respect - when we applied for planning for the new cattle shed we put in for concrete with drains for excess fluid and washings. The EA planning liason dept wanted us to install a slurry tank rather than using the septic tank & reedbed. Meanwhile people who put in for planning with just a hardcore floor and no drains are passed easily - it seems leaching p*** around a building is fine, as long as you don't attempt to channel it in any one direction. Slurry is more 'efficient' though in the amount of energy used to move it around, and that's why it's taken off.
Hairyloon
|
I doubt bugs count when you're a vegan. |
I tried to discuss this with some not so long back, but they said I was being deliberately provocative.
dpack
|
a slippery slope that seems vaguely relevant here even if it would fit in a few other places
i rather like the george orwell quote
|
Rob R
|
i rather like the george orwell quote |
so true
We had a locally produced handmade artisan pie last night made from grassfed Dexter at £5.50. Even I was into the idea that it was expensive, until I looked at the empty aluminium tray on the side in the kitchen. It reminded me of the aftermath of a chinese takeaway and suddenly the pie looked cheap.
Home Home Home Home Home