Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption
 


       Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment
dpack

appalingly generalised ill informed reporting

what a load of meaty plum shaped objects that assumes all critters are factory farmed using unsustainable sourced feedstock and entirely missing the truth that there is good cause to associate corn syrup, over eating sugary salty industrially processed " foods" and low movement lifestyles among the biggest factors in obesity in folk who consume more calories than they use .

it takes no account that my moos eat locally grown sssi salad( while maintaining valuable wildlife habitats and flood prevention measures) and have some salad taken a short distance home for winter .

they seem to be very happy doing it and those whose time has come have a kind death and become delicious ultra healthy meals.

this ex vegan/veggie thinks the writer should gytfulals Mad dont ask for a full translation of the acronym but it ends" live socket" and the rest is rather rude and perhaps best delivered in an easterhoos snarl.

it isnt often that a "news report" makes me go grrrr as much as this one and as i trawl the media as part of my research i am possible exposed more than most.

ps i can ignore katie hopkins which might indicate how much this article annoyed me Laughing
Rob R

Veganism seems to be 'on trend' at the moment. I guess because we're at the end of veganuary (if you're easily offended by critical analysis, look away now).
dpack

my opening post has been edited for extra linguistic clarity of the acronym and a few extra ranty bits

my sentiment remains the same.

as a small aside i let a militant vegan rant at me for murdering fluffy animals,then i pointed out the white fibres on the chopping block were kevlar fibre from chopping rope and chain saw pants to stuff in scaff tube and drill bit roller bars with added grease for use as part of the reinforcing for the concrete of the tunnel/bunker entrance and how such things were rather effective against a variety of cutting and drilling equipment.

Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing

a bit embarrassed is an understatement of that one's reaction. Rolling Eyes
Rob R

There are so many holes in that article but I haven't got the will to live to point them all out, but it starts off on the wrong foot. The article says;

Quote:
A staggering 97 per cent of the world's soya crop is fed to livestock.


whereas the quoted source says;

Quote:
97% of the world's soymeal is used as animal feed
.

Now I don't have much time for soy, but that doesn't mean we should lie about it. The soy crop is ~80% meal, 20% oil, and the vast bulk of the oil goes for vegetable oil production, which constitutes 50% of the value. The remaining soymeal is fed to livestock.

80% x 97% = 77.6% of the crop

Cutting out (soy) vegetable oil would make the feed twice as expensive and quite a bit less viable as a feedstuff.
dpack

that is just one small part among the whole but i recon if the article was a peer reviewed paper the reviews would find a huge number of inaccuracies and incorrect logic.

i also recon life is too short to review it thoroughly but it is a fine example of opinion's triumph over fact as the author probably got payed for it as well as had chance to state what they believe even if that belief is constructed from nonsense and is expressed as nonsense.

as it will be nowt but a liner for a virtual budgie cage very soon and it is unlikely to influence more than a few easily led folk who will be influenced by the next piece of nonsense recommending eating each others skin flakes and avoiding pencils or whatever it isnt important or dangerous but it did make me go grrrrrrrr for a lot of good reasons. Laughing
dpack

There are so many holes in that article but I haven't got the will to live to point them all out, but it starts off on the wrong foot. The article says;

Quote:
A staggering 97 per cent of the world's soya crop is fed to livestock.


whereas the quoted source says;

Quote:
97% of the world's soymeal is used as animal feed
.

Now I don't have much time for soy, but that doesn't mean we should lie about it. The soy crop is ~80% meal, 20% oil, and the vast bulk of the oil goes for vegetable oil production, which constitutes 50% of the value. The remaining soymeal is fed to livestock.



80% x 97% = 77.6% of the crop

Cutting out (soy) vegetable oil would make the feed twice as expensive and quite a bit less viable as a feedstuff.


i wonder how much effect soy oil has on the western obesity levels ,i have not heard of it as a problem it seems corn syrup is among the best feedstock for strait on the hips as the biochemistry is very easy.

plant fats and oils are quite difficult to digest and re configure as person fat , meat and animal fats are well down the list as a starter feedstock for producing stored fat.
Rob R

as it will be nowt but a liner for a virtual budgie cage very soon and it is unlikely to influence more than a few easily led folk who will be influenced by the next piece of nonsense recommending eating each others skin flakes and avoiding pencils or whatever it isnt important or dangerous but it did make me go grrrrrrrr for a lot of good reasons. Laughing


Laughing

Unfortunately I'm not so optimistic - I've had a quite a few people over the last 18 months or so giving rumblings of having listened to this whole 'cut down and carry on' bs. Unfortunately they then go on to say they're going to treat themselves to a steak when they do eat it. They've done everything the eat less message says, supporting small farms, paying more, eating less... Twisted Evil

Apparently it cuts down on waste, but killing an animal just for the sirloin seems an awful waste to me...
Rob R

I've only just read to the end of the article, I should have known - PETA Rolling Eyes OtleyLad

For some reason I had this idea that the Independent was a fairly 'serious' newspaper. But having read the online version for several weeks I can't help but come to the conclusion that its more interested in catchy headlines than informative content. This article confirms it.
If the newspaper were to vanish tomorrow would it be a loss? I don't think so.
Back to the less than perfect Guardian I suppose.
Mistress Rose

I think the Independent and the Guardian are linked, but I too am disappointed with some of their articles of late. That is a particularly stupid one and I found inaccuracies in virtually every paragraph without even trying.

As you say Rob, feeding the waste from soya oil production makes a lot of sense. They used to feed the waste from the brewery to cows, who apparently loved it. I feed the waste from wine making to my wormery, and they seem happy enough too. I am sure vegans wouldn't be too keen to eat the remains of the soya once the oil was extracted.

It is really impossible for people to be modern vegans in the UK without importing large amounts of food. In the past, most poor people used to eat mainly vegetables and grains, with a bit of meat or cheese if they could get hold of it, but I think very few modern vegans would be keen on eating pottage which has been on the fire for weeks with just a bit taken out for meals every day and a bit added as and when it is available. No spices, even pepper, as too expensive and imported of course.
jema

I thought PETA was discredited totally by anyone with a sense of journalistic responsibility. dpack

the quality and quantity of racist rants in the comments section about jasmin when she writes about the uk attitude to refugees and the history of colonialism has been notable of late.

it might indicate the nature of their intended market as being the type of dumb fash taken in by the edl and the kippers style of nonsense in the uk and trump/palin and the ayryan brotherhood over the pond.

that they are also after the peta believers to add to their advertising market(sorry "readers") and that they often use click bait articles to keep them on page longer seems to set the tone of the publication.

there is good factual research and investigative reporting available on many subjects but it is hard to find it among the msm and assorted bloggers

i recon we try very hard to be factual and logical on the couple of online publications i am involved with but it is rare that facts are the "good story" rather than" get in the way of" it

as a small big up for us lot, downsizer seems to have a very good set of peer review protocols.
Mistress Rose

You mean we all disagree with each other and pick up points in each others posts? Laughing Tavascarow

There are so many holes in that article but I haven't got the will to live to point them all out, but it starts off on the wrong foot. The article says;

Quote:
A staggering 97 per cent of the world's soya crop is fed to livestock.


whereas the quoted source says;

Quote:
97% of the world's soymeal is used as animal feed
.

Now I don't have much time for soy, but that doesn't mean we should lie about it. The soy crop is ~80% meal, 20% oil, and the vast bulk of the oil goes for vegetable oil production, which constitutes 50% of the value. The remaining soymeal is fed to livestock.

80% x 97% = 77.6% of the crop

Cutting out (soy) vegetable oil would make the feed twice as expensive and quite a bit less viable as a feedstuff. I'm not commenting (or defending) the article but you have used this comparison many times before but with regards to soya which came first, the chicken or the egg?
I've read a bit about the processing of the oil & IMHO if it was only oil that was the interest, or rather the original primary interest, then there are far easier crops that only need high pressure extraction, not chemical. Sunflower & rape being two, & who's waste are also useful as feedstocks.

I get the same feeling with Soya as I do with Corn (maize) products.
That the industry is being driven by the major conglomerates like Monsanto.
Corn syrup was unheard of in my youth as was soya meal, but the industrial North American agricultural & associated industrial complex has changed that, not housewives demanding soya oil?
Especially as the majority of vegetable oils sold here in the UK aren't soya based.
dpack

You mean we all disagree with each other and pick up points in each others posts? Laughing

yep , we usually end up with a very real picture of the subject. Very Happy
dpack

as it will be nowt but a liner for a virtual budgie cage very soon and it is unlikely to influence more than a few easily led folk who will be influenced by the next piece of nonsense recommending eating each others skin flakes and avoiding pencils or whatever it isnt important or dangerous but it did make me go grrrrrrrr for a lot of good reasons. Laughing

Laughing

Unfortunately I'm not so optimistic - I've had a quite a few people over the last 18 months or so giving rumblings of having listened to this whole 'cut down and carry on' bs. Unfortunately they then go on to say they're going to treat themselves to a steak when they do eat it. They've done everything the eat less message says, supporting small farms, paying more, eating less... Twisted Evil

Apparently it cuts down on waste, but killing an animal just for the sirloin seems an awful waste to me...

if we can make em pay a full moo price for the sirloins then we can eat the all the best bits for free Laughing
Rob R

There are so many holes in that article but I haven't got the will to live to point them all out, but it starts off on the wrong foot. The article says;

Quote:
A staggering 97 per cent of the world's soya crop is fed to livestock.


whereas the quoted source says;

Quote:
97% of the world's soymeal is used as animal feed
.

Now I don't have much time for soy, but that doesn't mean we should lie about it. The soy crop is ~80% meal, 20% oil, and the vast bulk of the oil goes for vegetable oil production, which constitutes 50% of the value. The remaining soymeal is fed to livestock.

80% x 97% = 77.6% of the crop

Cutting out (soy) vegetable oil would make the feed twice as expensive and quite a bit less viable as a feedstuff. I'm not commenting (or defending) the article but you have used this comparison many times before but with regards to soya which came first, the chicken or the egg?
I've read a bit about the processing of the oil & IMHO if it was only oil that was the interest, or rather the original primary interest, then there are far easier crops that only need high pressure extraction, not chemical. Sunflower & rape being two, & who's waste are also useful as feedstocks.

I get the same feeling with Soya as I do with Corn (maize) products.
That the industry is being driven by the major conglomerates like Monsanto.
Corn syrup was unheard of in my youth as was soya meal, but the industrial North American agricultural & associated industrial complex has changed that, not housewives demanding soya oil?
Especially as the majority of vegetable oils sold here in the UK aren't soya based.

I wasn't making a point about who started it, as per the subject of flooding I see that as largely a waste of our time & energy. What I'm interested in is stopping it and although the British housewife may not have demanded soy oil, they got it anyway! Raw ingredients, such as the bottles of oil on the supermarket shelf, do tend to be the 'better' version, just as the joints of beef tend to be British and the eggs free range. But home cooks aren't the route for most of our unethical consumption, this comes in the form of manufactured goods and catering where the soy oil and battery eggs slip in under the radar. If it says vegetable oil, don't automatically assume that it's rapeseed *puts on tin hat*
Rob R

as it will be nowt but a liner for a virtual budgie cage very soon and it is unlikely to influence more than a few easily led folk who will be influenced by the next piece of nonsense recommending eating each others skin flakes and avoiding pencils or whatever it isnt important or dangerous but it did make me go grrrrrrrr for a lot of good reasons. Laughing

Laughing

Unfortunately I'm not so optimistic - I've had a quite a few people over the last 18 months or so giving rumblings of having listened to this whole 'cut down and carry on' bs. Unfortunately they then go on to say they're going to treat themselves to a steak when they do eat it. They've done everything the eat less message says, supporting small farms, paying more, eating less... Twisted Evil

Apparently it cuts down on waste, but killing an animal just for the sirloin seems an awful waste to me...

if we can make em pay a full moo price for the sirloins then we can eat the all the best bits for free Laughing

That'd be a snip at £76/kg
Nick

as it will be nowt but a liner for a virtual budgie cage very soon and it is unlikely to influence more than a few easily led folk who will be influenced by the next piece of nonsense recommending eating each others skin flakes and avoiding pencils or whatever it isnt important or dangerous but it did make me go grrrrrrrr for a lot of good reasons. Laughing

Laughing

Unfortunately I'm not so optimistic - I've had a quite a few people over the last 18 months or so giving rumblings of having listened to this whole 'cut down and carry on' bs. Unfortunately they then go on to say they're going to treat themselves to a steak when they do eat it. They've done everything the eat less message says, supporting small farms, paying more, eating less... Twisted Evil

Apparently it cuts down on waste, but killing an animal just for the sirloin seems an awful waste to me...

if we can make em pay a full moo price for the sirloins then we can eat the all the best bits for free Laughing

That'd be a snip at £76/kg

You joke, but fillet steak is as much as £44/kilo on the High Street. (Waitrose).
Rob R

as it will be nowt but a liner for a virtual budgie cage very soon and it is unlikely to influence more than a few easily led folk who will be influenced by the next piece of nonsense recommending eating each others skin flakes and avoiding pencils or whatever it isnt important or dangerous but it did make me go grrrrrrrr for a lot of good reasons. Laughing

Laughing

Unfortunately I'm not so optimistic - I've had a quite a few people over the last 18 months or so giving rumblings of having listened to this whole 'cut down and carry on' bs. Unfortunately they then go on to say they're going to treat themselves to a steak when they do eat it. They've done everything the eat less message says, supporting small farms, paying more, eating less... Twisted Evil

Apparently it cuts down on waste, but killing an animal just for the sirloin seems an awful waste to me...

if we can make em pay a full moo price for the sirloins then we can eat the all the best bits for free Laughing

That'd be a snip at £76/kg

You joke, but fillet steak is as much as £44/kilo on the High Street. (Waitrose).

I wasn't joking, I will happily supply steaks at £76 per kg. My prices are the minimum I will accept...
Nick

Damn. I thought the beef I have lodged with you would be more than one meal for the four of us. Rob R

Nope, I've been listening. Laughing dpack

as it will be nowt but a liner for a virtual budgie cage very soon and it is unlikely to influence more than a few easily led folk who will be influenced by the next piece of nonsense recommending eating each others skin flakes and avoiding pencils or whatever it isnt important or dangerous but it did make me go grrrrrrrr for a lot of good reasons. Laughing

Laughing

Unfortunately I'm not so optimistic - I've had a quite a few people over the last 18 months or so giving rumblings of having listened to this whole 'cut down and carry on' bs. Unfortunately they then go on to say they're going to treat themselves to a steak when they do eat it. They've done everything the eat less message says, supporting small farms, paying more, eating less... Twisted Evil

Apparently it cuts down on waste, but killing an animal just for the sirloin seems an awful waste to me...

if we can make em pay a full moo price for the sirloins then we can eat the all the best bits for free Laughing

That'd be a snip at £76/kg

perfect and cheaper than wagu ,shall we draft the copy for the adverts and publicity campaign?
Rob R


perfect and cheaper than wagu ,shall we draft the copy for the adverts and publicity campaign?

TV, or the press?
Rob R

According to a vegan chap on the internet today our cows emit more carbon in their flatulence than the grass plants initially use for growth... scratch Mistress Rose

Well the carbon has to come from somewhere, and if all they eat is grass, that must be the source. There will be some inhaled, but as that is in the form of carbon dioxide, it can't reproduce itself. If it comes from other food, that food must have absorbed carbon dioxide as it grew so I would love to find out his science on this one. Laughing dpack

Well the carbon has to come from somewhere, and if all they eat is grass, that must be the source. There will be some inhaled, but as that is in the form of carbon dioxide, it can't reproduce itself. If it comes from other food, that food must have absorbed carbon dioxide as it grew so I would love to find out his science on this one. Laughing

i suspect it is the sort of "science" that underlies the global financial system ,various religious and political power grabs and the belief that electricity leaks from plugs when they are unoccupied by an appliance.

such "science" is one brick in the foundations of the wall that divides belief from fact and thereby protects the interests ( or delusions) of those who use such "science".
Nick

According to a vegan chap on the internet today our cows emit more carbon in their flatulence than the grass plants initially use for growth... scratch

Why do you waste them as meat then? If they are capable of positive energy and mass generation, shouldn't we be connecting them to the grid and saying goodbye to all our energy woes?
dpack


perfect and cheaper than wagu ,shall we draft the copy for the adverts and publicity campaign?

TV, or the press?

multi media and multi theme approach?

i will consider the options
LynneA

And then there's the question of what will happen if we don't eat the livestock....

It would appear that vegans are quite happy for the rare breeds that people have worked hard to rescue and maintain to become extinct as "they're no longer needed".

Just like the tropical wildlife populations destroyed to provide soya, palm oil and sugar for fake foods Mad

(not to mention invertebrates sprayed out of existance worlwide)
Rob R

It's OK, he's told me the secret to managing the land without farmed animals now - glamping. Tavascarow

Well the carbon has to come from somewhere, and if all they eat is grass, that must be the source. There will be some inhaled, but as that is in the form of carbon dioxide, it can't reproduce itself. If it comes from other food, that food must have absorbed carbon dioxide as it grew so I would love to find out his science on this one. Laughing If the carbon is in the form of methane (CH4) its effects as a greenhouse gas are over thirty times more than CO2.
Same amount of carbon, different effect.
Try running a car on coal or burning petrol on an open fire.
(Don't do either, one wont work & the other will result in lack of eyebrows at the least).
sean

But that's got nothing to do with what the bloke had said to Rob.

I realize that almost everybody on the internet is set to continuous transmit and doesn't read stuff but it's still depressing.
Rob R

But that's got nothing to do with what the bloke had said to Rob.

I realize that almost everybody on the internet is set to continuous transmit and doesn't read stuff but it's still depressing.

Thanks, I was just trying to imagine what burning petrol on an open fire would actually be like at the rate it's consumed in a car...

Rough figures in my head, 50 mpg @ 50 mph is about 1.25ml/second - would that take your eyebrows off?
Tavascarow

But that's got nothing to do with what the bloke had said to Rob.

I realize that almost everybody on the internet is set to continuous transmit and doesn't read stuff but it's still depressing.

Thanks, I was just trying to imagine what burning petrol on an open fire would actually be like at the rate it's consumed in a car...

Rough figures in my head, 50 mpg @ 50 mph is about 1.25ml/second - would that take your eyebrows off? Stop being a pedant, you know what I mean & I expect that's your vegan friends meaning as well.
He's confusing effect with amount.
Rob R

But that's got nothing to do with what the bloke had said to Rob.

I realize that almost everybody on the internet is set to continuous transmit and doesn't read stuff but it's still depressing.

Thanks, I was just trying to imagine what burning petrol on an open fire would actually be like at the rate it's consumed in a car...

Rough figures in my head, 50 mpg @ 50 mph is about 1.25ml/second - would that take your eyebrows off? Stop being a pedant, you know what I mean & I expect that's your vegan friends meaning as well.
He's confusing effect with amount.

I'm just curious, it's not pedantry, I'm genuinely interested in the effect that would have.

Mr vegan has since suggested that 56bn farmed animals are killed in slaughterhouses every year at a rate of 3,000 every second, though. Unless I'm the one missing something fundamental then his maths isn't that good, so it would be easy to see how he's come to the conclusion he did.
Hairyloon

Try running a car on coal or burning petrol on an open fire.
(Don't do either, one wont work & the other will result in lack of eyebrows at the least).
Wanna Bet?



Not even new technology.
Rob R

Now that's pedantry thumbright Very Happy Mistress Rose

I was actually thinking that HL; vehicles run on coal, or even wood, have been used. I was reading up on wood gas/tar derivatives for a talk we are doing and that is mentioned in connection with wood too. Stoves are run on alcohol, so petrol should be fairly similar in effect.

Trouble is Rob, I don't think that most rampant vegans have through it though. If you don't have animals to graze the land because there is no income from them, you end up with the mess your ings get without proper grazing. Some areas can't be cultivated because they are unsuitable, again your ings spring to mind, and some very steep slopes round here that are down to grass. The animals either die out or end up in a zoo, and there isn't the money to care for the land that the animals were conserving. The country would end up being a series of arable fields and market gardens interspersed with woods and scrub. Also if all farmers offered glamping, there would be oversupply. Needs a rethink?

Very Happy
Tavascarow

Now that's pedantry thumbright Very Happy Seconded. But that car is running on coal gas generated by pyrolitic conversion not coal.
You would be closer with a stanley steamer.

Rob your vegan friend sounds like a prime example of to little information is dangerous.
Tavascarow



Trouble is Rob, I don't think that most rampant vegans have through it though. What's the difference between a 'rampant vegan' & an uneducated carnivore?
Rampant isn't a term I'd use for veganism, although I know some people who are passionate about their diet, I wouldn't use rampant to describe them anymore than I'd use rampant to describe an omnivore of the species.
You infer they don't know what they are talking about but there's enough info out there now that proves (globally) consumption of meat needs to be reduced drastically, & anyone who denies that isn't rampant but dellusional IMHO.

Wink
Hairyloon

Now that's pedantry thumbright Very Happy
Would you expect anything less of me?

Now that's pedantry thumbright Very Happy Seconded. But that car is running on coal gas generated by pyrolitic conversion not coal.
The conversion is a part of the car, ergo the car runs on coal.
If you had said the engine does not run on coal, then that would be correct, but in fact the first ever infernal combustion engine ran on coal dust (and was made of wood).
Rob R

Laughing Hairyloon

Trouble is Rob, I don't think that most rampant vegans have thought it though...

Isn't that pretty much the definition of rampant vegan?

I have come to the conclusion that I cannot make sense of the Vegan philosophy.
I get that they reject exploitation of animals, but I don't believe any of the chickens on this forum are exploited.

I have tried to have a reasoned discussion with some online, but they always get defensive at best, and often downright hostile.
Rob R

Now that's pedantry thumbright Very Happy Seconded. But that car is running on coal gas generated by pyrolitic conversion not coal.
You would be closer with a stanley steamer.

Rob your vegan friend sounds like a prime example of to little information is dangerous.

Well he says he manages a SSSI himself, so I said I'd look forward to visiting some time and he hasn't mentioned it again...
Rob R

Trouble is Rob, I don't think that most rampant vegans have thought it though...

Isn't that pretty much the definition of rampant vegan?

I have come to the conclusion that I cannot make sense of the Vegan philosophy.
I get that they reject exploitation of animals, but I don't believe any of the chickens on this forum are exploited.

I have tried to have a reasoned discussion with some online, but they always get defensive at best, and often downright hostile.

He is an anti-exploitionist. I was trying to get to the bottom of how his logic works but he lost me when he said fox hunting was exploiting the dog & cruelty to the fox, but releasing foxes to catch rabbits was neither exploitation nor cruel. To my mind the motivation behind releasing the animal is the same.
dpack

It's OK, he's told me the secret to managing the land without farmed animals now - glamping.


glampers are well known for their ability to graze wetlands and for their low carbon input wanderings. Laughing
Tavascarow

Now that's pedantry thumbright Very Happy
Would you expect anything less of me?

Now that's pedantry thumbright Very Happy Seconded. But that car is running on coal gas generated by pyrolitic conversion not coal.
The conversion is a part of the car, ergo the car runs on coal.
If you had said the engine does not run on coal, then that would be correct, but in fact the first ever infernal combustion engine ran on coal dust (and was made of wood). I concede to your logic.
Laughing
dpack

But that's got nothing to do with what the bloke had said to Rob.

I realize that almost everybody on the internet is set to continuous transmit and doesn't read stuff but it's still depressing.

Thanks, I was just trying to imagine what burning petrol on an open fire would actually be like at the rate it's consumed in a car...

Rough figures in my head, 50 mpg @ 50 mph is about 1.25ml/second - would that take your eyebrows off?

if one uses sand as a wick it works quite well as a cook fire LRDG etc etc
Tavascarow

Trouble is Rob, I don't think that most rampant vegans have thought it though...

Isn't that pretty much the definition of rampant vegan?

I have come to the conclusion that I cannot make sense of the Vegan philosophy.
I get that they reject exploitation of animals, but I don't believe any of the chickens on this forum are exploited.

I have tried to have a reasoned discussion with some online, but they always get defensive at best, and often downright hostile. My point is words like rampant are exclusive.
In the spirit of debate it better to encourage people.
There are no doubt rampant vegans, as there are rampant carnivours who refuse to see the bigger picture & who don't think it through but MRs inference is also tarring anyone who's a vegan.
That is far from fair because many of them are better informed than anyone here.
As to chickens for every happy hen there's a cock that met a (usually very early) demise. & in America very brutal.
The irony is vegans with dogs are feeding them those very same very young cock birds as they go to the pet trade as far as I'm aware. Laughing
Rob R

It's OK, he's told me the secret to managing the land without farmed animals now - glamping.


glampers are well known for their ability to graze wetlands and for their low carbon input wanderings. Laughing

As far as I could gather, he was going to both charge them for the accomodation and set them to work looking after the animals that would graze the wetlands. I was skeptical but there's nothing to stop him giving it a go, so we'll wait and see.
dpack

glampers vs dexters

a fluffyish version of pamploma and far better telly than robot wars Laughing
Tavascarow

I can see them little bovines stampeding through the teepees with Mr Rose in hot pursuit!!!

We used to host holidays for disabled kids & their families on the farm.
B&B stylee.
They loved it.
Watching the connection between a city kid in a wheelchair when my Dads favourite old Guernsey came & said hello was magic.
Over protective parents weren't always so impressed though.
There are people who will pay good money for that genuine experience.
Not everyone wants Disneyland.
Rob R

It's turns out that there are plenty of people already undercutting me by not bothering with the cows and the grazing. Typical. I can't help thinking of he market would become saturated if we all did it. dpack

the genuine experience with dexter steers if they are protecting the herd or a bit frisky about something or someone is a bit different to a nice jersey matron and the insurance company would probably refuse to play after the first claim and hse investigation.

glamping on a well grazed ing after the beasts have moved might work but mixing "the public" and the moos would be more than rather dangeroos .
im used to them but have a very careful attitude to em out and about or up close and personal, after a few incidents. like the one when rob and me did a sideways split as the beast rushed between us which was quite exciting,the killer kerry was very special and even the nice ones like ilex the bull who i love dearly and often cuddle can have "funny moments" if he thinks a vet is nearby.

civilians and dexters should not mix .
Rob R

It'd be much harder to run for a feeble vegan, too Wink

I'm amazed at the 'ethical' market is swallowing this eat less meat tripe though. One of their biggest angles they use is that farming is 'greedy' by raising animals, completely ignoring the fact that meat is more expensive (and the profit margins much less) than reconstituting the cheapest ingredients available into something that sells for even more markup, 'because it's ethical'. Rolling Eyes
dpack

i dont think a soil degrading ,chemically enhanced and controlled monoculture of makes porridge or peas more ethical than a low(or zero) input ,biodiverse multi purpose landscape and a nice bit of dexter brisket.

maybe im biased but i would be willing to debate it with those that think all meat is bad and all veg is good .
Tavascarow

But as we have said before (many times) you are comparing worst with best which isn't fair.
A monoculture of peas or soya hundreds of hectares in size is the equivalent to an American feedlot or a bowyers pork factory.
We need to promote the best & most sustainable from all sectors of industry.
Dissing one to promote another doesn't work unless your names Donald Trump & you have millions to burn.
& then not always.
Rob R

But as we have said before (many times) you are comparing worst with best which isn't fair.
A monoculture of peas or soya hundreds of hectares in size is the equivalent to an American feedlot or a bowyers pork factory.
We need to promote the best & most sustainable from all sectors of industry.
Dissing one to promote another doesn't work unless your names Donald Trump & you have millions to burn.
& then not always.

Are you actually serious? That is exactly the way eat less meat campaign works, they compare the worst animal welfare examples to promote veganism as if all you have to do ditch the meat to live on a cloud and become a saint. It was even started by a veggie to sell his processed ready meals, not fresh wholefoods grown organically.
Mistress Rose

Tavascarow, my term rampant vegan was used exactly the way Rob and HL suggest. There are sensible vegans who will agree to differ with omnivores and have researched their subject properly, and there are the sort Rob, and sadly I, have come across who have this zealous idea that if we stopped eating animals and exploiting them, the world would be a lovely place where everyone would eat well on vegetables. They haven't though the thing through and tend to be confrontational.

I didn't know a veggie started the eat less meat campaign to sell ready meals Rob. I like some vegetarian meals, including some vegetarian ready made burger things, but they are the ones that contain vegetables not the ones made up to look like real burgers with soya and other unidentifiable muck and lots of flavouring.
dpack

when i had the allotment and therefore access to a large variety ,over sufficient and very cheap supply of organic veg there were plenty of veggie meals but the veg was also a good mixture with free range still twitching trout and greyling and ings beef and home made bacon in a healty diet suitable for human physiology .

when i was vegan i was buying veg of unknown system that had often been imported from the other side of the planet and even making meals from ingredients with air miles which may be "better" than industrial ready meals on several grounds but is still well below allotment and the best flesh.

that the eat less meat/go veggie chap has found a way to promote his ready meals is good business but i dont believe coca cola will teach the world to sing and i dont see his model as particularly ethical or comparing like with like or based on facts and sound logic.
Tavascarow

Tavascarow, my term rampant vegan was used exactly the way Rob and HL suggest. There are sensible vegans who will agree to differ with omnivores and have researched their subject properly, and there are the sort Rob, and sadly I, have come across who have this zealous idea that if we stopped eating animals and exploiting them, the world would be a lovely place where everyone would eat well on vegetables. They haven't though the thing through and tend to be confrontational.

I didn't know a veggie started the eat less meat campaign to sell ready meals Rob. I like some vegetarian meals, including some vegetarian ready made burger things, but they are the ones that contain vegetables not the ones made up to look like real burgers with soya and other unidentifiable muck and lots of flavouring. My bold.
Where's the proof of that? The UN are saying we should be eating less meat to combat climate change.
The world health organisation are saying too much (poor quality) red meat in the diet is a major cause of cardiovascular ilness.
People have been saying uit for about twenty years.
I've been saying it for ten & I'm omnivorous.
Now all that is irrelevant because supposedly the whole thing was started by someone selling ready meals.
Where & who is this mystical vegan ready meal guru?
As I said earlier 'delusional'. Laughing
Rob R

Tavascarow, my term rampant vegan was used exactly the way Rob and HL suggest. There are sensible vegans who will agree to differ with omnivores and have researched their subject properly, and there are the sort Rob, and sadly I, have come across who have this zealous idea that if we stopped eating animals and exploiting them, the world would be a lovely place where everyone would eat well on vegetables. They haven't though the thing through and tend to be confrontational.

I didn't know a veggie started the eat less meat campaign to sell ready meals Rob. I like some vegetarian meals, including some vegetarian ready made burger things, but they are the ones that contain vegetables not the ones made up to look like real burgers with soya and other unidentifiable muck and lots of flavouring. My bold.
Where's the proof of that? The UN are saying we should be eating less meat to combat climate change.
The world health organisation are saying too much (poor quality) red meat in the diet is a major cause of cardiovascular ilness.
People have been saying uit for about twenty years.
I've been saying it for ten & I'm omnivorous.
Now all that is irrelevant because supposedly the whole thing was started by someone selling ready meals.
Where & who is this mystical vegan ready meal guru?
As I said earlier 'delusional'. Laughing

McCartney & family, in 2009, began the most recent & popular movement that urges people to cut down, focussing on Mondays. He sold out the business his wife started to Heinz after her death, but seems to have maintained an element of control. The website doesn't mention supporting small, sustainable farmers of any description, as we're often told it does by organisations & individuals keen to promote the concept.

Personally I find the whole rock/pop stars making their millions on a completely unnecessary, frivolous industry and then using them to destroy other people's livelihoods a bit hard to swallow. I support anyone who chooses to invest their money in my own industry and shows us how it's done in their minds eye, but not sitting on the sidelines, slinging mud.

However, my recent discussions with our vegan friends & everyone here has convinced me to start a new product/project, which I'll be launching very soon.
Rob R

Speaking of which, Monbiot was on the radio earlier, saying that there are too many (farm) animals on the planet. As per usual he said some OTT things about farming, but one thing we do agree on is the need to eat more pests, rabbits, squirrels, deer, etc. Tavascarow

So Linda Mc Cartney was the devil incarnate, but no mention of the likes of Bernard Mathews who was responsible for the last bird flue outbreak! Or Mc Donalds responsible for more childhood obesity & diabetes than any other cause worldwide?
Perspective is a thing that appears lacking in the carnivorous cranium IMHO.
The UN have said to combat global warming & feed the world population, agriculture needs to shift from industrial to organic. & the future should be small mixed organic family farms.
Part of that will mean eating less animal protein because its current production methods (generalising) are unsustainable.
I appreciate in circumstances like yours the opposite is true, but you are a minority in the meat industry as you know.
That I would have thought would be something we here on DS would be supporting & celebrating not deriding.
Calling vegans rampant & not accepting the plain facts as to how our current way of life is affecting the future for the coming generations is as I said delusional IMHO.
dpack

linda m was charming and her pasties would have been perfect if they had a decent amount of chuck steak in them.she could also cook a decent fried egg butty.

as a slight aside her photographic career doing portraits was kicked off and enhanced by kieth ewart (an ace snapper and very nice chap) setting up the subject,lighting ,camera and processing so she had the full responsibility for pressing the button.

imho the current style of the industrial food business is not the intention her work to provide affordable, almost edible veggie ready meals.
Hairyloon

Anyone posted this one yet?
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/feb/03/being-a-little-bit-vegan-is-completely-oxymoronic?CMP=share_btn_fb
Rob R

So Linda Mc Cartney was the devil incarnate, but no mention of the likes of Bernard Mathews who was responsible for the last bird flue outbreak! Or Mc Donalds responsible for more childhood obesity & diabetes than any other cause worldwide?
Perspective is a thing that appears lacking in the carnivorous cranium IMHO.

That's not perspective, that's relevance. We were talking about the eat less meat thing, neither Bernard Matthews or Ronald McDonald did that. They did other things that are another subject. Just because we are not discussing the huge increase in poultry meat or the super-carbing of fast food in this post doesn't mean we agree with either! I also didn't include domestic violence, but again, that doesn't mean I'm all for it.

The UN have said to combat global warming & feed the world population, agriculture needs to shift from industrial to organic. & the future should be small mixed organic family farms.
Part of that will mean eating less animal protein because its current production methods (generalising) are unsustainable.
I appreciate in circumstances like yours the opposite is true, but you are a minority in the meat industry as you know.
That I would have thought would be something we here on DS would be supporting & celebrating not deriding.

Minorities need a strong voice to get themselves heard. I'm also a minority in most places that eating less meat is discussed, generally it is taken over by vegans.

It is the generalising that is the problem. 'Meat' is a generalisation. I don't support the current consumption levels of poultry, or pork, or seafood, which have all risen dramatically (though I do recognise their role in reducing food waste). I do defend the eating of beef and other potentially grassfed meat, which has actually declined slightly per capita, and only risen with the population.

My stance is that we should eat as much as we like (of anything, even vegetables or ready meals), but make sustainable production the baseline. Then both price and consumption will be controlled by what we can produce. If the vegans are right and we can't produce the same amount, then the price will rise. If they are wrong and we can produce the same amount while making a positive contribution to the environment then happy days! As I've said before (and you seemingly prefer to ignore) it is not the principle of eating less meat that I object to, but the way the message is presented that means people are more likely to ditch meat completely and not support change, instead supporting unsustainable vegetable production from imports/agri-business instead.

I also say that we can't eat negative meat to counter the excesses of China. Nor does our not eating sustainably produced UK meat help in any way the poor sod who can't feed himself in Africa.

If the money saved on meat was paid to farmers in higher prices for their produce, there would be an incentive for change and I would be all for it. If the money saved is pocketed by the vegan, or by the company making the milk/meat replacement (which is often sold at equal or higher prices because of it's ethical USP) then that is doing nothing to support better farming methods.

Calling vegans rampant & not accepting the plain facts as to how our current way of life is affecting the future for the coming generations is as I said delusional IMHO.

I've never called a vegan rampant. In fact I've never called a vegan anything, although I've wanted to in response I haven't sunk to that level. When you hear some of the things I get called for being a farmer, 'a rampant meat eater' would make a light-hearted refreshing change.

As for accepting facts, I do, I have never denied the facts. I may have pointed out that they don't suggest what many claim they do, but I've accepted them.
Ty Gwyn

It is the complete opposite,its the vagans that are not accepting facts ,and are in denial themselves,
Do they realise where their food comes from,and what destruction of habitats it takes to produce this food.

I reckon their all a steak short of a kilo myself.
Tavascarow

What is 'potentially grass fed'? other than an excuse to support unsustainable production.
It's either grass fed or its not.
I know gardeners who think they are organic but still use growmore & reach for the slug pellets when their greens get eaten.
Are they 'potentially organic' or ill informed?
Rob R

An animal that can be grass fed, as opposed to a chicken or a pig that are so often sold as being 'grassfed' when what they mean is free range. They include the ones that have been moved off the hills and lowland grazing Marsh & onto unsustainable annual crops. (In case you hadn't noticed, I wanna move them back). Rob R

While everyone is wasting their time throwing insults at farmers for daring to farm, factory farming & agribusiness is moving on. Meat isn't 'cheap', it's extremely expensive and profits come from replacing it with crops or cultures. And to produce these crops we have more and more factory farms that go unchallenged. We're all getting left behind. This is the future. Rob R

The NFU have been at it again.

Quote:
Add this to the plethora of studies that show diets high in fruits and vegetables can reduce obesity, diabetes and many cancers and you would think that our health problems were solved. All we have to do now is eat more fruit and veg.

But we still donít do it!
Tavascarow

An animal that can be grass fed, as opposed to a chicken or a pig that are so often sold as being 'grassfed' when what they mean is free range. They include the ones that have been moved off the hills and lowland grazing Marsh & onto unsustainable annual crops. (In case you hadn't noticed, I wanna move them back). So beef is ok because it can 'potentially' be fed grass, even if it's fattened on maize silage & soya protein.
Chickens & pigs can be (& used to be) self sustaining when not kept intensively.
So all of them have 'potential' not just beef.
Rob R

An animal that can be grass fed, as opposed to a chicken or a pig that are so often sold as being 'grassfed' when what they mean is free range. They include the ones that have been moved off the hills and lowland grazing Marsh & onto unsustainable annual crops. (In case you hadn't noticed, I wanna move them back). So beef is ok because it can 'potentially' be fed grass, even if it's fattened on maize silage & soya protein.

No, my bold.

Chickens & pigs can be (& used to be) self sustaining when not kept intensively.

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?

Rolling Eyes
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 ó 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 ó 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 Twisted Evil
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. Smile
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. Smile
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 Laughing 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 Laughing

at least we can try to assist them to do so. .
Rob R

maybe superdoopermoos can save the planet from humans Laughing

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 Laughing


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.
       Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment Page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2
Home Home Home Home Home