A tax on red meat?...
Discussion
Rovinghawk said:
LDN said:
I'm not wrong. Land is suited toward different use. That's a given. But the very fact that the land that is used to grow X amount of feed for B' amount of livestock; could be used to feed Y' mount of humans is a fact.
It's not all about changing land used, suddenly, from livestock to plant. It's that the current plant land could feed umpteen times more humans...
If you think that a Welsh hillside used to raise 1 ton of lamb could be used to provide 2 tons of wheat or 3 tons of carrots then you're very much mistaken.It's not all about changing land used, suddenly, from livestock to plant. It's that the current plant land could feed umpteen times more humans...
LDN said:
With all due respect; it's a genuine problem and if you're seriously interested; there's tons of info out there.
There's tons of misinformation too.There's misinformation everywhere; it's about digging through it and finding the truth. It's a cop-out to dismiss an argument by saying: 'well..... it could be misinformation'. Animal agriculture is an inefficient use of land, globally; and the issue is growing... perhaps you live in a fantasy land where land and water is infinite. It's not called 'cloud cuckoo' by any chance?!
I kid. I kid.
LDN said:
Welsh hillside land? I've literally said right above what you've written that, it's not about switching use of land necessarily; but about using the land that is in use, more efficiently. So you've literally said nothing in this case. Bizarre.
I'm saying that your idea of using land more efficiently is b
ks- how would you use this hillside I've just mentioned more efficiently & why isn't the shepherd currently doing so if it's that much better?LDN said:
There's misinformation everywhere; it's about digging through it and finding the truth. It's a cop-out to dismiss an argument by saying: 'well..... it could be misinformation'. Animal agriculture is an inefficient use of land, globally; and the issue is growing... perhaps you live in a fantasy land where land and water is infinite. It's not called 'cloud cuckoo' by any chance?!
I kid. I kid.
Misinformation................ I kid. I kid.
I gave a source (Nuffield Foundation) for the unavailability of certain amino acids in vegan diets. You've assured that this isn't the case without suitable evidence. I call misinformation until you provide credible independent support for your case.
Edited by Rovinghawk on Friday 9th November 13:25
Rovinghawk said:
LDN said:
Welsh hillside land? I've literally said right above what you've written that, it's not about switching use of land necessarily; but about using the land that is in use, more efficiently. So you've literally said nothing in this case. Bizarre.
I'm saying that your idea of using land more efficiently is bks- how would you use this hillside I've just mentioned more efficiently & why isn't the shepherd currently doing so if it's that much better? I kid. I kid.
I gave a source (Nuffield Foundation) for the unavailability of certain amino acids in vegan diets. You've assured that this isn't the case without suitable evidence. I call misinformation until you provide credible independent support for your case.
My 'land' is actually one where one of my eclectic qualifications involves food science, btw.
Food science. Jesus weeps. You are not even able to get a handle on what I’ve said about plant crops feeding a multitude of human beings... rather than being put through the ‘filter’ of livestock beforehand. Do you honestly need your hand held, to this extent? We can try again... it’s not necessarily about switching land use; it’s about putting the plant crops (that already exist) to better / more efficient use. Which part of that is hard to get your head around? Please explain and I’ll be sure to help.
I already said that Nuffield have a more up to date article stating nothing of the sort! And a quote from an NHS article stating the same; that a vegan diet is not an issue.
It’s like trying to expain that red is red.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Over population is such a red herring.
The biggest problem facing Britain, and most western countries, is a low birth rate. Even most of the developing world is seeing birth rates falling and it's quite likely we'll see peak population this century.
As for 'using' land and water, the land and water is still there it is merely transferred from one place to another. We will know when we're running low on land and water, and food for that matter, because we'll see drastic increases in prices.
You honestly believe that? The rate the worlds population is increasing is accelerating, and is showing no signs of slowing down.The biggest problem facing Britain, and most western countries, is a low birth rate. Even most of the developing world is seeing birth rates falling and it's quite likely we'll see peak population this century.
As for 'using' land and water, the land and water is still there it is merely transferred from one place to another. We will know when we're running low on land and water, and food for that matter, because we'll see drastic increases in prices.
I would also suggest that the low birth rate is somewhat offset by circa 300k immigration per annum, in this country anyway.
Land is continually being cleared for livestock and palm oil.
It doesn't take long for a dry spell to become an issue even with the amount of rain fall we get in this country, the demand for more housing will only make this worse.
LDN said:
I'm not wrong. Land is suited toward different use. That's a given. But the very fact that the land that is used to grow X amount of feed for B' amount of livestock; could be used to feed Y' mount of humans is a fact. It's not all about changing land used, suddenly, from livestock to plant. It's that the current plant land could feed umpteen times more humans...
With all due respect; it's a genuine problem and if you're seriously interested; there's tons of info out there.
With all due respect you seem to have little idea how agriculture works. Most farmers will seek to maximise revenue from the land. They do this by using the right systems and balancing inputs against output. In the first world this balance is largely successful and it’s difficult to see its would be possible to increase production by much. Nor is it needed since populations are rising.With all due respect; it's a genuine problem and if you're seriously interested; there's tons of info out there.
In the third world this is not the case, lack of wells, energy, and money mean many farms operate at below peak efficiency. Fortunately, some governments in the third world are realise the issue and are trying to improve agricultural outputs. That has several effects it both increases the available food and the income of the rural population which also results in a declining birth rate. The only problem is population rises because of longevity but hopefully the extra food will cover that.
Overall there is little evidence of any major problems with food which are not cause by politics.
Nanook said:
LDN said:
Fair play. the only thing about posting videos, of real world slaughter house footage, for example; is that it does serve a purpose; it shows what happens behind closed doors. Indeed, illegal action / hidden camera footage / exposure, has gone on to aid in animal abuse cases; here and abroad. Not sure what's high and mighty about that...
Not wanting to see the reality of a situation is also called burying one's head in the sand. Our actions and choices have consequences. I, personally, have a thick enough skin to see what those consequences are. Some people are squeamish and prefer to ignore what their choices might cause. It's their right; but they might not be respected for it.
As for calling vegans macho... it's not vegans calling vegans macho; it's non-vegans making that assertion; that vegan is becoming thew new macho; because of what they've noticed; in a growing number of body builders and athletes choosing veganism. There's a speaker on this; who does not support the vegan movement in any way; she was on morning UK television some days back; she stated this 'vegan is the new macho' line. I'd not heard it before.
My point really, is that I don't believe posting such video's is going to achieve anything, or convince people.Not wanting to see the reality of a situation is also called burying one's head in the sand. Our actions and choices have consequences. I, personally, have a thick enough skin to see what those consequences are. Some people are squeamish and prefer to ignore what their choices might cause. It's their right; but they might not be respected for it.
As for calling vegans macho... it's not vegans calling vegans macho; it's non-vegans making that assertion; that vegan is becoming thew new macho; because of what they've noticed; in a growing number of body builders and athletes choosing veganism. There's a speaker on this; who does not support the vegan movement in any way; she was on morning UK television some days back; she stated this 'vegan is the new macho' line. I'd not heard it before.
Instead, they tend to start the sort of arguments that have people bragging about how many bacon rolls they can eat in one sitting, or calling each other 'corpse eaters' or similar.
It doesn't seem to help the cause as far as I can see. Generally, causing such division isn't the best way to achieve a goal. You don't convince people by insulting them, regardless of how right you may think you are, or even actually are.
As for the macho thing, I mentioned the other day, every reference I can find to 'macho vegan' on google, apart from one from the Guardian, in which the word macho only appeared in the article title, is from a website with the word "vegan" or "plant based" in the address.
The footage from slaughterhouses is very effective as sparking people’s conscious. People that don’t want to see it, normally don’t want to ask themselves some uncomfortable questions.
But again, I take you’re point; video footage can descend into childish retorts. No doubt. But it’s a massive part of vegan activism; to simply open people’s eyes to what they are contributing to. Nothing more; nothing less.
LDN said:
it’s not necessarily about switching land use; it’s about putting the plant crops (that already exist) to better / more efficient use. Which part of that is hard to get your head around? Please explain and I’ll be sure to help.
Please explain how the plant crops that already exist affect the efficiency of raising a flock of sheep grazing on a welsh hillside. I look forward to your help.otolith said:
The impact of meat farming also varies geographically and with farming practices. Oddly, all the vegan propaganda seems to focus on the worst of USA practices.
I think the UK is generally regarded as having some of the highest standards for rearing of livestock.It's pretty grim how animals are treated in the USA or even Denmark by comparison.
Rovinghawk said:
Please explain how the plant crops that already exist affect the efficiency of raising a flock of sheep grazing on a welsh hillside. I look forward to your help.
Hillside sheep farming can cause a lot of damage. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonb...
Rovinghawk said:
LDN said:
it’s not necessarily about switching land use; it’s about putting the plant crops (that already exist) to better / more efficient use. Which part of that is hard to get your head around? Please explain and I’ll be sure to help.
Please explain how the plant crops that already exist affect the efficiency of raising a flock of sheep grazing on a welsh hillside. I look forward to your help.‘Grazing livestock are net contributors to the climate problem, as are all livestock. Rising animal production and consumption, whatever the farming system and animal type, is causing damaging greenhouse gas release and contributing to changes in land use. Ultimately, if high consuming individuals and countries want to do something positive for the climate, maintaining their current consumption levels but simply switching to grass-fed beef is not a solution. Eating less meat, of all types, is.’
Long'un said:
You honestly believe that? The rate the worlds population is increasing is accelerating, and is showing no signs of slowing down.
I would also suggest that the low birth rate is somewhat offset by circa 300k immigration per annum, in this country anyway.
Land is continually being cleared for livestock and palm oil.
It doesn't take long for a dry spell to become an issue even with the amount of rain fall we get in this country, the demand for more housing will only make this worse.
It's not really a question of believing it. Population growth is already slowing. 1.1% in 2017 down from 1.5% in 1995.I would also suggest that the low birth rate is somewhat offset by circa 300k immigration per annum, in this country anyway.
Land is continually being cleared for livestock and palm oil.
It doesn't take long for a dry spell to become an issue even with the amount of rain fall we get in this country, the demand for more housing will only make this worse.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_pop...
And that is after the fact that much of the world has better access to medical treatment, hence lower infant mortality than it did in 1995.
There is a massive drop off in births, as people are using contraception. Even Niger, the world leader has seen a gradual reduction since the 1980s. It's still 7.24 births per woman but definitely not rising.
Agree that this country is already over populated and mass migration is making it worse.
Without mass migration the population of this country would already be falling, meaning less houses were needed, less traffic, less pressure on natural resources.
The trouble is our social security system and housing market are both like giant ponzi schemes which rely on an ever expanding population to keep them growing indefinitely.
Had governments in recent decades made provision for this we would now be reaping the benefits instead of scrabbling around hoping that mass third world immigration will somehow plug the gap.
Edited by JuanCarlosFandango on Friday 9th November 14:27
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Long'un said:
You honestly believe that? The rate the worlds population is increasing is accelerating, and is showing no signs of slowing down.
I would also suggest that the low birth rate is somewhat offset by circa 300k immigration per annum, in this country anyway.
Land is continually being cleared for livestock and palm oil.
It doesn't take long for a dry spell to become an issue even with the amount of rain fall we get in this country, the demand for more housing will only make this worse.
It's not really a question of believing it. Population growth is already slowing. 1.1% in 2017 down from 1.5% in 1995.I would also suggest that the low birth rate is somewhat offset by circa 300k immigration per annum, in this country anyway.
Land is continually being cleared for livestock and palm oil.
It doesn't take long for a dry spell to become an issue even with the amount of rain fall we get in this country, the demand for more housing will only make this worse.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_pop...
And that is after the fact that much of the world has better access to medical treatment, hence lower infant mortality than it did in 1995.
There is a massive drop off in births, as people are using contraception. Even Niger, the world leader has seen a gradual reduction since the 1980s. It's still 7.24 births per woman but definitely not rising.
Agree that this country is already over populated and mass migration is making it worse.
Without mass migration the population of this country would already be falling, meaning less houses were needed, less traffic, less pressure on natural resources.
The trouble is our social security system and housing market are both like giant ponzi schemes which rely on an ever expanding population to keep them growing indefinitely.
Had governments in recent decades made provision for this we would now be reaping the benefits instead of scrabbling around hoping that mass third world immigration will somehow plug the gap.
Edited by JuanCarlosFandango on Friday 9th November 14:27
The population is rising. The rate differs year on year.
LDN said:
Population growth rate slowing, is not the same as population numbers going down. You do realise that? Just checking.
The population is rising. The rate differs year on year.
Yes I realise that. That's why I said the 'rate of growth' is slowing and population is expected to peak later this century.The population is rising. The rate differs year on year.
It varies year on year but the trend is lower growth rates.
Rovinghawk said:
LDN said:
it’s not necessarily about switching land use; it’s about putting the plant crops (that already exist) to better / more efficient use. Which part of that is hard to get your head around? Please explain and I’ll be sure to help.
Please explain how the plant crops that already exist affect the efficiency of raising a flock of sheep grazing on a welsh hillside. I look forward to your help.Evanivitch said:
Rovinghawk said:
LDN said:
it’s not necessarily about switching land use; it’s about putting the plant crops (that already exist) to better / more efficient use. Which part of that is hard to get your head around? Please explain and I’ll be sure to help.
Please explain how the plant crops that already exist affect the efficiency of raising a flock of sheep grazing on a welsh hillside. I look forward to your help.An Independent Oxford study went into massive detail about this and came up with the conclusion I quoted earlier.
But maybe Oxford uni joins the list, that includes the NHS; as vegan propaganda machines.
LDN said:
I’m glad that you’ve not answered or addressed the rest of my post... it looks like we are getting somewhere in that regard. And so to the last sticking point: Oxford university conducted a massive study into grass fed livestock. Ignoring the fact that grass fed livestock can not service our species; and that it’s economically flawed. They said:
‘Grazing livestock are net contributors to the climate problem, as are all livestock. Rising animal production and consumption, whatever the farming system and animal type, is causing damaging greenhouse gas release and contributing to changes in land use. Ultimately, if high consuming individuals and countries want to do something positive for the climate, maintaining their current consumption levels but simply switching to grass-fed beef is not a solution. Eating less meat, of all types, is.’
If you read the report and not just quote the headlines its quite different to that. Even if you believe man made climate change is a problem then the effects of ruminant agriculture is a tick on the bulls ass.‘Grazing livestock are net contributors to the climate problem, as are all livestock. Rising animal production and consumption, whatever the farming system and animal type, is causing damaging greenhouse gas release and contributing to changes in land use. Ultimately, if high consuming individuals and countries want to do something positive for the climate, maintaining their current consumption levels but simply switching to grass-fed beef is not a solution. Eating less meat, of all types, is.’
Even if you want to worry about this all the report says is ruminants cause more greenhouse effects than other agriculture. Their conclusion therefore is if you reduce meat eating you reduce the climate effects. What the report does not say is if this reduction in meat eating is an overall reduction in food consumption. If it is then if difficult to disagree. However, if it does not mean a reduction just a switch. There the report becomes toilet paper. The analysis relies on the output from non-ruminant agriculture from land which suited to such agriculture. If you reduce ruminant agriculture then the land made available if that suited for such agriculture. Switching to non-ruminant agriculture on that land not suited to it may have very different outputs to than of non-ruminant agriculture carried out on land which is suited to it.
grumbledoak said:
The other point being glossed over is that humans are essentially carnivores that can tolerate vegetables. Many vegetarians and most vegans are malnourished, at least until they give up.
Why should we be aiming for a global population of ten billion chronically sick weaklings?
Omnivore.Why should we be aiming for a global population of ten billion chronically sick weaklings?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff