What are your unpopular opinions?
Discussion
Evanivitch said:
So when a meat free alternative that tastes like bacon is available (probably never, but hypothetically), you'll have no reason to eat real bacon? Glad you're clear on that.
If it looks like bacon, tastes like bacon, feels like bacon, is in fact indistinguishable from bacon yet doesn't contain all the bad stuff that means that eating it is bad for me?Then I'll still eat the real thing just to annoy the people who like to tell me what I should and shouldn't do.
deckster said:
If it looks like bacon, tastes like bacon, feels like bacon, is in fact indistinguishable from bacon yet doesn't contain all the bad stuff that means that eating it is bad for me?
Then I'll still eat the real thing just to annoy the people who like to tell me what I should and shouldn't do.
Ah the old toddler mentality.Then I'll still eat the real thing just to annoy the people who like to tell me what I should and shouldn't do.
Evanivitch said:
deckster said:
If it looks like bacon, tastes like bacon, feels like bacon, is in fact indistinguishable from bacon yet doesn't contain all the bad stuff that means that eating it is bad for me?
Then I'll still eat the real thing just to annoy the people who like to tell me what I should and shouldn't do.
Ah the old toddler mentality.Then I'll still eat the real thing just to annoy the people who like to tell me what I should and shouldn't do.
AC123 said:
Why wouldn't you eat meat then?
Animal welfare reasons, given that nearly all our consumed meat is raised on some variation of intensive farming (even organic, grass-fed and free range).Environmentally it's a huge cause of pollution, including atmospheric, waterborne and localised.
And practically it's incredibly inefficient, it takes up more space, fuel and water to raise animals and grow animal feed, than it would to just eat a plant based diet (some exceptions obviously exist).
I'm personally trying to move towards a less meat, and eventually meat that is from game or wild-farmed.
What type of farming do you think all your vegan/vegetarian options come from? The more popular it gets, the more intensively its grown. Monoculture and fertilizing is one of the most damaging practices to the environment and growing veg cannot be done efficiently without both. Fact is that unless we go back to each growing our on veg by fertilizing it with our own excrement and going hungry for the winter, we will never achieve anything much better than we have now.
Huge swathes of the UK are totally unsuitable for growing any kind of edible crop. Do we abandon that land entirely, or continue to raise meat on it? Given that we are being urged to eat locally produced food, factoring in this like food miles. What should people in Caithness be eating? Locally produced lamb and locally sourced game, or vegetables/quorn flown/trucked in from around the world, or should we have a new Highland Clearances because you can't grow cucumbers there?
GIYess said:
What type of farming do you think all your vegan/vegetarian options come from? The more popular it gets, the more intensively its grown. Monoculture and fertilizing is one of the most damaging practices to the environment and growing veg cannot be done efficiently without both. Fact is that unless we go back to each growing our on veg by fertilizing it with our own excrement and going hungry for the winter, we will never achieve anything much better than we have now.
How do you think the crops that feed the animals are grown?I'm not aiming for perfection, but there's huge improvements to be made simply by not eating meat.
ElectricSoup said:
Huge swathes of the UK are totally unsuitable for growing any kind of edible crop. Do we abandon that land entirely, or continue to raise meat on it? Given that we are being urged to eat locally produced food, factoring in this like food miles. What should people in Caithness be eating? Locally produced lamb and locally sourced game, or vegetables/quorn flown/trucked in from around the world, or should we have a new Highland Clearances because you can't grow cucumbers there?
Mountain raised sheep is a good example of low intensity farming. However, many are still in the sheds over winter because the land is over grazed or the breed isn't hardy enough for the conditions but is more productive to the farmer.Knepp Castle and even New Forrest are some examples of low intensity farming.
Evanivitch said:
Animal welfare reasons, given that nearly all our consumed meat is raised on some variation of intensive farming (even organic, grass-fed and free range).
Environmentally it's a huge cause of pollution, including atmospheric, waterborne and localised.
And practically it's incredibly inefficient, it takes up more space, fuel and water to raise animals and grow animal feed, than it would to just eat a plant based diet (some exceptions obviously exist).
I'm personally trying to move towards a less meat, and eventually meat that is from game or wild-farmed.
Thank you for your reply.Environmentally it's a huge cause of pollution, including atmospheric, waterborne and localised.
And practically it's incredibly inefficient, it takes up more space, fuel and water to raise animals and grow animal feed, than it would to just eat a plant based diet (some exceptions obviously exist).
I'm personally trying to move towards a less meat, and eventually meat that is from game or wild-farmed.
I'd like to think that our cattle are far from intensively farmed, our stocking rate is less than a quarter of what is recommended. Vegans often suggest that all life is equal - millions more animals are killed in the production of crops be it by cultivation or by pesticides. This is an unfortunate bi-product of the fact we all need to eat.
Some livestock rearing units cause pollution as you have mentioned. The information normally provided to support this view comes from America, where they farm very differently. There are less ruminants on the planet now then there was 100 years ago.
Our farm cannot grow any crop other than grass due to the soil, topography and weather. Humans cannot eat grass but thankfully ruminants can. There is no other way of growing food from our land. Our cattle (and sheep) eat nothing but grass, like many other livestock farms. The whole "land is used to grow crops to feed livestock when it could be used for human food" argument is massively blown out of proportion by vegan groups.
Our farm absorbs more than 3 times the amount of carbon that it emits. Don't believe all the vegan hype
AC123 said:
Thank you for your reply.
I'd like to think that our cattle are far from intensively farmed, our stocking rate is less than a quarter of what is recommended. Vegans often suggest that all life is equal - millions more animals are killed in the production of crops be it by cultivation or by pesticides. This is an unfortunate bi-product of the fact we all need to eat.
Some livestock rearing units cause pollution as you have mentioned. The information normally provided to support this view comes from America, where they farm very differently. There are less ruminants on the planet now then there was 100 years ago.
Our farm cannot grow any crop other than grass due to the soil, topography and weather. Humans cannot eat grass but thankfully ruminants can. There is no other way of growing food from our land. Our cattle (and sheep) eat nothing but grass, like many other livestock farms. The whole "land is used to grow crops to feed livestock when it could be used for human food" argument is massively blown out of proportion by vegan groups.
Our farm absorbs more than 3 times the amount of carbon that it emits. Don't believe all the vegan hype
What's the context of your farm?I'd like to think that our cattle are far from intensively farmed, our stocking rate is less than a quarter of what is recommended. Vegans often suggest that all life is equal - millions more animals are killed in the production of crops be it by cultivation or by pesticides. This is an unfortunate bi-product of the fact we all need to eat.
Some livestock rearing units cause pollution as you have mentioned. The information normally provided to support this view comes from America, where they farm very differently. There are less ruminants on the planet now then there was 100 years ago.
Our farm cannot grow any crop other than grass due to the soil, topography and weather. Humans cannot eat grass but thankfully ruminants can. There is no other way of growing food from our land. Our cattle (and sheep) eat nothing but grass, like many other livestock farms. The whole "land is used to grow crops to feed livestock when it could be used for human food" argument is massively blown out of proportion by vegan groups.
Our farm absorbs more than 3 times the amount of carbon that it emits. Don't believe all the vegan hype
Are the livestock brought in over winter? Are they supplementary fed?
I disagree that this is influenced by American farming standards. British organic and grass fed standards still allow for animals to spend half their life in barns, or a third of the year off-pasture.
AC123 said:
Grass land is one of the best carbon sinks going, times by the amount of acres, minus emissions from livestock, machinery, electricity etc - not too complicated with all the data available these days
But wouldn't the grassland exist without the livestock so less atmospheric/external carbon is being absorbedEvanivitch said:
What's the context of your farm?
Are the livestock brought in over winter? Are they supplementary fed?
I disagree that this is influenced by American farming standards. British organic and grass fed standards still allow for animals to spend half their life in barns, or a third of the year off-pasture.
Cattle in over winter as not enough grass growing for them to eat. They are fed silage, which is simply fermented grass. The muck from the winter is spread in the spring to help the grass grow and reduces the need for artificial fertiliser (the manufacture of which is highly polluting).Are the livestock brought in over winter? Are they supplementary fed?
I disagree that this is influenced by American farming standards. British organic and grass fed standards still allow for animals to spend half their life in barns, or a third of the year off-pasture.
The standards allow for that - but it is far from mandatory, Why would you want the expense of keeping them inside if you don't have to! The only reason for that is the weather. It is not fair for the livestock to be stuck in a cold, muddy field with nothing to eat purely because you have to or you'd lose your organic/grass fed status. It's not all black and white
AC123 said:
Grass land is one of the best carbon sinks going, times by the amount of acres, minus emissions from livestock, machinery, electricity etc - not too complicated with all the data available these days
Interesting. I've long held out that small-hold livestock farming is fine and we should aim for more of it and less industrial farming.bazza white said:
But wouldn't the grassland exist without the livestock so less atmospheric/external carbon is being absorbed
No, it would turn to scrubland which is actually a poor carbon sink.Grassland is even better than woodland.
One of the environmental subsidies we receive is to stop the land turning to scrub.
j_4m said:
Interesting. I've long held out that small-hold livestock farming is fine and we should aim for more of it and less industrial farming.
It's complicated in that large livestock units in the UK often have better welfare than smaller units. There is also the drive to be as efficient as possible. The main problem comes from having more stock than the land can support, so when the weather turns you're buggered.Ultimately humans are the issue. There's more and more of us that need feeding with less land to do it on (300,000 homes are built in the UK each year). Something has to give, and unfortunately quite often it is the environment.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff