should veganism be given "protected status"?

[Evanivitch]

SamR380 said:

There are vast areas of the UK that have been dedicated to sheep farming for hundreds of years, for so long that people (perhaps not you) think that a landscape of sheep roaming the green fields between dry stone walls is the definition of 'nature'. Of course, there is nothing natural about having a biodiversity of:

• short grass
• sheep

Anything else not standing a chance of growing while there's a sheep around.

Sheep can be part of that environment, but too often hill sheep are in high (but elatively low) density that require supplemental feeding over the winter if indeed they don't spend 3 months in sheds.

As you state later, sustainable grazing Willbe significantly less productive than our current needs demand, but is still a vital part of any environment.

SamR380 said:

Cows, on the other had, I can see how they could fit in to a functional eco system. It couldn't come close to replacing the amount of meat we eat at the moment but from a purely environmental point of view the idea shouldn't be written off. Most vegans still don't like killing cows to eat them though, cows are pretty nice.
.

Large herbivores wil always be part of a more natural landscape. The issue, as seen in part of Netherlands, is that you also need t manage that population. Predators are controversial, but so is the rifle. They got it terribly wrong in the Netherlands, not sure why the thought unabated herbivore numbers could be sustainable.

[grumbledoak]

SamR380 said:

Bio-diversity is a measure taking account of the number of species in an area. More species = more friendly. Untouched temperate landscapes tend to have complex ecosystems with each species relying on another, the fewer species there are, the less able the species are to rely on each other.

There are vast areas of the UK that have been dedicated to sheep farming for hundreds of years, for so long that people (perhaps not you) think that a landscape of sheep roaming the green fields between dry stone walls is the definition of 'nature'. Of course, there is nothing natural about having a biodiversity of:

• short grass
• sheep

Anything else not standing a chance of growing while there's a sheep around.

Cows, on the other had, I can see how they could fit in to a functional eco system. It couldn't come close to replacing the amount of meat we eat at the moment but from a purely environmental point of view the idea shouldn't be written off. Most vegans still don't like killing cows to eat them though, cows are pretty nice.

Do you farm animals? I'll stop guessing your opinions but I would like to hear some.

I don't farm, my interest comes via food and health. The current "trends" in food production are driven by huge corporations hoping to profit. It is that simple.

Vegetable and cereal monocrops, often GM and pesticide laced, or under acres of polytunnel, are the most profitable crops by far. Lousy for the environment, lousy for us as food, and a one way ticket to soil depletion and erosion. If you think sheep are bad for biodiversity you should go read about Glyphosate. Nothing lives in those fields.

Far better for both us and the environment are mixed farming with animals on grassland. With regenerative farming practices we can actually reverse the soil damage done by arable cropping. Animal husbandry is higher labour cost and lower profit though. So low that the whole meat industry is thought "vulnerable" to disruptors, meaning we could be forced to eat those GM and pesticide laden monocrops, with zero biodiversity. Well, for as long as the soil survives.

So we hear no end of bad news about meat and good news about veganism, or pushing biodiversity, rewilding, and wildlife conservancies, much of it untrue. Love of money, control of land, control of water, and turning self sufficient peoples into dependent serfs are behind almost all of it. Not being kind to the planet and all the ickle animals.

[Foss62]

grumbledoak said:

I don't farm, my interest comes via food and health. The current "trends" in food production are driven by huge corporations hoping to profit. It is that simple.

Vegetable and cereal monocrops, often GM and pesticide laced, or under acres of polytunnel, are the most profitable crops by far. Lousy for the environment, lousy for us as food, and a one way ticket to soil depletion and erosion. If you think sheep are bad for biodiversity you should go read about Glyphosate. Nothing lives in those fields.

Far better for both us and the environment are mixed farming with animals on grassland. With regenerative farming practices we can actually reverse the soil damage done by arable cropping. Animal husbandry is higher labour cost and lower profit though. So low that the whole meat industry is thought "vulnerable" to disruptors, meaning we could be forced to eat those GM and pesticide laden monocrops, with zero biodiversity. Well, for as long as the soil survives.

So we hear no end of bad news about meat and good news about veganism, or pushing biodiversity, rewilding, and wildlife conservancies, much of it untrue. Love of money, control of land, control of water, and turning self sufficient peoples into dependent serfs are behind almost all of it. Not being kind to the planet and all the ickle animals.

A tad one-sided if you don’t mind me saying so. To begin with, no agricultural systems are particularly good from a diversity perspective. There are reasonable arguments for maximising production where conditions are optimal in order to allow the more marginal areas to be completely uncropped. Poor quality crops over a wider area do not help the environment.
Glyphosate is not only used on GM crops. In this country it is used just before drilling in low and zero tillage systems to avoid the plough and other ‘heavy’ cultivations. As such, it’s use conserves soil and is less disruptive to wildlife (as stubbles can be left for longer periods). Farms that, for example, produce ‘organic’ vegetables swap inter-row herbicides for inter-row flamethrowers. Which do you imagine is best for wildlife?
GM technology in itself can be (and is) used to reduce pesticide inputs by the way (along with many other Plant Breeding techniques).

[Evanivitch]

grumbledoak said:

If you think sheep are bad for biodiversity you should go read about Glyphosate. Nothing lives in those fields.

Except crops grown before and after. And the hedgerows. And the margins. And the birds and mammals that feed on crops...

grumbledoak said:

Far better for both us and the environment are mixed farming with animals on grassland.

Not sure how near -monocultured grass fields, that are stripped by livestock to the ground twice a year, cut for hay once a year, and left as mud pits in autumn are "far better".

[oyster]

SamR380 said:

How much does the lamb cost in that picture?
£20/kg?

Delicious no doubt, but hardly representative of the global meat industry.

[otolith]

There are better routes to diversity than arable deserts.

https://www.fwi.co.uk/livestock/grassland-manageme...

[SamR380]

oyster said:

How much does the lamb cost in that picture?
£20/kg?

Delicious no doubt, but hardly representative of the global meat industry.

It was an example of how a vegan crop field was (at least) no worse for biodiversity than land used for raising animals to eat, addressing a previous poster's concern.

[fatboy b]

Mr Whippy said:

I’m still confused where you’re meant to get all your protein.

It’s seemingly a lot less glamorous if you’re having to eat lentils or chick peas.

Unless of course you buy pre-processed, but then is all that water use and energy use considered?
And the impact of monoculture on habitat?


I’m not just bashing for the sake of it, I just struggle to grasp how everyone moving to it for protein will be ‘better’ for nature overall.

Harry’s Farm did a video on the environmental impact of a vegan diet. It’s worse than a meat-eaters one given the overall picture. So preaching that veganism saves the planet is just bks.

[rampageturke]

rewilding isnt just leaving a field to grow by itself

and i'm sure a farmer of all people is a good source of unbiased information on this topic

Edited by rampageturke on Friday 11th February 07:27

[Evanivitch]

fatboy b said:

Harry’s Farm did a video on the environmental impact of a vegan diet. It’s worse than a meat-eaters one given the overall picture. So preaching that veganism saves the planet is just bks.

LMAO, Harry's views on veganism are flawed to say the least. And I've told him that.