Bye bye MEAT! How will the post-meat future look?

[littlebabyjesus]

especially when there are choices in the alternative.

If you don't see the killing, in and of itself, as cruel or wrong, why would you think the alternatives are better?

The farming systems promoted by the owners of UPSIDE Foods are awful. Is a farming system with no livestock inherently better than one with livestock? Not necessarily. It may be far worse, particularly if run by those fuckers. The killing or not killing of animals isn't the only relevant measure.

But farming animals for food involves slaughter. And that's a red line for you. I get that. Do you get that, and why, it isn't the same red line for everyone, even when they have thought about what other animals are?

As for the more general 'animals are our friends' concept, frankly I think that is childish nonsense. For example, I like rats. When I see a rat running across a room, my first thought is 'cool, a rat', bit like when I see a fox in the street. What's not to like about rats going about their lives? But I recognise that rats are destructive in various contexts and need to be killed. I don't kill them because I don't like them or I think they have no feelings. I know full well that they do have feelings, but it's just tough shit - they can't be here in this place in this context and they need to die. To think that you can go through life without making that kind of decision is childish. In reality, if you don't do it, you're just relying on other people making the decision for you.

 

[farmerbarleymow]

This could be interesting - presumably cheaper to produce than synthetic meat

Soya beans made more meat-like by adding genes for pig proteins

A company called Moolec has created transgenic soya beans called “Piggy Sooy” in which a quarter of the protein is pig protein rather than plant protein

www.newscientist.com

 

[MrCurry]

This could be interesting - presumably cheaper to produce than synthetic meat

Soya beans made more meat-like by adding genes for pig proteins

A company called Moolec has created transgenic soya beans called “Piggy Sooy” in which a quarter of the protein is pig protein rather than plant protein

www.newscientist.com

Why couldn’t they have been called mootec and why could the genes not have been cow ones?

 

[Jeff Robinson]

I've had to put down a pet. It was far more distressing to me than it was to him. He died in as good a way as possible. The idea of putting down a healthy pet, tbh I can't really comprehend that.

Right, in that instance you felt the moral weight of ending a sentient being’s life, even when it was painless and in their own interest. When farmed animals just as sentient as your cat are killed it’s in a far worse way and it’s not in their interest (although at least for factory farmed animals it does finally put them out of their misery). It does seem pretty morally arbitrary to just shrug off killing some animals but not others.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Soya beans made more meat-like by adding genes for pig proteins

A company called Moolec has created transgenic soya beans called “Piggy Sooy” in which a quarter of the protein is pig protein rather than plant protein

www.newscientist.com

That’s so interesting. So many breakthroughs happening in cellular and plant-based food technologies now.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

The farming systems promoted by the owners of UPSIDE Foods are awful. Is a farming system with no livestock inherently better than one with livestock? Not necessarily. It may be far worse, particularly if run by those fuckers. The killing or not killing of animals isn't the only relevant measure.

Let’s get real here though. The only food system less likely than the fully plant-based future I’d want to see is the one where all animals reared for slaughter are raised on small farms with relatively good lives as you want to see. That ship has sailed long ago. All trends point to further intensification. If you want an agricultural system that involves slaughtering animals for food, factory farming is part of that package deal.

Given that, would you rather see what we’ve got now - a small percentage of farmed animals living lives you deem acceptable amidst ever growing trillions of animals living in hell on earth, or a system where animal farming is primarily operating at a cellular level (of course this wouldn’t in and of itself also prevent the farming practices you approve)?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Right, in that instance you felt the moral weight of ending a sentient being’s life, even when it was painless and in their own interest. When farmed animals just as sentient as your cat are killed it’s in a far worse way and it’s not in their interest (although at least for factory farmed animals it does finally put them out of their misery). It does seem pretty morally arbitrary to just shrug off killing some animals but not others.

Regarding putting down healthy pets, my reaction as a sometime pet owner is that if you find yourself unable to look after an animal you have a responsibility to find it a new home. This is an emotional response as much as a logical one.

I wasn't aware this was such a big thing tbh. Reading up on it, it appears it is usually dogs with behaviour problems that stem from poor socialization as a puppy. Rubbish owners/breeders being rubbish.

 

[Agent Sparrow]

Two definitions, one formal, one informal for both. Now scurry off to a US dictionary.
I'm vegetarian and I haven't been convinced by the last few post to change my views.

I somehow don’t think the point of this thread is to change people’s views…

To be fair, if animals actually could abstractly conceptualise and reason, and then articulate those conditions through speech, it would be genuinely horrifying to eat them.

 

[bcuster]

Man Is Confronted By A Little Boy And His Dad For Hunting A Deer — ‘What Did That Deer Do To You?’

All of this could have been avoided if everyone went about their day.

www.yourtango.com

 

[bcuster]

interesting that the situation is being characterized as "left wing riots" i feel that is a completely inadequate summation of the controversy...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm not sure what controversy there might be there. The man clears up the misunderstanding straight away:

“I want to know why you want to kill deer, tell me,” the father said, sporting a yellow tee-shirt and a baseball cap. “Because I eat them,” the man in the car responds.

 

[bcuster]

I'm not sure what controversy there might be there. The man clears up the misunderstanding straight away:

You gave us your thoughts about rats and vermin earlier, and, largely I agree with you. In many parts of the US, deer have become not quite as bad an infestation problem, but nearly so...
In this limited context, I think the hunter in the video had the better points in the discussion.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You gave us your thoughts about rats and vermin earlier, and, largely I agree with you. In many parts of the US, deer have become not quite as bad an infestation problem, but nearly so...
In this limited context, I think the hunter in the video had the better points in the discussion.

Yeah, without natural predators such as wolves (which we've got rid of), deer often need to be culled. And pretty much the most humane way to cull deer is with a well-aimed bullet.

And yes, it is similar to rats for me. I like deer. What's not to like? But they're prey animals without any predators to control their numbers. It's our fault the ecosystems and food webs are out of kilter like that, but I would say that that also makes it our responsibility to take on the role of the predator where necessary.

 

[friedaweed]

Yeah, without natural predators such as wolves (which we've got rid of), deer often need to be culled. And pretty much the most humane way to cull deer is with a well-aimed bullet.

And yes, it is similar to rats for me. I like deer. What's not to like? But they're prey animals without any predators to control their numbers. It's our fault the ecosystems and food webs are out of kilter like that, but I would say that that also makes it our responsibility to take on the role of the predator where necessary.

There was a good thing on R4 earlier in the week relating to the guy who set this up ,

Buy Wild Meat & Game Online | The Wild Meat Company

The Wild Meat Company source and sell game & wild meat including venison, game birds, rabbit and even squirrel entirely from farms and estates in east Suffolk.

www.wildmeat.co.uk

 

[CNT36]

There was a good thing on R4 earlier in the week relating to the guy who set this up ,

Buy Wild Meat & Game Online | The Wild Meat Company

The Wild Meat Company source and sell game & wild meat including venison, game birds, rabbit and even squirrel entirely from farms and estates in east Suffolk.

www.wildmeat.co.uk

There was a thing a few months ago where they basically followed someone about doing their job. One was a deer hunter/Culler. No idea what it was called but it was on about 9 or 9.30 in the morning.

 

[Spymaster]

Man Is Confronted By A Little Boy And His Dad For Hunting A Deer — ‘What Did That Deer Do To You?’

All of this could have been avoided if everyone went about their day.

www.yourtango.com

What a couple of fucking morons.

"Why do you want to kill deer?"

"Because I eat them. Do you eat meat?"

"Yes"

 

[Funky_monks]

There was a thing a few months ago where they basically followed someone about doing their job. One was a deer hunter/Culler. No idea what it was called but it was on about 9 or 9.30 in the morning.

My ex neighbour used to be responsible for the cull on a New Forest estate (adjacent to the national park). Obviously the estate sold deer stalking (guided by him), but he reckoned clients wouldn't shoot enough so he had to go back out and do more.
Think their cull was 250 odd a year and still the herds of deer are massive.

Don't know if true but apparently Sweden has a policy to start shooting moose because the government fully believes that ruminants cause climate change.
I'm sure that'll go about as well as Zimbabwe's attempt to stop desertification by killing hundreds of elephants last century...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

My ex neighbour used to be responsible for the cull on a New Forest estate (adjacent to the national park). Obviously the estate sold deer stalking (guided by him), but he reckoned clients wouldn't shoot enough so he had to go back out and do more.
Think their cull was 250 odd a year and still the herds of deer are massive.

Don't know if true but apparently Sweden has a policy to start shooting moose because the government fully believes that ruminants cause climate change.
I'm sure that'll go about as well as Zimbabwe's attempt to stop desertification by killing hundreds of elephants last century...

Hmmm. That sounds unlikely to be true. Climate change is causing a decline in moose numbers in southern Sweden.

Declining recruitment and mass of Swedish moose calves linked to hot, dry springs and snowy winters

There is already a substantial annual moose cull.

During the summer, when populations are at their height, there are around 350,000 moose distributed across the country, an average of 10-15 moose per 1,000 hectares.

Of these, just under one third will be culled annually during the autumn moose hunting season, and moose is a popular meat throughout Sweden.

 

[kabbes]

I took a photo today that encapsulates why it isn’t as simple as “meat causes environmental damage”. This is a photo taken in the Coed y Brenin in Eryri (or Snowdonia).



On the right is a hill farm. You can’t really see it in the photo, but there are tiny white sheep on the hillside. This part of the hill is a thriving ecosystem. There is heather, ferns, birds, hares and insects aplenty.

On the left is part of the thousands of acres that used to be hill farms before the farmers finally gave up and sold their land to the forestry commission. The word “forest” is very misleading here. These “forests” are ecological deserts. The trees are so densely planted that almost no light reaches the forest floor. Nothing grows there apart from pine trees. There are no flowers, no insects, no wildlife. When you look into that forest, it’s like looking at some kind of fantasy ghost wood — just a covering of dead pine needles on the floor and bare branches (the only green needles are at the tree tops). It’s a biological disaster zone.

As more and more farmers find their activities uneconomic, more and more hillside is becoming this ecological desert. Is this environmental progress? I find it hard to believe so.

 

[friedaweed]

There was a thing a few months ago where they basically followed someone about doing their job. One was a deer hunter/Culler. No idea what it was called but it was on about 9 or 9.30 in the morning.

My mate's a stalker. I get a full roe deer from him for £40. I have to take the whole deer for that price as shot. One of the reasons I have a belfast sink with a hook above it. So much nicer than frankenstien chicken or tofu.

 

[friedaweed]

My ex neighbour used to be responsible for the cull on a New Forest estate (adjacent to the national park). Obviously the estate sold deer stalking (guided by him), but he reckoned clients wouldn't shoot enough so he had to go back out and do more.
Think their cull was 250 odd a year and still the herds of deer are massive.

Don't know if true but apparently Sweden has a policy to start shooting moose because the government fully believes that ruminants cause climate change.
I'm sure that'll go about as well as Zimbabwe's attempt to stop desertification by killing hundreds of elephants last century...

My pal is actually paid on one estate in NorthWales to shoot. Not a lot but it covers his ammo and a bit more and he can take what he shoots and then pass it on to folk who are prepared to handle the rest. I get all my game from him. In return I give him a few nice fish.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I took a photo today that encapsulates why it isn’t as simple as “meat causes environmental damage”. This is a photo taken in the Coed y Brenin in Eryri (or Snowdonia).

View attachment 381488

On the right is a hill farm. You can’t really see it in the photo, but there are tiny white sheep on the hillside. This part of the hill is a thriving ecosystem. There is heather, ferns, birds, hares and insects aplenty.

On the left is part of the thousands of acres that used to be hill farms before the farmers finally gave up and sold their land to the forestry commission. The word “forest” is very misleading here. These “forests” are ecological deserts. The trees are so densely planted that almost no light reaches the forest floor. Nothing grows there apart from pine trees. There are no flowers, no insects, no wildlife. When you look into that forest, it’s like looking at some kind of fantasy ghost wood — just a covering of dead pine needles on the floor and bare branches (the only green needles are at the tree tops). It’s a biological disaster zone.

As more and more farmers find their activities uneconomic, more and more hillside is becoming this ecological desert. Is this environmental progress? I find it hard to believe so.

Bats roost in pine forests like that, but you're right, there's precious little else there. I don't know if the Forestry Commission has adapted its planting policies in light of recent knowledge of things like the Wood Wide Web. I'd hope so.

 

[kabbes]

Bats roost in pine forests like that, but you're right, there's precious little else there. I don't know if the Forestry Commission has adapted its planting policies in light of recent knowledge of things like the Wood Wide Web. I'd hope so.

I thought they had, but recent plantations in the area still seem to be ridiculously dense.

 

[ebay sex moomin]

I took a photo today that encapsulates why it isn’t as simple as “meat causes environmental damage”.

Meat eating- or to be more accurate, various practices involved in the production of meat for consumption, such as deforestation- does cause environmental damage, on a huge scale.

The fact that the forestry commission chooses to plant dense pine forests that suffocate biodiversity does not negate this point.

 

[kabbes]

Meat eating- or to be more accurate, various practices involved in the production of meat for consumption, such as deforestation- does cause environmental damage, on a huge scale.

The fact that the forestry commission chooses to plant dense pine forests that suffocate biodiversity does not negate this point.

It does when the production of meat is in a ecological balance with its environment, whereas the forestry commission are the only viable alternative landowner.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

Meat eating- or to be more accurate, various practices involved in the production of meat for consumption, such as deforestation- does cause environmental damage, on a huge scale.

The fact that the forestry commission chooses to plant dense pine forests that suffocate biodiversity does not negate this point.

Nearly all organised human activity causes some form environmental damage and changes the ecological balance.
It just so happens that livestock farming is one of the more damaging ones.

In the case of the picture posted above, it would appear that one organised human activity is being replace by another one. Dumb vs dumber perhaps?

At first glance I would say that the trees look more attractive than the landscape with the sheep on, but regardless, it doesn't look like a desert to me and actually looks quite lush in comparison.

Even if, for argument sake, the pine forest a bona fide desert, I'm not sure that the solution to that desert problem is to go back to heavily subsidising sheep farmers so that we can once again have a supposedly "thriving ecosystem".

How about mostly leaving it to nature to restore the rainforests that were abundant in Britain and Europe, once upon a time.
Now that's what I would call a genuinely thriving ecosystem.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Nearly all organised human activity causes some form environmental damage and changes the ecological balance.
It just so happens that livestock farming is one of the more damaging ones.

In the case of the picture posted above, it would appear that one organised human activity is being replace by another one. Dumb vs dumber perhaps?

At first glance I would say that the trees look more attractive than the landscape with the sheep on, but regardless, it doesn't look like a desert to me and actually looks quite lush in comparison.

Even if, for argument sake, the pine forest a bona fide desert, I'm not sure that the solution to that desert problem is to go back to heavily subsidising sheep farmers so that we can once again have a supposedly "thriving ecosystem".

How about mostly leaving it to nature to restore the rainforests that were abundant in Britain and Europe, once upon a time.
Now that's what I would call a genuinely thriving ecosystem.

Another example of the thinking that defines 'nature' as 'a place without humans in it'.

Where do we fit in in your vision of a reforested Britain and Europe? Where would our farms be and what would they look like?

What would the process of rewilding the Welsh hills look like? How would it work? You can't just leave it alone and magically reconstruct pre-human ecosystems. How would you keep humans out of 'nature' and 'nature' out of the human spaces? How would you decide when 'nature' has returned so that we can step away?

One of the points you miss here is the degradation of monoculture. You miss that the pine forest is essentially a monoculture, however attractive it may appear to you, not so different from a great big field of rape. Meanwhile a well-managed pasture can be a healthily biodiverse place. Because the human presence is your problem, you miss how some places with human presence are much better than others. And of course underlying that is a basic prejudice - if the human presence involves meat farming, it is instantly bad.

 

[Funky_monks]

Nearly all organised human activity causes some form environmental damage and changes the ecological balance.
It just so happens that livestock farming is one of the more damaging ones.

There have been extensive experimental farm mapping exercises using LIDAR, soil mapping to 1m and biodiversity measurements on some farms in Ireland and it seems that this is not actually the case. From discussions with a prof this week (I've been at Groundswell, where I was doing some talks), its starting to look like that simply planting trees and shutting the gate scores very badly on all counts, permanent pasture was pretty good (especially with legumes in the sward), but best was silvopasture (in this case willow), rotationally grazed with large ruminants (the willow acts as a natural anthelmintic in the same was a chicory might - cows are browsers as well as grazers both in terms of soil biodiversity (flora, fungi and fauna) and carbon sequestration, so much so that the farm was sequestering over 2K tonnes of carbon per year. Hopefully some of this data will be publicly available soon as permission is obtained from trial farmers.
The other "sea change" that apparently is coming is that the IPCC are going to accept GWP* as opposed to GWP100 as the standard measure which is big news in terms of ruminants - it accepts that non fossil fuel methane is cyclical and thus has no increase on warming effect.
NO2 is going to be the biggie for ag, and there are now papers showing that far less NO2 is released when farmyard manure (ie, ruminant shit and straw) is used as fert as opposed to synthetic N.

Bad news for fossil fuel companies, good news for farming/feeding people.
Also potentially bad news for farmers as all of these fuckers will be after their carbon to try and buy their way out of polluting (see: carbon credits).

As soon as these studies are published, I'll link to them up here.

 

[Aquamarine]

Nearly all organised human activity causes some form environmental damage and changes the ecological balance.
It just so happens that livestock farming is one of the more damaging ones.

Totally. Livestock farming does remain the biggest driver of global deforestation and second biggest GHG emitter, behind and overlapping with the energy sector.

''....its starting to look like that simply planting trees and shutting the gate scores very badly on all counts...''

Forests and woodland are still the most important natural form of carbon sequestration.

 

[PaoloSanchez]

Another example of the thinking that defines 'nature' as 'a place without humans in it'.

Where do we fit in in your vision of a reforested Britain and Europe? Where would our farms be and what would they look like?

I wouldn't say that nature is a place with no humans present, although I do think the rest of planet would get on fine without us.

The prognosis for the health of the planet based on current human activity isn't looking that great at the moment. It's as if we're on a global mass suicide mission.
We do appear to see ourselves as somewhat "special", and our current actions and behaviour, in my opinion, does set us apart from the rest of what we call "nature".

Where do we fit in in your vision of a reforested Britain and Europe? Where would our farms be and what would they look like?

What would the process of rewilding the Welsh hills look like? How would it work? You can't just leave it alone and magically reconstruct pre-human ecosystems. How would you keep humans out of 'nature' and 'nature' out of the human spaces? How would you decide when 'nature' has returned so that we can step away?

We'd have to change some of our habits so that we're a lot less destructive our environment.
We'd most likely be occupying the same living spaces in cities towns and villages that we do now.
We'd be smart enough to work out how to feed ourselves using much less land than we currently do, without livestock or monocropping or chemicals and pesticides, and also direct resources to work out the best rewilding strategies.

Human endeavour and enterprise has already significantly damaged the planet and a bit like Humpty Dumpty, all our resources may not be able to undo or "put back together" all that we have already broken.
However we can at least try to do our best to shift the momentum back in the direction of a more balanced, symbiotic and sustainable relationship with mother nature, so that we more a part of nature rather than apart from nature.

What we would NOT be doing is heavily subsidising the environmentally damaging livestock industry, which I don't see as being part of that brighter future.