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

[Funky_monks]

But tackling that would involve punching up, and that isn't going to happen.

True, and every solution capitalism has offered has been shit and just causes even more emissions - see: electric vehicles.

Even the IPCC will admit that even things like tree planting are only to buy time, because trees lock up carbon for a couple hundred years or so and then it is emitted again as the tree decomposes (unless you bury it).

 

[SpookyFrank]

Legumes are already used in conventional crop rotations, plant composts are inferior to manure in terms of available NP and K.

As said this has been discussed in depth on the thread, perhaps read back a bit.

But they don't have to because, as you'd know if you'd read the post you're responding to, legumes fix nitrogen in the soil without being composted first.

 

[SpookyFrank]

In a (probably vain) attempt to return to the original topic of the thread.

This is the kind of gaslighting the ruminant sector has to put up with: Herd of 170 bison could help store CO2 equivalent of 43,000 cars, researchers say

Grazing large ruminants incredibly similar to cattle = lots of carbon sequestered and much environmental gain.
Grazing yer actual cattle = Environmental disaster, increased emissions........

Perhaps animals are less effective as a carbon sink if you slaughter them at the first opportunity, load them into trucks that run on diesel, feed them through a dozen different industrial processes then ship them halfway round the world.

Dead animals also produce markedly less manure.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Even the IPCC will admit that even things like tree planting are only to buy time, because trees lock up carbon for a couple hundred years or so and then it is emitted again as the tree decomposes (unless you bury it).

But a cow that locks up carbon for a year before you kill it, that is a good carbon sink?

Centuries are traditionally considered longer than years, aren't they?

 

[Funky_monks]

Perhaps animals are less effective as a carbon sink if you slaughter them at the first opportunity, load them into trucks that run on diesel, feed them through a dozen different industrial processes then ship them halfway round the world.

Dead animals also produce markedly less manure.

It's not the animals themselves that are a carbon sink...it's the grasslands. Specifically the soils beneath them.
The animals graze/browse the grasses/plants and their dung enriches the soil. They all live and then die - in the wild by predation or starvation in farming by slaughter and are replaced with their offspring. It's how a food chain/web works.
Soil organisms, such as bacteria and fungi do much of the nutrition cycling and much of the sequestration. It's estimated fungi are responsible for a third of all the carbon sequestered on the planet.

Why would you think the animals themselves are a carbon sink?

 

[SpookyFrank]

.

Why would you think the animals themselves are a carbon sink?

I don't. That was you, blathering on about livestock as a carbon sink and oh boo hoo the poor farmers don't get any credit.

 

[WouldBe]

Perhaps animals are less effective as a carbon sink if you slaughter them at the first opportunity, load them into trucks that run on diesel, feed them through a dozen different industrial processes then ship them halfway round the world.

And plants dig themselves up, walk to the factory, dice themselves......?

 

[SpookyFrank]

And plants dig themselves up, walk to the factory, dice themselves......?

They don't walk themselves to the animal feed factory either though do they?

 

[SpookyFrank]

The animals graze/browse the grasses/plants and their dung enriches the soil. They all live and then die - in the wild by predation or starvation in farming by slaughter and are replaced with their offspring. It's how a food chain/web works.
Soil organisms, such as bacteria and fungi do much of the nutrition cycling and much of the sequestration. It's estimated fungi are responsible for a third of all the carbon sequestered on the planet.

How a good chain works is that the stuff in the animals stays in the ecosystem when they die. That, and again I don't know why I have to keep explaining this to an agriculture expert like yourself, doesn't happen when the animals are taken away and eaten.

As for soil organisms and fungi, intensive monoculture farming of the kind needed to produce enough animal feed for all the meat you eat (for purely environmental reasons I'm sure) is decimating both. Herbivores are an important part of a stable ecosystem, yes. It does not follow from that statement that we should eat the herbivores, nor breed them on a scale the ecosystem would never normally support, nor exterminate predators so our herbivores can turn a bigger profit.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But a cow that locks up carbon for a year before you kill it, that is a good carbon sink?

Centuries are traditionally considered longer than years, aren't they?

Does it matter how long the individual cows live when doing this accounting? What matters in terms of calculating the biomass is how many cows are alive at any given time. Same thing applies to trees, grasses, or any other organism.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Does it matter how long the individual cows live when doing this accounting? What matters in terms of calculating the biomass is how many cows are alive at any given time. Same thing applies to trees, grasses, or any other organism.

Again, wasn't me making the argument that carbon sinks don't count if they don't last forever. That was our resident agriculture expert, when he was telling us that trees aren't carbon sinks after all.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

They don't walk themselves to the animal feed factory either though do they?

You appear to be mixing up issues here in a not-helpful way. Is your contention that livestock grazing isn't an effective carbon sink because the bodies are removed to be eaten by us (the material in our bodies returns to the enviroment in the end as well, of course) or is your main argument to do with animal feed grown elsewhere?

FM makes a very good point wrt The Guardian's contradictory hypocrisy, from what I can see. On the one hand, praising 'natural' wild herds of ruminants while elsewhere they come up with lists of the emissions, water usage (usually green water), etc, of things like sheep farming.

I don't think you have countered that point.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Is your contention that livestock grazing isn't an effective carbon sink because the bodies are removed to be eaten by us (the material in our bodies returns to the enviroment in the end as well, of course) or is your main argument to do with animal feed grown elsewhere?

No, it's that the soil is not an effective carbon sink if it is intensively farmed. And that large-scale livestock farming requires intensive arable farming.

It's this either-or shit that bothers me. Livestock eats plants, so it's not a question of farming plants or farming animals. it's a question of farming plants or farming more plants and animals as well. Which one of those has the biggest impact, hmm tricky one.

 

[SpookyFrank]

FM makes a very good point .

He should make it here some time.

 

[SpookyFrank]

On the one hand, praising 'natural' wild herds of ruminants while elsewhere they come up with lists of the emissions, water usage (usually green water), etc, of things like sheep farming.

I don't think you have countered that point.

How many ruminants are we talking? A small, stable population or as many as we can cram onto the land? And what do those ruminants eat, what's lying around or countless tonnes of stuff that has to be be farmed elsewhere and shipped in?

Can you figure out the difference between those two? I think you can if you really try.

 

[Saul Goodman]

No, it's that the soil is not an effective carbon sink if it is intensively farmed. And that large-scale livestock farming requires intensive arable farming.

It's this either-or shit that bothers me. Livestock eats plants, so it's not a question of farming plants or farming animals. it's a question of farming plants or farming more plants and animals as well. Which one of those has the biggest impact, hmm tricky one.

You seem to forget, maybe intentionally, or maybe you're simply unaware, that the parts of the plant eaten by cattle are mostly by-products from the human food industry.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Again, wasn't me making the argument that carbon sinks don't count if they don't last forever. That was our resident agriculture expert, when he was telling us that trees aren't carbon sinks after all.

You've missed several of FM's points here, or simply misunderstood them. The point about grasslands is that the soils in a grassland with good biodiversity are a massive carbon sink, something scientists have only recently come to fully appreciate. Ironically enough, this is one of the points made in The Guardian piece. Maybe they'll go back and add errata to the hundreds of incorrect articles they've previously published on this issue?

This is a newspaper that accepts hundreds of thousands of pounds from lobby groups specifically in order to push anti-meat information, btw. Adds to the irony of the no doubt unconscious hypocrisy exemplified by this article.

 

[SpookyFrank]

You've missed several of FM's points here, or simply misunderstood them. The point about grasslands is that the soils in a grassland with good biodiversity are a massive carbon sink, something scientists have only recently come to fully appreciate. Ironically enough, this is one of the points made in The Guardian piece. Maybe they'll go back and add errata to the hundreds of incorrect articles they've previously published on this issue?

Does intensively grazed pasture used for meat production have good biodiversity though?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Does intensively grazed pasture used for meat production have good biodiversity though?

Some does, some doesn't. Good farming practices promote biodiversity. We need more of these good farming practices.

Have you read the thread?

 

[SpookyFrank]

Some does, some doesn't. Good farming practices promote biodiversity. We need more of these good farming practices.

Have you read the thread?

Have you even read the title of the thread? We can't have the good farming practices unless we eat far less meat.

 

[Saul Goodman]

Have you even read the title of the thread? We can't have the good farming practices unless we eat far less meat.

Nonsense.

 

[Funky_monks]

Rotationally grazing ruminants achieves almost exactly the same thing.
All of the ruminants we farm could exist pretty much on grass (although it may be efficient in high yielding dairy).
We don't need to arable farm anything to have ruminants. The two systems do not depend on each other in the way that monogastric animal systems might.

 

[Funky_monks]

That said, I've got zero issue with putting ruminants in arable rotations (and thus growing turnips for them) to minimise fertiliser input, or feeding them all the other byproducts that we do: old bread, spent brewers grains, pomace, straw etc etc.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Have you even read the title of the thread? We can't have the good farming practices unless we eat far less meat.

Ah I see. You haven't read the thread and you don't have an argument to make.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

New bombshell undercover investigation of 45 "RSPCA-assured" farms finds widespread animal suffering, breaches of the RSPCA scheme and violations of animal welfare law at every single one

“Some of these RSPCA Assured farms do not even comply with basic legal requirements even though they hold themselves out to the public as being a ‘higher welfare’ supplier. This is effectively fraud, particularly when a welfare conscious consumer selects a product based on that sense of higher welfare and ethical treatment of sentient beings.”- Ayesha Smart, specialist barrister in animal welfare law

Some of findings:

at an RSPCA Assured farm in Norfolk, investigators found dead and dying baby chicks suffering from starvation and dehydration, with living chicks pecking at the dead.

at an RSPCA Assured farm in Somerset, investigators found a dead pig’s decomposing body in the alleyway between pens, where other pigs were dying from viral and bacterial infections, as evidenced by vet reports.

at an RSPCA Assured farm in Wiltshire, investigators found two dying pigs convulsing in a pool of excrement, unable to get up, separated from others and left to experience terrible suffering.

at an RSPCA Assured farm in Scotland, investigators found salmon infested with lice, with missing eyes and other body parts, open wounds.
Chris Packham, the RSPCA's president, was so shocked by the findings, that he is demanding the RSPCA end their sham scheme:

Chris Packham: The truth at some RSPCA-assured farms makes me sick

The Springwatch host says he can’t sleep easy as the charity’s president after seeing ‘indefensible’ conditions behind its food labelling scheme at Tesco, Sainsbury’s and M&S

www.thetimes.com

for people without Times access:



Video:

 

[bcuster]

utterly indefensible. i'm saddened.

 

[Funky_monks]

And yet - nobody here has given any support to the intensive pig &poultry industry.
It's also not relevant to the topic, but I suppose it feeds Jeffs ego to make it all about him again.

 

[Saul Goodman]

Over 7.3 Billion animals (not including insects) are killed in the US each year to grow vegetables.

https://r.jordan.im/download/ethics/fischer2018.pdf

PETA, Plant Based News and Sentient Media even admit it but try to dismiss it with the usual whataboutery
...

 

[bcuster]

Over 7.3 Billion animals (not including insects) are killed in the US each year to grow vegetables.

https://r.jordan.im/download/ethics/fischer2018.pdf

PETA, Plant Based News and Sentient Media even admit it but try to dismiss it with the usual whataboutery
...

That article is about vermin death.

 

[Saul Goodman]

That article is about vermin death.

Ah... so you get to decide which animals are worthy to stay alive? Glad that's settled.