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

[Funky_monks]

Just when I thought that the 'it's better to give up veg than beef' comment wouldn't ever be bettered, you've now come up with this truly ludicrous conspiracy, fact-free theory!

You don't think that the Guardian and The Independent are organs of Capitalists?

All the big processors are investing in meat free meat - as did channel 4 Meatless Farm secure major investment from Channel 4

 

[editor]

You don't think that the Guardian and The Independent are organs of Capitalists?

I think your conspiracy theory is utter bollocks.

All the big processors are investing in meat free meat - as did channel 4 Meatless Farm secure major investment from Channel 4

So is this your proof of a conspiracy? Of course dairy farms/meat producers are going to diversify into non-meat products because they're simply following consumer demand.

In fact, loads of farmers - big and small - have already switched from dairy milk to non-dairy products like oat milk, and that's a total win for the environment.

Why Struggling Dairy Farmers Are Transitioning to Vegan Milk Production

Could a shift to plant-based milk be the saving grace for the dying dairy industry? Plant-based dairy company Miyoko's Creamery says yes.

www.livekindly.co

Former Dairy Farmers Can't Face Killing Cows: Switch To Oat Milk Instead

Bradley Nook Farm used to produce dairy and then organic beef. But owner Jay Wilde could no longer face slaughtering cows

plantbasednews.org

 

[Funky_monks]

I think your conspiracy theory is utter bollocks.

So is this your proof of a conspiracy? Of course dairy farms/meat producers are going to diversify into non-meat products because they're simply following consumer demand.

In fact, loads of farmers - big and small - have already switched from dairy milk to non-dairy products like oat milk, and that's a total win for the environment.

Why Struggling Dairy Farmers Are Transitioning to Vegan Milk Production

Could a shift to plant-based milk be the saving grace for the dying dairy industry? Plant-based dairy company Miyoko's Creamery says yes.

www.livekindly.co

Former Dairy Farmers Can't Face Killing Cows: Switch To Oat Milk Instead

Bradley Nook Farm used to produce dairy and then organic beef. But owner Jay Wilde could no longer face slaughtering cows

plantbasednews.org

I didn't say it was a conspiracy - you did. Its marketing as far as I'm concerned. In the past they were marketing highly processed meat, but the bottom has fallen out of that market.

Farmers are not the processors - in fact farmers are something of an annoyance to them (chicken aside). Your article makes no sense by the way - are they growing the oats or processing oats grown elsewhere? Dairy ground generally would make shite cropping ground, so they must be very lucky.

 

[editor]

I didn't say it was a conspiracy - you did. Its marketing as far as I'm concerned. In the past they were marketing highly processed meat, but the bottom has fallen out of that market.

Err, that's exactly what you implied with your mad post.

 

[Funky_monks]

Err, that's exactly what you implied with your mad post.

Nope - Marketing involves the press, unless you don't know how that works....

 

[editor]

Nope - Marketing involves the press, unless you don't know how that works....

And the stuff about 'they' wanting to sell us 'ultra processed foods' and it being 'lucrative for the healthcare industries' as the 'NHS slides into the history books'?

Why are you linking all these random elements together in the same paragraph?

 

[8ball]

Ultra-processed foods and for-profit healthcare?
My, what bizarrely random and far-flung concepts to draw a connection between....

 

[Magnus McGinty]

The elephant in the room is, as I stated in my original reply, over population.

It doesn't matter what the ever increasing population eats, there are just too many of us.

You can't ignore consumption either. How much pollutants does the average POTUS expend vs a child in slum housing?
So the danger, Malthus, is that the rich clear the slums to maintain their lifestyles. There's a war coming anyway.

 

[krtek a houby]

You can't ignore consumption either. How much pollutants does the average POTUS expend vs a child in slum housing?
So the danger, Malthus, is that the rich clear the slums to maintain their lifestyles. There's a war coming anyway.

Heard that. Lots and lots of wars, depending on who you're reading/following/listening to.

The China/Taiwan/Japan war. The NK/SK war. The US civil war 2. The Ireland war. The UK war. The revolutions war(s). The resources war(s). The race war(s), etc.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

Heard that. Lots and lots of wars, depending on who you're reading/following/listening to.

The China/Taiwan/Japan war. The NK/SK war. The US civil war 2. The Ireland war. The UK war. The revolutions war(s). The resources war(s). The race war(s), etc.

Well there's stuff brewing with Russia and the West and China and the West. Which will probably put paid to some of the others as Nationalism becomes centre stage once again.

 

[krtek a houby]

Well there's stuff brewing with Russia and the West and China and the West. Which will probably put paid to some of the others as Nationalism becomes centre stage once again.

That's a lot of soldiers to feed/clothe. Can't see them all taking the vegetarian/vegan option.

 

[Funky_monks]

Person on the internet: "The science is unequivocal, The science says...."
Scientist who's field it is: "No it isn't" shows some peer reviewed papers
Person on the Internet: "Yes it is" shows lots of press articles based around the work of the same two scientists (Poore and Nimeck)

This is literally where we are with this debate

 

[krtek a houby]

Certainly plenty to chew over.

 

[editor]

Person on the internet: "The science is unequivocal, The science says...."
Scientist who's field it is: "No it isn't" shows some peer reviewed papers
Person on the Internet: "Yes it is" shows lots of press articles based around the work of the same two scientists (Poore and Nimeck)

This is literally where we are with this debate

Do you disagree that the overwhelming scientific consensus is that red meat consumption must go down?

Or are you still sticking with your wild conspiracy theories and the notion that people would be better off giving up veg than beef?

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Person on the internet: "The science is unequivocal, The science says...."
Scientist who's field it is: "No it isn't" shows some peer reviewed papers
Person on the Internet: "Yes it is" shows lots of press articles based around the work of the same two scientists (Poore and Nimeck)

This is literally where we are with this debate

This coming from the guy who got Euros and carbon emissions mixed up in woeful misreading of a graph he submitted as evidence. You have consistently exposed yourself as having the moral and intellectual integrity of a flat-earther or anti-vaxxer.

 

[Funky_monks]

Do you disagree that the overwhelming scientific consensus is that red meat consumption must go down?

Or are you still sticking with your wild conspiracy theories and the notion that people would be better off giving up veg than beef?

I didn't say that did I?
I pointed to a graph. My opinion comes after the bit where I write "I think that...." just to clarify.
The consensus is far from that - Poore and Nemeck think that, and it is their few papers that spawned almost all your lay press articles.

Since you want to go down this route- do you admit to either lying or just making stuff up when you said that meat was "heavily subsidised" and veg was not?

 

[Funky_monks]

This coming from the guy who got Euros and carbon emissions mixed up in woeful misreading of a graph he submitted as evidence. You have consistently exposed yourself as having the moral and intellectual integrity of a flat-earther or anti-vaxxer.

See my post - cut and pasted the wrong graph. This doesn't negate the reams of peer reviewed stuff I've posted prior, in spite of that.

 

[editor]

I didn't say that did I?
I pointed to a graph. My opinion comes after the bit where I write "I think that...." just to clarify.
The consensus is far from that - Poore and Nemeck think that, and it is their few papers that spawned almost all your lay press articles.

Since you want to go down this route- do you admit to either lying or just making stuff up when you said that meat was "heavily subsidised" and veg was not?

And what you said was very clear and I really can't be arsed trying to keep up with your dancing about, denials, barking claims and off-the-wall conspiracy theories.

 

[Funky_monks]

And what you said was very clear and I really can't be arsed trying to keep up with your dancing about, denials, barking claims and off-the-wall conspiracy theories.

So, you're admitting you didn't read my post.

How about your making shit up to suit you?

 

[editor]

So, you're admitting you didn't read my post.

Again:

And what you said was very clear and I really can't be arsed trying to keep up with your dancing about, denials, barking claims and off-the-wall conspiracy theories.

It's not my fault you post up such utter nonsense, but I'm done arguing with someone who's like the Jehovah's Witness of meat.

 

[Funky_monks]

Again:
It's not my fault you post up such utter nonsense, but I'm done arguing with someone who's like the Jehovah's Witness of meat.

So, apart from the one cut and paste error on a graph, which of my peer reviewed sources are nonsense please?

You still haven't addressed your lying about subsidies

 

[butcher]

You can't ignore consumption either. How much pollutants does the average POTUS expend vs a child in slum housing?
So the danger, Malthus, is that the rich clear the slums to maintain their lifestyles. There's a war coming anyway.

Do tell o soothsayer.....and while your at give me some lottery numbers! TBF there is always a war but if you are privvy to the plans for a big new one I am all ears.....

Yes, Malthusian theory is simplistic but then meat bad veg good is reducto in absurdam too.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

See my post - cut and pasted the wrong graph. This doesn't negate the reams of peer reviewed stuff I've posted prior, in spite of that.

So, your back up is the 'Our World in Data' breakdown of emissions by sector. If you read the text accompanying that graph it rather undermines your efforts to minimise the environmental impact of animal agriculture. I've highlighted the relevant portions in red:

Rice cultivation (1.3%): flooded paddy fields produce methane through a process called ‘anaerobic digestion’. Organic matter in the soil is converted to methane due to the low-oxygen environment of water-logged rice fields. 1.3% seems substantial, but it’s important to put this into context: rice accounts for around one-fifth of the world’s supply of calories, and is a staple crop for billions of people globally.

Agricultural soils (4.1%): Nitrous oxide – a strong greenhouse gas – is produced when synthetic nitrogen fertilizers are applied to soils. This includes emissions from agricultural soils for all agricultural products – including food for direct human consumption, animal feed, biofuels and other non-food crops (such as tobacco and cotton).

Livestock & manure (5.8%): animals (mainly ruminants, such as cattle and sheep) produce greenhouse gases through a process called ‘enteric fermentation’ – when microbes in their digestive systems break down food, they produce methane as a by-product. This means beef and lamb tend to have a high carbon footprint, and eating less is an effective way to reduce the emissions of your diet.

Nitrous oxide and methane can be produced from the decomposition of animal manures under low oxygen conditions. This often occurs when large numbers of animals are managed in a confined area (such as dairy farms, beef feedlots, and swine and poultry farms), where manure is typically stored in large piles or disposed of in lagoons and other types of manure management systems ‘Livestock’ emissions here include direct emissions from livestock only – they do not consider impacts of land use change for pasture or animal feed.

Emissions by sector: where do greenhouse gases come from?

Where do greenhouse gases come from? How much comes from electricity, transport, and land use?

ourworldindata.org

 

[WouldBe]

So, your back up is the 'Our World in Data' breakdown of emissions by sector. If you read the text accompanying that graph it rather undermines your efforts to minimise the environmental impact of animal agriculture. I've highlighted the relevant portions in red:

Emissions by sector: where do greenhouse gases come from?

Where do greenhouse gases come from? How much comes from electricity, transport, and land use?

ourworldindata.org

You might want to have another look at that.

5.8% from livestock

4.1% from agricultural soils
1.3% from rice prod
3.5% from crop burning
1.4% from cropland
10.3% total from crops.

 

[editor]

So, apart from the one cut and paste error on a graph, which of my peer reviewed sources are nonsense please?

You still haven't addressed your lying about subsidies

It's not me making up nonsense claims and absolutely bonkers conspiracy theories.

Currently, British farmers receive £3.4 billion a year in subsidies under the EU Common Agricultural Policy. Controversially, the subsidies are based on how much land a farmer owns and not on how much they produce. To mention a few specific examples, British dairy farmers obtain over £56 million in EU direct payments which make up almost 40% of their annual profits. Lowland and upland livestock farmers receive about £38 million in subsidies which make up over 90% of their annual profits!

A sheep farmer from North York Moors national park in northern England, who owns about 700 sheep over 1,250 acres, makes around £12,000 profit in a good year, and even this small income would be impossible without subsidies worth about £44,000 from the EU Common Agricultural Policy.

In comparison, farmers growing cereals obtain about £40 million in EU direct payments (equivalent to almost 80% of their annual profit) but half of the cereals, pulses and oil crops are used for animal feed meaning that about £20 million of the subsidies for cereals are still for the livestock and dairy industry. And for fruit farms, the basic payment scheme only makes up roughly 10% of their annual profit (2014-2015).

UK farming subsidies and Brexit explained — Surge | Creative Non-Profit for Animal Rights

Following on from our recent video on subsidies - Why a cheeseburger can cost less than fruit - Surge project manager Tatiana von Rheinbaben delves deeper into UK farming subsidies pre- and post-Brexit.

www.surgeactivism.org

Every year the EU hands out billions in subsidies to Europe's meat and dairy industries. These direct subsidies make up the vast bulk of EU agricultural subsidies, which eat up 40% of the European budget, dwarfing the UK's net contribution. The UK also chooses to put meat and dairy on a par with healthier, more sustainable and more morally defensible foods by allowing them to be sold at 0% VAT.

Meat and dairy farming is inherently inefficient and eats up around 70% of the grain production of industrialised countries.

Sign the Petition

End Subsidies for the UK Meat and Dairy Industries

www.change.org

 

[WouldBe]

Did we rejoin the EU after we brexited?

 

[Funky_monks]

It's not me making up nonsense claims and absolutely bonkers conspiracy theories.

UK farming subsidies and Brexit explained — Surge | Creative Non-Profit for Animal Rights

Following on from our recent video on subsidies - Why a cheeseburger can cost less than fruit - Surge project manager Tatiana von Rheinbaben delves deeper into UK farming subsidies pre- and post-Brexit.

www.surgeactivism.org

I literally explained that in my post.

You said: veg was not subsidised and meat was.

I explained how subs work and therefore that extensive beef and sheep attract subs, whilst generally pig does not and poultry certainly doesn't (chicken sheds are not big enough to quality for BPS).
Pig and poultry make up 80% of the meat eaten in the UK.

Extensive veg certainly attracts a lot of subsidy as do combinable crops (cereals oilseeds)

So, plant foods are very heavily subsidised unless intensive polytunnel stuff.

Of course the extensive livestock industry attracted more money gross on an area based payments system, much less land in the UK is croppable.
Agricultural land use in the UK:

 

[Funky_monks]

Did we rejoin the EU after we brexited?

No.
BPS is being phased out. It will be replaced by ELMS which is for environmental works only, as per the "stewardship" schemes prior to BREXIT.

The combinable crops sector is in something of a panic about this as the wheat price hasn't really risen in real terms since the 90s, whereas the cost of diesel and fertiliser has. Expect grains to get a hell of a lot more expensive once it goes.

 

[Funky_monks]

This "extreme combining" is about the max gradient a combine can cope with IF the soil is sufficiently good to support crops.

How much land in the UK is steeper than that?

You'd have to be really really careful how you cultivated on that slope if you didn't want to lose all the soil downhill if it rained, so on my opinion is a bit irresponsible. Soils are critical in carbon sequestration.

 

[butcher]

Funky_monks Nice to see you are making it simple enough for the townies to grasp