Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Industrial animal farming has caused most new infectious diseases and risks more pandemics, experts warn

Status
Not open for further replies.
I once worked in a factory that processed pigs. If the pigs had cancer the meat was kind of like a green toothpaste but not quite as pleasant smelling. It wasn't cut out, just blasted with a high pressure washer until you could see the frilly uncancered tendrils at the edges and then it was sent off to be processed.

Mmmmm, cancer meat.
 
And what are your suggestions for dealing with capitalism?
Strong independent unions would be a start, and hopefully a general strike, we haven't had one in about 100 years. A strong worker's movement that could seize infrastructure/the means of production and distribution and empower the working class.
 
Strong independent unions would be a start, and hopefully a general strike, we haven't had one in about 100 years. A strong worker's movement that could seize infrastructure/the means of production and distribution and empower the working class.

Id fucking love to see a massive workers strike at Amazon.
 
I once worked in a factory that processed pigs. If the pigs had cancer the meat was kind of like a green toothpaste but not quite as pleasant smelling. It wasn't cut out, just blasted with a high pressure washer until you could see the frilly uncancered tendrils at the edges and then it was sent off to be processed.

Mmmmm, cancer meat.

When was this?
I regularly take students to more than one abattoir and I've found meat inspectors to be pretty zealous in condemning carcasses.

However, I'm not sure on the regs, so not sure if tumours mean that you have to condemn the whole carcase....
 
I once worked in a factory that processed pigs. If the pigs had cancer the meat was kind of like a green toothpaste but not quite as pleasant smelling. It wasn't cut out, just blasted with a high pressure washer until you could see the frilly uncancered tendrils at the edges and then it was sent off to be processed.

Mmmmm, cancer meat.
That is disgusting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bmd
Clearly wikipedia, or that particular page, isn't a great 'source', but I only had about 5 mins to find something and I spent most of that time looking at that page.
I'd be interested to know what you think about the rest of what I posted,
You've admitted that your research consists of 5 minutes on Wikipedia, trying to find something that fits your narative, then posting it as fact. 5 minutes on Wikipedia would 'prove' that The moon is made of cheese.
The links you provided don't even seem to lead to anything that supports your assertion, and even if they did, you're referencing a bank! Wouldn't you be better off using figures from, oh, I don't know, maybe scientists?
Why on earth would anyone even bother reading the rest of what you posted, when you've already admitted that your research is based on articles you've pulled off random websites, and quotes from Wikipedia?
 
You've admitted that your research consists of 5 minutes on Wikipedia, trying to find something that fits your narative, then posting it as fact. 5 minutes on Wikipedia would 'prove' that The moon is made of cheese.
The links you provided don't even seem to lead to anything that supports your assertion, and even if they did, you're referencing a bank! Wouldn't you be better off using figures from, oh, I don't know, maybe scientists?
Why on earth would anyone even bother reading the rest of what you posted, when you've already admitted that your research is based on articles you've pulled off random websites, and quotes from Wikipedia?
I was refering to the other stuff I posted (the stuff that is in the podcast that is also typed up on this thread). Or haven't you bothered to read it?
 
Last edited:
You've admitted that your research consists of 5 minutes on Wikipedia, trying to find something that fits your narative, then posting it as fact. 5 minutes on Wikipedia would 'prove' that The moon is made of cheese.
The links you provided don't even seem to lead to anything that supports your assertion, and even if they did, you're referencing a bank! Wouldn't you be better off using figures from, oh, I don't know, maybe scientists?
Why on earth would anyone even bother reading the rest of what you posted, when you've already admitted that your research is based on articles you've pulled off random websites, and quotes from Wikipedia?
Here I'll post it again Total global agricultural land footprint associated with UK food supply 1986–2011 presumably so you can just ignore it again.

Why the fuck did you ask me to post that document posted in parts, above, if you are not even going to bother reading it?! Yet again it's a fucking waste of time and effort with you people and I suspect you're just trolling really.
 
So, wilfull ignorance on your part then. I did suspect posting all that for you was a complete waste of time!
Do you not see the irony in this, when your 'facts' consist of the first wiki page you can find that loosely supports your narative?
If parts can be randomly picked from the text you posted, and torn to pieces, why would anyone bother investing the time to read the rest of it? I'm not a teacher, marking an essay.
 
If you're fine with eating cancerous animals, enjoy.
Animals die with all sorts of parasites - liver fluke for example, means the liver will be condemned, even though if you cooked the liver, it'd be safe to eat.
I'd happily eat the rest of that animal, or it's a waste of a life.
 
Here I'll post it again Total global agricultural land footprint associated with UK food supply 1986–2011 presumably so you can just ignore it again.

Why the fuck did you ask me to post that document posted in parts, above, if you are not even going to bother reading it?! Yet again it's a fucking waste of time and effort with you people and I suspect you're just trolling really.
What was the point of this reference?
Land use associated with UK ag is decreasing (according to that source).
Is that somehow a bad thing?
 
What’s the relevance of the land footprint? Vast amounts of hill land in Snowdonia is given over to sheep rearing. Nobody lives there, it’s unsuitable for arable farming and the sheep actually serve a useful and sustainable role in stopping the hills from being taken over by forest, thus allowing for the biodiversity of heathland. So how is this a problem?
 
What’s the relevance of the land footprint? Vast amounts of hill land in Snowdonia is given over to sheep rearing. Nobody lives there, it’s unsuitable for arable farming and the sheep actually serve a useful and sustainable role in stopping the hills from being taken over by forest, thus allowing for the biodiversity of heathland. So how is this a problem?
Why's that such a desirable thing?

Yet the places from which much of our wildlife has been disappearing fastest are almost uninhabited. Two friends of mine once walked for six days across the Cambrian Mountains in mid-Wales, and did not see another human being. Yet there is scarcely any wildlife either. Cross that bleak plateau and you will see plenty of moorgrass, some tormentil and moss, a few crows, perhaps the odd pipit and skylark, but almost nothing else, except sodding sheep. The hills have been grazed to destruction.

The Cambrians are worse than most places, but there's a similar story to be told in almost all the uplands of Britain: Dartmoor, Exmoor, the Black Mountains, the Brecon Beacons, Snowdonia, the Shropshire Hills, the Peak District, the Pennines, the Forest of Bowland, the Dales, the North York moors, the Lake District, the Cheviots, the Southern Uplands and the Highlands. The desertification of our uplands, in common with most of our wildlife losses, has nothing to do with population pressure and everything to do with farming.

 
And:

Deep vegetation on the hills absorbs rain when it falls and releases it gradually, delivering a steady supply of water to the lowlands. When grazing prevents trees and shrubs from growing, and when the small sharp hooves of sheep compact the soil, rain flashes off the hills, causing floods downstream. When the floods abate, water levels fall rapidly. Upland grazing, in other words, contributes to a cycle of flood and drought. This restricts the productivity of more fertile lands downstream, both drowning them and depriving them of irrigation water. Given the remarkably low output in the upland areas of Britain, it is within the range of possibility that hill farming creates a net loss of food.


Sheep have reduced most of our uplands to bowling greens with contours. Only the merest remnants of life persist. Spend two hours sitting in a bushy suburban garden and you are likely to see more birds and of a greater range of species than in walking five miles across almost any part of the British uplands. The land has been sheepwrecked.

 
When was this?
I regularly take students to more than one abattoir and I've found meat inspectors to be pretty zealous in condemning carcasses.

However, I'm not sure on the regs, so not sure if tumours mean that you have to condemn the whole carcase....

2003 - 4.

Eta: meat inspectors that work full time in the abattoir? I never saw one but that's not to say there weren't any, more that I didn't have them in mind when it came to handling the flesh.

The big issue at that time was safety. That was drilled into us. Hygiene was up there too with footwear, gloves and aprons but the main thing with the meat was using every single piece of every part.
 
Last edited:
What’s the relevance of the land footprint? Vast amounts of hill land in Snowdonia is given over to sheep rearing. Nobody lives there, it’s unsuitable for arable farming and the sheep actually serve a useful and sustainable role in stopping the hills from being taken over by forest, thus allowing for the biodiversity of heathland. So how is this a problem?
Cuckula's summary actually went into this and said using that sort of unsuitable land for meat would be beneficial along with animals that eat waste products naming pigs.
 
What was the point of this reference?
Land use associated with UK ag is decreasing (according to that source).
Is that somehow a bad thing?
I'm guessing because of the bottom two points in the highlights.
85% of the UK’s total land footprint is associated with animal products.


Only 48% of total protein and 32% of total calories derive from animal products.

The abstract also seems to indicate that the decreased land use is down to less meat from ruminants.

Eta I'll read the rest at point. Still working through so of the sources on the forestatlas piece you posted.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom