Meat eaters are destroying the planet, warns WWF report

[two sheds]

I think it's useful to be clear on what they're right about. I think they have good points on a few things, mostly immediate practical things. Some of the 'philosophy' leads to some weird places imo, and the stance towards some fairly benign questions can grate a bit (on the internet, specifically).

I do agree that among those little things we can do as individuals, eating less meat is a good choice for anyone concerned about the environment.

With any ideas I'm interested in, I like to pick at them a bit to see how well they stand up. It's not like veg*ns are a unique group in not necessarily liking this. I get called all manner of things by certain fellow lefties for not toeing the line at times ("libertarian" being one of them, which doesn't bother me when the word is being misused, but that's another argument).

If you take something like veganism per se, you have a pretty overarching philosophy that partly hinges on being uncompromising. That can lead to a little spikiness, but respect people that examine their values and incorporate them into how they live.

Ramble over...

I also have an innate smugness in that I don't have kids and am now particularly with coronavirus not likely ever to

 

[8ball]

You are missing the point here with your subtleties and complex discussions which is to repeat Eat Less Meat ad nauseam.

Though I think that needs to play into things if the meat that is eaten is to be considered properly in terms of assorted impacts. In the global sense.

 

[8ball]

I also have an innate smugness in that I don't have kids and am now particularly with coronavirus not likely ever to

Coronavirus has made you infertile?

(apologies if being thick/insensitive)

 

[two sheds]

Nope, I'm just not going out any more

Also 66 so even if I were to go out it's not all that likely - it's a long term ambition that I've actually (as far as I know) succeeded in.

 

[butcher]

Aha you're actually a butcher then are you - confusing

Like in the day time,the rest of the time I am a Dad, teach Martial arts, brew home brew, roll up my trouser legs, all manner of stuff which doesn't define me.....but yeah you got me, it's the day job.

Out of interest do you sell garden shelters?

 

[8ball]

Nope, I'm just not going out any more

Also 66 so even if I were to go out it's not all that likely - it's a long term ambition that I've actually (as far as I know) succeeded in.

I have a half-memory of a 90-year old man fathering a child recently.
I am making an assumption here, obviously.

 

[Funky_monks]

Bit of both looks like FM - mainly soil depletion as you say, also "new varieties of crops that provide greater yield, pest resistance and climate adaptability" rather than nutrient value

Dirt Poor: Have Fruits and Vegetables Become Less Nutritious?

Because of soil depletion, crops grown decades ago were much richer in vitamins and minerals than the varieties most of us get today

www.scientificamerican.com

Consider vast swathes of the USAs cropping land used to be prairie who's fertility was built on the backs (or arses) of millions of large, distinctly cattle-like ruminants....

 

[8ball]

Like in the day time,the rest of the time I am a Dad, teach Martial arts, brew home brew, roll up my trouser legs, all manner of stuff which doesn't define me.....but yeah you got me, it's the day job.

Although you are rare in the accuracy of your username. And your choice does imply a degree of self-definition in your choice.

My choice merely indicates a momentary blankness when thinking of a username.

 

[Poot]

It very much depends on where you live.
The debate seems to have very much been hijacked with "global" emissions/solutions etc, when the reality is that the earths landmass is very far from homogenous.

In the UK (and analogues like NZ for example) we have high fertility environments which are quite resilient (as opposed to brittle) - good soils, no extremes of temp, predictable and reasonably constant rain, so there is a (not unreasonable) argument that we should be producing far more food than we do.

In reality here, with environmental schemes taking land out of production (without wishing to get into the folly of tree planting bonanzas as a "cure all" solution), what it's looking like is that upland areas will become less and less farmed (although how we will plant trees above the treeline is reasonably baffling), it will look like more "holistically" managed lowlands (direct drilling, ruminants on arable to replace chemical fertilisers). There will be a big part to play for livestock that can convert things we have grown that aren't edible (grass, crop by-products (such as most of a pea/bean plant), grain unsuitable for milling etc) so ruminants fitting the bill on both counts (fertility and by products) and poultry for both the properties of it's manure and eating grain unfit for human consumption.

Interesting, but you talk about taking land out of production and surely it could be viewed as a necessary part of rotation and the rotation takes longer? And when you talk about crops that aren't edible to humans, a huge amount of land is given for winter feed etc, which surely wouldn't be necessary if there was less livestock. Not to mention the huge amount of water that goes to eg dairy herds. Far more than an edible crop would take. You make it sound as though livestock are the only solution, but where you have grass and broad leaf pasture surely you could be growing all sorts of other things.

I agree about the tree planting. It's been totally fetishised.

 

[butcher]

Interesting, but you talk about taking land out of production and surely it could be viewed as a necessary part of rotation and the rotation takes longer? And when you talk about crops that aren't edible to humans, a huge amount of land is given for winter feed etc, which surely wouldn't be necessary if there was less livestock. Not to mention the huge amount of water that goes to eg dairy herds. Far more than an edible crop would take. You make it sound as though livestock are the only solution, but where you have grass and broad leaf pasture surely you could be growing all sorts of other things.

I agree about the tree planting. It's been totally fetishised.

Here's some stats for you https://assets.publishing.service.g...e/747210/structure-jun2018prov-UK-11oct18.pdf

 

[Funky_monks]

Interesting, but you talk about taking land out of production and surely it could be viewed as a necessary part of rotation and the rotation takes longer? And when you talk about crops that aren't edible to humans, a huge amount of land is given for winter feed etc, which surely wouldn't be necessary if there was less livestock. Not to mention the huge amount of water that goes to eg dairy herds. Far more than an edible crop would take. You make it sound as though livestock are the only solution, but where you have grass and broad leaf pasture surely you could be growing all sorts of other things.

I agree about the tree planting. It's been totally fetishised.

I talk about taking land out of production for tree planting etc - you can certainly include livestock in arable rotation which takes longer.
Livestock are the only solution if you want to avoid petrochemical fertilisers...

Most fodder crops are not edible by humans

Water use in dairy herds here is "green" water, ie falls from the sky and animals consume it locked up in plants and or drink it, so it forms part of the water cycle.

Water use is only a concern in brittle environments where it is not replenished/diverted from catchment/aquifers ("blue" water). The most notable offenders being almonds and avocados.

 

[8ball]

I agree about the tree planting. It's been totally fetishised.

I've had that feeling about it, but more of a feeling than anything.
Got anything more substantial I could look at?

 

[Poot]

I talk about taking land out of production for tree planting etc - you can certainly include livestock in arable rotation which takes longer.
Livestock are the only solution if you want to avoid petrochemical fertilisers...

Most fodder crops are not edible by humans

What land being taken for trees? Arable land? I wasn't aware that was happening. I've only seen it given over to wildflowers in my everyday experience, as part of BPS schemes. Which could eventually come back into rotation. I know that new companies are snapping up land for trees to make it easier for developers to plant trees and feel warm and fuzzy inside, but not usually farmland I thought. I could be wrong, though.

 

[Poot]

I've had that feeling about it, but more of a feeling than anything.
Got anything more substantial I could look at?

I'm back at work tomorrow. I've probably got something then.

 

[8ball]

I'm back at work tomorrow. I've probably got something then.

Cheers. You not WFH then? Or are you one of those proper grown-ups who knows how to set boundaries?

still tinkering with something here...

 

[Funky_monks]

What land being taken for trees? Arable land? I wasn't aware that was happening. I've only seen it given over to wildflowers in my everyday experience, as part of BPS schemes. Which could eventually come back into rotation. I know that new companies are snapping up land for trees to make it easier for developers to plant trees and feel warm and fuzzy inside, but not usually farmland I thought. I could be wrong, though.

Government is currently handing out massive tree planting grants to farmers.
Could be any land really and is likely to form part of ELMS

 

[editor]

Interestingly enough for the half of their life they have access to the outdoors (they wouldn't be sufficiently feathered up before then), half choose never to go outside.

I'd imagine because there's no aspect of their short lives that could be deemed particularly 'natural.'

 

[8ball]

I'd imagine because there's no aspect of their short lives that could be deemed particularly 'natural.'

You know a lot about chickens?

 

[two sheds]

You use that as a chat-up line don't you, admit it now.

 

[editor]

You know a lot about chickens?

I'd consider myself reasonably well informed on the practices of the chicken industry, yes. How about you?

Is there a particular point to this rather childish line of enquiry?

 

[8ball]

I'd consider myself reasonably well read on the practices of the chicken industry, yes. How about you?

Absolutely not in my case. Happy to learn.

Sorry - am watching Trump's address right now and am fucking livid - apologies if you got a bit of leakage there.

 

[editor]

Absolutely not in my case. Happy to learn.

Well this thread is already full of full links to interesting studies and articles.

The article from 2017 makes for grim reading, for example and of course there's plenty of recently documented cases of awful abuse on factory farms

A week ago a Guardian/ITV investigation showed chicken factory staff in the UK changing crucial food safety information on chickens, while a month ago the European commission admitted that eggs containing a harmful pesticide may have been on sale in as many as 16 countries.

In the US in August, meanwhile, campaigners identified the world’s largest ever “deadzone” – an area in the sea where pollutants from farms create algal blooms that kill off or disperse marine life – and singled out the US’s heavily industrialised factory farm system as a major cause.

Why factory farming is not just cruel – but also a threat to all life on the planet

It’s time the world woke up to the real impact of modern, industrial farming, says Philip Lymbery, author of Farmageddon and the Deadzone

www.theguardian.com

 

[8ball]

Well this thread is already full of full links to interesting studies and articles.

The article from 2017 makes for grim reading, for example and of course there's plenty of recently documented cases of awful abuse on factory farms

Thanks - will take a look. As mentioned in edit to post above, am more than a bit angry for other reasons right now.

 

[8ball]

. wrong thread

 

[TopCat]

1/10 for the feeble troll attempt there.

2/10 for this thread.

 

[Poot]

Cheers. You not WFH then? Or are you one of those proper grown-ups who knows how to set boundaries?

still tinkering with something here...

My work system is so fucking irritating to set up that I don't do it unless I have to

If it was just a case of leaving a tab open or something I'd be on it!

 

[Poot]

I've had that feeling about it, but more of a feeling than anything.
Got anything more substantial I could look at?

Okay here's something but it's pretty dry:

https://assets.publishing.service.g...ata/file/819823/net-gain-consult-sum-resp.pdf

You could try googling Biodiversity Net Gain. Basically an agreement is being made where a 10% increase in biodiversity is promised on development sites. But what that often looks like is 'do what the fuck we want and plant trees to make up for it'. And of course in a capitalist society people are already making money out of it. That's probably a cynical way of looking at it, though, and lots of people would tell you that it's brilliant.

 

[Funky_monks]

You know a lot about chickens?

I only spent a couple of years working for one of the UKs biggest producers of broilers, on the other hand.

 

[CNT36]

Okay here's something but it's pretty dry:

https://assets.publishing.service.g...ata/file/819823/net-gain-consult-sum-resp.pdf

You could try googling Biodiversity Net Gain. Basically an agreement is being made where a 10% increase in biodiversity is promised on development sites. But what that often looks like is 'do what the fuck we want and plant trees to make up for it'. And of course in a capitalist society people are already making money out of it. That's probably a cynical way of looking at it, though, and lots of people would tell you that it's brilliant.

There are also issues about the best types of trees to plant and where. There was some discussion about it when Ethiopia planted a stupid amount of trees in an afternoon or whatever. There were also a few pieces in New Scientist that when it came to emissions planting trees could often be worse than the grass etc that was there before. Whether this changed in the long term with growth and if this would eventually cancel out over a long period I'm not sure.

 

[Funky_monks]

There are also issues about the best types of trees to plant and where. There was some discussion about it when Ethiopia planted a stupid amount of trees in an afternoon or whatever. There were also a few pieces in New Scientist that when it came to emissions planting trees could often be worse than the grass etc that was there before. Whether this changed in the long term with growth and if this would eventually cancel out over a long period I'm not sure.

As far as I'm aware, the soil biota sequester a lot of carbon- this is very significant in ancient Woodlands where leaf fall should mean significant soil richness (hence why they are cut down). This, coupled with the (should be obvious) fact that trees take a long time to establish means that simply planting trees will have little impact for 10-15 years for the trees themselves.

Its incredibly easy to improve soils, especially in permanent pasture so that they are sequestering carbon, even with ruminants grazing them. The average 150 UK livestock farm sequesters something like 388 tonnes of carbon per annum (even accounting for diesel).