Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Opinion: "The End of Meat Is Here" - NY Times

And intensive farming and factory farming helps how exactly? Because that's how the majority of meat is produced in this country. Is that essential too?
No it's not FFS most grazing in the UK is done in fields or on hillsides. :facepalm:
 
No it's not FFS most grazing in the UK is done in fields or on hillsides. :facepalm:
Over 70% of farm animals in the UK are kept in factory farms, where they spend their lives in overcrowded barns or cages.



Nearly 800 mega-farms
Our investigation has also shown the UK is now home to at least 789 mega-farms or what the US calls CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations).

To meet the definition of a Cafo, a facility must have at least 125,000 broilers (chickens raised for meat), or 82,000 layers (hens which produce eggs) or pullets (chickens used for breeding), or 2,500 pigs, 700 dairy cattle or 1,000 beef cattle.

The majority of the UK mega-farms - 575 - are poultry, with 190 pig, 21 dairy and 3 beef units.

Seven of the 10 largest poultry farms - producing meat or eggs or both - in the UK have the capacity to house more than one million birds. The biggest two farms are able to hold 1.7 million and 1.4 million birds respectively. The biggest pig farm is able to hold 23,000 pigs, while the largest cattle farm - in Lincolnshire - can house approximately 3,000 cattle.
 
Using that same logic you could argue that rape seed is grown primarily for animal feed because the majority is fed to animals after the oil has been extracted. It's false logic.

My personal opinion is that canola shouldn't be fed to humans. Its only been through intensive breeding that they were able to develop a variety of rape seed that contained less erucic acid. It didn't enter the human food chain in large amounts until about 1974. Before that it was used as lamp oil in the middle ages and for industrial lubricants in more recent times. It was marketers that changed the name to canola, and sold it to us as a "heart healthy food." While this variety contains less erucic acid than the original rape seed varieties, it still contains some. Many people still can't tolerate it, and I think its partly responsible for our high levels of food allergies now.
 
Last edited:





So, you are both right (you and wouldbe) - most pig and poultry is intensively reared (and as I said, the two sectors combined make up 80% of all meat consumption in the UK). A minority of beef is intensively finished, and most of that will have spent most of its life grazing.
No sheep are in intensive systems (that I'm aware of) in the UK.
 
So, you are both right - most pig and poultry is intensively reared (and as I said, the two sectors combined make up 80% of all meat consumption in the UK). A minority of beef is intensively finished, and most of that will have spent most of its life grazing.
No sheep are in intensive systems (that I'm aware of) in the UK.
Wow. This weird denial really is running out of control. Why are you suddenly singling out sheep when the conversation has been about all meat production?
 
So, you are both right (you and wouldbe) - most pig and poultry is intensively reared (and as I said, the two sectors combined make up 80% of all meat consumption in the UK). A minority of beef is intensively finished, and most of that will have spent most of its life grazing.
No sheep are in intensive systems (that I'm aware of) in the UK.

You're really missing a point here. You simply can't consume meat at our current levels without factory farming and its adverse environmental effects, inhumane effect on animals, and bad health outcomes for humans.
 
Wow. This weird denial really is running out of control. Why are you suddenly singling out sheep when the conversation has been about all meat production?

Im answering both your points about animals in intensive systems.

I don't know where you got "denial" from the phrase "you're both right".....
 
You're really missing a point here. You simply can't consume meat at our current levels without factory farming and its adverse environmental effects, inhumane effect on animals, and bad health outcomes for humans.

No, you appear to be missing the point, because if you read my posts, I've agreed that a reduction in consumption wouldn't be a bad thing.

I disagreed with two notions:
1) That the replacement of meat with highly processed plant and synthetic foods was a "good thing" (as per the article posted in the OP) and
2) That a reduction in meat consumption will stop deforestation for soya and/or will intrinsically lead to positive environmental outcomes.

In my opinion, the only way to ensure positive outcomes for the environment and the climate is to tackle the supermarkets relentless pursuit of market share, which goes hand in hand with high throughput, low margin systems and the agrifood supply chain.

At the same time, industries that are far worse polluters (but seem to have a much better PR machine) ought to be tackled. The notion that BP, for example can be green, simply because it plants a load of trees is absurd, yet it seems people swallow it.
 
Wow. This weird denial really is running out of control. Why are you suddenly singling out sheep when the conversation has been about all meat production?
Except the conversation at the time you jumped in was about animals maintaining habitats creating bio diversity something that chickens and pigs don't do.
 
At the same time, industries that are far worse polluters (but seem to have a much better PR machine) ought to be tackled. The notion that BP, for example can be green, simply because it plants a load of trees is absurd, yet it seems people swallow it.
And here we go again. Denial and deflection. Sigh.

Literally NO ONE in this thread has supported or advocated your strawman deluxe claim about BP being green because it plants trees, so why even mention it?
And I'll think you'll find the meat industry has quite formidable PR too, although this article from Ireland really sums up how desperate some are becoming:
 
At the same time, industries that are far worse polluters (but seem to have a much better PR machine) ought to be tackled. The notion that BP, for example can be green, simply because it plants a load of trees is absurd, yet it seems people swallow it.

That's pretty well out of left field and certainly a derail. No one is arguing that the energy sector won't have to be tackled too. Climate change is an "all hands on deck" situation similar to WWII. We're going to have to make massive changes in the very near future to avoid the worst aspects of it. Personally, I think collapse is inevitable because we aren't willing to make even small changes, but you have to try. Changing our meat consumption is just one of the many things we'll have to do to reach carbon neutrality. This thread is further proof that we won't do it.
 
Last edited:
And here we go again. Denial and deflection. Sigh.

Literally NO ONE in this thread has supported or advocated your strawman deluxe claim about BP being green because it plants trees, so why even mention it?
And I'll think you'll find the meat industry has quite formidable PR too, although this article from Ireland really sums up how desperate some are becoming:

I wasn't using it as a strawman, I was using it as an example of another "just do this one easy thing" climate "fix" to illustrate my point, which was that management of the environment is actually fairly complex and sustainable solutions will depend on where on the globe you are.

Im surprised that it's taken agriculture so long to realise that it actually needs some PR, to be fair - the vegan lobby has been using PR to spread lies about agriculture for years (my particular favourite was PETA's advert implying that shearing sheep involves skinning them alive)....
 
That's pretty well out of left field and certainly a derail. No one is arguing that the energy sector won't have to be tackled too. Climate change is an "all hands on deck" situation similar to WWII. We're going to have to make massive changes in the very near future to avoid the worst aspects of it. Personally, I think collapse is inevitable because aren't willing to make even small changes, but you have to try. Changing our meat consumption is just one of the many things we'll have to do to reach carbon neutrality. This thread is further proof that we won't do it.
The meat eaters won't give up, they'll eat 'long pig' kebabs amidst the ruins
 
That's pretty well out of left field and certainly a derail. No one is arguing that the energy sector won't have to be tackled too. Climate change is an "all hands on deck" situation similar to WWII. We're going to have to make massive changes in the very near future to avoid the worst aspects of it. Personally, I think collapse is inevitable because we aren't willing to make even small changes, but you have to try. Changing our meat consumption is just one of the many things we'll have to do to reach carbon neutrality. This thread is further proof that we won't do it.
You could help reach carbon neutrality by using bio fuels instead of fossil fuels but that would mean growing even more crops like soy and rape. :(
 
They can, but generally they are no longer used in this way.

I wasn't thinking about improving the soil I was thinking about keeping plants in check. There are quite a few rare plants grow in the Derbyshire dales that wouldn't be there if not for the sheep grazing the hillsides.
 
Did the end of meat come and go then? I think I missed it.

The decline of red meat in America (msnbc.com)

Per capita meat consumption in the US has been steadily declining. Its down a full 50 pounds since 1970, red meat accounts for half of that. You regularly see meat alternatives on the menu in even Burger King and McDonalds, not that I'm advocating for fast food. That large of a change takes time.
 
Last edited:
I wasn't thinking about improving the soil I was thinking about keeping plants in check. There are quite a few rare plants grow in the Derbyshire dales that wouldn't be there if not for the sheep grazing the hillsides.
There'd also be shit loads more wildlife around if it wasn't for large scale meat production and the industrial farming methods needed to sustain factory farming.

 
There'd also be shit loads more wildlife around if it wasn't for large scale meat production and the industrial farming methods needed to sustain factory farming.

The increase in wild flowers due to sheep grazing leads to an increase in insects that feed off them and hence an increase in birds that feed off the insects. So meat production can lead to an increase in wildlife. Also letting sheep graze on hillsides keeps the bracken down which would rapidly take over which AFAIK is no use for anything.

If you let cows graze you get hay meadows which again results in more wildlife not less.
 
Back
Top Bottom