Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

there's no critical appraisal going into his selection of articles, it's just 'ha! this'll show 'em' without any thought given to the scope of the article, the methodology, etc.
People don't like to challenge their own irrational beliefs, in this case, any spurious guff is definitive scientific proof and all critical analysis must be suspended.

One of the things I've taken from this thread is that some people believe The Guardian newspaper to be a serious source of scientific information and that claims made by manufacturers about their products are to be believed wholesale if they fit in with your belief system.

These "good" capitalists will save us from all those nasty farmers...
 
Here's more info



More here:



This honestly says a lot less than you think it does... The last para there is probably the most important:

The researchers note several caveats to their findings, including the small sample sizes of the majority of the studies, and that the vegan diets varied substantially by carbohydrate, protein and fat content, and none of the studies prescribed a control diet that exactly matched the intervention diet in all other aspects except veganism. Therefore, the effects of vegan interventions on cardiometabolic health may partly be caused by differences in macronutrient composition and energy intake between the groups.

But in addition restrictive diets (whether that means vegan or full carnivore) tend to result in greater weight loss in the short term. This isn't really anything to do with the actual diet, more to do with having a much narrowed range of things to eat... What is relevant, if you want your metric to be weight loss (which also has its problems, more to follow), is how that is sustained long-term, which this study doesn't cover.

Weight loss itself is a pretty crap metric for health... It can be relevant of course, but you need to control any study to properly account for numerous factors, which this meta-analysis doesn't (and can't) do. The other metrics they talk about (blood sugar, cholesterol, LDLs) are arguably more useful, but the report on that analysis (and the authors themselves) says effects on these seem to be pretty negligible and may be accounted for by factors in the individual studies.

It's a pretty typical example of a paper that's interesting but with really fairly narrow scope being picked up by the media because it slots nicely into 'controversial issue of the day'.
 
Here's all those sources that you're dismissing out of hand because you apparently know better. No comment about the antibiotics either?
I am fully aware of what the sources were that’s why I mentioned the ones relevant to the paragraph you quoted. Copying out the lot was totally pointless. The relevant ones are 7, 8 and 9. 7 and 9 are, as I said, are dubious figures from the manufacturers. 8 may be decent research but the link goes to a 404 so it is impossible to tell. The article gives precisely zero information on the topic.

As for antibiotics, I already said I agreed with you on that but that it is a different subject. Once again you are not bothering to read what you post or reply to.

You can be as foul tempered and aggressive as you like, but it doesn’t help you advance your argument any more than learned articles on a different subject do.
 
Here, Monbiot says pastured organic meat is (even) worse for the environment than factory farming.

 
Last edited:
Apparently the ASA is none too convinced about the alleged environmental benefits of eating plant food... :D
Well that's not 'quite' what they say.
They 'say' that while it is generally accepted that the veggie option was better for the planet, tesco didn't know the exact process for some of the ingredients so could not technically make the claim. . . and quite right too.
It's also part of clampdown on corporations making exaggerated environmental claims . . . also a good thing.
 
Here, Monbiot says pastured organic meat is (even) worse for the environment than factory farming.


Yes, he has a new book out saying that all farming is bad and environmentally destructive and therefore the solution is not to farm anything at all (unless you are his veg growing mate - his veggies are apparently OK) and that in the future, to save the planet we should be eating food grown in industrial vats (there's those good capitalists again) so that the whole planet can be rewilded.
 
This has good stuff in it - gene editing sounds fuck up

As the bill on gene-edited food goes through parliament, Corporate Watch takes a look at the dystopian technologies in the UK dairy industry and on the horizon.​

In a new report, we explore the changing context - from the decline in milk consumption and the impact of Brexit, to the rise of the megadairies.​

And we examine the technofixes being sold in the perpetual quest for productivity and profit, with mini-profiles on leading companies in each area. These include robotised milking systems, gene editing, 'robot ready' cows, low-emission cows, shock collars, and more.​

Plus info on alternatives to the Dystopian Farm, and paths for resistance.​



If you don't have time to read the full article, why not check out our interactive infographic here: https://corporatewatch.org/D3/Cow

 
This has good stuff in it - gene editing sounds fuck up

As the bill on gene-edited food goes through parliament, Corporate Watch takes a look at the dystopian technologies in the UK dairy industry and on the horizon.​

In a new report, we explore the changing context - from the decline in milk consumption and the impact of Brexit, to the rise of the megadairies.​

And we examine the technofixes being sold in the perpetual quest for productivity and profit, with mini-profiles on leading companies in each area. These include robotised milking systems, gene editing, 'robot ready' cows, low-emission cows, shock collars, and more.​

Plus info on alternatives to the Dystopian Farm, and paths for resistance.​



If you don't have time to read the full article, why not check out our interactive infographic here: https://corporatewatch.org/D3/Cow

Such a filthy, indefensible industry

1655463119081.png
 
Yuk

Gene-edited hornless cattle are a clear example of how technofixes can be a means to profit from a “problem” that is itself manufactured by industry. In industrial agriculture, calves routinely have their horns removed with searing hot irons in a process known as “disbudding”. It’s an extremely painful and distressing procedure for the calf that can result in the animal losing consciousness. The rationale is to prevent cattle from injuring each other – and people – either during transportation or through their otherwise cramped and stressful conditions. GE hornless cattle are promoted as a solution to the hassle and pain of disbudding. But that “need” is entirely the product of a certain farming culture, and in many parts of the world farmers do not remove the animals’ horns at all.

Gene editing takes selective breeding to another level by allowing scientists to increasingly pick and choose specific genetic traits desired for mass reproduction. But as we’ve seen, artificial selection has resulted in dangerous levels of inbreeding. To paraphrase Friends of the Earth, whereas ecological resilience lies in species’ diversity, GMO science relies on predictability. Gene editing will only take us further down the disastrous path of uniformity with the added risks involved in manipulating DNA itself.

And the conclusion?

Ditching meat and dairy, consuming local produce, working with nature’s cycles, supporting small-scale farming; many solutions to meet our food demand such as permaculture are slower, low tech, and won’t produce big bucks for start ups and their investors. But they’re often healthier, lower impact, and far more ethical. And crucially, they’re also within people’s reach, offering possibilities for autonomy from multinationals and their machines.

If you’re disturbed by many of the developments discussed in the article, there are things you can do. Go vegan, subscribe to a locally-grown veg box scheme, and participate in seed swaps to preserve genetic diversity. Get active in campaigns against animal abuse and GM. And participate in this year’s Earth First! summer gathering to learn more about active campaigns for environmental justice and animal rights, skill up, and get involved.

 
What on earth is wrong with robots?

They are the high welfare option - the cow takes itself to the robot when it feels like it and gets milked, its kinder even than taking them through the parlour. They have all kinds of tech built in to detect things like mastitis early.

No idea why you'd call the dystopian
 
What on earth is wrong with robots?
You really don't give a shit about the animals welfare, do you? If you can't see what's wrong with treating animals this way with extra-intensive farming, gene editing, automated milking wheels, shocks and sensors, I've got nothing left to say to you.

And of course, there's still this:

To make sure cows give birth as often as is physically possible – and bear equally productive offspring – dairy cows in industrial societies are often artificially inseminated with semen from highly-selected stock every year.

Various low-tech methods have been used throughout history to monitor whether cows are in heat, so ready to be impregnated. These include marking their tails with paint (if it rubs off, it indicates the cow has been mounted) – to a teaser bull (a castrated bull which mounts cows in heat without impregnating them). Today, various forms of sensors are used to monitor whether a cow is able to become pregnant.

After nine months of pregnancy, the calf is taken from the mother within just a few days to enable her milk to be sold, despite the distress this causes to both. The mother will be milked continuously, and impregnated again within 2-3 months of the last birth. The cycle continues until she is around six years’ old and no longer productive, at which point she will be slaughtered. Cows not subjected to this treatment can live until the age of 20.

To ensure milk production for 10 months of the year, dairy cows are required to give birth to a calf every year. This growth in ‘productivity’ of the animal due to selective breeding has, unsurprisingly, resulted in health issues, a shorter lifespan, and reproductive problems.

 
You really don't give a shit about the animals welfare, do you? If you can't see what's wrong with treating animals this way with extra-intensive farming, gene editing, automated milking wheels, shocks and sensors, I've got nothing left to say to you.

And of course, there's still this:



You don't know how milking robots work, do you? 😂

The cow, literally takes herself to the robot when she wants to be milked - what exactly is wrong with that?

Have you ever been stung by an electric fence? I have, its not quite the agony you'd have us believe........

I also don't get why people are so worked up about AI - the animal is bulling, ie in standing heat and that way she doesn't have a big, heavy bull mount her.

It's amazing, that open farm sunday has just passed, and people could literally go to farms and see for themselves, but instead, they choose to believe this kind of hysterical article.
 
Last edited:
Here, Monbiot says pastured organic meat is (even) worse for the environment than factory farming.


Yeah, have you read his latest book - all farming is bad apparently (including crops) and we need to rewild everywhere and eat artificial highly processed foods grown in industrial vats. Man's a fucking loon.
 
You don't know how milking robots work, do you? 😂

The cow, literally takes herself to the robot when she wants to be milked - what exactly is wrong with that?
Yeah. Real natural. And you're OK with animals being forced into obedience by electric shocks? And no problem with calves being taken from their mothers straight after birth?
Please don't even pretend that you give a shit about the welfare of animals.
 
Yeah. Real natural. And you're OK with animals being forced into obedience by electric shocks? And no problem with calves being taken from their mothers straight after birth?
Please don't even pretend that you give a shit about the welfare of animals.
I suggest you actually go to a farm sometime. Animals don't constantly run into electric fences, you know.

As I said, I've been stung by them and my skin isn't made of leather, essentially.

I don't like weaning at birth much, but I understand why it happens- vertical disease prevention etc. Also I've seen it.

I find it baffling that people can buy into hysterical "the TRUTH about farming" articles when they could just go and see for themselves.
Last Sunday we welcomed literally thousands of people onto the farm, which includes the dairy, plenty of people do - go and look.
We have a parlour, but are about to invest in robots because there's nothing not to like about allowing cows to milk themselves whenever they feel like it, plus the built in tech that allows even earlier disease detection, and therefore earlier treatment if necessary.
 
Last edited:
And of course, there's still this:
To make sure cows give birth as often as is physically possible – and bear equally productive offspring – dairy cows in industrial societies are often artificially inseminated with semen from highly-selected stock every year.

You do realise that cows can get pregnant in only 21 days after giving birth don't you? Or at least you would if you paid attention as it's been pointed out to you several times before. So with artificial insemination a cow will be pregnant for less time than if left to their own devices. :facepalm:
 
You do realise that cows can get pregnant in only 21 days after giving birth don't you?
You do realise the indescribable distress caused to a cow after its calf is taken away hours after its birth? :facepalm: :rolleyes:

But you're ok with that, yes?


So with artificial insemination a cow will be pregnant for less time than if left to their own devices. :facepalm:
Looking forward to seeing the science behind this claim. The whole point of artificial insemination is to increase the amount of times a cow will be pregnant every year.
 
Last edited:
You do realise the indescribable distress caused to a cow after its calf is taken away hours after its birth? :facepalm: :rolleyes:

But you're ok with that, yes?


Looking forward to seeing the science behind this claim. The whole point of artificial insemination is to increase the amount of times a cow will be pregnant every year.
No it isn't.
Ffs
Why do you make claims about things you demonstrably know fuck all about.

A cow cannot become pregnant unless she is in heat - you can synchronise heats, but actually that involves delay, not bringing forward.
Reasons for AI (most often used in pigs/cattle)
Sexed semen (cattle only, not really relevant to pigs): Sexed semen means that you can produce female only calves, if you are breeding new heifers, this means there won't be any bull calves.

Genetics: Top bulls/boars can sire calves around the world without ever leaving their farm. As a producer, you therefore get access to the best Genetics for whatever your goals are - this is key to efficiency and minimal environmental impact: more from less = better for the environment as less resources needed to produce things (milk, meat etc)

Cost: it's costly to keep a bull/boar. It needs feeding. It's much cheaper to AI most of the time. Boar/sow ratio should be about 15/1, bulls a lot more fecund than that.

Ease of service: Animals get injured during their natural mating processes (especially pigs), AI is quick and non violent (unlike pig sex).

Disadvantages to AI:
Reduced conception rate.
 
You do realise the indescribable distress caused to a cow after its calf is taken away hours after its birth? :facepalm: :rolleyes:

But you're ok with that, yes?


Looking forward to seeing the science behind this claim. The whole point of artificial insemination is to increase the amount of times a cow will be pregnant every year.
i hate to quibble but your article doesn't mention the indescribable distress caused to a cow after its calf is taken away hours after birth. it's looking rather at what happens to calves who spend varying amounts of time with their mothers. once more i wonder why you post up links to research which doesn't address the point you desire them to support.
 
i hate to quibble but your article doesn't mention the indescribable distress caused to a cow after its calf is taken away hours after birth. it's looking rather at what happens to calves who spend varying amounts of time with their mothers. once more i wonder why you post up links to research which doesn't address the point you desire them to support.
It would appear that ignorance is bliss. :(
 
It would appear that ignorance is bliss. :(
You certainly seem utterly oblivious to the inherent cruelty in dairy farming.
No it isn't.
Ffs
Why do you make claims about things you demonstrably know fuck all about.

A cow cannot become pregnant unless she is in heat - you can synchronise heats, but actually that involves delay, not bringing forward.
Reasons for AI (most often used in pigs/cattle)
Sexed semen (cattle only, not really relevant to pigs): Sexed semen means that you can produce female only calves, if you are breeding new heifers, this means there won't be any bull calves.

Genetics: Top bulls/boars can sire calves around the world without ever leaving their farm. As a producer, you therefore get access to the best Genetics for whatever your goals are - this is key to efficiency and minimal environmental impact: more from less = better for the environment as less resources needed to produce things (milk, meat etc)

Cost: it's costly to keep a bull/boar. It needs feeding. It's much cheaper to AI most of the time. Boar/sow ratio should be about 15/1, bulls a lot more fecund than that.

Ease of service: Animals get injured during their natural mating processes (especially pigs), AI is quick and non violent (unlike pig sex).

Disadvantages to AI:
Reduced conception rate.
Spoken like a true capitalist.

Next you'll be telling me the cows prefer having their calves taken away from them straight after birth and would rather be surrounded by electric fences.
 
You do realise the indescribable distress caused to a cow after its calf is taken away hours after its birth? :facepalm: :rolleyes:

But you're ok with that, yes?
The dairy farm I helped out on the calves were separated from their mothers in the next pen. Cow and calf could still come in contact with each other just the calf couldn't suckle from the cow. No distress was ever witnessed.
Looking forward to seeing the science behind this claim. The whole point of artificial insemination is to increase the amount of times a cow will be pregnant every year.
Basic cow maths. A cow is pregnant for 39 weeks so if artificially inseminated once a year then the cow is pregnant for 39/52 weeks.
If the cows are left with bulls they can become pregnant 21 days (3 weeks) after giving birth so can be pregnant for 49/52 weeks of the year.
 
The dairy farm I helped out on the calves were separated from their mothers in the next pen. Cow and calf could still come in contact with each other just the calf couldn't suckle from the cow. No distress was ever witnessed.
That's nice. Do you think that's what happens on the vast majority of dairy farms worldwide then, or are just throwing up an utterly irrelevant (and unverifiable) anecdote?

Meanwhile...

 
And this is even more interesting


They do good work too:

Madox Farm, located in north Carmarthenshire around three miles from the village of Trelech, has more than 600 cows on its land and previously supplied milk to dairy distributor Freshways, who in turn supply big-name chains including Costa, BA and a number of supermarket and convenience stores.

However, after footage aired on an episode of BBC1’s Panorama earlier this month which appeared to show people kicking and punching cows, Freshways has confirmed that it has “suspended the farm with immediate effect”.


The filming at Madox Farm took place in late 2021 and was carried out by an investigator at Animal Equality - an international animal protection organisation.

The RSPCA has since described some of the footage captured at the farm as “extremely shocking” and “totally unacceptable”, while Carmarthenshire Council has confirmed that it will be “investigating these allegations as a matter of urgency”.

 
Back
Top Bottom