Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

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?
And again "worldwide". Do you think we have any control over what happens in the rest of the world?
Even if everyone in the UK went vegetarian it wouldn't stop shit farmers in the rest of the world being shit farmers. :(
 
And this is even more interesting


They do good work too:



Do you think a robot milking machine would do that? :(
 
"These technologies can contribute to improve the production efficiency, and consequently, improve livestock profitability`

Not much there about the animal's welfare unsurprisingly. Do you support putting profit over animal welfare?
You asked for the science.

I supplied it.
 
And again "worldwide". Do you think we have any control over what happens in the rest of the world?
Even if everyone in the UK went vegetarian it wouldn't stop shit farmers in the rest of the world being shit farmers. :(
You only buy UK grown meat? Like fuck you do.

What's your thoughts on the cruelty documented on the link I posted up?

 
Interesting if true. Will hopefully pop up again once it has been peer reviewed and published.
my partner recently submitted an article to an academic journal, as part of the process she was asked to suggest potential peer reviewers. this has somewhat undermined my faith in the peer review process, being as you don't expect it to be 'people i think will support the conclusions i reached in my article'.
 
You only buy UK grown meat? Like fuck you do.
Yes I do it's clearly labelled.
What's your thoughts on the cruelty documented on the link I posted up?

It's shit and they should be banned from keeping animals for life. :mad: and I will always agree with you in those cases but most of what you post as 'cruelty' isn't. It's down to the ignorance of the clown writing the article.
 
Yes I do it's clearly labelled.
Sure you do.

It's shit and they should be banned from keeping animals for life. :mad: and I will always agree with you in those cases but most of what you post as 'cruelty' isn't. It's down to the ignorance of the clown writing the article.
How about farmers that keep cows that never see a pasture or stand on grass?

You OK with this?

Once a cow becomes pregnant, she carries her baby in her womb for nine months before giving birth. Just like us.

Once she gives birth, she starts producing milk for her newborn calf – milk that her baby would naturally drink during the first 10 months of his or her life.

However, in dairy farms – whether small-scale, certified organic or intensive – the milk she produces will not be given to her baby, as it will instead be bottled up for human consumption. And so, her calf is separated from her and swapped for a milking machine which is attached to her teats.

This process lasts for three months until she is impregnated again in order to maintain unnaturally high yields of milk production.

In 1975, a cow used for her milk produced around 4,100 litres of milk per year. Today a cow will produce double that amount: 8,200 litres of milk per year, which is an average of 22 litres per day.

In 2020, the UK produced 15.3 billion litres of milk, the highest annual figure since 1990.

This cruel, abusive cycle is repeated on average three or four times until the cow – exhausted by the repeated pregnancies, births and unnatural milk production – is killed because she became sick, or sent for slaughter and sold for cheap meat or leather products.

And this?

Typically only a few hours after giving birth, a cow’s baby is taken from her so that the milk intended for her calf can be bottled and sold.

The separation of cows and calves is extremely distressing for both mother and baby. During multiple investigations carried out by Animal Equality, mother cows and their newborn calves have been filmed calling out to each other desperately for hours or searching for each other in vain. These scenes can only be described as heartbreaking.

And this?

Male calves cannot produce milk and therefore are considered useless to the industry.

According to a 2020 report, every year in the UK an estimated 60,000 male calves – approximately 15% of all male calves born in the dairy industry – were shot on-farm.

According to a report by the Rural Payment Agency, as many as 65,000 male calves less than a month old were killed in UK abattoirs in 2021. This shocking figure sheds light on a new dirty secret of the industry, which has once again deceived people by simply changing where these animals are killed, instead of stopping killing them.

The slaughter of pregnant cows is something so shocking that most people struggle to believe that it is allowed by UK law. An estimated 150,000 cows are killed every year in the UK while they are carrying their babies. Shockingly, many of them are in the last stage of their pregnancies, meaning their calves can suffer during and for a few minutes after the slaughter.

etc etc
 
You only buy UK grown meat? Like fuck you do.

What's your thoughts on the cruelty documented on the link I posted up?

It'd be quite difficult to buy non UK/Eire beef in the UK, you'd have to actually go looking for it.

The only beef I've ever seen that wasn't from there is corned (Brazil).
 
You certainly seem utterly oblivious to the inherent cruelty in dairy farming.

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.

No,
It was correcting you on why AI is used.
Whatever the prevailing economic system, you'd want to use the best genetics.

Nice swerve though. Interesting you ignored the bit where I told you that sexed semen is used to avoid bull calves and that the conception rate is actually lower using AI.

You just don't seem to have been anywhere near animals, which is why, presumably you can make such ridiculous statements as "AI is to get animals pregnant earlier". You can put as much semen as you like in an animal but if it ain't ovulating, no babies.
 
Got a percentage for that?
No, just going on dairy farms.

You too could actually go and look if you so chose, but instead you choose not to and instead believe non peer reviewed Internet pages with an obvious bias.

It'd be like me quoting the farmers guardian at you.
 
its a pretty incredible graph if it holds up to scrutiny


View attachment 331122
Shocking facts:

Meat and dairy production uses 83% of farmland and causes 60% of agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions, but provides only 18% of calories and 37% of protein. Moving human diets from meat to plants means less forest is destroyed for pasture and fodder growing and less emissions of the potent greenhouse gas methane produced by cattle and sheep.
 
Ah, the Guardian again.

The Guardian. The same Guardian that has received more than £1Million from the people at the open philanthropy project (Zuckerberg and Gates foundation) to promote plant based alternatives to meat. 250 articles a year, 4 journalists receiving in excess of £100K annually.

From the Guardians own website: https://www.theguardian.com/info/2018/oct/02/philanthropic-partnerships-at-the-guardian#:~:text=America's%20Dirty%20Divide%20%2D%20supported%20in,grant%20from%20Open%20Society%20Foundations

Can we please stop sourcing the Guardian as a news outlet with any kind of credibility?

Why are people "on the left" so keen to see the massive food processors have total control over what we eat? There is no chance that synthetic, plant based or industrially fermented foods will be able to be produced by anyone not able to invest millions, of pounds in plant and industrial development, ie massive corporations.

In other news, unsurpsingly - the emissions impact of food miles has been grossly underestimated - eating local is a good way to lower the emissions of what you are eating, although I realise that with the escalating costs of food and with a food crisis looming, it may not be an option to support local alternatives to supermarket supply chains.

In Nature (a peer reviewed scientific journal): Global food-miles account for nearly 20% of total food-systems emissions - Nature Food
 
Ah, the Guardian again.

The Guardian. The same Guardian that has received more than £1Million from the people at the open philanthropy project (Zuckerberg and Gates foundation) to promote plant based alternatives to meat. 250 articles a year, 4 journalists receiving in excess of £100K annually.

From the Guardians own website: https://www.theguardian.com/info/2018/oct/02/philanthropic-partnerships-at-the-guardian#:~:text=America's%20Dirty%20Divide%20%2D%20supported%20in,grant%20from%20Open%20Society%20Foundations

Can we please stop sourcing the Guardian as a news outlet with any kind of credibility?

Why are people "on the left" so keen to see the massive food processors have total control over what we eat? There is no chance that synthetic, plant based or industrially fermented foods will be able to be produced by anyone not able to invest millions, of pounds in plant and industrial development, ie massive corporations.

In other news, unsurpsingly - the emissions impact of food miles has been grossly underestimated - eating local is a good way to lower the emissions of what you are eating, although I realise that with the escalating costs of food and with a food crisis looming, it may not be an option to support local alternatives to supermarket supply chains.

In Nature (a peer reviewed scientific journal): Global food-miles account for nearly 20% of total food-systems emissions - Nature Food
Almost as if it’s a massively complex problem that goes beyond meat=bad, isn’t it?
 
Back
Top Bottom