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

[Funky_monks]

If there were, as you say, no way for plants to continue growing in the same soil indefinitely, then all plants would be dead by now and all soil barren. For ninety-nine point all the nines you like percent of earth's history there were no artificial fertilisers, and yet plants continued existing.

You did not say growing crops, or growing monocultures, you said growing plants intrinsically depletes soil fertilify. That statement was false. And not just because that's not what 'intrinsically' means.

I was once like you. I understood how agriculture worked, and I used this to make excuses for continuing to eat meat. It wasn't valid then and it's not valid now. For all sorts of reasons, but the main one being thermodynamics. Anything bad about growing crops is the same but ten times worse if you're talking about meat production because, and stop me if I'm going too fast for you here, you have to grow crops to feed animals. So more potassium, more nitrates, more water, more everything. Because most of what you put into an animal gets shat out the back of it long before you can get the grill warmed up.

You do understand that what gets shat out of the back of the animal is full of those in a highly available form for plant growth, don't you?
Plants and animals have evolved side by side.

Oddly, I used to know some lawyers with about 20 ac of grass (mixed grassland, not a monoculture), who had been taking hay off it for about 5 years - leave grass to grow, cut and bale, was all they ever did.

Unsurprisingly the hay got less and less, growth was minimal it started to burn off in the summer.

Grazed it off in winter for a couple of years with sheep, and was restored.

Probably over simplistic, could probably have done with some lime too, but there ya go.

 

[Funky_monks]

Oh yeah, and this is also (pun intended) bullshit.

Industrial monoculture crop production, yeah maybe that doesn't work without chopping up a few field mice. But industrial monoculture crop production and 'growing plants' are two very different things.

From the moment a fecking plough and a harrow was invented, that has happened.

Whatever your cropping system, you need fertility, you need to combat pests.

Even on the tiniest scale, I need to get rid of caterpillars from my brassicas, or they'll eat the fucking lot, I need to get rid of slugs, mice dig up peas and eat them, etc etc etc

Have you ever grown anything?

 

[SpookyFrank]

What I will argue against is bullshit made up to make people feel better about themselves such as "being vegan is intrinsically better for the environment", "veganism is cruelty free" - those things (especially the latter) could only be invented by people who had absolutely no knowledge of food and farming whatsoever.

Anyone here made the latter point anywhere?

The former point is supported by a landslide of evidence on this thread alone. The fact you have 'grown animals' does not change this fact.

 

[SpookyFrank]

You do understand that what gets shat out of the back of the animal is full of those in a highly available form for plant growth, don't you?

Yes, which is why when it gets into rivers it causes algal blooms and subsequently the deoxygenation and death of the entire river ecosystem.

 

[Funky_monks]

Weirdly enough, Ive just come back from holiday whereupon I visited this particular farm - about as far from monoculture as you can get.

They do talks on permaculture actually, worth seeing.

Oh, and they also have pigs, chickens, sheep and cattle.
Permaculture | Henbant | Caernarfon

 

[SpookyFrank]

From the moment a fecking plough and a harrow was invented, that has happened.

Whatever your cropping system, you need fertility, you need to combat pests.

Even on the tiniest scale, I need to get rid of caterpillars from my brassicas, or they'll eat the fucking lot, I need to get rid of slugs, mice dig up peas and eat them, etc etc etc

Have you ever grown anything?

Yes and I did so without macerating anything in a combine harvester. Which is how I know that your statement that growing plants invariably requires macerating things in combine harvesters is bullshit.

 

[Funky_monks]

Yes, which is why when it gets into rivers it causes algal blooms and subsequently the deoxygenation and death of the entire river ecosystem.

And why does eutrophication happen?

What are those little algaes?

Its fertility in the wrong place, isn't it? Jesus.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Weirdly enough, Ive just come back from holiday whereupon I visited this particular farm - about as far from monoculture as you can get.

They do talks on permaculture actually, worth seeing.

Oh, and they also have pigs, chickens, sheep and cattle.
Permaculture | Henbant | Caernarfon

Did they have a combine harvester? Surely they must have, plants cannot be grown without one.

 

[Funky_monks]

Yes and I did so without macerating anything in a combine harvester. Which is how I know that your statement that growing plants invariably requires macerating things in combine harvesters is bullshit.

Fine, macerating them in your fucking hands after picking them off your veg then.....lordy.

 

[SpookyFrank]

And why does eutrophication happen?

What are those little algaes?

Its fertility in the wrong place, isn't it? Jesus.

Yes. As a result of industrial animal agriculture.

 

[SpookyFrank]

In any case, nobody actually said veganism was cruelty free. You're just arguing about that bit because you've got nothing on 'veganism is better for the environment' because it's unambiguously true.

 

[Funky_monks]

Yes. As a result of industrial animal agriculture.

It can be the result of any agriculture, you spoon - synthetic fert does exactly the same thing.

The answer is not to let livestock in rivers and apply fert properly.

 

[Funky_monks]

In any case, nobody actually said veganism was cruelty free. You're just arguing about that bit because you've got nothing on 'veganism is better for the environment' because it's unambiguously true.

It really isn't - see the entire fucking thread. Theres all kinds of peer reviewed stuff on in that you may like to read. That trope is a fucking fairytale.

 

[WouldBe]

Even Clint is getting on board!

"If individuals cut meat from their diet they would cut their carbon emissions by 73%"

Really? I must have missed the email where we had all switched to electric / hydrogen cars and done the same for our heating.

You really do post some obviously bullshit crap up without even doing the basic checks or even questioning the figures.

 

[SpookyFrank]

It can be the result of any agriculture, you spoon - synthetic fert does exactly the same thing.

The answer is not to let livestock in rivers and apply fert properly.

I absolutely love how an agriculture expert like yourself thinks that the problem is animals actually shitting in rivers.

It's actually a combination of leaching from soil and farmers dumping waste directly into water courses because there's no viable way of storing or usefully processing waste on the scale that industrial animal agriculture creates it.

 

[WouldBe]

Yes, which is why when it gets into rivers it causes algal blooms and subsequently the deoxygenation and death of the entire river ecosystem.

I've got algae in my pond and there's certainly no fertilizer in there. How much of these algal blooms are naturally occuring?

 

[SpookyFrank]

"If individuals cut meat from their diet they would cut their carbon emissions by 73%"

Really? I must have missed the email where we had all switched to electric / hydrogen cars and done the same for our heating.

You really do post some obviously bullshit crap up without even doing the basic checks or even questioning the figures.

If I can spend half as much money on food each month, but I still have to buy clothes at the same price as before, then I haven't actually saved any money at all.

Still, at least the weather is nice here in opposite logic land.

 

[SpookyFrank]

I've got algae in my pond and there's certainly no fertilizer in there. How much of these algal blooms are naturally occuring?

Naturally occurring algae doesn't consume every molecule of oxygen in its ecosystem. Artificially hyper-fertilised algae, or more specficially the bactieria and fungi that feed on it when it dies, can absolutely do that.

 

[Funky_monks]

Naturally occurring algae doesn't normally consume every molecule of oxygen in its ecosystem. Artificially hyper-fertilised algae, or more specficially the bactieria and fungi that feed on it when it dies, can absolutely do that.

Really?

No fish ever died because of photosynthetic inversion in summer then?

Gotcha.

 

[Funky_monks]

I absolutely love how an agriculture expert like yourself thinks that the problem is animals actually shitting in rivers.

It's actually a combination of leaching from soil and farmers dumping waste directly into water courses because there's no viable way of storing or usefully processing waste on the scale that industrial animal agriculture creates it.

Right yes. Manure definitely not worth money and therefore dumped, gotcha.

Soil leaching occurs when fert is spread at the wrong time and or close to waterways.

There's no excuse for that, which is why its illegal.

Weird logic to extend that to "fertilising crops bad" but there ya go.

Maybe I should start referring to these people as "starvation enthusiasts"

 

[SpookyFrank]

Really?

No fish ever died because of photosynthetic inversion in summer then?

Gotcha.

Maybe they have, but it'd be news to me. And to a lot of other people, "photosynthetic inversion" being a phrase never before used by anyone as far as I can tell.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Right yes. Manure definitely not worth money and therefore dumped, gotcha.

Soil leaching occurs when fert is spread at the wrong time and or close to waterways.

There's no excuse for that, which is why its illegal.

It's illegal but enforcement doesn't exist, besides a few volunteers testing their local rivers at their own expense and sending the results off to an environment agency which has been cut to the bone. Soon to be prime minister Liz Truss has vowed to reduce farm inspections further still.

 

[editor]

"If individuals cut meat from their diet they would cut their carbon emissions by 73%"

Really? I must have missed the email where we had all switched to electric / hydrogen cars and done the same for our heating.

You really do post some obviously bullshit crap up without even doing the basic checks or even questioning the figures.

It's not my words. Try cutting out your knee jerk, pro-meat denial and read the source.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Weird logic to extend that to "fertilising crops bad" but there ya go.

Probably why nobody said that.

 

[Funky_monks]

It's illegal but enforcement doesn't exist, besides a few volunteers testing their local rivers at their own expense and sending the results off to an environment agency which has been cut to the bone. Soon to be prime minister Liz Truss has vowed to reduce farm inspections further still.

It does, insomuch as you'd lose your Red Tractor and therefore, in lots of cases lose any market for your produce.

Agreed its shit when people do it and don't think they should.

Also: nobody on this thread says supported industrial ag, you could try reading it.

 

[Funky_monks]

Probably why nobody said that.

You did - you are saying that crops don't need fertilising because plants evolved before animals or something

 

[SpookyFrank]

Also: nobody on this thread says supported industrial ag, you could try reading it.

I tried reading this sentence, three times, but it remains gibberish.

 

[WouldBe]

If I can spend half as much money on food each month, but I still have to buy clothes at the same price as before, then I haven't actually saved any money at all.

Still, at least the weather is nice here in opposite logic land.

Where does money come into it?

Editor has previously posted data that food is the third highest contributor to personal ghg's behind transport and energy use. So if you can save 73% of your ghg's by cutting out meat then how many % is your total GHG in this fantasy 'opposite logic land'?

 

[SpookyFrank]

Where does money come into it?

Editor has previously posted data that food is the third highest contributor to personal ghg's behind transport and energy use. So if you can save 73% of your ghg's by cutting out meat then how many % is your total GHG in this fantasy 'opposite logic land'?

If only there was some kind of source provided for the claim that was made.

 

[WouldBe]

If only there was some kind of source provided for the claim that was made.

See editors posts.