Funky_monks
Neo-Rustic
Where did I say "not enough"? I said "poor" - this can lead to leaching, as per the bloody report linked to.
And no, you demonstrably can't tell anyone what happens, because you just make stuff up.
Opinion: "The End of Meat Is Here" - NY Times
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
Where did I say "not enough"? I said "poor" - this can lead to leaching, as per the bloody report linked to.
And no, you demonstrably can't tell anyone what happens, because you just make stuff up.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
OK but I was talking about the actual contents of the report, not something you made up.
Funky_monks
Neo-Rustic
Leaching was mentioned heavily in the report.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
Yes, leaching. From soil. On which excess animal waste has been spread. Please try and keep up I do have other things to do today.
Funky_monks
Neo-Rustic
That falls under incorrect spreading. Its not so much to do with amount as time - you need to add inputs at the right stage of growth so that they are taken up by the growing plant. Nutrients leach when this does not happen, usually from cultivated (tilled) soil (ie cropping). You aren't allowed to spread unless your soil indices indicate a need anyway, again "incorrect spreading".
The leaching was from poor storage.
If you want to grow a plant crop, you need to fertilise the soil. A surplus needs to be produced to feed the millions of people on this country who need (cheap) food.
Whatever you eat, you rely on soil fertility.
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
Why not skip ahead to the bit where cattle farmers somehow aren't poisoning rivers despite the fact they are. That's the bit we're all looking forward to.
Funky_monks
Neo-Rustic
Ah y
Not content with making stuff up about agriculture with absolutely no knowledge of the subject matter, you further wish to invent an opinion for me.
This, in spite of the fact that my opinion is writ extensively in this thread.
Ah yes, I see.
Not content with making stuff up about agriculture with absolutely no knowledge of the subject matter, you further wish to invent an opinion for me.
This, in spite of the fact that my opinion is writ extensively in this thread.
PaoloSanchez
Well-Known Member
Exactly!
Which is why we can safely dismiss it as woo, because if it wasn't for the fully peer reviewed and scientifically approved "green revolution" methods that were widely adopted, we'd all be starving by now.
It's all about inputs and outputs and yields and surpluses and soil nitrogen and share prices. Those are the things that really matter.
Thank goodness for chemical ferts, pesticides, fungicides, insecticides and shit tons of animal excrement. Where would we be without them.
Looks like we have a combination of argumentum ab auctoritate and argumentum ad populum here. Nice.
Choose your peers wisely.
Only those who have deep knowledge of the current (corrupt?) agribusiness have any right to any opinion on food matters.
Everyone else should just keep quiet and listen to anybody who claims to be an expert.
Pay absolutely ZERO attention to the following classics (which I most definitely do not have on my bookshelf)
The Violence of the Green Revolution: Third World Agriculture, Ecology and Politics: Amazon.co.uk: Vandana Shiva: 9780862329655: Books
Buy The Violence of the Green Revolution: Third World Agriculture, Ecology and Politics 1 by Vandana Shiva (ISBN: 9780862329655) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.
www.amazon.co.uk
Who Really Feeds the World?: The Failures of Agribusiness and the Promise of Agroecology : Vandana Shiva: Amazon.co.uk: Books
Who Really Feeds the World?: The Failures of Agribusiness and the Promise of Agroecology : Vandana Shiva: Amazon.co.uk: Books
www.amazon.co.uk
Funky_monks
Neo-Rustic
Weird.Exactly!
Which is why we can safely dismiss it as woo, because if it wasn't for the fully peer reviewed and scientifically approved "green revolution" methods that were widely adopted, we'd all be starving by now.
It's all about inputs and outputs and yields and surpluses and soil nitrogen and share prices. Those are the things that really matter.
Thank goodness for chemical ferts, pesticides, fungicides, insecticides and shit tons of animal excrement. Where would we be without them.
Looks like we have a combination of argumentum ab auctoritate and argumentum ad populum here. Nice.
Choose your peers wisely.
Only those who have deep knowledge of the current (corrupt?) agribusiness have any right to any opinion on food matters.
Everyone else should just keep quiet and listen to anybody who claims to be an expert.
Pay absolutely ZERO attention to the following classics (which I most definitely do not have on my bookshelf)
The Violence of the Green Revolution: Third World Agriculture, Ecology and Politics: Amazon.co.uk: Vandana Shiva: 9780862329655: Books
Buy The Violence of the Green Revolution: Third World Agriculture, Ecology and Politics 1 by Vandana Shiva (ISBN: 9780862329655) from Amazon's Book Store. Everyday low prices and free delivery on eligible orders.www.amazon.co.uk
Who Really Feeds the World?: The Failures of Agribusiness and the Promise of Agroecology : Vandana Shiva: Amazon.co.uk: Books
Who Really Feeds the World?: The Failures of Agribusiness and the Promise of Agroecology : Vandana Shiva: Amazon.co.uk: Bookswww.amazon.co.uk
When I talked about this, and referred to Vandana Shiva elsewhere on this thread it was roundly dismissed as lunacy by the vegan lot on this thread. Firstly because she was being interviewed by Russell Brand in the short clip of her I posted, secondly because she (like me) doesn't agree with the fabricated "consesus" that highly processed meat substitutes are somehow either "healthy" or "good for the planet" and thirdly because she's very supportive of sustainable livestock production.
What's weirder is I can write extensively about my opinion on such matters on this thread and in spite of this you can waste time writing a paragraph supposing what they might be as opposed to actually reading them.
In short: we have to move away from petrochemical fertilisers.
However, in so doing we must acknowledge that the "green revolution" saved over a billion people from starvation.
Therefore we can't just stop using it (see: Sri Lanka), we must phase it's use out as we become better at generating the massive surpluses needed to avoid starvation.
A major component of fertility, then can come from livestock, although K may be an issue - it is high in seaweed, so maybe seaweed culture could help.
Last edited:
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
You'll have solved the land-use-per-calorie issue inherent in all animal agriculture then I assume. Because if you haven't, your plan to use cow shit to replace petrochemical 'fert' might be a little bit doomed.
PaoloSanchez
Well-Known Member
Of course, every single vegan in existence roundly dismissed the Dr Shiva reference, because the "vegan lot" are a single entity who all think and act in exactly the same way.
I'm not aware of this fabricated "consesus" that highly processed meat substitutes are healthy. Sounds like a bit of a strawman, but anyway...
...there is a popular set of memes doing the rounds among people who don't much care for vegans, here's one example...
...and some might say that the comparison is a tad unfair.
Not sure why the impossible burger wasn't compared to the global meat eaters staple burger instead...
...54 ingredients eh? Nice
I don't think anybody has claimed that vegan junk food is healthy.
Plant based vegan patties can be made with whole food ingredients and spices at home too, if that's what floats your boat.
I would personally argue that vegan junk food is ecologically less bad for the planet than the equivalent animal product based junk food. It involves much less cruelty and is therefore a more ethical choice, imo.
...and no, I don't have stacks of peer reviewed studies to back that up. I don't think they're needed, I think it's kinda obvious for anybody that has an ounce of compassion in their soul.
Of course we should always strive to improve whatever methods we use to feed ourselves using the most ecological, ethical and sustainable methods at our disposal.
There is still plenty of work to be done in this area but I remain optimistic that we are heading in the right direction.
Now...regarding Dr Shiva being "very supportive of sustainable livestock production"
Really?
That sounds a bit of a stretch to me. I've been listening to her and reading her stuff on and off for 20+ years, and never got that impression.
Maybe when compared to the low bar of factory farming, sure.
"the vegan diet puts the smallest footprint on the planet for sure"
Yep, sounds about right.
Funky_monks
Neo-Rustic
Given that it's an argument that entirely dismisses soil type and geography not to mention nutrient type and bioavailability, it's quite flawed.
But again, you'd know that if you'd been reading the thread.
Last edited:
PaoloSanchez
Well-Known Member
...oops. Only just seen your "In short:" ninja edit, so I am now responding to the bits you added...
I agree that moving away from petrochemical fertilisers would be fantastic.
I don't agree that we "must" acknowledge the green revolution saved a billion from starving. wtf? Absolutely not.
Or that we need to generate "massive surpluses" to avoid starvation. Nope.
At very best, the "green revolution" was a relatively short term "fix" that has had, and is still having, many negative long term consequences that may well lead to many more people starving.
There are more than enough resources on our beautiful abundant earth to adequately feed every single man, woman, boy and girl on the planet.
It is the uneven distribution of those resources due to our fucked up political and economic systems, (:cough: capitalism :cough:) that leaves many going hungry while others can afford to throw food away and have lifestyles that result in more early deaths from mostly preventable "diseases of affluence".
I also do not buy into the notion that there is a requirement to breed billions of land animals into existence in order to feed ourselves and for soil fertility. In my opinion that is wrong on so many levels.
It is massively inefficient, as can be clearly seen on the Our World In Data land use graph that I posted sometime ago on another thread, which I'll repost now...
Source:
...based on the FAO data, I calculated that we could supply 100% of our global calorie and protein requirements using 37% of the land we currently use for agricultural purposes...
Even if that 37% figure has over estimated the food production efficiency, there is plenty of wiggle room.
I'm not sure why there is an insistence that animal manure is a required input for growing crops. That ain't necessarily so.
There are people out in the real world managing to do just that, no animal product input! I've seen them with my own eyes.
Of course stock free agriculture is not currently a widespread practice, however with 95%+ of the global population not being vegan, that's hardly surprising.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair
Seek and ye shall find.
PaoloSanchez
Well-Known Member
As if by magic, this video was posted just 20 hours ago. Dr Shiva discussing the Green Revolution with Bret Weinstein.
I haven't listened to it yet, but I'll wager that she isn't complimentary of the green rev, just a hunch...
Impossible response to Dr Shiva's criticism of GMO's.
FWIW, I agree with her stance on the Monsanto's of this world, but I also agree with the Impossible position that even with the GMO stuff, it's still not as bad for the planet as animal agriculture currently is.
theecologist.org
I haven't listened to it yet, but I'll wager that she isn't complimentary of the green rev, just a hunch...
Impossible response to Dr Shiva's criticism of GMO's.
FWIW, I agree with her stance on the Monsanto's of this world, but I also agree with the Impossible position that even with the GMO stuff, it's still not as bad for the planet as animal agriculture currently is.
An Impossible response
Impossible Foods responds to Vandana Shiva on the industrialisation of fake foods.
theecologist.org
WouldBe
Dislicksick
As had been mentioned several times before how much of that agricultural land is suitable for growing crops on? What about all the moor and heath that animals graze on that's too steep, too shallow soil or too full of scrub to grow crops on? Or lower lying land that's too wet to grow crops on or equipment would get bogged down on?
In some places pigs are allowed to forage in woods. Is this classed as agricultural land or forests? If its agricultural land are we supposed to fell the trees so food can be grown?
Funky_monks
Neo-Rustic
Of course, every single vegan in existence roundly dismissed the Dr Shiva reference, because the "vegan lot" are a single entity who all think and act in exactly the same way.
I'm not aware of this fabricated "consesus" that highly processed meat substitutes are healthy. Sounds like a bit of a strawman, but anyway...
...there is a popular set of memes doing the rounds among people who don't much care for vegans, here's one example...
View attachment 348817
...and some might say that the comparison is a tad unfair.
Not sure why the impossible burger wasn't compared to the global meat eaters staple burger instead...
...54 ingredients eh? Nice
I don't think anybody has claimed that vegan junk food is healthy.
The bolded bit is literally the premise of this thread, that highly processed vegan meat substitutes are the future of protien consumption.
You are basically making a similar argument to the one I made, which is that we can all (mostly) accept that highly processed foods are incredibly bad for us when they contain meat, but suddenly once they are based around textured meat substitute, they are somehow marketed as healthy. People have posted up source material to try and back up that claim, including Monbiots assertion that vat grown synthetic goods (and a few fresh veg) will make up the sustainable, healthy food of the future.
You may want to try actually reading some of it first.
Funky_monks
Neo-Rustic
All this tells me is that mathematicians shouldn't be in charge of decisions regarding land use. Land is not homogeneous. You've not even begun to grapple with Climate, soil type, soil depth etc etc
Re: the green revolution - people currently rightly or wrongly (I think wrongly) depend on petrochemical fertilisers for affordable food. Like all fossil fuel usage this is unsustainable, and we need to move away from it, but it needs to be done in ways that don't cause spikes in either cost or food availability.
Re: the patronising quote. My salary doesn't depend on agriculture remaining the same, why would it? The whole purpose of my job is to send people out into the world in a challenging time for food production with a grasp of the issues facing it and to be able to feed future generations.
I do, however have some understanding of the complexities of actually producing food and I've seen lots of systems of doing so, I must have been on hundreds of farms from aquaponics, through vertical farming, permaculture, "regen" ag type systems, holistic grazing, conventional arable and livestock etc etc
Crops require inputs if you are not going to degrade the land whilst producing a surplus to feed people. They have to come from somewhere, unless you are going to be using virgin land.
Christ, every individual farm is different and requires a different approach.
What is mostly sustainable on one may be entirely different on another.
Shiva's approach to sustainability shares some roots with the "fertility farming" approach advocated by Newman Turner postwar, pre cheap synthetic fertiliser, although his was based around the dairy cow, although obviously is considerably more developed.
Perhaps try reading the thread.
I have also tried throughout to correct misconceptions about agriculture, which some people seem to think means a support for certain practices, which it doesn't, necessarily.
Vandana Shiva: "Livestock are key in holistically managed agricultural systems"
Last edited:
editor
hiraethified
More good advice to be ignored by the deluded meat zealots here
www.theguardian.com
Cut meat consumption to two burgers a week to save planet, study suggests
Climate crisis report says ‘we are not winning in any sector’ as experts call for urgent action on fossil fuels
editor
hiraethified
Ands the evidence just keeps on stacking up. Eat less meat, FFS.
www.forbes.com
Why Do Food Waste Advocates Give Meat A Pass?
Addressing food waste in the traditional sense is an important issue, but it’s hardly a blip compared to the inherent wastefulness of raising livestock.
www.forbes.com
editor
hiraethified
And here's what The Lancet has to say:
www.theguardian.com
Global health at mercy of fossil fuel addiction, warn scientists
Reliance on oil and gas worsening climate impacts and compounding food, energy and cost of living crises
The 2022 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: health at the mercy of fossil fuels
The 2022 report of the Lancet Countdown is published as the world confronts profound and concurrent systemic shocks. Countries and health systems continue to contend with the health, social, and economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, while Russia's invasion of Ukraine and a persistent fossil...
www.thelancet.com
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
New pig torture factory opening in China: a 26 storey skyscrapper crammed with torture cages Inside China’s 26 STOREY pig farm skyscraper that processes 100k tons of meat
This looks set to be future of meat until this barbarian industry is eradicated by no-slaughter meat.
This looks set to be future of meat until this barbarian industry is eradicated by no-slaughter meat.
Karl Masks
Birds Angel Delight
what does "Because of inefficient conversion of plants to human nutrition through beef, cattle also require much more land and water than other foods." mean?Ands the evidence just keeps on stacking up. Eat less meat, FFS.
Why Do Food Waste Advocates Give Meat A Pass?
Addressing food waste in the traditional sense is an important issue, but it’s hardly a blip compared to the inherent wastefulness of raising livestock.
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
It means land is being used to grow crops to feed to "livestock" rather than the land being used to grow crops directly for human consumption. It's one of the many inbuilt inefficiencies of the meat industry.
Karl Masks
Birds Angel Delight
but the claim is about calories. The argument seems to be that humans would be calorically better off eating the plants grown on the field, rather than the cattle grazing there. I'm not sure that follows since plant food isn't really that dense calorically. I guess it depends what you grow. Beef is very dense and has a lot of nutrients, regardless of any health effects or environmental consequences
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
Cow flesh and other animal flesh products require a much higher calorie input than they provide in output. Its basic thermodynamics. Its inefficient compared to eating plants directly, which can also be calorie and nutrient dense.
Funky_monks
Neo-Rustic
Cattle and sheep mostly consume calories unavailable to humans, so to suggest that those animals, at least are using resources that could otherwise be used to feed people is disingenuous at best. The vast, vast majority of cattle and sheep diets in the UK are grass or grass products (silage) and straw. Cattle may also consume things like brewers grains and other byproducts. Grazed land is not usually capable of supporting cropping (that said, sheep are now finding a place on arable rotations again, keeping down blackgrass - a pest of wheat crops and increasing fertility, reducing the need for petrochemical fertilisers)
I guess this stuff relies on people not understanding that.
Humans aint got rumens.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211912416300013
Edited to add full text: https://macaulaylab.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/LivestockFeed2017.pdf
I don't really like that paper much because its "global livestock production" - this will include pigs and poultry and data on ruminants from other countries (such as the US) where they do use less grazed grass than the UK, and as said, I think solutions should be hyperlocal and not glbal - 65% of UK ag land is only suitable for grass production for example.
Last edited:
Jeff Robinson
Marxist-Lentilist: Jackboots and Jackfruit
Climate crisis: UN finds ‘no credible pathway to 1.5C in place’
Failure to cut carbon emissions means ‘rapid transformation of societies’ is only option to limit impacts, report says
Yuwipi Woman
Whack-A-Mole Queen
Here's another reason to consider giving up meat:
omaha.com
You can bet that these kids are likely to either be migrants or the children of migrants. These plants like to employ people who can't complain without risking getting deported.
Complaint alleges child labor violations by sanitation company at Grand Island meatpacking plant
The U.S. Department of Labor has filed a complaint in federal court against a sanitation company for reportedly employing minors as young as 13 to clean hazardous equipment on the
You can bet that these kids are likely to either be migrants or the children of migrants. These plants like to employ people who can't complain without risking getting deported.
Funky_monks
Neo-Rustic
Why's that not a reason to eat meat?Here's another reason to consider giving up meat:
Complaint alleges child labor violations by sanitation company at Grand Island meatpacking plant
The U.S. Department of Labor has filed a complaint in federal court against a sanitation company for reportedly employing minors as young as 13 to clean hazardous equipment on the
You can bet that these kids are likely to either be migrants or the children of migrants. These plants like to employ people who can't complain without risking getting deported.
Is the use of slave labour on veg farms in Spain a reason not to eat any veg?
Thats a reason to better regulate capitalism, not change diet.
Funky_monks
Neo-Rustic
Gosh, here's a really compelling reason to give up fruit and veg.... 
Spain's salad growers are modern-day slaves, say charities
Spain's salad growers are modern-day slaves, say charities
Similar threads
