Vegan Organic Farming

Latest Articles

Vegan Organic Farming
Page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Downsizer Forum Index -> Land Management

Author

Message

SheepShed

Joined: 08 Nov 2006
Posts: 332
Location: In the middle of a Welsh forest

Posted: Thu Nov 04, 10 9:29 am Post subject:

Milo wrote:

And the extraordinarily biodiverse meadow I remembered playing in as a child had been ploughed up and turned to a mass of much too vividly green seedlings( which I couldn't identify), and the once fast-flowing stream in that former meadow had become a sluggish, muddy mess.

So the biodiverse meadow, that would have been used for grazing livestock or hay making, has been ploughed up and planted with some sort of arable crop, and you don't like the result ?
Haven't you just shot your own argument down in flames ?

Ty Gwyn

Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 4613
Location: Lampeter

Posted: Thu Nov 04, 10 10:47 am Post subject:

[quote="Milo"]

Ty Gwyn wrote:

If eating a Vegan diet,makes around your eyes dark and a pale complection,thats gaunt,give me a Pork chop anyday.

This is most peculiar. I understand things haven't been going too well lately in Barack Obama's Ty Gwyn either.

I was referring to the fact that them 2 men looked un-healthy,
Imagine the UK on a Vegan diet,It would be the land of the Living Dead

Quote:

For someone that harps on about Subsidies to hill farmers,which as Rob mentioned are now Acreage based not Animal number based, Does he Not know about Set aside,where Arable farmers on some of the best land in the UK are paid Not to plant food.

I'm not unfamiliar with the concept of set aside - as applied by the EU it's a very good example of costly mismanagement. How might you link that to anything in the video?

Not to Anything in the Video,just to your Blinkered ramblings

Quote:

Its clear you have No idea about Care of the land,can you imagine what a Hill farm bordering a Mountain would look like with out Livestock,it would revert to Mountain,then you can go and pick your Wimberries.

I've no need to imagine, I do know what a mountain(side) looks like when the livestock are removed / reduced / fenced out. This summer and over previous years I've observed planted trees returning vigorously to the Applecross peninsula. Last summer I was around the top of Cwm Cywarch where zero-grazing has caught on and farmed livestock are now to be found only in some, but not all, of the big ugly barns. There's almost no sign at all of any stock on the hill.

Where is this Applecross Peninsula and Cwm Cywarch

I know a farm not far from me that Fattened 25,000 lambs a year in large sheds,these lambs are purchased from Cumbria and Scotland,as well as thier own ,that don`t finish off grass,thier own ewes are out on the hill,except when thier brought in for shearing,dosing etc.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Thu Nov 04, 10 11:16 am Post subject:

Milo wrote:

Rob R wrote:

Noones sheep eat anyone's taxes in this country any longer - subsidy is now paid per hectare, not per animal, so you could grow anything you like on it, it makes no difference.

So it might well include sheep. But the subsidy is still considered necessary regardless of the relative inefficiency with which a subsidised upland farmer produces food(s) for us while his livestock prevent natural regeneration of species which would (eventually) flourish in the absence of farmed livestock? And year after year the nutrients leach from the soil and the (petroleum-based) fertilisers wash down the rivers because we've got it so badly wrong.

It might include sheep, or it might include a vegan organic farm both are equal and subsidy can't be used as a stick to beat sheep farmers with any more than any other type of farmer now.

I just happened to be reading a farming paper last night in which a FWAG officer a little further North than here was advocating that cattle should return to the uplands to increase biodiversity. In the same article he also referred to areas of upland bog that were fenced off to 'protect' them from grazing livestock. Sadly biodiversity had declined as the coarser grasses and bracken had taken over and smothered out the more delicate species. Yes there was overgrazing when headage payemnts encouraged farmers to keep more animals but at this present time that is outdated - the biggest threat facing our uplands is undergrazing. We don't have vast herds of large wild herbivores in this country, but if we did they'd also be eating that guy's cabbages and there ain't no parasitic wasp that will kill a deer.

Petroleum based fertilisers are a big problem, but again their overuse is becoming outdated as they become more expensive and less effective (through overuse) it is far less economical to keep using more. Again that is not proportional to livestock - we can compare their use between organic and non-organic farming, but not between non-organic livestock farming and stockless organic farming. You need to assess the comparable systems and organic farming can be mixed, livestock or stockless (arable, as it is otherwise known).

Milo wrote:

Oddly enough, I don't think (livestock) farmers are 100% to blame for what I perceive to be a monumental mess. Traditionalists though they tend to be, farmers are very capable of change, but very unlikely to make any changes unless the government, or the supermarkets - little difference between the two - head them in a new direction.

When the rainforests can be valued at $5 trillion https://ind.pn/9uOoeW, what price the reinstatement and continuous conservation of oak / mixed woodland on every slope (steep enough to be prone to run-off when ploughed) up to 2,000ft od throughout Wales, for example? Or is it appropriate to use our uplands to farm destructive herbivores for meat we don't need and wool we don't use?

Herbivores aren't destructive, it is the management (or lack of) that makes them destructive, and that goes for both livestock and arable farmers, including your man there on the video.

You, perhaps, don't need meat nor use wool but many of us do. Some of us prefer not to use the petrochemical-produced materials that vegans rely upon, and wool is about the most sustainable renewable fibre known to man.

In my biodiverse organic managed grazing system I can produce highly nutritious protein food that propels itself, feeds itself, reproduces itself, weeds, fertilises &, to a certain degree, sells itself. It is only the fact that I'm not allowed to walk it to the abattoir/it can't be killed on the farm that means that it must be transported by motor vehicle when it reaches the end of it's life.

I'm not going to shoot the vegan organic farmer down, because he had many good points to make that we all can learn from, but using his Zetor in several shots means that he is reliant upon some diesel fuel as are we - the only difference being that he didn't, and wouldn't, use an ox to replace some of the diesel fuel used in the system.

I'll try and take a look at the latter half of the film that my connection wouldn't allow me to yesterday but if you want to know more about what can be achieved with animals, in terms of food, power, fertility and biodiversity, feel free to ask or visit.

T.G

Joined: 13 Sep 2009
Posts: 7280
Location: Somewhere you're not

Posted: Thu Nov 04, 10 11:57 am Post subject:

Milo wrote:

T.G wrote:

At the end of the day not everyone wants to survive on nuts, fruit, berries and veg, some of us want to eat meat and in a vegan system that meat would be the vegan

Ho-ho, etc. But do you so much want the taste of meat that you've convinced yourself that in the UK alone it is acceptable to unnecessarily kill 2.4 million farmed animals every day (100,000 an hour; 1600 per minute; 26 every second)?

And if you find it unacceptable, will you say as much?
And will you say why?
And what will you do about it?

2.4 million. Every. Single. Day (figures for 2003).

And all the imported food for those animals?
And all the (imported) petro-chemicals for fertilizer?
And all the land in the UK (and anywhere else in the world where food is grown to be fed to animals), which could be better used.
And all the transport of fertilisers and of inefficiently grown meat?

So few to feed so many.. crikey

Mrs R

Joined: 15 Aug 2008
Posts: 7202

Posted: Thu Nov 04, 10 12:05 pm Post subject:

inefficiently grown meat isn't the fault of the concept of 'livestock farming', just one way of doing it. Personally, I've devoted my life to making it sustainable and healthy, and the though tof living without meat, leather wool etc. and relying solely on petrochemicals for my fibre, food production and vitamins fills me with horror. Nobody wants our meat or wool.....have you tried running that past our customers?

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Thu Nov 04, 10 1:29 pm Post subject:

Quote:

2.4 million. Every. Single. Day (figures for 2003).

Where are those figures from?

A quick run down gives you 876m every year with a population of 60m that is 14.6 animals every year for every man woman and child.

I eat a lot of meat but for my personal family consumption I don't even kill that many animals. With five of us that would be 73 animals killed a year just to feed us, never mind what we sell.

If we take off the total number of cattle (10.1m), sheep (31m) and pigs (4.5m) in the UK this June you are left with 830.4m poultry which can't be right, can it? OK pigs reproduce quickly but that would be countered by the slower reproductive capabilities of cattle and sheep, plus the fact that these figures include breeding stock that won't be slaughtered in any one year.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Thu Nov 04, 10 1:47 pm Post subject:

I stand corrected. Just checked the HSA website;

Quote:

Every year in the UK approximately 3 million cattle, 13 million pigs, 19 million sheep and lambs, 70 million fish and 800 million birds are slaughtered for human consumption.

https://www.hsa.org.uk/Frequently%20Asked%20Questions.htm#Q1

That equates to 905m slaughterings, 0.3% of which are cattle, 1.4% pigs, 2% sheep, 7.7% fish and 88% birds.

Mrs R

Joined: 15 Aug 2008
Posts: 7202

Posted: Thu Nov 04, 10 2:03 pm Post subject:
I find the numbers discussion a bit silly really, what difference does it make if we kill 9 or 10 million? We kill alot more chickens than cows, but probably similar amounts in kgs produced, so should we be eating more beef in order to keep our head count down? Would it be OK to kill 10 cows, but not 2.4milion? I don't get it.

snozzer

Joined: 19 Oct 2006
Posts: 296
Location: The Centre of Britian

Posted: Thu Nov 04, 10 4:53 pm Post subject:
We need beast in the mix for proper Horn and Corn farming

snozzer

Joined: 19 Oct 2006
Posts: 296
Location: The Centre of Britian

Posted: Thu Nov 04, 10 4:54 pm Post subject:

Milo wrote:

But do you so much want the taste of meat that you've convinced yourself that in the UK alone it is acceptable to unnecessarily kill 2.4 million farmed animals every day (100,000 an hour; 1600 per minute; 26 every second)?

Perfectly acceptable

SheepShed

Joined: 08 Nov 2006
Posts: 332
Location: In the middle of a Welsh forest

Posted: Thu Nov 04, 10 5:15 pm Post subject:

snozzer wrote:

Milo wrote:

Perfectly acceptable

Especially is you put the figures in context
800 million chickens per year, 60 million population.
That means that each person eats about 1 chicken a month.
That doesn't sound so dreadful does it ?

Treacodactyl
Downsizer Moderator

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 25795
Location: Jumping on the bandwagon of opportunism

Posted: Thu Nov 04, 10 5:27 pm Post subject:

SheepShed wrote:

snozzer wrote:

Milo wrote:

Perfectly acceptable

Especially is you put the figures in context
800 million chickens per year, 60 million population.
That means that each person eats about 1 chicken a month.
That doesn't sound so dreadful does it ?

Mind you, if you think about the number of people who don't eat them or have less than 1 a month I expect there's quite a few people who eat a couple a week along with several kg of other meat.

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Thu Nov 04, 10 6:22 pm Post subject:

There are no two ways about it, the modern intensive poultry industry is horrible as is the waste and the produce that it generates. But Mr Milo was attributing public taxes towards supporting damage by animals, however poultry is largely where it is because that was one of the sectors that didn't receive subsidy to get to where they have today. He was citing sheep, which account for 2% of the slaughterings, whereas the sector that contributes most, a whacking 88%, towards his 'shocking' figures, were unsubsidised.

Without birds and fish the daily slaughterings are 103,200 or 0.63 animals per year per person. Of those three animal types, proportions based upon their percentage of the total numbers slaughtered and at 20kg finished lamb carcass, 45kg pork and 200kg of beef, each person is responsible for consuming 28.2kg of 'meat' annually. Of course it is not all meat, there are bones, fat and connective tissue in there, but you get the gist.

gil
Downsizer Moderator

Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 18415

Posted: Thu Nov 04, 10 7:13 pm Post subject:
Where does pet food come into those figures ? Does that account for some of the weight ?

Rob R

Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York

Posted: Thu Nov 04, 10 8:42 pm Post subject:
Good question! Yes, pet food will be a part of that weight. I've always assumed that pets are un-vegan though. I'd be interested to know where they stand on carrion, however.

	Downsizer Forum Index -> Land Management	All times are GMT Page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Page 3 of 4

View Latest Posts