Animal product usage by Vegans.

rubadub

Are there vegans who wouldnt eat vegetables grown in soil fertilised with manure?

Seems you could go to bizarre extremes, like animals being used to transport rocks from mines that then go on to make metal products. Or if say pig methane was used as a fuel source in making a product.

Hugh Hefner

rubadub wrote:

Are there vegans who wouldnt eat vegetables grown in soil fertilised with manure?

This is exactly what I said to my vegan friend! She got offended and wouldn't answer but I really wanted to know!

Catsmokinpot

rubadub wrote:

Are there vegans who wouldnt eat vegetables grown in soil fertilised with manure?

Seems you could go to bizarre extremes, like animals being used to transport rocks from mines that then go on to make metal products. Or if say pig methane was used as a fuel source in making a product.

thats a bit rediculous if you ask me, for if cows didnt crap all over the place you wouldnt have plants to eat..... coz the ground would become infertile.... using dung is more natural than artificial fertilizers i dont see the reasoning behind it??

i mean when you think about it, all we have been for millions of years is recycled earth air and water that was once in animals that were slaughtered, people that were raped, people who raped other people, people who killed other people, people who have killed animals and animals who have killed people. suffering is all over the world, so were constantly using atoms that have been in every species on this planet you cant avoid using animal products you cant avoid suffering completely, life is suffering, get used to it... what the hell are vegans on about?

Peanut

Getting a bit carried away here?

I very much doubt that the vast majority of vegans would have a problem with manure as a fertiliser etc...
(hugh hefner, your friend clearly thought you were just taking the mickey)

Let's put it in perspective - not all vegans/vegetarians extend their food consumption habits to the outside world - i.e. strictly speaking, veganism is the practice of not eating any animal derived products.

I'm sure others will disagree, but I think you can call yourself vegan and still wear leather for example.

Hugh Hefner

Peanut wrote:

(hugh hefner, your friend clearly thought you were just taking the mickey)

Oh absolutely she did. I did try debating the point with her though. She likened it to questioning the Bible to a Christian. I didn't see what was wrong with either example.

rubadub

Peanut wrote:

I very much doubt that the vast majority of vegans would have a problem with manure as a fertiliser etc...

I doubt it too, just wondering if there are more extreme forms of vegans, or a different word altogether. It seems some vegetarians will "tut-tut" at so called veggies who still eat fish. Just wonder if there are extreme vegans. I know vegans who would not wear leather so is there another name for these.

I was not taking the mick about the manure, I really am interested if there are a set of rules. If the product was going to waste is it ok to use it? is it specifically farming animals that is wrong?

Peanut

rubadub wrote:

I doubt it too, just wondering if there are more extreme forms of vegans, or a different word altogether. It seems some vegetarians will "tut-tut" at so called veggies who still eat fish.

Yes but that's justified because eating fish is not vegetarian by any stretch of the definition!

It's not extreme - it's just the definition. Whereas the definition of vegan doesn't generally involve abstinence from the indirect involvement of animals, assuming they aren't being killed etc. So your manure idea would be an extreme form.

Shabadu

Ok- one or two interesting points here that were off topic, so into a new thread they go. Sorry about the title, couldn't really think of a good one. If anyone has any suggestions I'll change it.

This is very interesting for me- where do most vegans draw the line? Do vegans wear wool?

Hugh Hefner

Shabadu wrote:

This is very interesting for me- where do most vegans draw the line? Do vegans wear wool?

Very interesting indeed. I don't see not wearing wool as a logical action. The philosophy of veganism is to do with doing no harm to animals and, to a lesser extent, trying to be healthier. Now, and I may be wrong here, but sheep aren't hurt in sheering. Hell, it keeps them cool in the summer. So wearing wool doesn't seem to support animal cruelty.

Of course that's not going down the whole route of the, "Well, when the sheep get older they kill them for meat," situation or any other.

I realise I haven't answered your question.

Samos

As it stands the breeds of sheep that provide wool for commercial purposes have been bred over many decades to have increasing quantities of wool, which cause the animals heat-stroke in warmer weather and burden them with excessive weight for the rest of the year... In any case, taking a sheep's wool continues the mindset of exploitation, which veganism opposes.

However, I do continue to wear leather and wool products, but only because I purchasd these long before I convinced myself of the logic behind the vegan's argument. I'm doing well to make a pair of shoes last four years, but some people assume that I'm a hippocrite!

direbadger

Lads! Ye don't get it all! Do ye want to get it, I wonder? It's not about whether the sheep suffers or not in the process of shearing, it's about the exploitation of animals full stop. So no. No wool (which is a tough one for me as a knitter), no leather, no honey even!

One of the annoying things people bring up on occasion, with that smug "oh but you can't be a real vegan because" attitude is that, for example, computers may contain animal glues. I don't know why pointing out things like this makes some people feel triumphant. Why are they so insecure that they feel the need to point out possible pitfalls in other peoples morality? Anyway, the answer to this and anyone else making silly arguments is of course common sense. We (vegans) know that leather, wool and honey come from animals, so many of us don't use them. Though some make exceptions based on species (see the description of my BF on the honey thread) which doesn't make sense to me, but hey, each to their own. But your computer, the book you are reading or indeed your non-leather shoes may contain animal glue. There is no way of knowing that I know of if they do, so I would suggest that the common sense thing to do is buy the book/shoes/computer/whatever and don't worry about it. You've already done your level best to avoid animal products, which is the best way to economically effect the trade you disagree with, if only in a small way. Then again that's my version of common sense. No doubt many people feel differently. Although I would be interested to meet a vegan who decided not to buy a computer on the off chance that it might contain animal glues. Same for the vegan who doesn't buy veggies from manure-enriched soil. You simply can't find these things out so why bother about them? Although the thoughts of animal manure used as fertiliser doesn't thrill me. If it was from an organic farm well and good but manure from a factory farm would be full of the chemicals and drugs used in that form of farming, and I don't want those things in my carrots. Although, I read once that vegan manure (poo poo from vegans) was a very good fertiliser! Perhaps we should go with that. I could make a nice few bob with my daily output!*

Anyway, manure isn't the only fertiliser. In fact I would imagine (and any farmers on the board, organic or otherwise can confirm or deny this, I'd say the use of manure in commercial farming is rare enough). Wikipedia has a lot to say on the subject of fertiliser...


*messing

Samos

Well said, direbadger.

Hugh Hefner

direbadger wrote:

Lads! Ye don't get it all! Do ye want to get it, I wonder? It's not about whether the sheep suffers or not in the process of shearing, it's about the exploitation of animals full stop. So no. No wool (which is a tough one for me as a knitter), no leather, no honey even!

I guess the main thing with that,is that many people just don't see it as exploitation. I think they would see it more as co-habitation. Just like animals do in their own environments. So that's where all these topics, that you might see as stupid, come from. It's not that people, "don't get it at all!" but are just unsure of the stance on certain situations. Is that so hard to believe?

direbadger wrote:

One of the annoying things people bring up on occasion, with that smug "oh but you can't be a real vegan because" attitude is that, for example, computers may contain animal glues. I don't know why pointing out things like this makes some people feel triumphant. Why are they so insecure that they feel the need to point out possible pitfalls in other peoples morality?

Oooo, that must get ****ing annoying.

rubadub

direbadger wrote:

One of the annoying things people bring up on occasion, with that smug "oh but you can't be a real vegan because" attitude is that, for example, computers may contain animal glues. I don't know why pointing out things like this makes some people feel triumphant.

It may be that some vegans can come over with a "triumphant" self-righteous attitude that they are more morally correct than others.

It does come down to common sense. I was asking if people go to extremes. Somebody mentioned wool and they may think that you are going over the top (beyond common sense) in refusing to use wool since animals were not harmed (in his opinion). I would not agree with that, the sheep may be bred in part for the wool, like you could argue chickens laying eggs are not hurt.

You simply can't find these things out so why bother about them?

I wonder if some people do, i.e. if they do bother to use things that they cannot get 100% animal use free. Would some people simply do with out certain non-essential products.

Al Katraz

I'm not really concerned if I accidentally eat a bit of an animal, although I'd prefer not to.

Economically, how much money is going to the farmer and the factory which provides the rennet for cheese? Probably not a lot. I'm only guessing. But with leather it's about ten per cent (one ballpark guess), so that's worth making an effort to avoid.

Only writing to producers makes them change, and then only sometimes I reckon, although I've never tried.

They don't actually take rennet from animals for most chesses now cheaper to grow it on a GMO fungus.Your traditonal made chesse would be a notable exception.

Anyways as manure is a by-product of animal living and opposed to animal slaughter like leather, I can't see why any vegan would be opposed to it.
Vegans tend to be opposed to milk as the calves who are surplus to requirements are killed as a direct result of the demand for the product.
I assume it is someother such reason for the honey as well.A large percentage of wool actually comes from the slaughter house, and who knows which is which, which is why some people avoid it in general, and I do know of one breed of sheep who produce merino wool who suffer terribly for reasons as mentioned above by another poster.

Unless of course you feel like rubadub and dairbadger and think using animal resources is strictly always a form of exploitation.I don't think many vegans feel like this or surly they wouldn't exploit pets for company etc.

lacuna

Moonbaby wrote:

Vegans tend to be opposed to milk as the calves who are surplus to requirements are killed as a direct result of the demand for the product.

I was under the impression that calves were just taken off their mother's milk earlier rather than killed. I can't see the logic in farmers killing calves because they have too many. Surely they'd get more money for selling a live one.
Also I thought that the reason vegans were opposed to drinking milk or using dairy products was because like most mammals cows only produce milk for as long as the calf suckles and then it dries up. But farmers continually milk the cows so they keep producing milk. It's therefore unnatural to keep milking a cow all the time. And as it is a tiresome process for any mammal, it is also seen as cruel to keep a cow producing milk for the farmer's profit.

Peanut

Moonbaby wrote:

They don't actually take rennet from animals for most chesses now cheaper to grow it on a GMO fungus.Your traditonal made chesse would be a notable exception.

Actually a lot of Irish (and UK presumably) 'farmhouse' cheeses are vegetarian, Superquinn used to have a leaflet with it. durrus, gubeen and carrigaline spring to mind.

bonzo82

lacuna wrote:

I was under the impression that calves were just taken off their mother's milk earlier rather than killed. I can't see the logic in farmers killing calves because they have too many. Surely they'd get more money for selling a live one.
Also I thought that the reason vegans were opposed to drinking milk or using dairy products was because like most mammals cows only produce milk for as long as the calf suckles and then it dries up. But farmers continually milk the cows so they keep producing milk. It's therefore unnatural to keep milking a cow all the time. And as it is a tiresome process for any mammal, it is also seen as cruel to keep a cow producing milk for the farmer's profit.

Male calves are taken from their mums very early, often to be killed for veal. Their mothers are then impregnated repeatedly so as to keep producing large volumes of milk for humans to drink. It's unneccesary suffering to satisfy an acquired taste for dairy products. I was brought up on dairy products, and used to love them, but a while ago I just started to see the unnatural side of it. If I wouldn't drink human breastmilk, why would I drink bovine breastmilk? It's not even particularly good for you, never mind those national dairy council ads!

The manure thing is OTT, anyone who would seek to avoid animal products to that extent may as well retreat from society altogether, because it's really not possible. Vegans generally just seek to minimise the suffering of animals as best they can, to the best of their knowledge.

direbadger

bonzo82 wrote:

Vegans generally just seek to minimise the suffering of animals as best they can, to the best of their knowledge.

Z'actly!

Those new dairy council ads are a flippin' joke!

Nature Boy

direbadger wrote:

Z'actly!

Those new dairy council ads are a flippin' joke!

I saw an ad recently (I think it was american) that actually promoted ret meat as healthy! The message was that it makes you feel good! It's terrible that governments only act in the interests of big industries/companies and not the people.

I'm not vegan (hope to be one day) but I mostly eat vegan food. Sometimes I give in to dairy so i think the quote from bonzo's post is the best description, veggies/vegans basically boycott products that exploit animals as best they can.

Samos

This is very similar to the food pyramid, which was allegedly a result of lobbying from the meat, dairy, sugar and grain industries. The USDA, who developed it, is responsible for promoting agricultural commerce, rather than the health of American citizens. It is completely out of proportion, yet this propaganda is hanging in every classroom, misleading the next generation.

Shabadu

The next person to call eating meat unhealthy or unethical, or the food pyramid unhealthy or unethical as a statement of fact without a NON PETA backing link or study, will be banned.

All these statements must be backed up with facts or clarified as opinions. Samos- please provide what you believe is the correct food pyramid, I'm literally boggling that you disagree that a diet combined mostly of wholegrains/vegetables & fruit, with smaller portions of meat/dairy is healthy.

bonzo82

He said "allegedly".

A diet containing a small amount of dairy/meat can be healthy, sure. That's not really the point though, the point is that a diet completely free of any animal product can be just as healthy, if not more so. Therefore, any consumption of these products is supporting needless cruelty to/slaughter of animals. I stress the word needless because there is no nutritional element obtained from ingesting animal products which cannot be obtained from a plant source.

Shabadu

bonzo82 wrote:

He said "allegedly".

A diet containing a small amount of dairy/meat can be healthy, sure. That's not really the point though, the point is that a diet completely free of any animal product can be just as healthy, if not more so. Therefore, any consumption of these products is supporting needless cruelty to/slaughter of animals. I stress the word needless because there is no nutritional element obtained from ingesting animal products which cannot be obtained from a plant source.

Stating opinion as fact directly after a warning not to?

I would ban you for a week, but I really don't hold with banning people for opinions. This is the last warning to posters. Back up your statements.

Peanut

One man's opinion is another man's fact, I'm not sure that moderating on opinion is going to be especially successful..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4389837.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2838083.stm

bonzo82

http://www.foodsforlife.org.uk/nutrition/vegetarian-vegan-nutrition.html

Back-up provided. I fail to see how it's useful to post links to back up every statement though. I'm sure we all know how to Google by now.

Tar.Aldarion

Shabadu wrote:

Back up your statements.

Surely that is a bit hard with so many contradicting websites.
How can you say no PETA sources? that's a personal bias that people like me may have but others may not? What makes another site better?

Posts are opinion. People's opinion may be wrong but if they don't insult people
then that should be ok?


Bonzo82's post was clearly fact imo.

Samos

Shabadu wrote:

The next person to call eating meat unhealthy or unethical, or the food pyramid unhealthy or unethical as a statement of fact without a NON PETA backing link or study, will be banned.

All these statements must be backed up with facts or clarified as opinions. Samos- please provide what you believe is the correct food pyramid, I'm literally boggling that you disagree that a diet combined mostly of wholegrains/vegetables & fruit, with smaller portions of meat/dairy is healthy.

I think you are out of line here. What I posted was clearly signposted as "allegedly" as bonzo pointed out. it was not necessarily my opinion or a fact, but simply a summary of some sceptics. I found some of the info on Wikipedia and other sources which I have now forgotten. I am sure ou could check these if you feel so strongly.

What I do think is that meat and dairy are not necessary components of the human diet and never were. There is much evidence for this. I am evidence for this! I have done a huge amount of research on the subject and can recommend several books or papers from independent scientific and philosophical positions to verify this, or send you my own writings.

It is simply your opinion that:

a diet combined mostly of wholegrains/vegetables & fruit, with smaller portions of meat/dairy is healthy.

My perspective is that the exploitation of other sentient beings is unethical according to conventional moral concerns, such as issues of fairness and maximizing happiness, and that the consequent diet of this position is often healthier, more economical, less destructive of the environment and less wasteful of natural resources that the prevalent contemporary human diet.

Shabadu

It's all well and good for people who CAN eat a vegan/vegetarian diet with no ill effects, but what about all the people who would be exposing themselves to health risks if they did, such as pregnant women, the elderly and very young etc?

You simply cannot say that eating meat and dairy is unneccesary when a teenage girl could read this 'fact', go vegan without properly educating herself, and put herself at risk of becoming anaemic. Children born to long term vegetarian mothers are much more likely to be depressed/susceptible to panic attacks due to b12 deprevation in utero.

So, it is not a diet you can qualify as completely safe, and invent a myth about the food pyramid being the brainchild of the US government and beef/dairy cartel without backing it up. It is not the readers responsibility to go looking for links to back up your claims, it is the poster's.

Tar, a post does not automatically mean it's the posters opinion alone, neither does it mean someone reading it will consider a statement someone's opinion, rather than a potentially dangerous opinion. Boards.ie publishes all of your posts and is ultimately responsible for the contents. Why do you think the mins are concerned about libellous statements?

http://www.andrews.edu/NUFS/vitaminB12.html

http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:pACubqKVPpsJ:www.danonevitapole.com/extranet/vitapole/EvenementsScientifiques.nsf/0/331DE8A67F0227A2C1256BED0047A20A/%24File/WS4%2520StressNut.pdf


If you have any more off topic questions relating to this, PM them. I don't want to have to clarify this again. I appreciate what good and knowledgeable posters you all are on this forum, but the charter is there for a reason. I don't care what your opinions are, but you simply have to qualify statements llike: "It is completely out of proportion, yet this propaganda is hanging in every classroom, misleading the next generation.", so people can look at your source and judge for themselves whether it's reputable, or just propoganda and hyperbole.

Peanut

Shabadu wrote:

Children born to long term vegetarian mothers are much more likely to be depressed/susceptible to panic attacks due to b12 deprevation in utero.

Vegetarians aren't generally b12 deficient due to consumption of milk, cheese etc. Vegans can use fortified food sources of b12, e.g. breakfast cereals, or supplements.

I agree that esp. teenagers thinking of going vegan should be aware of b12 sources.