Milk and Dairy

emaherx

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

So if we give more land to livestock farming it would improve biodiversity?

And where do you think we are giving more? The opposite is actually happening.

Everything is about balance so we should certainly be encouraging more extensive farms and discourage more intensive farming.

But the logic might hurt your brain, biodiversity works better when a cow has more land. The more cattle you put in a smaller area the more it damages any biodiversity, but less cattle in a bigger area allows biodiversity flourish along side farming, but if you have so few cattle (or other grazing animals) that grass and weeds just grow, then fall over and rot into the ground then this is actually worse.

Thelonious Monk

emaherx wrote: »

And where do you think we are giving more? The opposite is actually happening.

Everything is about balance so we should certainly be encouraging more extensive farms and discourage more intensive farming.

But the logic might hurt your brain, biodiversity works better when a cow has more land. The more cattle you put in a smaller area the more it damages any biodiversity, but less cattle in a bigger area allows biodiversity flourish along side farming, but if you have so few cattle (or other grazing animals) that grass and weeds just grow, then fall over and rot into the ground then this is actually worse.

Do you think we would need to reduce the herd to farm cattle in this way or we could keep the 7 million? Surely we don't have enough land for this.

emaherx

Although we certainly need to replace more native forests, contrary to popular belief ireland was never completely forest but would naturally had a lot of grazing animals. We had some of the largest deer in the world which couldn't have survived in dense forest.

In parts of Europe where livestock farming declined it had a negative effect on many species of insects including some rare butterflies as well as other meadow animals and birds. There is a project to re-wild cattle in these areas https://rewildingeurope.com/rewilding-in-action/wildlife-comeback/tauros/

In your re-wilding plan for Ireland deer would probably be a better native option but as we are also missing our native predators we'd have a dilemma which might not suit many vegans. Do we introduce wolves to keep populations in check or a program of regular culling.

Thelonious Monk

But do you think we should reduce the herd if it's extensive farming and less intensive farming you're suggesting? Also the link above, they're putting some buffalos or whatever they are in to keep the equilibrium, not dumping millions of them there for food production, there's a difference.

emaherx

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Do you think we would need to reduce the herd to farm cattle in this way or we could keep the 7 million? Surely we don't have enough land for this.

Well I don't keep 7 million cattle and I run an extensive farm with a low stocking rate. Should also be pointed out the majority of farms in Ireland are fairly similar. I can't answer how many cattle Ireland should support as I haven't worked that out beyond my own farm.

If on the other hand you are looking for me to admit that some farms in my opinion are over stocked then yes absolutely I believe many farms have too many cattle. Will that make any difference to you as you seem to see all farms and farmers in the same light anyway?

Thelonious Monk

emaherx wrote: »

Well I don't keep 7 million cattle and I run an extensive farm with a low stocking rate. Should also be pointed out the majority of farms in Ireland are fairly similar. I can't answer how many cattle Ireland should support as I haven't worked that out beyond my own farm.

If on the other hand you are looking for me to admit that some farms in my opinion are over stocked then yes absolutely I believe many farms have too many cattle. Will that make any difference to you as you seem to see all farms and farmers in the same light anyway?

No but we wouldn't be able to produce all the meat and dairy that we do if everyone farmed the way you do. Any mention of reducing the herd is shut down immediately by the IFA. So the polluting intensive farming isn't going to go away unfortunately, regardless of what you're doing.

emaherx

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

But do you think we should reduce the herd if it's extensive farming and less intensive farming you're suggesting? Also the link above, they're putting some buffalos or whatever they are in to keep the equilibrium, not dumping millions of them there for food production, there's a difference.

If there is a lack of a natural predator that equilibrium will be short lived. It's never as simple as just dropping a few in. Somebody dropped a few animals off in Australia in the past with some fairly negative effects.

KennisWhale

gozunda wrote: »

You do now realise that the "industrial agriculture lobbyists" include those of the highly processed plant food lobby like Unilever yes?

Eating 'vegetables' doesn't magically save the environment btw. Some of the most intensive and highest input types of agriculture are intensive horticulture and arable production. But yeah fcuk them yeah?

You have a bit of a gymnasium going on inside your head that you love to jump around it seems. Lots of whataboutery.

Thelonious Monk

emaherx wrote: »

If there is a lack of a natural predator that equilibrium will be short lived. It's never as simple as just dropping a few in. Somebody dropped a few animals off in Australia in the past with some fairly negative effects.

They probably have wolves in that part of the world, although I don't know if they would prey on those massive things.

emaherx

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

No but we wouldn't be able to produce all the meat and dairy that we do if everyone farmed the way you do. Any mention of reducing the herd is shut down immediately by the IFA. So the polluting intensive farming isn't going to go away unfortunately, regardless of what you're doing.

You mention regularly about pollution from livestock. Do you know what area of Ireland has the poorest water quality due to agricultural run off? Do you think it might be a livestock area or a tillage area?

gozunda

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

For me it's more about the amount of land given up worldwide to feed cattle. The amazon is being burned down for this, Ireland has very little biodiversity and nothing resembling a wilderness because of this. If we all ate less meat we wouldn't have to use as much land for food production. Pointless engaging in this conversation with cattle farmers anyway, you're saviours of nature as far as you're concerned.

Excuse my French - but thats B U L L S H I T.
The vast majority of land used in Ireland for grazing is not suitable for either horticulture or arable farming.

Irelands biodiversity is fairly good considering that our country once supported 8.5 million people living off the land and a history which meant our forests were cleared as a result of colonisation to the point they covered less than 1% of the entire country

Today hedgerows alone amount to near 5% of total tree cover. With a further 11% now made up of commercial and non commercial forestry.

The Amazon is being cut down by the Brazilians - Who are using it for growing crops and for livestock most of which is primarily exported to China. And has fek sll squared to do with Irish farming.

Irelands agriculture is largely extensive in nature. But of course that doesn't suit the bs being pushed by some ....

Thelonious- it is possible may know something about music. You evidently know fek all about agriculture or the environment.

KennisWhale

eviltwin wrote: »

And coconut milk

Careful now Ted, don't want to offend the lovely dairy farmers.

RandomViewer

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

They probably have wolves in that part of the world, although I don't know if they would prey on those massive things.

Dingoes stole my Buffalo!!!

gozunda

KennisWhale wrote: »

You have a bit of a gymnasium going on inside your head that you love to jump around it seems. Lots of whataboutery.

Rather than throwing such ****e. You could try and engage with the discussion. I commented on your post. If that doesn't suit your evident bias - not much I can help with tbf.

emaherx

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

No but we wouldn't be able to produce all the meat and dairy that we do if everyone farmed the way you do. Any mention of reducing the herd is shut down immediately by the IFA. So the polluting intensive farming isn't going to go away unfortunately, regardless of what you're doing.

Really?
There was a scheme only last year to encourage farmers to reduce their herd size even approved if I remember correctly by the IFA.

Thelonious Monk

emaherx wrote: »

Really?
There was a scheme only last year to encourage farmers to reduce their herd size even approved if I remember correctly by the IFA.

IFA Says Maintaining The Size Of The National Herd "Absolutely Critical"

https://kfmradio.com/news/08102020-0837/listen-ifa-says-maintaining-size-national-herd-absolutely-critical

emaherx

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

IFA Says Maintaining The Size Of The National Herd "Absolutely Critical"

https://kfmradio.com/news/08102020-0837/listen-ifa-says-maintaining-size-national-herd-absolutely-critical

Farmers were paid to reduce stocking rate.

gozunda

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Do you think we would need to reduce the herd to farm cattle in this way or we could keep the 7 million? Surely we don't have enough land for this.

Thelonious- I really don't know if you are deliberately choosing to ignore the number of times many different posters have explained that issue to you. And yet you continue to push the exact same rubbish again and again?. Its hard to know if you are making things up or just having a laugh at this stage.

So let's do this again.

Over the last 40 years there has no huge increase in the national herd. As of December 2018 - CSO figures show the number of cattle of all types was approx 6.5 million - well below the number of cattle (7.6 million) in Ireland when we joined the EU in 1973. In 2019 the total number of cattle decreased by a further 33,800. If you wish to argue variations in these figures over time I'll be only to happy to do so.

So yes with a reduced number of animals - there is indeed enough land. Stocking rates are a function of the available which can be grazed. But I guess you wouldn't know that.

gozunda

gozunda wrote: »

Rather than throwing such ****e. You could try and engage with the discussion. I commented on your post. If that doesn't suit your evident bias - not much I can help with tbf.

Not throwing shíte ?

Like calling a poster a buil****ter and telling them they know **** all ?

That’s pretty hypocritical on your behalf there.

So I’ll just call you the hypocrite from now on seeing as you’re ok with calling people names.

You’ll be fine with that won’t you hypocrite ?

Or I could call you ‘whataboutery’ if you’d prefer ?

RandomViewer

gozunda wrote: »

Thelonious- I really don't know if you are deliberately choosing to ignore the number of times many different posters have explained that issue to you. And yet you continue to push the exact same rubbish again and again?. Its hard to know if you are making things up or just having a laugh at this stage.

So let's do this again.

Over the last 40 years there has no huge increase in the national herd. As of December 2018 - CSO figures show the number of cattle of all types was approx 6.5 million - well below the number of cattle (7.6 million) in Ireland when we joined the EU in 1973. In 2019 the total number of cattle decreased by a further 33,800. If you wish to argue variations in these figures over time I'll be only to happy to do so.

So yes with a reduced number of animals - there is indeed enough land. Stocking rates are a function of the available which can be grazed. But I guess you wouldn't know that.

Think he's scared of cows rather than any environmental hatred of farmers

gozunda

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not throwing shíte ? Like calling a poster a buil****ter and telling them they know **** all ? That’s pretty hypocritical on your behalf there. So I’ll just call you the hypocrite from now on seeing as you’re ok with calling people names. You’ll be fine with that won’t you hypocrite ? Or I could call you ‘whataboutery’ if you’d prefer ?

Really Klopp lol. And Nope. I said the comment was bull****e. But you know that already. And evidently knew nothing about agriculture.

As you well know - calling posters names like 'hypocrite' because you dont agree with them is something you do all the time.

But you know what - you've just shown your hand again. No surprises there eh ...

gozunda

gozunda wrote: »

Really Klopp lol. And Nope. I said the comment was bull****e. But you know that already. And evidently knew nothing about agriculture.

As you well know - calling posters names like 'hypocrite' because you dont agree with them is something you do all the time.

But you know what - you've just shown your hand again. No surprises there eh ...

So that’ll be the whataboutery then.

gozunda

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So that’ll be the whataboutery then.

No Klopp thats you.

I think the overwhelmingly obvious lesson is that when you monetise animals it’s the money that becomes the most important thing. It just makes sense.

Heartbreaking stuff here.

How can people still think that what they see in adverts remotely resembles the reality ?

https://youtu.be/RIWfZCiWsNU

auspicious

When posting here on the vegan forum all posters should respect the overarching tenet that is animal products are unnecessary to survive in the contemporary.

emaherx

[Deleted User] wrote: »

https://youtu.be/RIWfZCiWsNU

So your youtube video dosen't show any well cared for animals therefore they don't exist? Couldn't possibly be that it wouldn't suit the makers of the video to show such imagery?

Lady Haywire

Deleted User wrote: »

How can people still think that what they see in adverts remotely resembles the reality ?

Deleted User wrote: »

https://youtu.be/RIWfZCiWsNU

How can people still think that what they see in heavily edited videos remotely resembles the reality ?

Ah right.

That’s all CGI is it ?

All false. It’s not real ? Fake news guys is it ?

That’s your stance from the off rather than it’s abhorrent.

That’s very very telling. I’m not too surprised though.

Money and livelihoods at stake.

Lady Haywire

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah right.

That’s all CGI is it ?

All false.

That’s your stance from the off rather than it’s abhorrent.

That’s very very telling. I’m not too surprised though.

Money and livelihoods at stake.

Where did I say it's all CGI or false?? I'm sure, like me, farmers watching that would have their blood boiling. There's bad & good farmers, (thankfully the former is a very small percentage) just like there's nice & horrible people in life too.

It's very telling that your stance from the off is that all farmers are like this when I can tell you with complete certainty that that is false.