Rise of Vegetarian/Veganism

gozunda

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

This thread is madder than i am.

Now vibes that is clearly not true

gozunda

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

PETA.

This is a good example.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/killing-animals-petas-open-secret_b_59e78243e4b0e60c4aa36711

Peta forcibly snatching peoples pets and killing and disposing of them like thrash because they believe any domestic animal is an 'abomination' and better of dead.

Then they're are the increasingly popular anti carnivore activists who are advocating for and seek support to eradicate all wild meat eaters from the planet. Because they believe 'meat is murder'. These are not a fringe group btw.

This lunacy needs to be called out for what it is.

ILoveYourVibes

gozunda wrote: »

Now vibes that is clearly not true

Hell no this box of frogs is all you guys!

Unearthly

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I don't think so.

Too busy.

Nah you can generally find loads of farmers in the vegetarian/vegan forum.

They love educating people on the humane and ethical mechanism of putting a bolt through a skull

ILoveYourVibes

Unearthly wrote: »

Nah you can generally find loads of farmers in the vegetarian/vegan forum.

They love educating people on the humane and ethical mechanism of putting a bolt through a skull

can't find a thread there that went that way.

gozunda

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

can't find a thread there that went that way.

Nah they're normally fairly boring discussions about biotechnology, agriculture and 'farmers'. Very good moderator there. Keeps the more feral elements firmly in the bin tbh.

emaherx

Madden Uptight Gristle wrote: »

we imported over 4 million tonnes of animal feed in 2018, not counting cereals not in feed products but bought to be fed to animals.

To be fed to how many animals?

2018 was an exceptional year. We had a very long winter followed by a drought dosen't happen very often.

El_Duderino 09

gozunda wrote: »

So you do keep yabbering on. Your entire style of posting is a train wreck and reeks of paranoia. Posters pointing out misinformation (I'm not the only one btw) are not a 'lobby' - they are not the 'meat industry' and they are not even 'anti vegan / vegetarian' (sic).

If you have bona fida information I'm not a "honest broker' (whatever the fuk that is!) then go ahead and report it. Dont hide behind insinuation and blame calling. Its certainly not honest and it's certainly not discussion. Personally I've read enough of your ****e. I shall leave you at promoting your vegan "lobby" (Thats parody btw). Your arguments are a busted flush eitherway.

Ah it makes sense if you didn't understand what an honest broker is. It's a person with specialists information (being involved in the meat industry) and uses that information impartiality.

And you don't use the information you have impartiality. Thats obvious. You.coild be an interesting source of information on this topic if you werent exclusively biased towards the defending meat industry

Thelonious Monk

Why is it in every discussion on farming and vegans etc a certain poster gets into full on rows with people? Every single time.

gozunda

Thelonious Monk wrote:

Maybe so but I still don't think we need to be producing and consuming meat at the insane levels that we are

Seanachai wrote: »

I'm for perma-culture and local food production, there's a load of emphasis on climate change but sfa in comparison about the soil health and producing quality food.

Do you grow / produce your own produce? I'm.a big supporter of local food production. The shorter the chain from the producer to the consumer the better imo.

@ Thelonious I responded to your post about animal feed stuffs and the facts that most of it comes from by-products of the human food industry. If the human population could be somehow scaled back - do you think that would help?

the beer revolu

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Why is it in every discussion on farming and vegans etc a certain poster gets into full on rows with people? Every single time.

To be fair, there's two of them at it.
It's very dull.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Seanachai wrote: »

I'm for perma-culture and local food production, there's a load of emphasis on climate change but sfa in comparison about the soil health and producing quality food.

They're all linked, tbh. When I hear about biodiversity being compromised by ruminant agriculture, the simplest analogy I can find to a comparable ecosystem is the soil under our feet.

Soil has a unique and changing ecosystem as you travel from field to field and country to country. Similar to the unique microbiology in a forest soil, grasslands have a symbiotic relationship with grasses and other species that inhabit it.

Between bacteria and viruses feasting on other microbiota to the soil fungi swapping soil micronutrients with grasses in return for carbon and sugars, it's a stable and evolving microsystem depending on the season, climate and rainfall patterns, similar to forests and rainforests but uniquely different. And that's even before you consider the macrobiota like earthworms and the diverse insect populations, all feeding on and helping to form the soil humus that gives and keeps the soil structures in place.

Then you go into the tilled areas of the western world. Microbiota diversity is almost gone, the macrobiota has almost disappeared and all because of the overtilling of the soils to grow the crops championed by vegan activists. And all because continuous tillage absolutely destroys the soil humus. And then when it rains, the soil has nothing to keep it connected and in place in the fields and it washes off in great swaths every time there's a heavy shower of rain.

And I'll leave you all a link from that establishment beloved by vegans, the Guardian, so I won't be accused of linking to anti vegan sources. It's pretty chilling reading tbh.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/24/uk-30-40-years-away-eradication-soil-fertility-warns-michael-gove

Scientific American also

the beer revolu

the beer revolu wrote: »

To be fair, there's two of them at it.
It's very dull.

There’s always only one common participant.

It’s to kill the discussion.

Make 1-2 pedantic points and spend pages boring every discussion into oblivion. Which is the objective obviously. There’s no hiding that fact. Let’s not talk about subject. Let’s derail.

I think duderino is probably correct in his assumption as to that posters intentions.

Who’s still reading at this stage ?

It’s a killer for boards.ie but they don’t seem to care.

gozunda

[Deleted User] wrote: »

...

There’s always only one common participant...

Make 1-2 pedantic points and spend pages boring every discussion into oblivion. Which is the objective obviously. There’s no hiding that fact. Let’s not talk about subject. Let’s derail...

For sure ;

Dont reckon I agree with your comments too often Klopperama. But you aren't wrong there. Always reckon your contributions on that are spot on ...

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That’s great.
You can head off now and enjoy that thread.
No need to be banging on about it here.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No probably about it.
Zero tolerance over there.
You’d be banned within hours.
Probably site banned too.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

‘You are very naive’ is downright insulting.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So start a thread about it.
Also, it’s not nice to insult people.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You often try and catch eels with oil on your hands ?

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Then start a thread about it.

Of interest what are your thoughts on overpopulation and resource use?

wakka12

silverharp wrote: »

so? that isn't an argument against eating meat Think about a supermarket in terms of space and type of food, the meat section is one of the smallest sections in a supermarket, its not the meat section that makes people fat

And its not the lack of a piece of meat every odd dinner that makes some of the vegans youre referring to look sickly or thin. Its because most vegans are health conscious and probably take it to extremes and dont eat any or very much unhealthy foods across the board and become very slim.

gozunda

wakka12 wrote: »

And its not the lack of a piece of meat every odd dinner that makes some of the vegans youre referring to look sickly or thin. Its because most vegans are health conscious and probably take it to extremes and dont eat any or very much unhealthy foods across the board and become very slim.

There is also an eating disorder related to this issue and which I believe comes under the term Orthorexia - which is a form of disordered eating. No idea how prevalent it is however...

Here is a vegsn and non vegan source on the condition for a bit of balance...

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/veganism-and-orthorexia

https://plentyvegan.com/you-are-not-what-you-eat-instagram-veganism-orthorexia-2/

s7ryf3925pivug

Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

Today's little children are going to suffer the impact of climate change acutely no matter what at this stage. Not everyone can afford an electric car or modern central heating. Anyone can afford to replace meat and dairy consumption because it's cheaper to do so. Won't save the world by yourself but at least you can consider yourself part of the solution not the problem.

Thelonious Monk

Madden Uptight Gristle wrote: »

Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

Today's little children are going to suffer the impact of climate change acutely no matter what at this stage. Not everyone can afford an electric car or modern central heating. Anyone can afford to replace meat and dairy consumption because it's cheaper to do so. Won't save the world by yourself but at least you can consider yourself part of the solution not the problem.

The farmers on this thread have already said they think that article is a load of bollocks.

s7ryf3925pivug

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

The farmers on this thread have already said they think that article is a load of bollocks.

Article in respected peer reviewed journal versus random internet poster farmers. Why is that even a discussion? Encapsulates one of the biggest problems with modern society.

cj maxx

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

The farmers on this thread have already said they think that article is a load of bollocks.

Eat less meat , just pay more for it

Thelonious Monk

Madden Uptight Gristle wrote: »

Article in respected peer reviewed journal versus random internet poster farmers. Why is that even a discussion? Encapsulates one of the biggest problems with modern society.

Yep, they're just not buying it. Irish produced meat is the cleanest in the world too. Doesn't affect the environment at all.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02409-7

Intergovernmental panel in the UN published a report today too

The special report on climate and land by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) describes plant-based diets as a major opportunity for mitigating and adapting to climate change ― and includes a policy recommendation to reduce meat consumption.

Farmers wont buy that either. Doesn't apply to Ireland.

Thelonious Monk

cjmc wrote: »

Eat less meat , just pay more for it

Good idea, but the race seems to be to the bottom with cheap meat and horrible processed products.

s7ryf3925pivug

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Yep, they're just not buying it. Irish produced meat is the cleanest in the world too. Doesn't affect the environment at all.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02409-7

Intergovernmental panel in the UN published a report today too



Farmers wont buy that either. Doesn't apply to Ireland.

Irish cows are better for the environment than trees. Irish counterparts of Donald Trump.

emaherx

Madden Uptight Gristle wrote: »

Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

Today's little children are going to suffer the impact of climate change acutely no matter what at this stage. Not everyone can afford an electric car or modern central heating. Anyone can afford to replace meat and dairy consumption because it's cheaper to do so. Won't save the world by yourself but at least you can consider yourself part of the solution not the problem.

From your article, dosen't look as bad for Irish Beef farms at all, add to the fact they love to forget about carbon sequestered by grass lands and carbon loss from ploughing. Also notice they compared cows to peas and not rice

The analysis also revealed a huge variability between different ways of producing the same food. For example, beef cattle raised on deforested land result in 12 times more greenhouse gases and use 50 times more land than those grazing rich natural pasture. But the comparison of beef with plant protein such as peas is stark, with even the lowest impact beef responsible for six times more greenhouse gases and 36 times more land.

And also funny authors of the report are vegan, but the beef farmers on this forum are vested interests.

s7ryf3925pivug

emaherx wrote: »

From your article, dosen't look as bad for Irish Beef farms at all, add to the fact they love to forget about carbon sequestered by grass lands and carbon loss from ploughing. Also notice they compared cows to peas and not rice



And also funny authors of the report are vegan, but the beef farmers on this forum are vested interests.

Vegans don't profit financially from other people being vegan.
Everyone is a vested interest.

jh79

Organic crops have a greater carbon footprint than conventionally farmed crops and produces a lower yield.

Would the vegetarians and vegans here be switching to conventionally grown crops?

Thelonious Monk

jh79 wrote: »

Organic crops have a greater carbon footprint than conventionally farmed crops and produces a lower yield.

Would the vegetarians and vegans here be switching to conventionally grown crops?

Whatever the most efficient and cleanest ways of feeding the world need to be adopted

emaherx

Madden Uptight Gristle wrote: »

Vegans don't profit financially from other people being vegan.
Everyone is a vested interest.

Emmm.... Plenty do. It's a big industry to be fair.

Thelonious Monk

So a report from a UN committee made up of over 100 scientists is a vegan conspiracy?

emaherx

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

So a report from a UN committee made up of over 100 scientists is a vegan conspiracy?

Well I didn't comment on that report for a start, have you a link to the actual report?

gozunda

Madden Uptight Gristle wrote: »

Irish cows are better for the environment than trees. Irish counterparts of Donald Trump.

So you don't believe that properly maintained and gazzed grassland is one of the most recommended means of carbon sequestration- no?

And you dont believe that at least some farmers and scientists knowledge and expertise in this area outweigh the average persons ability to read a newspaper article and take it as gospel and for extra mark's then throw in a comparison with Donald Trump???

According to the European Environment Agency

The most carbon-rich soils are peatlands, mostly found in northern Europe, the UK and Ireland. Grassland soils also store a lot of carbon per hectare...

The fastest way to increase organic carbon in farmed soil is to convert arable land to grassland...

On farmland, ploughing the soil is known to accelerate decomposition and mineralisation of organic matter. In order to keep carbon and nutrients in the soil, researchers suggest reducing tillage

https://www.eea.europa.eu/signals/signals-2015/articles/soil-and-climate-change

Forests also have a roll to play - but so does grassland. And just because some don't want anyone eating meat - this is yet another example of throwing everything including the kitchen sink at animal agriculture. It doesn't wash however.

As for "Peer reviewed" articles- if you wish to play "peer reviewed" - many of these are little better than those paying for them. You need to look at not only who is funding the reseach but who are creating the storyline using such research.

Of interest the Guardian is paid by a US pro-plant food lobby to publish articles specifically to criticuse animal agriculture. They have this declared on their website.

It would not be difficult to find half a dozen peer review papers that would contradict all or some of the above piece of pro-plant food industry promotion.

The fact remains that grassland is an important resource in our ability to sequester carbon. Its a fact that Ireland has some of the best grasslands in Europe. We also use those grasslands to produce food - and more importantly you can't eat trees, no matter how much some pro-plant food advocates evidenrly would like to put farming out of business here.

s7ryf3925pivug

gozunda wrote: »

So you don't believe that properly maintained and gazzed grassland is one of the most recommended means of carbon sequestration- no?

And you dont believe that at least some farmers and scientists knowledge and expertise in this area outweigh the average persons ability to read a newspaper article and take it as gospel and for extra mark's then throw in a comparison with Donald Trump???

According to the European Environment Agency



https://www.eea.europa.eu/signals/signals-2015/articles/soil-and-climate-change

Forests also have a roll to play - but so does grassland. And just because some don't want anyone eating meat - this is yet another example of throwing everything including the kitchen sink at animal agriculture. It doesn't wash however.

As for "Peer reviewed" articles- if you wish to play "peer reviewed" - many of these are little better than those paying for them. You need to look at not only who is funding the reseach but who are creating the storyline using such research.

Of interest the Guardian is paid by a US pro-plant food lobby to publish articles specifically to criticuse animal agriculture. They have this declared on their website.

It would not be difficult to find half a dozen peer review papers that would contradict all or some of the above piece of pro-plant food industry promotion.

The fact remains that grassland is an important resource in our ability to sequester carbon. Its a fact that Ireland has some of the best grasslands in Europe. We also use those grasslands to produce food - and more importantly you can't eat trees, no matter how much some pro-plant food advocates evidenrly would like to put farming out of business here.

ok then find a half dozen articles from respected scientific journals contradicting that.

Buford T. Justice XIX

The report is more nuanced than reported in the linked articles, somewhat unsurprisingly. Just a short excerpt from the report.

Upstream

Madden Uptight Gristle wrote: »

ok then find a half dozen articles from respected scientific journals contradicting that.

Here are some peer reviewed a few from Richard Teague, if you want to show the positive contributions animal agriculture can make.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/WR_Teague

He's not saying all grazing is good for the environment, but wholistic planned grazing can be.
Animals can be a tool to either wear out soils, or build and regenerate them. It's not the cow it's the how.

If you're serious about helping the environment, the best thing you can do is cut out industrial food and ultra-processed junk. Look for food from regenerative agriculture. It's better for your health too, be that as a meat eater or otherwise.

If all the worlds farmland, about 7 billion acres were farmed in a regenerative manner, all the excess carbon emitted since the start of the industrial revolution could be sequestered in less than 10 years.

emaherx

Buford T. Justice VI wrote: »

The report is more nuanced than reported in the linked articles, somewhat unsurprisingly. Just a short excerpt from the report.

Is that from the damning IPCC report?

Buford T. Justice XIX

emaherx wrote: »

Is that from the damning IPCC report?

The current one, I think. I'll dig up the tweet on it when I get the chance.

gozunda

Madden Uptight Gristle wrote: »

Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard Today's little children are going to suffer the impact of climate change acutely no matter what at this stage. Not everyone can afford an electric car or modern central heating. Anyone can afford to replace meat and dairy consumption because it's cheaper to do so. Won't save the world by yourself but at least you can consider yourself part of the solution not the problem.

Well that headline is a pure piece of poohy straight out.

'Will someone not think of the childer'? Seriously?

The facts are that - globally agriculture is estimated to be responsible for approx 14-16 % of greenhouse gas emissions. That leaves approx 74-76 % of all green house gas emissions coming from other human activities and sources.

https://www.agronomy.org/files/images/about-agronomy/source-greenhouse-400x531px.jpg

It is of interst that many graphs often misleadingly lump forestry in with agriculture - giving this sector an inflated figure of approx 24%. However as stated people cant eat trees.

Look at it this way - humans have to produce food to eat. We cannot eat grass - and in regions with climatic grassland (ie not suitable for arable production) - these grasslands grazed by cattle, sheep etc provide an important source of food and nutrition and livelihood for many millions of people.

The fact remains - the use and transportation of fossil fuels in the energy and transportation are the single largest contributors to greenhouse gasses globally.

Want to make a real difference? Ditch the car and transport. Give up flying away for your holidays. Empty your oil tank and turn off the central heating and stop buying and using all forms of plastics and fossil fuell derived products.

Then you will certainly be doing something for the children of the future ...

Thelonious Monk

I know none of you think UN research etc applies to Ireland, but how many cattle do you farmers think this island can sustain, on top of the 7 million we have already?

emaherx

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I know none of you think UN research etc applies to Ireland, but how many cattle do you farmers think this island can sustain, on top of the 7 million we have already?

This the UN report that you don't have a link to?




But I answered this for you when you asked it yesterday. At a high stocking rate using all available farmland the answer is about 30 million.

This is not a situation I'd personally like to see. As I believe in more extensive farming methods.

Thelonious Monk

emaherx wrote: »

This the UN report that you don't have a link to?

I'm sure you could find a link. But what's the point? You'd say it's not applicable and find holes in it. What number would you like to see cattle limited to?

gozunda

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I'm sure you could find a link. But what's the point? You'd say it's not applicable and find holes in it. What number would you like to see cattle limited to?

You've asked the question several times in the thread already - and got some replies. Is there a specific answer you are looking for? Genuine question.

emaherx

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I'm sure you could find a link. But what's the point? You'd say it's not applicable and find holes in it. What number would you like to see cattle limited to?

I honestly can't find one, just references to a leaked draft paper.

The current paper referenced by Buford T. Justice VI dosen't suggest any move to a meat free diet.

If someone can find holes in a report then it is flawed.

Why do you want to see a limit, do you have a number in mind?

Thelonious Monk

emaherx wrote: »

I honestly can't find one, just references to a leaked draft paper.

The current paper referenced by Buford T. Justice VI dosen't suggest any move to a meat free diet.

If someone can find holes in a report then it is flawed.

Why do you want to see a limit, do you have a number in mind?

I just want to know how many cattle a farmer thinks is enough without it being detriment to the environment. I'll say 1 million.

emaherx

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I just want to know how many cattle a farmer thinks is enough without it being detriment to the environment. I'll say 1 million.

Based on a gut feeling?


Any sign of that UN report yet?

Thelonious Monk

emaherx wrote: »

Based on a gut feeling?


Any sign of that UN report yet?

Am I supposed to be getting you a UN report or something? I don't know what you're on about.
Based on a gut feeling yes why not. Will you have a stab at how many you think is enough?

Upstream

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I just want to know how many cattle a farmer thinks is enough without it being detriment to the environment. I'll say 1 million.

Fair enough, thanks.

I'll look at a different way. I don't think animals are the primary drivers of damage to the environment in agriculture. A bit of blue sky thinking here so apologies if these numbers are way out, but I don't think they're a million miles off.

Across all farmland I'd like to
Cut artificial fertilizer (NPK) use by 90%
Cut pesticide use by 90%
Cut agricultural diesel use by 50%
Cut grain inputs for cattle by 80%, & no GMO inputs

I think we could leave current cattle numbers more or less unchanged, maybe allow for a 10-15 decrease in numbers due to reduction of inputs.
Increase horticulture so we grow at least 80% of our veg locally and in season.
Reduce intensive animal production, if they aren't consuming food waste streams, and replace as much as possible with pasture based systems.

Thelonious Monk

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/climate-shocks-and-land-abuses-reducing-humanity-s-ability-to-feed-itself-un-report-warns-1.3980530?mode=amp

I dont have the actual report but this is the one being referred to in the papers today

Xcellor

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/climate-shocks-and-land-abuses-reducing-humanity-s-ability-to-feed-itself-un-report-warns-1.3980530?mode=amp

I dont have the actual report but this is the one being referred to in the papers today

Think this might be the report.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/srccl/

gozunda

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/climate-shocks-and-land-abuses-reducing-humanity-s-ability-to-feed-itself-un-report-warns-1.3980530?mode=amp

I dont have the actual report but this is the one being referred to in the papers today

Not having a go at you btw - but I've read that and tbh the article is full of some fairly daft contradictions and massive inconsistencies - all whilst banging the same drum regarding 'meat' is bad!

It states that:

The impact of intensive agriculture – which has helped the world’s population increase from 1.9 billion a century ago to 7.7 billion today – has also increased soil erosion and reduced amounts of organic material in the ground and accelerated desertification. Land has been turned from an asset countering climate change by capturing carbon into a major source of greenhouse gas emissions.

Soil doesn't suddenly shift from absorbing carbon to emitting it - unless there is significant intensification of land use - the most common way this happens is ploughing the soil for intensive arable production as detailed earlier in this thread and in the link to the European Environment Agency regarding carbon sequestration.

A significant cause of dessertification is the over cultivation of unsuitable soils and not by cattle on managed grassland.

It then goes on to state:

Proposals include increasing the productivity of land

And then...

The consumption of healthy and sustainable diets, such as those based on coarse grains, pulses and vegetables, and nuts and seeds… presents major opportunities for reducing greenhouse gas emissions,”

(ie lots more intensive cultivation of soils with the resulting increased emissions of carbon)

And then contradicts that with:

The report emphasises land will have to be managed more sustainably so it releases much less carbon

So we have to increase productivity of land ie more intensification through lots more cultivation and ploughing of soils to grow more vegetable matter but then somehow we will magically wave a wand over these processes so they produce less emissions???

Wtf?

The biggest source of greenhouse gases viz. Fossil fuel use in energy and transport just about gets a brief mention when it says

Attempts to solve the climate crisis by cutting carbon emissions from motor vehicles, heaving industry and power plants will be insufficient, it finds. Reducing emissions from agriculture and food production will be essential to keeping global warming well below 2 degrees, as committed to under the 2015 Paris Agreement.

But the article completely fails to mention that fossil fuel use in energy and transport sectors are responsible for a huge proportion of the remaining 74-76% of all greenhouse gas emissions!

It does mention however that:

At the same time, agriculture, forestry and other land use produces almost a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions – in Ireland, farming is responsible for in excess of 33 per cent of emissions.

However spectacularly then leaves out that foresty (which is not agriculture) accounts for approx 10% of that total figure and omits to detail the fact that our emissions for farming are above the EU average as a result of producing a large percentage of the agricultural produce comsumed elsewhere in Europe but added to our emission tab only.

Despite all of the above inconsistencies the article summarises that:

Among the measures put forward in the report is a proposal for a major shift towards vegetarian and vegan diets, which is will be controversial in the Irish context as the agriculture sector is hugely dependent on dairying and beef.

And finally completely fails to mention that Irelands topography and climate is the reason that our production is concentrated in the areas of dairy and beef as those enterprises suit our growing conditions with regard to grassland etc and much of what we produce goes to other countries..

On a footnote I am all for equal opportunities and would encourage more woman to take up farming - but I would love for the authors of this to explain exactly by what reasoning will "empowering women farmers" help in reducing greenhouse gas emissions?

Tbh If that was an undergrad essay - I wouldn't even give it a pass mark...

emaherx

gozunda wrote: »

On a footnote I am all for equal opportunities and would encourage more woman to take up farming - but I would love for the authors of this to explain exactly by what reasoning will "empowering women farmers" help in reducing greenhouse gas emissions?

That's easy, they fart less while they work.