Vegan and vegetarian meals kill more animals than you think

Deebles McBeebles

Former Observer wrote: »

I'd argue that historically the factory farming of animals is worse than what happened at Auschwitz, fake vegetarian. And that is something that low IQ breakfast roll guzzlers should have to reckon with.

But we are going off topic a little.

I have to ask, why do you think the poster is a fake vegetarian?

Deebles McBeebles

Deleted User wrote: »

I love food and I really really love dips. I have a monthly house party where I put on food and drink for all my mates. There tends to be a minimum of 10 to 15 distinct types of dip at it. Sometimes obscenely more. It tends to look like a rainbow vomited onto the table.

I wouldn't partake in the rabbit but any chance of an invite?

ILoveYourVibes

Deleted User wrote: »

It tends to look like a rainbow vomited onto the table.

I love rainbow vomit its my fav!

conor2469

emaherx wrote: »

Except grass lands require much less tilling of soils which is the most destructive part of growing crops. Also no blanket spraying of insecticide nessacery at all which is what kills the most sentient creatures in growing crops.

A fair point. I suppose then the question is, how less harmful is the fertilising/harvesting of grass compared to harvesting a food crop?
Also, over the course of a beef cows life, of all the dry food it consumes, what percentage is grass based and what percentage is grain based.
Raising livestock also requires large quantities of water, and results in large amounts of pollution (run off etc), this would also have a negative affect on the environment and wildlife.

I'm still struggling to see how 1 kg of Irish beef was less harmful to produce than the equivalent in plant based food.

mathie

For every opinion you'll find and opposite opinion with plenty of "evidence".

Except for the opinion that Game of Thrones ended well



https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/25/veganism-intensively-farmed-meat-dairy-soya-maize

If you want to save the world, veganism isn’t the answer

"So there’s a huge responsibility here: unless you’re sourcing your vegan products specifically from organic, “no-dig” systems, you are actively participating in the destruction of soil biota, promoting a system that deprives other species, including small mammals, birds and reptiles, of the conditions for life, and significantly contributing to climate change."

"There’s no question we should all be eating far less meat, and calls for an end to high-carbon, polluting, unethical, intensive forms of grain-fed meat production are commendable. But if your concerns as a vegan are the environment, animal welfare and your own health, then it’s no longer possible to pretend that these are all met simply by giving up meat and dairy. Counterintuitive as it may seem, adding the occasional organic, pasture-fed steak to your diet could be the right way to square the circle."

---

OR

---

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/veganism-environmental-impact-planet-reduced-plant-based-diet-humans-study-a8378631.html

"Eating a vegan diet could be the “single biggest way” to reduce your environmental impact on earth, a new study suggests

Researchers at the University of Oxford found that cutting meat and dairy products from your diet could reduce an individual's carbon footprint from food by up to 73 per cent.

Meanwhile, if everyone stopped eating these foods, they found that global farmland use could be reduced by 75 per cent, an area equivalent to the size of the US, China, Australia and the EU combined.

emaherx

conor2469 wrote: »

A fair point. I suppose then the question is, how less harmful is the fertilising/harvesting of grass compared to harvesting a food crop?
Also, over the course of a beef cows life, of all the dry food it consumes, what percentage is grass based and what percentage is grain based.
Raising livestock also requires large quantities of water, and results in large amounts of pollution (run off etc), this would also have a negative affect on the environment and wildlife.

I'm still struggling to see how 1 kg of Irish beef was less harmful to produce than 1kg of plant based food.

On most Irish beef farms the percentage of supplemental feeds is tiny often only used as a sort of treat to make animals more compliant for rounding up.

More natural fertilizer is used on beef farms for obvious reasons. Much more chemicals spread on crops from fertilizer, herbicide and insecticide.

The water argument is often blown out of proportion with many of statistics online including the rain water which waters the fields for the grass to grow. Also a large percentage of farms use untreated natural sources of water such as on farm wells as commercial water needs to be paid for.

More of our water is polluted by human sewage, only difference is farmers get heavy fines for breaches and count council's/ Irish water can dump any amount of untreated crap into our water system.

bilbot79

Terrorist vegetables at it again!! Someone stop the killing

ILoveYourVibes

I have opened a can of worms with this thread and i regret it deeply now.

Former Observer

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I have opened a can of worms with this thread and i regret it deeply now.

*Can of beans

OEP

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I have opened a can of worms with this thread and i regret it deeply now.

You started a meat vs vegetarian thread in After Hours, what did you expect!

emaherx

conor2469 wrote: »

I'm still struggling to see how 1 kg of Irish beef was less harmful to produce than the equivalent in plant based food.

You also don't allow for the fact most of the cereal crops fed to animals are actually not grown as animal feed but are mearly a by product of crops grown for human consumption. You know the bits we can't eat or turn into alcohol or bio-fuel.

conor2469

emaherx wrote: »

On most Irish beef farms the percentage of supplemental feeds is tiny often only used as a sort of treat to make animals more compliant for rounding up.

TBH I'm going to struggle to get figures for how much grain based food a typical beef cow eats over the course of a year.
While we can agree that growing and harvesting fodder is less harmful than growing food crops it still has an affect on wildlife, albeit one that is difficult to quantify.

emaherx wrote: »

The water argument is often blown out of proportion with many of statistics online including the rain water which waters the fields for the grass to grow. Also a large percentage of farms use untreated natural sources of water such as on farm wells as commercial water needs to be paid for.

Livestock still consumes huge amounts of water though, we can all agree that excessive water usage is bad for the environment.

emaherx wrote: »

More of our water is polluted by human sewage, only difference is farmers get heavy fines for breaches and count council's/ Irish water can dump any amount of untreated crap into our water system.

Agree 100%

conor2469

emaherx wrote: »

You also don't allow for the fact most of the cereal crops fed to animals are actually not grown as animal feed but are mearly a by product of crops grown for human consumption. You know the bits we can't eat or turn into alcohol or bio-fuel.

In my original post I quoted this article

https://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6053187/cropland-map-food-fuel-animal-feed

I'm not sure on how reliable its sources are, but it says:

Just 55 percent of the world's crop calories are actually eaten directly by people. Another 36 percent is used for animal feed.


So, if you are correct, and their calculations are wrong, then ~91% of all crops grown on this planet are consumed by humans, and the by products of this 91% are fed to livestock?

emaherx

conor2469 wrote: »

In my original post I quoted this article

https://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6053187/cropland-map-food-fuel-animal-feed

I'm not sure on how reliable its sources are, but it says:

Just 55 percent of the world's crop calories are actually eaten directly by people. Another 36 percent is used for animal feed.


So, if you are correct, and their calculations are wrong, then ~91% of all crops grown on this planet are consumed by humans, and the by products of this 91% are fed to livestock?

Well your figures say crop calories not percentage of crops which is the misleading bit. Most serial crops we can only eat less than 20% of the crop calories. Cattle on the other hand can eat upto 100%. Serial producers are not going to throw away 80% of the crop if there is another market for it are they?

I'm not saying no crops are produced just for livestock, just it's much lower than claimed when one is just counting calories.

Also crops grown for bio fuel after they are squeezed for the oil the remainder is made into animal feed.

Also the leftovers from the breweries also becomes animal feed.

OEP

emaherx wrote: »

On most Irish beef farms the percentage of supplemental feeds is tiny often only used as a sort of treat to make animals more compliant for rounding up.

For beef farming grain is used for finishing the cattle, more than just a "treat" for rounding up (I don't know where you're getting that from).

emaherx wrote: »

You also don't allow for the fact most of the cereal crops fed to animals are actually not grown as animal feed but are mearly a by product of crops grown for human consumption. You know the bits we can't eat or turn into alcohol or bio-fuel.

I'm not sure how true this is either - some by products maybe but for the most part crops are used to form concentrates, or they can be fed things like maize or sugar beet.

conor2469

emaherx wrote: »

Well your figures say crop calories not percentage of crops which is the misleading bit. Most serial crops we can only eat less than 20% of the crop calories. Cattle on the other hand can eat upto 100%. Serial producers are not going to throw away 80% of the crop if there is another market for it are they?

See, the issue with that article is that it doesn't make that distinction.
Also, I am genuinely struggling with knowledge regarding the humans eating 20% of the crop and animals eating the other 80%, can you give me an example of a crop that has this usage split?

emaherx wrote: »

Also crops grown for bio fuel after they are squeezed for the oil the remainder is made into animal feed.

Ok, the linked article states that

And the remaining 9 percent goes toward biofuels and other industrial uses.


so some of this 9% is also used to feed livestock, so the overall percentage of crops used to feed animals could be even higher than the 36% they state?

emaherx

OEP wrote: »

For beef farming grain is used for finishing the cattle, more than just a "treat" for rounding up (I don't know where you're getting that from).



I'm not sure how true this is either - some by products maybe but for the most part crops are used to form concentrates, or they can be fed things like maize or sugar beet.

Being a beef farmer who finishes on grass. Like most of the small beef farms found in Ireland.

emaherx

conor2469 wrote: »

See, the issue with that article is that it doesn't make that distinction.
Also, I am genuinely struggling with knowledge regarding the humans eating 20% of the crop and animals eating the other 80%, can you give me an example of a crop that has this usage split?

Pretty much any crop grown for oil, like rape seed for example, but a large percentage of all serials would be discarded if not turned into animal feed.

conor2469 wrote: »

Ok, the linked article states that

And the remaining 9 percent goes toward biofuels and other industrial uses.


so some of this 9% is also used to feed livestock, so the overall percentage of crops used to feed animals could be even higher than the 36% they state?

Well no, if they have split it by plant protein then that's it.

emaherx

OEP wrote: »

I'm not sure how true this is either - some by products maybe but for the most part crops are used to form concentrates, or they can be fed things like maize or sugar beet.

Of coarse crops can be grown just for feed and I stated that above. But the article linked dosen't divide by percentage of crops grown intended for animal use and which is by product from other uses instead it uses percentage plant protein to intentionally make the statistic more shocking.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Some weird video doing the rounds of vegan protesters in chicken masks berating diners at a restaurant .

This is the thing that has to stop. It's terrible P.R for veganism.

Thelonious Monk

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Some weird video doing the rounds of vegan protesters in chicken masks berating diners at a restaurant .

This is the thing that has to stop. It's terrible P.R for veganism.

A tiny minority of eejits creating great PR against themselves

ILoveYourVibes

OEP wrote: »

You started a meat vs vegetarian thread in After Hours, what did you expect!

NOT THIS! In fact a lot of the threads here are surprising. People take things so seriously.

Former Observer

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

NOT THIS! In fact a lot of the threads here are surprising. People take things so seriously.

We all know you love the attention. You are probably tucking into a ham sandwich with butter and brown sauce right now.

ILoveYourVibes

Former Observer wrote: »

We all know you love the attention. .

Possibly ...well no probably:p

You are probably tucking into a ham sandwich with butter and brown sauce right now.

Definitely not.

Former Observer

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Definitely not.

Chutney man so. Ballymaloe?

Thelonious Monk

Former Observer wrote: »

Chutney man so. Ballymaloe?

I don't get the fuss over that stuff. I make way better chilli chutneys and jams.

ILoveYourVibes

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I don't get the fuss over that stuff. I make way better chilli chutneys and jams.

I make rose petal jam!

Deebles McBeebles

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I don't get the fuss over that stuff. I make way better chilli chutneys and jams.

Only tried it for the first time last week. Damn good to be fair.

Former Observer

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I don't get the fuss over that stuff. I make way better chilli chutneys and jams.

Anything you make yourself is always better. I make indian dips from scratch at no small effort to serve with poppadoms before I serve Indian food.

Oh lord. We're back to dips.

_Brian

People need to unknot their knickers and get down of their high horses (sounds an uncomfortable combination)

Food production for modern human civilisation has an impact on the planet. It’s a fact, it will always be a fact.
Recent studies from Teagasc show only a 10% difference from animals farming to plants based food production so moaning on abkut beef production killing the planet is stupid a this stage.

There are lots can be done though.

Get animals out doors for food production, hens and chickens need to go outdoors.

We need to limit the amount of feedlot farming that is creeping into beef farming, currently something like 25% of beef goes through a feedlot, that’s too much, they have their use but shouldn’t become common.

Vegan and vegetarian food production has a negative effect on the planet too, associates animal control, clearing land to grow crops, monoculture farming to produce increased amounts of soy needed, transport costs and emissions.


Asa civilisation we need to minimise the effect food prodigals on the planet but it will always have an effect.

Looking to other areas like transport, energy production, food waste reduction, plastics reduction should be a far bigger priority than hammering food production.


Lastly and I’ve said this before.

Consumers are responsible for the type of farming that happens. If consumers shut up online and went out and purchased the food they want to see farmers producing things would change rapidly. Stop buying based on price alone.
Buy free range eggs, free range chickens. Get anreliable butcher that kills and prepares the meat, it will be farmed locally and not thorough a feedlot or large commercial factory.
Buy organic Foods if you want to see an end to chemical sprays.

Last round of entry to the organic scheme the government didn’t want beef farmers because the market doesn’t exist. Dairy farmers are reluctant to join because the increased cost of production isn’t being rewarded because the market is so small.

You can’t expect farmers to farm organically and then sell at rock bottom commercial prices, that’s not a sustainable model.

Consumers need to wake up and shop responsibly, buy the food you want produced and it’s market will increase and more farmers will change to fill the demand.

People think it’s cool as **** to bang on online about bad farmers spraying chemicals and housing livestock. Get the fcuk off line and go buy the correct products then and things will change.

Thelonious Monk

_Brian wrote: »

Buy free range eggs, free range chickens.

Why? I saw a good documentary on BBC with that Mosley guy about this.

And,
perhaps uncomfortably for some, the most eco-friendly chickens (in terms of
carbon emissions) may not be organic or free-range, but those that are raised
intensively in energy efficient indoor farms.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28858289

dodderangler

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Some weird video doing the rounds of vegan protesters in chicken masks berating diners at a restaurant .

This is the thing that has to stop. It's terrible P.R for veganism.

I’d definitely just order more chicken. Who the fück do they think they are?

dodderangler

Former Observer wrote: »

We all know you love the attention. You are probably tucking into a ham sandwich with butter and brown sauce right now.

Man that’s one very high horse you’re standing on.

_Brian

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Why? I saw a good documentary on BBC with that Mosley guy about this.



https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28858289

For me as a farmer who keeps both chickens and pigs it’s abkut animal welfare. Both are out in annatural environment.

Thelonious Monk

_Brian wrote: »

For me as a farmer who keeps both chickens and pigs it’s abkut animal welfare. Both are out in annatural environment.

I know, fair play to you, but people eat chicken 4 times a day in the West sometimes, billions are eaten in the UK every year. There just isn't enough room for all of them to be free range, and apparently it's a cleaner way to produce chicken meat than free range. I've never seen pigs outside in Ireland.

_Brian

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I know, fair play to you, but people eat chicken 4 times a day in the West sometimes, billions are eaten in the UK every year. There just isn't enough room for all of them to be free range, and apparently it's a cleaner way to produce chicken meat than free range. I've never seen pigs outside in Ireland.

Who eats chicken 4 times a day ?

Really, let’s not worry about the occasional freak and let’s worry about feeding the masses in a sustainable way.

If all chickens and pigs were forced outdoors through legislation it would change, the supply/demand would balance out and I’d expect meat prices to rise which would control consumption, it would find a balance.

I don’t have the figures but the % of income we spend on food is small compared to previous generations mostly because people choose the cheapest processed muck they can get, vegans and omnivores alike!

The change to better more sustainable farming needs to be led by consumers paying for food food and creating the markets, farming will change to fill the demand.

wakka12

fergiesfolly wrote: »

You start to think, the only way for us to save the planet, is to get the hell off of it.

Nearly seems like that doesnt it. Depressing how much resources humans need to have happy comfortable lives

Thelonious Monk

_Brian wrote: »

Who eats chicken 4 times a day ?
.

Lots of people would have it for lunch and dinner and anyway, but people in my gym eat 6 fillets a day etc, I know that's an extreme but not that extreme any more with the amount of people into fitness, and some of these high protein diets that are everywhere.
Either way, the amount we produce now wouldn't be possible through free range methods, but maybe you're right about the balancing out thing.

Thelonious Monk

wakka12 wrote: »

Nearly seems like that doesnt it. Depressing how much resources humans need to have happy comfortable lives

Only in the past few decades, previously we required far less, people were just as happy or sad back then too.

_Brian

wakka12 wrote: »

Nearly seems like that doesnt it. Depressing how much resources humans need to have happy comfortable lives

People need to stop looking at the Kardashian’s and look more to how their grandparents lived.
If we adopted 30% of their lifestyle habits it would I’ve a big impact.

Balance is key, I’m not saying we need to go back a 100 years but we need to step back from some of our modern toxic lifestyles

KungPao

dodderangler wrote: »

People like you really pïss me off. Always complaining about humans this and that and what are you doing to save this planet??
Would you ever cop onto yourself.

Wow man, chill. I’m detecting negative vibes.