Eating dead animals - the pros and cons

[Ian H]

Upland sheep farming is environmentally disastrous, as has been mentioned in another thread, and would be economically unviable without massive subsidies.

Upland sheep farming is environmentally disastrous, as has been mentioned in another thread, and would be economically unviable without massive subsidies.

Monbiot is definitely of that view, but a brief search didn't find anything to back him up. So I turned to my mate who's a grasslands expert and she responded with -
It's complex is probably the briefest answer. There are problems with it, but the flipside is where do you call time zero? ie what (eg which point in vegetative sucession/ecology) are you trying to get back to? And if that pertains to prehistoric times where does the human race come in that or how feasible is it? The best option is to try and reverse some of the damage and restore a balance....probably.

 

[jowwy]

Works both ways, as in we are British and we are crap because of our exceptionalism and our colonising history, and "Brexit was down to racists".

We're just another divided country with all the faults and stereotypes in our population that other countries have. People like to have a "them" to blame stuff on.

More bollox about racists…….

 

[Deleted member 49]

How shoot were Liverpool tonight though 😂

 

[albion]

It is worth saying that abandoning red meat is a half way house to helping the planet.

 

[theclaud]

Monbiot is definitely of that view, but a brief search didn't find anything to back him up. So I turned to my mate who's a grasslands expert and she responded with -
It's complex is probably the briefest answer. There are problems with it, but the flipside is where do you call time zero? ie what (eg which point in vegetative sucession/ecology) are you trying to get back to? And if that pertains to prehistoric times where does the human race come in that or how feasible is it? The best option is to try and reverse some of the damage and restore a balance....probably.

Fair point, but you don't need to go full Monbiot on the rewilding agenda to recognise that you can't restore any kind of balance while sheep are preventing tree and shrub regrowth - even if you're not trying to re-establish temperate rainforest, you might want to do something about the cycle of flood and drought exacerbated by bare hills. And upland sheep farming is perversely incentivised. I love lamb, but I'm prepared to content myself with just a few eyewateringly expensive chops from the salt marshes every year, in return for a higher treeline and a more diverse upland ecology.

 

[PaulB]

A sports-obsessed (Judo) colleague of mine went vegan virtually overnight after watching a film on Netflix called 'GAME CHANGERS'. She strongly recommended I watch it and I did last night and am certainly going back to my old vegetarian ways by the end of September but will not go fully vegan. While it's a great watch, there's more pseudoscience than real science to swing the deal, but it is pretty compelling viewing.

If I told you it was produced by James Cameron and starred Arnold Schwarzenegger, you'd assume it was some action movie full of shootings and explosions. It's not. It is a straightforward documentary showing the health and ecological benefits of consuming only a plant-based diet.

When some of the contributors who are now vegans are interviewed, you may be shocked to see that list includes the world's strongest man - Patrick Bamoumian, Dotsie Bausch - the oldest person (male or female) to represent their country in cycling at the Olympics (she won the gold medal), Lionel Messi, Novak Djokovic, cage-fighter and mixed martial artist, James Wilks, Lewis Hamilton, Scott Jurek - the world's leading distance runner, scores of American footballers and then Arnold Schwarzenegger! He states that he became the world's strongest man in his day by eating loads of meat. Now, he's switched to a plant-based diet and looks healthier, bright eyes, clear skin, and says he feels younger than he has for some time and you can certainly believe this claim.

The main criticism of this film is that it's too one-sided and tries to create horror in the damage (biological and ecological) caused by the meat industry and presents data out of context, showing only one side of the story. While some of that may be true, it has to be borne in mind there's no product placement here and no single company behind this or benefitting from this great claim so it's more credible from that point of view.

Either way, please watch this film, you'll be glad you did.

 

[AndyRM]

A sports-obsessed (Judo) colleague of mine went vegan virtually overnight after watching a film on Netflix called 'GAME CHANGERS'. She strongly recommended I watch it and I did last night and am certainly going back to my old vegetarian ways by the end of September but will not go fully vegan. While it's a great watch, there's more pseudoscience than real science to swing the deal, but it is pretty compelling viewing.

If I told you it was produced by James Cameron and starred Arnold Schwarzenegger, you'd assume it was some action movie full of shootings and explosions. It's not. It is a straightforward documentary showing the health and ecological benefits of consuming only a plant-based diet.

When some of the contributors who are now vegans are interviewed, you may be shocked to see that list includes the world's strongest man - Patrick Bamoumian, Dotsie Bausch - the oldest person (male or female) to represent their country in cycling at the Olympics (she won the gold medal), Lionel Messi, Novak Djokovic, cage-fighter and mixed martial artist, James Wilks, Lewis Hamilton, Scott Jurek - the world's leading distance runner, scores of American footballers and then Arnold Schwarzenegger! He states that he became the world's strongest man in his day by eating loads of meat. Now, he's switched to a plant-based diet and looks healthier, bright eyes, clear skin, and says he feels younger than he has for some time and you can certainly believe this claim.

The main criticism of this film is that it's too one-sided and tries to create horror in the damage (biological and ecological) caused by the meat industry and presents data out of context, showing only one side of the story. While some of that may be true, it has to be borne in mind there's no product placement here and no single company behind this or benefitting from this great claim so it's more credible from that point of view.

Either way, please watch this film, you'll be glad you did.

Great film. A proper eye opener. I was vegan for 10 years, stopped, but am now pescatarian and ultimately hope to go back to veganism.

 

[jowwy]

i'll stick to meat thanks...couldnt give a shoot who wrote books, starred in films, or made documentaires

 

[VelvetUnderpants]

A sports-obsessed (Judo) colleague of mine went vegan virtually overnight after watching a film on Netflix called 'GAME CHANGERS'. She strongly recommended I watch it and I did last night and am certainly going back to my old vegetarian ways by the end of September but will not go fully vegan. While it's a great watch, there's more pseudoscience than real science to swing the deal, but it is pretty compelling viewing.

If I told you it was produced by James Cameron and starred Arnold Schwarzenegger, you'd assume it was some action movie full of shootings and explosions. It's not. It is a straightforward documentary showing the health and ecological benefits of consuming only a plant-based diet.

When some of the contributors who are now vegans are interviewed, you may be shocked to see that list includes the world's strongest man - Patrick Bamoumian, Dotsie Bausch - the oldest person (male or female) to represent their country in cycling at the Olympics (she won the gold medal), Lionel Messi, Novak Djokovic, cage-fighter and mixed martial artist, James Wilks, Lewis Hamilton, Scott Jurek - the world's leading distance runner, scores of American footballers and then Arnold Schwarzenegger! He states that he became the world's strongest man in his day by eating loads of meat. Now, he's switched to a plant-based diet and looks healthier, bright eyes, clear skin, and says he feels younger than he has for some time and you can certainly believe this claim.

The main criticism of this film is that it's too one-sided and tries to create horror in the damage (biological and ecological) caused by the meat industry and presents data out of context, showing only one side of the story. While some of that may be true, it has to be borne in mind there's no product placement here and no single company behind this or benefitting from this great claim so it's more credible from that point of view.

Either way, please watch this film, you'll be glad you did.

Its a good film. I try to eat a plant based diet most of the time, but admit I fall off the wagon from time to time. Usually after a heavy session on the beer night before. Then it's time for a full English breakfast.

A popular misconception is that vegans are pasty faced weaklings, which as the film shows is not the case. I was a strict vegan for 10 years and weigh 17 stone, lifting weights and running 3 or 4 miles three times a week.

Well worth a watch.

 

[Fab Foodie]

It's no secret that I work in 'Big Food', the polar opposite end of the spectrum to @mudsticks.
Our views on the subject are in many respects not dissimilar and I agree with much that Monbiot states too.
The simple fact is, that this is very complex AND emotive subject.
Bottom line? Red meat in particular is unsustainable as currently practiced in much of the world, and pigs/poultry not so far behind.
We can argue about the merits of grass-fed over grain fed, the 'how not the cow', but most of these arguments are much the same as the car industry - yes we can mandate everyone driving an eco-friendly car like a Citroen C1 with it's low use of plastics and metal, good economy and long life, but that's still not the solution, we need fewer cows, not slightly less emitting cows. That must be the hard drive forward. Governments, Farmers Retailers, Consumers all need to be nudged firmly in that direction and very quickly. Nobody needs Beef or Dairy.
As a quick brain-dump, the priorities should be....

1. No land that can be arably farmed should be used for raising cattle/sheep or food for either
2. Land that cannot be arably farmed should primarily be rewilded
3. Limited cattle rearing can be considered after full environmental impact assessment and in consideration with the 'best farming practices' - and this is where it gets tricky*
4. Poultry needs sustainable feed AND has to stop polluting rivers etc. so needs to be more dispersed and numbers not allowed to fill the beef/lamb void
5. Pigs as per #3 - again, there are many methods and feedstuffs and positive environmental impacts - again do not allow numbers to grow to fill the cattle void
6. Goats, Rabbits, Game may also have a part to play as part of a more rewilded approach

*As always, the devil is in the detail. Cattle rearing can be part of rewilding and aiding new (or rediscovered old) means of sustainable arable production and mixed land use - am sure Mudsticks can give provide chapter and verse on this. This is where I think we both part with Monbiot who is more absolutist.
One area I agree with Monbiot and disagree with Mudsticks is over 'efficiency' - big farming and big food is by it's nature incredibly efficient by all the usual metrics (though there are 'hidden costs' and one can argue whether they are the right metrics) - the classic NZ vs. Welsh Lamb cost and carbon footprint type argument shows us this. We must as part of any plan also take the efficiency learnings from big agro and big food and apply where practicable, 'Big Rewilding' anyone?

But first we have to dramatically decrease cattle by a very large percentage numbers indeed. And that is going to need a very good sales pitch....

 

[Solocle]

It's no secret that I work in 'Big Food', the polar opposite end of the spectrum to @mudsticks.
Our views on the subject are in many respects not dissimilar and I agree with much that Monbiot states too.
The simple fact is, that this is very complex AND emotive subject.
Bottom line? Red meat in particular is unsustainable as currently practiced in much of the world, and pigs/poultry not so far behind.
We can argue about the merits of grass-fed over grain fed, the 'how not the cow', but most of these arguments are much the same as the car industry - yes we can mandate everyone driving an eco-friendly car like a Citroen C1 with it's low use of plastics and metal, good economy and long life, but that's still not the solution, we need fewer cows, not slightly less emitting cows. That must be the hard drive forward. Governments, Farmers Retailers, Consumers all need to be nudged firmly in that direction and very quickly. Nobody needs Beef or Dairy.
As a quick brain-dump, the priorities should be....

1. No land that can be arably farmed should be used for raising cattle/sheep or food for either
2. Land that cannot be arably farmed should primarily be rewilded
3. Limited cattle rearing can be considered after full environmental impact assessment and in consideration with the 'best farming practices' - and this is where it gets tricky*
4. Poultry needs sustainable feed AND has to stop polluting rivers etc. so needs to be more dispersed and numbers not allowed to fill the beef/lamb void
5. Pigs as per #3 - again, there are many methods and feedstuffs and positive environmental impacts - again do not allow numbers to grow to fill the cattle void
6. Goats, Rabbits, Game may also have a part to play as part of a more rewilded approach

*As always, the devil is in the detail. Cattle rearing can be part of rewilding and aiding new (or rediscovered old) means of sustainable arable production and mixed land use - am sure Mudsticks can give provide chapter and verse on this. This is where I think we both part with Monbiot who is more absolutist.
One area I agree with Monbiot and disagree with Mudsticks is over 'efficiency' - big farming and big food is by it's nature incredibly efficient by all the usual metrics (though there are 'hidden costs' and one can argue whether they are the right metrics) - the classic NZ vs. Welsh Lamb cost and carbon footprint type argument shows us this. We must as part of any plan also take the efficiency learnings from big agro and big food and apply where practicable, 'Big Rewilding' anyone?

But first we have to dramatically decrease cattle by a very large percentage numbers indeed. And that is going to need a very good sales pitch....

In terms of metrics, the vast majority of this thread has been a question of the environment. The foremost metric currently is of course capital - the more money you can make from land, the better, and meat sells.

But I think we need to keep sight of the fact that we need to feed 10 billion people by 2100. Rewilding is all very well, but it's likely to come at the cost of food production. Thus increasing imports from further afield. Imagine contributing to further deforestation of the Amazon because we want to grow a few more trees on the Cumbrian fells...

A good starting metric would be to maximise the efficiency of existing farmland. Sheep where sheep do best, arable where arable is viable.

And perhaps could start a "biological lawnmower" business traipsing some herds around the village

 

[All uphill]

It's no secret that I work in 'Big Food', the polar opposite end of the spectrum to @mudsticks.
Our views on the subject are in many respects not dissimilar and I agree with much that Monbiot states too.
The simple fact is, that this is very complex AND emotive subject.
Bottom line? Red meat in particular is unsustainable as currently practiced in much of the world, and pigs/poultry not so far behind.
We can argue about the merits of grass-fed over grain fed, the 'how not the cow', but most of these arguments are much the same as the car industry - yes we can mandate everyone driving an eco-friendly car like a Citroen C1 with it's low use of plastics and metal, good economy and long life, but that's still not the solution, we need fewer cows, not slightly less emitting cows. That must be the hard drive forward. Governments, Farmers Retailers, Consumers all need to be nudged firmly in that direction and very quickly. Nobody needs Beef or Dairy.
As a quick brain-dump, the priorities should be....

1. No land that can be arably farmed should be used for raising cattle/sheep or food for either
2. Land that cannot be arably farmed should primarily be rewilded
3. Limited cattle rearing can be considered after full environmental impact assessment and in consideration with the 'best farming practices' - and this is where it gets tricky*
4. Poultry needs sustainable feed AND has to stop polluting rivers etc. so needs to be more dispersed and numbers not allowed to fill the beef/lamb void
5. Pigs as per #3 - again, there are many methods and feedstuffs and positive environmental impacts - again do not allow numbers to grow to fill the cattle void
6. Goats, Rabbits, Game may also have a part to play as part of a more rewilded approach

*As always, the devil is in the detail. Cattle rearing can be part of rewilding and aiding new (or rediscovered old) means of sustainable arable production and mixed land use - am sure Mudsticks can give provide chapter and verse on this. This is where I think we both part with Monbiot who is more absolutist.
One area I agree with Monbiot and disagree with Mudsticks is over 'efficiency' - big farming and big food is by it's nature incredibly efficient by all the usual metrics (though there are 'hidden costs' and one can argue whether they are the right metrics) - the classic NZ vs. Welsh Lamb cost and carbon footprint type argument shows us this. We must as part of any plan also take the efficiency learnings from big agro and big food and apply where practicable, 'Big Rewilding' anyone?

But first we have to dramatically decrease cattle by a very large percentage numbers indeed. And that is going to need a very good sales pitch....

Or dramatically reduce the human population and therefore our consumption.

We have seen people in countries with good social support networks choosing to have fewer children. Maybe that's part of the answer, too.

 

[Fab Foodie]

In terms of metrics, the vast majority of this thread has been a question of the environment. The foremost metric currently is of course capital - the more money you can make from land, the better, and meat sells.

But I think we need to keep sight of the fact that we need to feed 10 billion people by 2100. Rewilding is all very well, but it's likely to come at the cost of food production. Thus increasing imports from further afield. Imagine contributing to further deforestation of the Amazon because we want to grow a few more trees on the Cumbrian fells...

A good starting metric would be to maximise the efficiency of existing farmland. Sheep where sheep do best, arable where arable is viable.

And perhaps could start a "biological lawnmower" business traipsing some herds around the village

When you realise the majority of arable land is given-over to growing animal feed, then removing animals and using that land for crops for feeding the population, food security becomes a no-brainer.....

https://bbia.org.uk/71-per-cent-eu-agricultural-land-used-feed-livestock-says-greenpeace-report/#:~:text=When excluding grasslands and only,of food for human consumption.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/20...eating-meat-environment-health-animal-welfare

There's plenty scope then for rewilding.

Protest all you like, but there is no argument for Beef/Lamb at scale and the clock is ticking....

 

[BoldonLad]

Or dramatically reduce the human population and therefore our consumption.

We have seen people in countries with good social support networks choosing to have fewer children. Maybe that's part of the answer, too.

Quite

I would just add... this 'solution' as with the previous 'solutions' requires international cooperation on a scale we have come no where near achieving todate..... although I recognise it is needed, can't see it happening, famine and war are much more likely, sadly IMHO.

 

[Solocle]

When you realise the majority of arable land is given-over to growing animal feed, then removing animals and using that land for crops for feeding the population, food security becomes a no-brainer.....

https://bbia.org.uk/71-per-cent-eu-agricultural-land-used-feed-livestock-says-greenpeace-report/#:~:text=When excluding grasslands and only,of food for human consumption.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/20...eating-meat-environment-health-animal-welfare

There's plenty scope then for rewilding.

Protest all you like, but there is no argument for Beef/Lamb at scale and the clock is ticking....

UK government report.
https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...ty-report-2021-theme-2-uk-food-supply-sources

However, we already grow most of our grain. Sure, with our new climate, maybe we can do better on the fruit. A couple of Avocado stones we planted years ago chose this year to germinate... Perhaps some orange groves too.

But, in the short term, any surplus from cutting back on animal feed might be better used by way of export, or even for biofuels.

Rewilding isn't exactly urgent, it'll take a long time for the biodiversity to return. I'd say stopping loss of currently existing habitats is far, far, more important.