Home Page
   Articles
       links
About Us    
Traders        
Recipes            
Latest Articles
appalingly generalised ill informed reporting
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment
Author 
 Message
dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 35403
Location: yes
PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 16 12:18 pm    Post subject:  Reply with quote    

Rob R wrote:
dpack wrote:
as it will be nowt but a liner for a virtual budgie cage very soon and it is unlikely to influence more than a few easily led folk who will be influenced by the next piece of nonsense recommending eating each others skin flakes and avoiding pencils or whatever it isnt important or dangerous but it did make me go grrrrrrrr for a lot of good reasons.




Unfortunately I'm not so optimistic - I've had a quite a few people over the last 18 months or so giving rumblings of having listened to this whole 'cut down and carry on' bs. Unfortunately they then go on to say they're going to treat themselves to a steak when they do eat it. They've done everything the eat less message says, supporting small farms, paying more, eating less...

Apparently it cuts down on waste, but killing an animal just for the sirloin seems an awful waste to me...


if we can make em pay a full moo price for the sirloins then we can eat the all the best bits for free

Rob R



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York
PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 16 12:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Tavascarow wrote:
Rob R wrote:
There are so many holes in that article but I haven't got the will to live to point them all out, but it starts off on the wrong foot. The article says;

Quote:
A staggering 97 per cent of the world's soya crop is fed to livestock.


whereas the quoted source says;

Quote:
97% of the world's soymeal is used as animal feed
.

Now I don't have much time for soy, but that doesn't mean we should lie about it. The soy crop is ~80% meal, 20% oil, and the vast bulk of the oil goes for vegetable oil production, which constitutes 50% of the value. The remaining soymeal is fed to livestock.

80% x 97% = 77.6% of the crop

Cutting out (soy) vegetable oil would make the feed twice as expensive and quite a bit less viable as a feedstuff.
I'm not commenting (or defending) the article but you have used this comparison many times before but with regards to soya which came first, the chicken or the egg?
I've read a bit about the processing of the oil & IMHO if it was only oil that was the interest, or rather the original primary interest, then there are far easier crops that only need high pressure extraction, not chemical. Sunflower & rape being two, & who's waste are also useful as feedstocks.

I get the same feeling with Soya as I do with Corn (maize) products.
That the industry is being driven by the major conglomerates like Monsanto.
Corn syrup was unheard of in my youth as was soya meal, but the industrial North American agricultural & associated industrial complex has changed that, not housewives demanding soya oil?
Especially as the majority of vegetable oils sold here in the UK aren't soya based.


I wasn't making a point about who started it, as per the subject of flooding I see that as largely a waste of our time & energy. What I'm interested in is stopping it and although the British housewife may not have demanded soy oil, they got it anyway! Raw ingredients, such as the bottles of oil on the supermarket shelf, do tend to be the 'better' version, just as the joints of beef tend to be British and the eggs free range. But home cooks aren't the route for most of our unethical consumption, this comes in the form of manufactured goods and catering where the soy oil and battery eggs slip in under the radar. If it says vegetable oil, don't automatically assume that it's rapeseed *puts on tin hat*

Rob R



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York
PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 16 12:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

dpack wrote:
Rob R wrote:
dpack wrote:
as it will be nowt but a liner for a virtual budgie cage very soon and it is unlikely to influence more than a few easily led folk who will be influenced by the next piece of nonsense recommending eating each others skin flakes and avoiding pencils or whatever it isnt important or dangerous but it did make me go grrrrrrrr for a lot of good reasons.




Unfortunately I'm not so optimistic - I've had a quite a few people over the last 18 months or so giving rumblings of having listened to this whole 'cut down and carry on' bs. Unfortunately they then go on to say they're going to treat themselves to a steak when they do eat it. They've done everything the eat less message says, supporting small farms, paying more, eating less...

Apparently it cuts down on waste, but killing an animal just for the sirloin seems an awful waste to me...


if we can make em pay a full moo price for the sirloins then we can eat the all the best bits for free


That'd be a snip at 76/kg

Nick



Joined: 02 Nov 2004
Posts: 34018
Location: Hereford
PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 16 12:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Rob R wrote:
dpack wrote:
Rob R wrote:
dpack wrote:
as it will be nowt but a liner for a virtual budgie cage very soon and it is unlikely to influence more than a few easily led folk who will be influenced by the next piece of nonsense recommending eating each others skin flakes and avoiding pencils or whatever it isnt important or dangerous but it did make me go grrrrrrrr for a lot of good reasons.




Unfortunately I'm not so optimistic - I've had a quite a few people over the last 18 months or so giving rumblings of having listened to this whole 'cut down and carry on' bs. Unfortunately they then go on to say they're going to treat themselves to a steak when they do eat it. They've done everything the eat less message says, supporting small farms, paying more, eating less...

Apparently it cuts down on waste, but killing an animal just for the sirloin seems an awful waste to me...


if we can make em pay a full moo price for the sirloins then we can eat the all the best bits for free


That'd be a snip at 76/kg


You joke, but fillet steak is as much as 44/kilo on the High Street. (Waitrose).

Rob R



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York
PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 16 12:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Nick wrote:
Rob R wrote:
dpack wrote:
Rob R wrote:
dpack wrote:
as it will be nowt but a liner for a virtual budgie cage very soon and it is unlikely to influence more than a few easily led folk who will be influenced by the next piece of nonsense recommending eating each others skin flakes and avoiding pencils or whatever it isnt important or dangerous but it did make me go grrrrrrrr for a lot of good reasons.




Unfortunately I'm not so optimistic - I've had a quite a few people over the last 18 months or so giving rumblings of having listened to this whole 'cut down and carry on' bs. Unfortunately they then go on to say they're going to treat themselves to a steak when they do eat it. They've done everything the eat less message says, supporting small farms, paying more, eating less...

Apparently it cuts down on waste, but killing an animal just for the sirloin seems an awful waste to me...


if we can make em pay a full moo price for the sirloins then we can eat the all the best bits for free


That'd be a snip at 76/kg


You joke, but fillet steak is as much as 44/kilo on the High Street. (Waitrose).


I wasn't joking, I will happily supply steaks at 76 per kg. My prices are the minimum I will accept...

Nick



Joined: 02 Nov 2004
Posts: 34018
Location: Hereford
PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 16 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Damn. I thought the beef I have lodged with you would be more than one meal for the four of us.

Rob R



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York
PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 16 1:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Nope, I've been listening.

dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 35403
Location: yes
PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 16 1:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Rob R wrote:
dpack wrote:
Rob R wrote:
dpack wrote:
as it will be nowt but a liner for a virtual budgie cage very soon and it is unlikely to influence more than a few easily led folk who will be influenced by the next piece of nonsense recommending eating each others skin flakes and avoiding pencils or whatever it isnt important or dangerous but it did make me go grrrrrrrr for a lot of good reasons.




Unfortunately I'm not so optimistic - I've had a quite a few people over the last 18 months or so giving rumblings of having listened to this whole 'cut down and carry on' bs. Unfortunately they then go on to say they're going to treat themselves to a steak when they do eat it. They've done everything the eat less message says, supporting small farms, paying more, eating less...

Apparently it cuts down on waste, but killing an animal just for the sirloin seems an awful waste to me...


if we can make em pay a full moo price for the sirloins then we can eat the all the best bits for free


That'd be a snip at 76/kg


perfect and cheaper than wagu ,shall we draft the copy for the adverts and publicity campaign?

Rob R



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York
PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 16 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

dpack wrote:

perfect and cheaper than wagu ,shall we draft the copy for the adverts and publicity campaign?


TV, or the press?

Rob R



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York
PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 16 10:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

According to a vegan chap on the internet today our cows emit more carbon in their flatulence than the grass plants initially use for growth...

Mistress Rose



Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 10818

PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 16 7:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Well the carbon has to come from somewhere, and if all they eat is grass, that must be the source. There will be some inhaled, but as that is in the form of carbon dioxide, it can't reproduce itself. If it comes from other food, that food must have absorbed carbon dioxide as it grew so I would love to find out his science on this one.

dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 35403
Location: yes
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 16 9:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Mistress Rose wrote:
Well the carbon has to come from somewhere, and if all they eat is grass, that must be the source. There will be some inhaled, but as that is in the form of carbon dioxide, it can't reproduce itself. If it comes from other food, that food must have absorbed carbon dioxide as it grew so I would love to find out his science on this one.


i suspect it is the sort of "science" that underlies the global financial system ,various religious and political power grabs and the belief that electricity leaks from plugs when they are unoccupied by an appliance.

such "science" is one brick in the foundations of the wall that divides belief from fact and thereby protects the interests ( or delusions) of those who use such "science".

Nick



Joined: 02 Nov 2004
Posts: 34018
Location: Hereford
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 16 9:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Rob R wrote:
According to a vegan chap on the internet today our cows emit more carbon in their flatulence than the grass plants initially use for growth...


Why do you waste them as meat then? If they are capable of positive energy and mass generation, shouldn't we be connecting them to the grid and saying goodbye to all our energy woes?

dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 35403
Location: yes
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 16 9:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Rob R wrote:
dpack wrote:

perfect and cheaper than wagu ,shall we draft the copy for the adverts and publicity campaign?


TV, or the press?


multi media and multi theme approach?

i will consider the options

LynneA



Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 4893
Location: London N21
PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 16 12:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

And then there's the question of what will happen if we don't eat the livestock....

It would appear that vegans are quite happy for the rare breeds that people have worked hard to rescue and maintain to become extinct as "they're no longer needed".

Just like the tropical wildlife populations destroyed to provide soya, palm oil and sugar for fake foods

(not to mention invertebrates sprayed out of existance worlwide)

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment All times are GMT
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 2 of 7
View Latest Posts View Latest Posts

 

Archive
Powered by php-BB © 2001, 2005 php-BB Group
Style by marsjupiter.com, released under GNU (GNU/GPL) license.
Copyright 2004 marsjupiter.com