Home Page
   Articles
       links
About Us    
Traders        
Recipes            
Latest Articles
Biodiversity conservation The key, reducing meat consumption
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Downsizer Forum Index -> Conservation and Environment
Author 
 Message
Hairyloon



Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Posts: 15283
Location: Today I are mostly being in Yorkshire.
PostPosted: Fri Sep 25, 15 6:48 pm    Post subject:  Reply with quote    

I think he is not happy that it is the third choice.

Ty Gwyn



Joined: 22 Sep 2010
Posts: 4266
Location: Lampeter
PostPosted: Fri Sep 25, 15 8:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Tavascarow wrote:
Just another scientific paper that says we need to eat less meat.

Ty Gwyn wrote:
(2) replacing ecologically-inefficient ruminants (e.g. cattle, goats, sheep) and bushmeat with monogastrics (e.g. poultry, pigs), integrated aquaculture, and other more-efficient protein sources;

That kind of sum`s up these people,nuff said.
Why.
What evidence do you have to dispute that?
'These people' are concerned scientists trying to save endangered species & habitat.
Where's your evidence they are wrong?

& no I'm not having a wind up.




The only evidence i have is common sense,
To replace ruminants with poultry and pigs that rely on the bag to be fed is only putting more land under the plough,add that to all the veg they want us to eat,and there goes a fair area of ecosystem.

But the reality of that paper is based somewhere totally different to the grass growing area i live here in West Wales,
To place that paper into context here,you may as well grow your hair and start playing a guitar,lol.

Off topic slightly,but did you cycle up to Carmarthenshire earlier in the year afterwards,if you did i missed it here?

Rob R



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York
PostPosted: Fri Sep 25, 15 8:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Hairyloon wrote:
I think he is not happy that it is the third choice.


I'd be ecstatic if it were achieving the results claimed.

The problem with that order is that if people only read 1) then 3) will not be achieved, but if they only read 3), 1) would still be achieved.

Rob R



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York
PostPosted: Fri Sep 25, 15 8:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Tavascarow wrote:
Rob R wrote:
Tavascarow wrote:

I fail to see why you wouldn't agree as it's your kind of system that will survive & prosper.


As I have pointed out above, and numerous times in the past, so you are only pretending to be ignorant here, the message as conveyed in the paper does nothing to ensure that happens.

The entire message is based around the theory that sustainable food production cannot compete with industrial food. If you genuinely believe this to be the case then there is no need to reduce consumption, as the limitations of production will limit consumption. If you're wrong then nature can only benefit even further.

That sounded more like political doublespeak than anything I've heard from Westminster in a long while.
& (if you don't mind me saying) is 'your' interpretation.
I don't see that at all.
This
Quote:
and (3) reintegrating livestock production away from single-product, intensive, fossil-fuel based systems into diverse, coupled systems designed more closely around the structure and functions of ecosystems that conserve energy and nutrients.

is IMHO exactly what you are striving for so why condemn it?


It's not political, it's common sense, as Ty says, and I'd be hard pressed to put it in simpler terms as to why.

However, if you still insist that the order doesn't matter, as long as it's all in there, just have a read of this poem.

Rob R



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York
PostPosted: Fri Sep 25, 15 9:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

The ings, where my cattle graze, are protected by law and managed by Natural England. We are not allowed to either cut or graze until July 1st to allow ground nesting birds to fledge. That's all well and good in theory - more undisturbed habitat = better for the birds.

The problem is that this leaves a period of ~3 months in which to graze animals before it starts flooding. So unless you have significant numbers of cattle or sheep locally to graze the land during those summer months you end up with a build up of vegetation that is less biodiverse in itself, and is also less open for the ground nesting birds. The result is a decline in both flora and fauna.

While there is something in law to make sure we don't graze during the breeding season, there is nothing to ensure that we do graze so the result is that it doesn't get grazed and/or cut at all. The more rubbish that grows in it, the less inclined we are to use it and so the worse it gets. Even if you do keep livestock, you still need the land mass to accomodate them for the remaining 9 months of the year, so you may as well just keep all your stock on your other land and save yourself the hassle of getting them down to the ings.

The above situation is not good for food security, not good for wildlife, and not good for pressure on the land. I'm not suggesting we get rid of the laws that protect the habitat, but we do need to stop the assault on the food that it produces, and encourage more people to consume it, else why should anyone bother?

Mistress Rose



Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 10983

PostPosted: Sat Sep 26, 15 7:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Similarly downland vegetation depends on being grazed by sheep or rabbits. Get rid of them and you end up with yew wood.

Farming sustainably means growing the best food for the best place, which I think we have already discussed. The ings by the sounds of it need to be pasture, and to be grazed. I agree with you Rob, that it is fine Natural England making these rules about grazing time, but it would be interesting to try the experiment of grazing the land from as early as possible. I rather suspect that more chicks would be raised over a few years as the ground would be better for them, even if the odd one was killed by a cow.

If animals are fed with grain or other specially grown produce, then they are not effective at producing food for us. I would have thought that most pigs and poultry are fed that way in the UK. Even the 'free range' pigs in this area have supplementary feeding, and most poultry is also fed. Sheep spend most of their lives grazing the downs, and cattle spend at least 6 months of the year grazing grass, with as far as I am aware, no supplementary feed for beef cattle.

Tavascarow



Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 8407
Location: South Cornwall
PostPosted: Sat Sep 26, 15 11:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

& both clearly sitting in option (3).
There are enough ruminants within a couple of miles of your ings Rob.
Lack of animals in not the problem.
Movement restriction is.
Bureaucracy makes it a headache that few with land want to bother with, so they keep their stock at home.
From the exerts this paper is written more from an Afro/Asian/South American perspective where sensitive habitat is being destroyed wholesale by ruminants, not preserved by them as in your instances.
& knowing the way our retail sector works supermarkets will be happy to buy that refrigerated meat, because it will be a lot cheaper than anything we can produce at home.
So IMHO eating less, but better quality/better provenance is one answer to this problem & also addresses the affects livestock have on climate change.

Rob R



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York
PostPosted: Sat Sep 26, 15 12:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Tavascarow wrote:
& both clearly sitting in option (3).
There are enough ruminants within a couple of miles of your ings Rob.
Lack of animals in not the problem.


I don't pretend to know the situation in your local area, please don't pretend that you know mine.

Movement restrictions has nothing to do with it. There are no movement restrictions on sole occupancy units within ten miles, as the crow flies, of the main holding.

There are two livestock farms now within 2 miles of those ings, one is an older chap who used to graze it and now has just a few cattle himself while renting out the arable farm and letting the grassland for some sheep. The other grazes some of the ings adjacent to his farm but doesn't have enough stock for it all. Each village once had a number of farms keeping livestock, now you're lucky to find one or two. There will be more as the crow flies, but they all have their own ings that would be neglected if everyone pooled efforts to graze ours.

You seem determined to discredit anything that anyone with any first hand experience has - why?

What is your problem with the notion that we should switch over to sustainable production and let that be the limitation on what we eat?

crofter



Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Posts: 2252

PostPosted: Sat Sep 26, 15 3:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

eat more fish...

Quote:
The study estimated that the carbon footprint of the fishery is approximately 0.4 t CO2e (tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent) released per tonne of fish captured.

This is significantly lower than those reported for other land-based meat production systems in the UK such as beef (10.6-19.2 t CO2e), sheep (11.0-13.6 t CO2e), pork (3.5-4.4 t CO2e) and chicken (4.6-6.7 t CO2e).


http://www.nafc.uhi.ac.uk/media/news/mackerel-carbon-footprint

Tavascarow



Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 8407
Location: South Cornwall
PostPosted: Sat Sep 26, 15 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Guardian article 25/9/2015. Industrial farming is one of the worst crimes in history.
Quote:
The fate of animals in such industrial installations has become one of the most pressing ethical issues of our time, certainly in terms of the numbers involved. These days, most big animals live on industrial farms. We imagine that our planet is populated by lions, elephants, whales and penguins. That may be true of the National Geographic channel, Disney movies and children’s fairytales, but it is no longer true of the real world. The world contains 40,000 lions but, by way of contrast, there are around 1 billion domesticated pigs; 500,000 elephants and 1.5 billion domesticated cows; 50 million penguins and 20 billion chickens.

In 2009, there were 1.6 billion wild birds in Europe, counting all species together. That same year, the European meat and egg industry raised 1.9 billion chickens. Altogether, the domesticated animals of the world weigh about 700m tonnes, compared with 300m tonnes for humans, and fewer than 100m tonnes for large wild animals.

Rob R



Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Posts: 31902
Location: York
PostPosted: Sat Sep 26, 15 8:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Thanks, that illustrates my point perfectly! 1.5bn cattle divided by a world population of 6.8bn is 0.22 cows per person, meanwhle in the UK we have 9.7 million cattle giving a rate of 0.15 per person, and dropping.

dpack



Joined: 02 Jul 2005
Posts: 35670
Location: yes
PostPosted: Sat Sep 26, 15 8:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

clifton and rawcliffe ings has had about 70 head of assorted cattle grazing about 70 acres since the well performed july cut

it looks better than it has for years at this date (the biocide of last years harrow with a mower will take a while to recover from)as in previous years the grazing was a token few weeks or days.

my way would be part mow and then graze but this style at roughly a moo an acre post mow the flora has started to recover and if that regime is continued hopefully the fauna will increase to match the flora.

the mow was heavy with buttercup,dock and thistle etc after last years messy treatment but the moos seem to be doing a great job

crofter



Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Posts: 2252

PostPosted: Sun Sep 27, 15 9:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

Quote:
I really believe that meat should be treated in exactly the same way as tobacco, with public campaigns to stop people eating it.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/agriculture/food/11887317/Treat-meat-eaters-like-smokers-warns-Jeremy-Corbyns-new-vegan-farming-minister-Kerry-McCarthy.html

Falstaff



Joined: 27 May 2009
Posts: 1014

PostPosted: Sun Sep 27, 15 9:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote    

The lady's opinions are interesting - I wonder if she was any good as a Solicitor ?

Mistress Rose



Joined: 21 Jul 2011
Posts: 10983

PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 15 7:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote    

I don't know when she gave that interview, but if it was recent, I can't see had lasting long in that post. Another vegan of our acquaintance came up with similar views some years ago just after he had been converted, but I don't know if he is even vegetarian now.

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, 8, 9  Next
Page 2 of 9
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