COW

[Suzi888]

chooseveg.com/blog/documentary-cow/

Anyone watched this… I can’t bring myself to watch it, but it’ll be coming to cinemas shortly.

What is the best milk substitute you have tried? Specifically when added to tea, I don’t mind the substitutes in cereal but my tea tastes grim without milk.

So many posters on these threads have no idea about farming, about the countryside, about how so much of Britain isn't suitable for arable agriculture.

Or about what life is like for wild animals.

I couldn't agree more. You always get a bunch of city dwellers preaching on these threads. Also the wild animals get conveniently overlooked - apparently it is only humans who kill other animals for their food!

bbia.org.uk/71-per-cent-eu-agricultural-land-used-feed-livestock-says-greenpeace-report/#:~:text=When%20excluding%20grasslands%20and%20only,of%20food%20for%20human%20consumption.

I'm not big up on UK land usage statistics but this report suggests that 71% of agricultural land in the EU is used to produce feed for livestock.

If that land were repurposed for crops for human consumption a huge amount of land would be made free. I'd like to know how that would be reflected back into UK land usage statistics. Anyone know?

The wild animals argument is nothing like commercial meat production. A red herring. Animals (except humans) have a set diet that they eat or don't according to their species. Humans have a choice.

@EdithStourton

I've read the whole thread. Many many references to animals having their throats slit. Not a single reference that I saw to captive bolt stunning. So yeah, vegan propaganda.

So many posters on these threads have no idea about farming, about the countryside, about how so much of Britain isn't suitable for arable agriculture.

Or about what life is like for wild animals.

I don’t really understand the reference to wild animals, yes of course animals may suffer etc in the wild, but they are not being bred and made to suffer purely for people to eat, which is the difference.

I used to only eat meat from farmers markets because I thought it was more ethical and they had a better quality of life, but then you can’t kill your own animals for consumption in most cases, so even if reared with loads of kindness, they’re still likely to be loaded into a crowded truck, which let’s face it, will be scary for any animal who has spent its life in a field (I used to keep horses and many who travelled regularly would still freak out at trailers) They then have to go into an abattoir to be killed, at that point they are a number and quite frankly there are some fairly unpleasant people that do those jobs that really don’t care about anything other than getting them dispatched as quickly as possible. At that point I decided I just didn’t want to eat an animal that had been through that purely to provide me with a meal.

For many years I ate fish on the basis they were (mostly) caught in the wild, I ate eggs from free range chickens because I thought they were ok, I drank milk as I basically didn’t think much about milk production.

Over time I thought more about the impact of animal products and stopped consuming them as I can easily manage without. I do however buy meat/dairy for my pets and kids etc as it’s not for me but to decide they can’t have those. I don’t judge people who do or try and preach, however I am glad people are starting to look more deeply into where their food comes from

71% of agricultural land in the EU is used to produce feed for livestock

Is permanent grassland included in that figure? i.e the farmland that covers places like the Lake District fells and Yorkshire Dales that you can't do anything other than feed sheep with?

Ever tried growing wheat commercially on the side of a mountain?

Also, at a guess roughly 95% of my land is used to produce feed for livestock - the sheep and cows stand in the fields/woods/common land and eat the grass in front of them most of the year round.

"A 2019 study from Harvard Law School showed that if we use all current UK cropland to grow food for human consumption, we can more than feed our entire population. And, yes, that includes enough protein too. There is simply no need to make food from grassland. Instead, it can be rewilded and given back to nature."

From viva website referencing a Harvard study

I don’t really understand the reference to wild animals, yes of course animals may suffer etc in the wild, but they are not being bred and made to suffer purely for people to eat, which is the difference.

So, being bred for people to eat and then having a (mostly) humane death is so much worse than being terrified by being hunted by another animal and having chunks torn out of you as you die? Okay then Wild animals might not be specifically bred for eating, but they are part of the food chain and not many of them live a long life.

I actually don't eat a lot of meat, or dairy, but living in an agricultural country as I do I can't help but shake my head at some of these posts - mostly from people who don't know the first thing about farming!

@fffffoafmofsamfo

"A 2019 study from Harvard Law School showed that if we use all current UK cropland to grow food for human consumption, we can more than feed our entire population. And, yes, that includes enough protein too. There is simply no need to make food from grassland. Instead, it can be rewilded and given back to nature."

From viva website referencing a Harvard study

I'd (genuinely) love to see the actual data for this.

There are millions of tonnes of vegetables eaten by animals because they have been rejected for human consumption. They aren't grown specifically for animal feed they are a 'by-product' of commercial vegetable growing.

I'm all for those vegetables being eaten by humans instead of being rejected to 'waste' for the slightest blemish.

Same applies to all the soy/ wheat/ barley etc eaten by farm animals. They eat the bits rejected or not used by humans. The stalks, the rusks, the grains that don't make the grade for flour milling etc. Many of the stats about crops eaten by farm animals fail to mention that vital piece of information.

No one is out there using prime arable land to grow stuff specifically for farm animals.

Nearly all rewilding schemes recommend some form of grazing by livestock by the way...

Yes it is worse. Industrial farming is in no way humane. Murdering animals for food when we as humans have a choice. We are civilised, wild animals are not. Murder of animals is never humane, no matter however you might try to justify it, especially when you have a choice. Wild animals have no choice and that is the difference.

@SquirrelG

I don’t really understand the reference to wild animals, yes of course animals may suffer etc in the wild, but they are not being bred and made to suffer purely for people to eat, which is the difference.

So, being bred for people to eat and then having a (mostly) humane death is so much worse than being terrified by being hunted by another animal and having chunks torn out of you as you die? Okay then Wild animals might not be specifically bred for eating, but they are part of the food chain and not many of them live a long life.

I actually don't eat a lot of meat, or dairy, but living in an agricultural country as I do I can't help but shake my head at some of these posts - mostly from people who don't know the first thing about farming!

No the point people are making is that wild animals are part of nature and yes of course death is part of that, my cats would happily go out and kill a vole or bird because it’s hard wired into them, whereas I have to ability to make a choice about whether I eat dead animals. Mass animal producing factories of barns with thousands of chickens in a tiny space being bred especially for meat/eggs are not comparable with wild birds being killed by a fox- that is all…

You have a very judgmental attitude in assuming everyone is clueless, I grew up and live in the country, my family actually keep livestock (more as a hobby than a business) and will regularly have freshly shot pheasant hanging up in the house. I know many farmers. I don’t judge them and I don’t force my opinions on anyone, however I do have a clearer conscience knowing that I’m not eating animal products.

Yeah I think its odd that people assume vegans are "city dwellers" ... certainly not true for me and my family (half of which grew up in a farming community and are now vegan)

[quote ollobololo]@EdithStourton because captive bolt stunning is such a kind thing to do isn't it.

faunalytics.org/effective-captive-bolt-stunning/

Not to mention that regardless of the method it's done there's no such thing as "humane" slaughter. It is murder.[/quote]
The point I was making is that people were using 'slitting their throats' as if that's what slaughterhouses do to all the animals that go in. Which is propaganda: it's not giving the full picture. There are also studies which show complete insensibility from a single shot 96-98% of the time, so that figure quoted is also propaganda: it's also not giving the full story. This is why I completely mistrust vegan and animal rights websites (I don't unquestioningly lap up the NFU either, fwiw).

A lot of work has been done over the years to minimise slaughterhouse stress, with animal handling systems which are designed to keep the animals calm and unaware of what is about to happen.

And I don't think that it's 'murder' to kill an animal. That's really emotive language, and not reflective of the ethics of most people. Is it also murder to control pigeons (that is, shoot them) over cereal crops? Is it also murder to cull (that is, shoot) deer so that woodland isn't trashed and crops can grow? Is it murder to kill rabbits, and do things you now will kill mice, and put bait down for rats? Because if we didn't do those things, either we'd have no food, or everything, every single thing we eat, would have to be grown in a lab or in greenhouses. And a landscape covered in factories and greenhouses is, as we all know, just fabulous for wildlife.

I worked in a Processing plant (slaughter house) well two. This happened in one of the plants I was in.

1Stop Halal, which is based in Eye, Suffolk, uses two methods to slaughter chickens. Some are put in a water pool through which an electric current is run to stun the birds. Others have their throats slit without being stunned. The first failure at the company occurred when the water pool stopped working and the workers had to cut all the chickens’ throats without any stunning. Workers noticed that some chickens were coming out of the slaughtering process still alive, and a disagreement broke out between two of the men doing their slaughtering about who was responsible.

Once they have been killed, the dead birds pass through into a tank of boiling water, where they remain for two minutes to remove their feathers. However, the consequence of the failure to ensure all birds were dead meant that 81 fowl were plunged into the boiling water while they were still alive – and were boiled to death, causing the animals unnecessary suffering.

The workers claimed that the birds had got through because they were having to work fast to keep up with targets, which require up to 100,000 chickens a day to pass through the production process.

londonbangla.com/chicken-king-fined-animal-cruelty/

Its fucking brutal, I can assure you. I did slit throats. We would get through 10,000 chickens a day and 9000 pigs a week. I have my little NVQ for it aswell. Meant fuck all on the shop floor btw. There is no humanity in this buisness. How can there be?

@EdithStourton - you seem to forget that to produce each pound of animal flesh for feed requires cropping many more pounds of vegetables for feed and use of water etc vs just growing crops to eat which require a fraction of this. So there will be proportionately multiple times the animals killed for eating meat (no matter what the method of pest control). Because you will have to also protect their feed crops from pests. The definition of veganism is:

"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."

The definition clearly identifies the words "as far as possible or practicable".

If we can reduce animal suffering significantly (say 70% by moving to plant based foods) surely that's a win? Vs rearing animal feed then feeding it to the animals etc which has a much greater negative impact overall.

And let's not forget the environmental impact of eating meat and dairy products which negatively impacts us all multiple times vs eating veg

which conveniently many of the vegan bashers on this thread are sticking their heads in the clouds about.

@fffffoafmofsamfo all that graphic that you have posted shows is that you have a complete lack or understanding of farming and ecosystems. Nobody is sticking their heads in the clouds. They just understand agriculture and aren’t regurgitating infographics they’ve found on the internet that have no context.

Arable and fresh produce farming is reliant on livestock farming. If you get rid of all of the livestock eventually there will be no food at all. If you did five minutes research into topics like conservation grazing and soil health you’d understand.

@elbea

You seem to miss the part of my post that clearly states veganism seeks to reduce it as far as is possible or practicable.

Did you miss those two words - POSSIBLE - PRACTICABLE? I don't think any vegan would sit here and say every single form of animal abuse or farming could be immediately eradicated and that is what my point was.

Why does the United Nations say it is necessary for us to reduce our consumption of animal products to save the world from hunger? I wonder.

www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet#:~:text=A%20global%20shift%20towards%20a,a%20UN%20report%20said%20today.&text=Biomass%20and%20crops%20for%20animals,%5Bburning%5D%20fossil%20fuels.”

the report from United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) international panel of sustainable resource management says:

“Impacts from agriculture are expected to increase substantially due to population growth increasing consumption of animal products. Unlike fossil fuels, it is difficult to look for alternatives: people have to eat. A substantial reduction of impacts would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products.”

@fffffoafmofsamfo Talking about UN statistics that look at the entire world aren’t useful, you are purposeful misrepresenting the data.

The main environmental impacts in the UK are pesticide use, soil health and run off from fertiliser. All which can be solved by rotational grazing. There are millions of acres in the UK which require millions of animals to graze.

Whatever you think, it is internationally recognised that the UK has some of the most sustainable farming practices in the world. It’s estimated that UK farming will be net zero by 2040. You are targeting the wrong people.

Having animals grazing on land isn't incompatible with veganism - it could be done without eating them at the end of it. We also wouldn't need to grow feed for them and all the related environmental issues around that because they are eating the grass. It's not rocket science.

The argument as a whole is about having the most sustainable practices for the planet (and not just the UK). That said the UK are some of the largest consumers of meat. That meat comes from somewhere. The environmental impact of eating it, growing and farming it is undeniable. We play our part on the world stage regardless of the current move towards "sustainability" which we currently have not met and are a long way away from (let's face it 2040 is some way off). You can play your own part in helping right now, by reducing your meat consumption. Or shall we stick our heads in the ground because in 20 years time we will supposedly be net zero?

Not to mention the compassion argument.

DP, a massive meat lover, had to do some work outside a large scale pig abbatoir a couple of weeks ago. He said the smell, the number of lorries turning up and going away empty and the screaming of the pigs was horrendous and has since ceased to eat his weekly bacon. We don't know or seek to know, as consumers, how old the animal was that's in the packet before you (usually a baby e.g. 38 day old chicken), how it was raised & how it was killed. 'farm fresh' and red tractor are a fucking joke. When that information is out there and clearly displayed on packets, then people can truly make a choice, not before

ref the arguments about having animals grazing, this is worth a watch

@fffffoafmofsamfo If you want these millions of animals grazing land for the environmental benefits, who is paying for them? Livestock margins are minimal, if there isn’t income from meat to offset the costs of grazing food prices are going to soar.

It’s so frustrating to find people talking about things they don’t know about and pretending that they do. Luckily, people like me and my friends are managing hundreds of thousands of acres of farmland across Britain. We are highly educated with lots of degrees in sustainable land management and agriculture and the people that are actually making a difference.

@elbea I don't personally want millions of animals grazing for the environmental benefits, did you watch the video I posted? I was making the point that having them grazing on there (as you suggested was necessary) was not necessarily incompatible with veganism because there is no need to eat them at the end of the process.

@fffffoafmofsamfo I’m not going to watch some random video you’ve googled. I’m going to stick to what I read in peer reviewed studies that I learnt during my time completing a four year degree in sustainable land management and the up to date current literature I read.