Veganuary

[ahinton]

The pragmatic approach would be to say, in effect, 'that was then this is now' and consider current cropping practice as the decider. I have been reorganising my compost arrangements and was musing about the extent to which I could be considered to be exploiting animals in producing material to nourish my garden...

I suspect that such pragmatism would be hard to sustain in practice given the sheer length of the "then" and the extent to which it continues to pertain - and no one around here appears to give a toss anyway!

[ardcarp]

There might be a slight mis-match between two arguments going on here. I'm all in favour of what in the UK we call 'organic' food production. ('Bio' in France seems more apt). I certainly don't approve of intensive food production which invlolves keeping cattle indoors and feeding them solely on grain which has been produced in artificially fertilised fields; fields which ought to be used for arable human crops. We pay far too little for food, and it would be better if we all sourced our pork, beef and (especially) chicken from farms using traditional rearing practices. Many typical dairy or beef producers near me still graze their cattle in meadows in the summer months and feed them on hay or silage in winter...possibly supplemented by a grain feed (often maize these days) grown in one of their own fields and fertilised by the good old muck-spreader. I'm also in favour of eating less meat than was common a couple of generations ago. A veggie curry was on the menu chez ardcarp last evening, and we didn't miss meat at all.

As far as the methane produced by farm animals (shall we just call it farting?) I'm still to be convinced that it's one of the major causes of global warming. I wonder if anyone saw a TV programme a while ago where one (admittedly eccentric) farmer made charcoal using wood from his own land, and mixed it with cattle fodder? The cows loved it and apparently it absorbed much of the CH4, allowing carbon to be deposited back on the land instead of into the air.

[Richard Tarleton]

Possibly in that although there may be more visible signs of life in such systems than the arable agriculture of the eastern counties, the numbers and variety are in fact very much lower than they used to, and should, be? I cannot find the info at the moment but some years ago a film maker, concerned at the lack of the 'white birds flying after' at ploughing on the family farm started to investigate and found the extent to which the natural world had been removed from it as a result of modern farm practices. For instance, there were animals grazing the fields but routine use of worming medication(due in part at least to the high stocking levels necessary to yield an adequate return) killed the invertebrates in those fields.

Not clear this is what Rjw's cryptic post meant. But yes, avermectins etc....

[vinteuil]

As far as the methane produced by farm animals (shall we just call it farting?)

... I thought most of the methane came out from the other end - not flatulence but eructation (shall we just call it belching?)


.

[ardcarp]

...it was just my tendency to be scatological.

[ahinton]

There might be a slight mis-match between two arguments going on here. I'm all in favour of what in the UK we call 'organic' food production. ('Bio' in France seems more apt). I certainly don't approve of intensive food production which invlolves keeping cattle indoors and feeding them solely on grain which has been produced in artificially fertilised fields; fields which ought to be used for arable human crops. We pay far too little for food, and it would be better if we all sourced our pork, beef and (especially) chicken from farms using traditional rearing practices. Many typical dairy or beef producers near me still graze their cattle in meadows in the summer months and feed them on hay or silage in winter...possibly supplemented by a grain feed (often maize these days) grown in one of their own fields and fertilised by the good old muck-spreader.

I am also very much in favour of organic food production and consumption wheever and whenever possible, yet the likes of George Monbiot declare this to be bad because it requires the use of more land and water per kilo than the intensive farming that you, he and I all deprecate but he tries to use this as an argument against all meat and fish consumption and in favour of plant based foods only (although I've no idea as to his views on such foods being grown on land fertilised for centuries by livestock). Even if exclusively plant based diets could be of certain health benefits to all and no nutritional disavantage to anyone (a considerable leap of faith in itself), the interests of those who advocate rewilding, those who seek the planting of millions of trees in the hope of reducing the adverse effects of climate change and those concerned to meet everyone's housing needs will all require vast and increasing amounts of land, leaving all too little available for crop production even after removal of livestock rearing from the equation; the question would also remain as to what would be expected to become of all the sheep, cattle, pigs, poultry, game, &c. that would no longer be required for food production.

[ardcarp]

Homo sapiens is a mere parvenu on this planet; however our common ancestor was presumably endowed with omnivorous dentition as we are. Maybe our 'success' as a species is due our ability to adapt to different foods as ice-ages come and go and populations shift back and forth. So I'll hang on to my canines for the moment.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

the question would also remain as to what would be expected to become of all the sheep, cattle, pigs, poultry, game, &c. that would no longer be required for food production.

That's a very old argument, with little of concern. The sheep, cattle, pigs, etc. would no longer be bred, so they wouldn't be there any longer. Meat eating wouldn't cease overnight.

[ardcarp]

A mental picture of pigs sacrificing themselves off a cliff edge led me to this:

https://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Archives/The%20Gadarene%20Swine%20Fallacy.htm

Make of it what you will!

[ahinton]

That's a very old argument, with little of concern. The sheep, cattle, pigs, etc. would no longer be bred, so they wouldn't be there any longer. Meat eating wouldn't cease overnight.

Of course it wouldn't but that wasn't quite what I had in mind; removing all animals that have been or are used directly or indirectly for the production of food across the entire globe would have no small effect on its ecosystem and it seems unclear to what extent that has been considered by advocates of veganism.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Of course it wouldn't but that wasn't quite what I had in mind; removing all animals that have been or are used directly or indirectly for the production of food across the entire globe would have no small effect on its ecosystem and it seems unclear to what extent that has been considered by advocates of veganism.

Well, perhaps the reduced greenhouse gas emissions would have a very significant effect, and the cessation of growing fodder in Amazonia might too.

[ahinton]

Well, perhaps the reduced greenhouse gas emissions would have a very significant effect, and the cessation of growing fodder in Amazonia might too.

Oh, it might, though to what extent in the greater scheme of things it;s rather hard to determine; that said, I am also uncertain of the extent of the countermanding effect of the creation of fertilisers and their use on the extra arable land that would be required to grow more crops.

[ardcarp]

Well, perhaps the reduced greenhouse gas emissions would have a very significant effect, and the cessation of growing fodder in Amazonia might too.

..but in Amazonia and Indonesia they'll still be chopping down trees to grow palm oil.

[ahinton]

..but in Amazonia and Indonesia they'll still be chopping down trees to grow palm oil.

Indeed so, unless somehow that can also be stopped.

In the long run, given that so many of the stels required to combat the advsers effects of climate change ought to have been taken - or at least gotten under way - many years ago, it strikes me that one of the most important solutions now will be to try to find effecive methods of carbon capture, for I doubt very much that there will be sufficient time available for anything else (not that I'm suggesting that nothing else need be done, of course).

That said, turning over to veganism on a large scale the world over is very unlikely to happen and the extent to which any of it does happen seems hardly likely to become a major contributor to addressing the adverse effects of climate change.

[oddoneout]

I suspect that such pragmatism would be hard to sustain in practice given the sheer length of the "then" and the extent to which it continues to pertain - and no one around here appears to give a toss anyway!

I was meaning that past practice be accepted as having happened, but from a given date no longer be continued but be replaced with alternatives. The concept of a transition period as has to happen with the change to organic practice can't apply, as you say.
It's a pity that the whole subject of the place of animals(or not) in food production and agricultural practice is so combative and adversarial as it hinders progress towards worthwhile outcomes.