sustainability...

[Mrs H]

I havnt read all the posts on this so apologys if this has already been said but as a farmer I just have to ask, Were do we fit into all this? If the world turned vegan all livestock farmers would be out of a job, there would be no need to milk cows etc. How is this sustainable living?
I totally respect peoples decisions to be both vegan and vegetarian but I think we need to look at the long term implications for the farmers. Meat eaters etc keep thousands of farmers housed, clothed and fed!! Sorry if I'm missing the point here! X

[boboff]

You have to give all your farm away to people who live on benefits so they can grow dock and thistles and watch Jeremy Kyle.

Oh don't forget your vitamin supplement.

[MKG]

"Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs"

Where do wonderful examples of committee-speak like this one come from? It reminds me of Stonehenge - a name that's been around for centuries - after which all henges are named. English Heritage came up with a definition for a henge. Applying their definition excludes Stonehenge from "hengeship". And they don't see the ridiculous side of what they've done.

The statement on sustainability says precisely nothing. Refusing permission to allow the development of, say, a windfarm on land which future generations may just need to build a tennis complex actually complies with the definition. As would, in a roundabout way, increasing oil production on the grounds that it's running out anyway so future generations couldn't have it in the first place.

I suspect that everyone knows what sustainability means without the help of groups of "experts" developing soundbytes.

Mike

[greenorelse]

I havnt read all the posts on this so apologys if this has already been said but as a farmer I just have to ask, Were do we fit into all this? If the world turned vegan all livestock farmers would be out of a job, there would be no need to milk cows etc. How is this sustainable living?
I totally respect peoples decisions to be both vegan and vegetarian but I think we need to look at the long term implications for the farmers. Meat eaters etc keep thousands of farmers housed, clothed and fed!! Sorry if I'm missing the point here! X

You haven't had a response Mrs H - I'll try.

Remember this is only my opinion. There are as many opinions as there are people. No doubt my opinions will enrage others but hey, that's cool. I quite enjoy engaging with a topic I feel comfortable with.

I think you have the cart before the horse really Mrs H. Imagine if you were producing tobacco rather than meat. Human activity cannot be judged solely by its profitability. The slave trade was highly profitable; in many ways, the meat industry is analogous.

We all know the world is not going to flip a switch into veg*ism so you're safe for now. But your job security has got nothing to do with those who choose not to consume animals. About 90% of the population used to be involved in agriculture but now it's around 5% - through absolutely no fault of veg*ns - should we have saved all those jobs?

Another example - the glass of oil which is the world is now half empty. As oil gets scarcer, should we save every job in, say, the airline industry? What about worked-out mines? There are lots of other examples where obsolescence, alternatives as well as moral awakening have eliminated whole work sectors.

I tend to ramble a bit, Mrs H. Apologies.

[MKG]

For what it's worth, I think Mrs H has a valid point. It isn't a matter (although I agree with some of what you've just said, greenorelse) of picking another set of workers and wondering whether we should protect that set. Yes, it's obvious that workers within the petrochemical industry, for instance, are eventually going to disappear because their raw material is also going to perform the same disappearing act. But what Mrs H is saying is that a lot of land, particularly in highland regions, cannot possibly be used for arable puposes - crops simply will not grow there in commercial quantities, but that land is not going to disappear. So what are we to do with those areas? Close them down? That would be a sad waste of resources, considering that, although we cannot use them for the production of vegetable protein, we certainly can and do use them for the production of animal protein. To do otherwise in this day and age of increasing shortage would be, in my view, criminal.

I respect anyone's power of choice, but personal choice and preference has little to do with the economic and geographic realities of the world - one of which is that mixed farming developed naturally in response to basic human need, utilising the available landscape in the most efficient way. To force that pattern to change would, I feel, serve no purpose whatsoever other than satisfying what are, in essence, emotional preferences.

Once again, we have to revert to evidence to guide us. And I agree - a high-meat diet coupled with a sedentary lifestyle does appear to be harmful. But a high-meat diet with a fully active lifestyle? No evidence either way. How about a "reasonable" meat diet coupled with lots of nice, nutritious veggies and a bit of exercise? Again, no evidence - but strong suggestions in the data that this is not harmful in any way. Go whole hog - a "no meat" diet - and there is evidence that, all things being equal, there is no harm in this either. On the other hand, there is no "evidence" other than that from partisan sources, which suggests it is better than anything else.

Given that, I think it must be better to continue to produce protein using the most efficient method available in any given area. Grazing animals on marginal land meets that criterion. My personal view is that any such usage of animals must have due regard for the welfare of those animals, but even that is an emotional response, and we have to be so careful about those. More power to our hill farmers is all I can say.

Mike

[greenorelse]

But what Mrs H is saying is that a lot of land, particularly in highland regions, cannot possibly be used for arable puposes - crops simply will not grow there in commercial quantities, but that land is not going to disappear. So what are we to do with those areas? Close them down? That would be a sad waste of resources, considering that, although we cannot use them for the production of vegetable protein, we certainly can and do use them for the production of animal protein. To do otherwise in this day and age of increasing shortage would be, in my view, criminal.

Mike, I think you're coming at it from the wrong angle. Why is there an increasing shortage? Because much of the world's arable land is given over to cattle production, which, to quote one Keith Acker:

Land, energy, and water resources for livestock agriculture range anywhere from 10 to 1000 times greater than those necessary to produce an equivalent amount of plant foods. And livestock agriculture does not merely use these resources, it depletes them. This is a matter of historical record. Most of the world's soil, erosion, groundwater depletion, and deforestation--factors now threatening the very basis of our food system--are the result of this particularly destructive form of food production.

I repeat an earlier statement. We're locked into this notion that we must exploit absolutely every last corner of the planet. By giving in to this drive for cattle (and the soya production it consumes), livestock agriculture is the single greatest cause of world-wide deforestation both historically and currently (between 1967 and 1975, two-thirds of 70 million acres of lost forest went to grazing). Between 1950 and 1975 the area of human-created pasture land in Central America more than doubled, almost all of it at the expense of rain forests. And it continues to this day.

My point is that livestock consume far more resources (and give precious little back) than any other form of agriculture and so force this question of marginal land out every time - one which ignores the real question.

It's called a disconnect, I believe.

[sleepyowl]

Livestock is were agroforestry comes in

[contadina]

My point is that livestock consume far more resources (and give precious little back) than any other form of agriculture and so force this question of marginal land out every time - one which ignores the real question.

Our soil wouldn't be nearly as productive as it is without regular additions of animal manure. I think you mentioned human manure earlier but even if we all went several times a day it would still be nowhere near enough the amount required.

[greenorelse]

My point is that livestock consume far more resources (and give precious little back) than any other form of agriculture and so force this question of marginal land out every time - one which ignores the real question.

Our soil wouldn't be nearly as productive as it is without regular additions of animal manure. I think you mentioned human manure earlier but even if we all went several times a day it would still be nowhere near enough the amount required.

There's no real concern with that if the manure comes from an oversupply elsewhere. The fundamental veg*n position is the avoidance of exploitation of animal species.

[gregorach]

I repeat an earlier statement. We're locked into this notion that we must exploit absolutely every last corner of the planet.

I do see what you're saying, but also the other side: I'd quite like there to be a viable rural economy here in Scotland. Eliminate hill farming, shooting and fishing and you'll finish off what the Clearances started.

[greenorelse]

I repeat an earlier statement. We're locked into this notion that we must exploit absolutely every last corner of the planet.

I do see what you're saying, but also the other side: I'd quite like there to be a viable rural economy here in Scotland. Eliminate hill farming, shooting and fishing and you'll finish off what the Clearances started.

Shooting and fishing as well as exploiting grazing animals?

Well, if this is all Scotland's good for... I say "Why do we exploit every inch?" And you reply, "If we don't we can't live here" which sort of justifies my question.

If profitability is the prime justification for an action, then we should bring back the slave trade.

Anyway, be happy.

[grahamhobbs]

All life forms exploit and compete against others. I do not take the religious view that we humans are somehow higher than other life forms. We are part of nature and like all life forms at the same time are in conflict with it, a constant struggle for survival. The only difference is that we have elevated ourselves into a position where we can now virtually control and dominate nature (although gaia is fighting back). This has brought great advantages to our species but also great dangers. What is dangerous though is that we are in this position, where we can threaten the whole planet, but we are not able to tackle the problems rationally. We live under a system dictated by the needs of capital, it is capital in its never ending competitive struggle to make profit that determines what is exploited and produced on the planet. Agriculture and the production of food is not seperate from this. The tentacles of capital extend throughout the globe, buying up land and converting it to profitable cash crops or liverstock production as dictated not by need or concern for the future, but profit.

[gregorach]

If profitability is the prime justification for an action, then we should bring back the slave trade.

It's not profitability, it's survival. This is how people have lived here for the last five thousand years.

And what happens if we stop, now that we've removed all the top predators from the ecosystem? The grazers breed without limit until they destroy all the remaining woodland, converting it into peat bog where nothing but sphagnum moss will grow, and then they all starve. Well done, you've not only depopulated the entire country, but you've massively reduced its biodiversity in the process.

This is a managed landscape. You can't just decide to stop managing it without there being some adverse consequences.

I suppose you could relocate all the people, re-introduce the predators, and turn the entire country into some gigantic theme park, but not without a heck of a fight from those of us who live here. I'm not about to give up my country, its culture and its way of life for your utopian fantasies. Or you could massively reduce the human population so that we can subsist on a much smaller area... But that brings up the uncomfortable questions of "How?" and "Who goes first?"

[grahamhobbs]

It's not profitability, it's survival.....
This is a managed landscape. ...........

We get your point, although perhaps Scotland is perhaps not a great example, as vast acreages are maintained simply for the pleasure of the idle rich who get a sad satisfaction out of slaughtering birds that can barely get off the ground.

[gregorach]

It's not profitability, it's survival.....
This is a managed landscape. ...........

We get your point, although perhaps Scotland is perhaps not a great example, as vast acreages are maintained simply for the pleasure of the idle rich who get a sad satisfaction out of slaughtering birds that can barely get off the ground.

Well, yes. But prior to that, they were used by surprisingly large numbers of people (greater than the entire current population of Scotland) for subsistence agriculture with a substantial livestock component, in a manner that had been more-or-less stable and sustainable since the Neolithic. So I would suggest that if we want to return to sustainability, that's got to be a fairly good model to start with. We know that Scotland can support its current population (and more), and we know how it was done. I'm not about to write that off because it upsets somebody's delicate sensibilities.