KILL COWS AND SHEEP TO SAVE THE PLANET

[Cider Boys]

I don't know about Knickers in a twist or silly cartoons, but this was clearly reported on the Radio 4 today programme and I stand by my first posting.

KILL COWS AND SHEEP TO SAVE THE PLANET
It really amazes me what a shower of idiots govern this country.
Labour have shown their complete ignorance of the countryside on every ocasion but this takes the biscuit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8379759.stm

Barney

[alan refail]

In my reply to Johnboy I had intended to add a further comment, but resisted the temptation for fear of being too personal. But here it is:
Some of the earlier postings bring to mind the words Hobby horse (A topic that one frequently brings up or dwells on; a fixation.) and bees in the bonnet(An impulsive, often eccentric turn of mind; a notion; an obsession)

[Johnboy]

And that Alan is called Organic Arrogance!
JB.

[alan refail]

And that Alan is called Organic Arrogance!
JB.

...and that's called shouting

[John Walker]

I think it's worth remembering that countless numbers of animals are killed every day, across the globe, because we want to eat them or their 'products'.

The story that instigated this thread, although being skewed by the media, does have its roots in a growing consensus that in order to bring down greenhouse gas emissions, it might just be a good idea for those that eat meat to eat a little less.

The rationale is that if you reduce the demand for meat, its production falls, and the greenhouse gas emissions (plus any other environmental ill effects) associated with it fall in tandem.

My understanding of the Soil Association stance on this topic is that they encourage the eating of high quality, organic meat (which by definition has been produced with fewer energy inputs - oil, etc) less frequently.

It is clearly ridiculous to suggest that we should 'kill' livestock to bring about a reduction. It stands to reason that education about how what we eat affects the world around us would, over time, bring down livestock levels accordingly.

Any forum members interested in the 'roots' of this story might want to follow the link below. It explores comments made by Dr Rajendra Pachuari, chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, on why he thinks it's imperative that meat-eaters reduce their consumption.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... odanddrink

[Cider Boys]

There is considerable merit in your rationale John.

The complication is that we have little control (rightly so) on the aspirations of the populations from the emerging countries.

We may accept the benefits from eating less meat but as the majority who are poor start to enjoy more affluence they desire to eat more meat.

I, out of choice, live in a quite self sufficient way because I enjoy it but no way could the population of this country all live like me. Simply there are too many of us and not enough land and the problem is getting worse. I enjoy keeping free range chickens, turkeys and pigs but it is not economic and unless we are all prepared to live like peasants I can not see any future in the Soil Association's ideals. If we accept our influence on global warming then the main threat to climate change is principally due to the world's ever increasing population. Perhaps the Soil Association could advise our government on the folly of letting our population increase with little to no limitations.

All the best.

Barney

[Johnboy]

Hi John Walker,
Your quote.
My understanding of the Soil Association stance on this topic is that they encourage the eating of high quality, organic meat (which by definition has been produced with fewer energy inputs - oil, etc) less frequently.

I'm afraid that I take issue with this statement and give you the following example;
Take an organically reared free range chicken which has been fed on organically produced grain which when cooked is said to be more nutritious more tender and more flavoursome than it's conventionally reared free range chicken. The only difference between the two is that the conventionally reared bird has been fed on conventionally grow grain.
In all other aspects the rearing is exactly the same.
I am afraid that it is going to take far more than a Soil Association diatribe to convince me that the differences exist.
Remember one thing John the Organic Accreditation is given to the producer and not his produce so why because of an accreditation scheme why does this increase the nutrition, tenderness or flavour.
In this area I can purchase a 4lb locally reared conventional free range chicken for around £6.40. and yet an organically reared one is around £15.00. which has travelled many miles.
To me the only difference between the two is the price.
It is said that fools are very easily parted with their money and organically this seems to be true!
JB.