Sugar cane is the major agricultural crop grown within the Barrier Reef's catchments. About 3,000 farms sprawl over 360,000 hectares, some of them dating back more than 100 years. But it’s only been in recent times that we have learnt the impact that sugar production is having on the Reef's water quality. And it's anything but sweet. Fertilisers are one of the major sources of nutrients entering the Reef. Fine sediments and the pesticides used on coastal floodplains also threaten water quality. An expert scientific panel has recommended that nitrogen entering Reef waters be reduced by up to 80% and suspended sediment run-off halved by 2025 to meet targets for improved water quality. For a long time Tate & Lyle wanted the UK out of the EU as it gave the sugar beet producers in East Anglia an advantage over their imports. With the UK trying to set up a deal with Australia the sugar cane producers will want to use whatever means they can to increase their quantity for export. Will they put the Barrier Reef above their profits? I doubt it. Do people in the UK actually care where this one item comes from or what effect it might have on one the worlds wonders? Well they might when the cost is greater than that from East Anglia, but it is likely that the home growing farmer will be driven out of business, so over time the cheaper product is not available.
I was talking about Covid specifically, and my point was that vaccinations do not prevent the transmission of Covid. I've already had my first vaccination, I'm far from being anti-vaccination, but now that the data is in I do think the world may have over-reacted compared to issues that are really challenging mankind, like climate change. If only we'd put the same amount of effort and money into sorting out our impact on the planet... Wildlife damage is down to deforestation and culling of predators. It takes a huge amount of land to provide for animals, feeding them and pasturing them. We could feed the world several times over if everyone was vegan, and ideally convert huge swathes of land to natural habitats. Unfortunately it's going to be impossible to change the habits of the baby boomer generation (that gave us Brexit), so it's looking like there's no way out of it. This isn't an attack or finger-pointing, I was just providing a different angle to 'non-vaccinated people are a threat', that's all.
I'd have to look into the actual numbers, I don't have them in memory, but it's something like 1/18th of the current land in use now.
Not forgetting to take into account that a purely vegetarian diet exacerbates soil erosion because removing plants from a field removes the nutrients in that field, which then needs to be replaced - whereas animals add to those nutrients.
I think, given how inefficient meat production is, that the preparation of said land to produce feed for animals for years, rather than for immediate human consumption, has to be worse for the environment. Both our boys are meat-eaters, but Seb is totally sure he will become a vegetarian when we let him. He is sort of where I am with veganism, perhaps less convinced than I am, but we haven't explained in any detail the horrors of current meat and dairy production.
I think the jury is out on land use Andy. What I would say is that national cuisines have developed in the way they have for a reason, with vegetarian options being more easily obtainable in some cultures than in others. It's often said that central European cooking is relatively meat orientated (by that I mean the South of Germany, Austria, Switzerland and the Czech Republic) - this may have to do with the fact that they are all heavily forested, with high lying low quality land. They also have a continental climate with frosts normal in May and again in October. This means a 4 month growing season (which is shorter than many other places). So little wonder that eg. Swiss and Austrian cuisine are heavy on dairy products because that is an all year round thing. The point is that Britain imports more of its foodstuffs than any other country in the Western World and that is not a path that I want the others following. There are many countries which, either through a short growing season, or low quality, marginal land have developed their cuisine accordingly. I do not believe in a one size fits all solution here. If using local products then vegetarianism is easier to sell in some countries than in others.
https://www.livekindly.co/eating-ve...e-says-largest-ever-food-production-analysis/ Is an interesting read.
These are very interesting texts Andy, and I have read them through. According to my maths 60% of all the emissions caused by agriculture combined with the 10% of all emissions attributed to agriculture adds up to 6% - hardly enough to substantiate the claim that cows are more dangerous than all the cars, planes and rockets put together. The article speaks a great deal about land use and area, without pointing out that there are vast differences in land quality - there are many areas of the World (up to 30%) which are classified as arid, semi arid, or marginal which are not suitable for the growing of crops - whole areas which rely on livestock to sustain their way of living. There is also no mention of the fact that most crops only have a restricted growing period - I said in the last text that in Central Europe this is only 4 months for those crops which are sensitive to frost. In countries like Sweden and Finland (also most of Russia) the growing season will be even less. In contrast livestock is a 12 month of the year thing. The text also takes the main themes of beef and chickens as being synonimous with meat eating as a whole - where is the evidence that keeping sheep or pigs is particularly harmfull for the environment ? Haven't rural households always kept pigs, goats or sheep throughout history - before global warming became a theme (and the rise in greenhouse gases we are talking about has mostly been a product of the last 30 years) Could it not be that the focus on this theme is being used as a way of transfering attentions away from the car industry, and that there may be vested interests involved ?
I will catch up with you, cologne. Balancing work, Forest Green Rovers and Matej’s Maths revision at the mo’.
Quite extraordinary statement made to a select committee this afternoon. One company gave evidence that they have nearly 10,000 40'.0" containers on their land full of PPE equipment. Will it all be used in correct date order was asked, but the company that has them doesn't know what is in them. Meanwhile there is now a shortage of containers around the world, and the cost of hiring one has gone up 80%.
Hi, cologne, sorry I haven’t been back before now. Matej had his final exam yesterday and coupled with work, things have been a tad busy. Plus the FGR Newport Co match - bloody hell, what a game! I don’t really understand what your Maths is doing there, but it is patent to all that animal farming is critically damaging our planet. The FAO article was particularly interesting. The facts about how methane is over twenty times more dangerous than carbon dioxide in terms of its ability to trap heat, that nitrous oxide is 300 times worse! Nitrous oxide has an atmospheric lifespan of 114 years, too! All this because we are forcing our planet to do something of which it is incapable of doing. There are no excuses, IMHO. That some roaming African tribe could not become vegetarian because of their nomadic lifestyle, or that Himalayan soil quality dictates a diet of meat for the eight billion other people on the planet, is mere sophistry. It’s a bit like saying that 4x4 use is the only means of travel in the Himalayas therefore it’s fine for all cars on the planet to be 4x4s. I urge everyone to read the FAO document (linked above).
The maths I used was the same as for the predictions leagues Andy I wasn't actually talking so much about roaming African tribes but rather about countries which have a short growing season (shorter than eg. 4 months) which includes most of central Europe. From a British perspective you will tell me that the vegetarian alternative is always there - but then Britain imports more of its foodstuffs than any other Western country. Go into your typical supermarket and you will find produce from over 70 different countries for 12 months of the year. Most of this produce is vegetarian. I don't really want other countries following this lead, nor is it good for the environment if they do so - we do not need further increase in world trade. People have lived from animal products for as long as we can remember, and there are many reasons for that - one of the most important being that, in the past (before industrialized agriculture and globalization) they were often subject to crop failures - keeping of animals was a security against this because they are not subject to a specific 'growing season'. Could Scotland or any place in Scandinavia ever have been self sufficient and also vegetarian ? It's pretty well known on here that I have a bias against car drivers and also use of aeroplanes - but i would never ban them entirely. Similarly here - we all know that factory farming of animals is wrong, cruel and bad for the environment - but can you use this as a stick to beat all meat eaters over the head with ? Going along this path prevents us from focusing on themes like ecological landscaping, and mixed farming for the entire agricultural sector. Things like monoculture are problems which exist quite independently of meat eating. When any field is used year in year out for one product then the soil either erodes or becomes useless without 'regeneration' which is mostly done with massive injections of fertilizer. Are you sure that the vegetarian products which you eat are not, themselves, dependent on decayed animal matter for their existence ? Of course not because animal dung is, by far, the best fertilizer. I have my own veggie garden but I cannot produce enough compost to bring sustainance back into the soil on a regular basis, and so I use cow dung from the local farmer just as most others would do living where I do. The last point is that the British, particularly, are a nation of pet lovers - what impact does this have ? I have seen an estimation that the production of pet food produces a quarter of all livestock agricultural emissions - are you going to ban people from keeping dogs or cats for that reason ? I know that it's possible to turn your dog into a vegetarian but it's highly manipulative and none too good for his health !
This is an interesting thing I found re Central European farmland: https://esdac.jrc.ec.europa.eu/projects/Soil_Atlas/Download/20.pdf “However, not all agriculture is confined to lowland plains or river valleys. One should not forget the famous wines and olive oils produced in some of the drier areas of Europe. Vineyards and olive plantations are usually situated on the well draining soils of the Mediterranean basin and central Europe. These soil types, usually light coloured, are often quite fertile and will respond very well to various types of soil management procedures (e.g. irrigation).”
With regards to imports/exports of food, of course we need as a planet to reassess how we transport food, and how far we need to. Individualists again rule it seems, and the placing of the majority of products I see in my supermarket from South Africa, Israel, South America even, are very questionable IMHO.But food has always needed transporting, and I’m sure that sensible movement of food is a less damaging option for the world than animal farming.
There is a big contrast between soil on the banks of the Rhine Andy. In the Eifel (the other side from us) it is a volcanic area with great soil and the actual Rhine valley south of Cologne is also very fertile. In the Bergisches Land on our side the historical industries were textiles, forestry and mining (in our immediate area for cadmium, lead and zinc - the last being the most important). It is very low quality soil for agriculture - very acidic and similar to most of the central areas of Germany. A major problem in NRW is that there are over 30,000 disused pits (mining) and those built before the 19th Century were not registered on any maps - so it's not unknown for holes to suddenly appear in the ground - this happened to our local farmer when part of his field was hit by mining subsidence - barely 300 metres from our house Fortunately there were no cows grazing on it at the time and the area covered by this pit does not go under us. Those buying houses in the Ruhr area should make sure that a geological study has been done before doing so. There are only 7 farmers in Engelskirchen, where I live, and they are all dairy farmers - partly because of the soil quality and partly because of the weather - think of the Pennines (with fir trees) and you have an idea.
The same is true of Hertfordshire and its unmarked chalk mines. In terms of the 8 billion people on the planet, how many do you think would need an enforced meat diet because of soil issues?
This is not a question of 'enforced diet' Andy. The fact is that people have been eating meat, and farming it, for thousands of years without climate change being an issue. Even the most optimistic goals of environmentalists is to reduce emissions to 1980s levels - most of the damage has occurred since then. So the question is not necessarily that of ending meat eating altogether but of returning it to the levels of our fathers and grandfathers. Everything which we do we are doing too much of. The fact is that the weight of World trade (measured in ship's tonnage) is daily more than that for the entire year of my birth. Enforce a vegetarian diet on the entire population and, as a result of short growing seasons in many countries and infertile land in many others, that trade would increase even more. In contrast meat production, for all its faults, is something which can nearly always be done locally.
