Veganism, genuine questions.

A third consecutive post and then I shall go away and do something useful.

If you want to put people OFF vegan/vegetarianism, then the best method is to use such emotional language, describe a mythical meat-free paradise as Shangri-La and vilify stock-keepers so violently that the reader/listener immediately thinks "That isn't true!" and "They are getting hysterical!"

. . and another question. Given that you acknowledge the right of non-vegetarians to eat what they choose, " How would YOU prevent an agonising death by blowfly strike while still providing meat for millions?" Put aside your personal preference for a short while and regard this as a problem to be solved. Blowflies don't just target Australian sheep, they are an on-going curse to all stock everywhere.
Do you think that mulesing would be chosen as a preventative if it were not effective? In Oz these animals are dispersed over a wide area. Collecting them for a frequent Brazilian trim and a regular spray of insecticide, or whatever the best regular treatment is currently, would be difficult.

The way it is done now is long-lasting treatments for all the things likely to be met in the near future. This must be a shock to the system, so any improvements that fertile brains can suggest would be welcomed, particularly if backed up by practical experience.

Re "do you formulate your opinion of ALL people on the behaviour of a single person?" I would ask a parallel question, not specifically to Crystaltipps but to all vegetarians/vegans. - "do you formulate your opinion of ALL those engaged in animal husbandry on the behaviour of a few?" If you answer (and I would not argue) that those few are the ones who bring the industry into disrepute and have a high visibility, then remember that paedophile teachers, priests, and youth leaders are not representative of the whole of these occupations.

Of course I’ve answered the question Monica! Seems you don’t want to let go of it. You haven’t answered my question btw.

Oh, I give up, crystaltipps you will do anything to avoid answering the question, even giving a personal opinion. I will draw my own conclusions.

But that was an example of ONE person Monica, do you formulate your opinion of ALL people on the behaviour of a single person? I wouldn’t do that btw, so what does that prove?

I am sorry to bore you crystaltips but I cannot reconcile someone deliberately putting a living creature where they know there is no protection so that it is almost certain to be eaten by a predator with ...in a highly developed culture with lots of choices we can choose not to harm other creatures in order to live.

The main difference between humans and other species is that we have choices to change our behaviour and we have developed cultures. We don’t have to eat meat to survive, so in a highly developed culture with lots of choices we can choose not to harm others creatures in order to live. That’s it - it’s a choice we are fortunate to be able to have. It’s not the same as birds eating slugs - they don’t have culturally developed choices. It is also better environmentally to eat fewer industrially ( I.e. not naturally) produced animal based products. That some like to eat meat and it’s what they are used to is fine, I understand that, but you can’t argue it’s essential for everyone, and you also shouldn’t say that if someone doesn’t want to eat dead animals they are some sort of terrorist/ weirdo/ anyother insult. You can’t live on this planet without doing any harm to anything, but perhaps we should aim to do the least harm, and if I have a choice between eating something which has involved the death of another creature and something which hasn’t I would rather choose the latter.
monica your ad nauseum comments about slugs and surgery and banning things are weak analogies. We do ban lots of things which are harmful if society deems them undesirable, and this can vary from one culture to another. We ban cruel sports like dog fighting and bear baiting, although these were popular, we didn’t just “regulate” them more.

Before I married The Wonderful Man, he was committed to living as sustainably as possible and he informed me that his mantra for life was, 'Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without.' So, that's pretty much how we've lived throughout our thirty odd years of marriage. We grow our own fruit and vegetables, our son catches the fish we eat, we buy fresh venison, usually on the day it's shot, that is skinned and butchered by TWM and we eat vegetarian meals more often than we eat meat based ones. We do our bit to preserve a way of life that is healthy for us and good for the planet. This includes making decisions about what clothes we buy, which cleaning products and toiletries we use, how we use transport and how we use our assets.

I admire vegetarians and vegans for their principles, but as has been pointed out on here already, these are issues that are more complex than simply not eating meat or fish; every decision we take affects our planet for good or ill, but some are so nuanced as to need the wisdom of Solomon to tease out the implications.

We have to wear clothes and there is nobody who lives without some pressure upon the environment . There is a movement to buy fewer clothes, to buy second hand or recycled clothes, and to buy from ethical sources. Some textiles such as merino wool and fur are currently beyond the ethical pale.

Similarly with meat and dairy. You are not asked to give it up, just to be sparing . To use pulses, nuts, oat drink, spices, fresh veg in season and so on.

sorry, as well

Yes, fine!

Jalima1108 by wedded to cheap meat I simply meant that some people would rather have cheap meat often than eat non-meat items.
And if you read back, I've already mentioned those who really have no choice in the matter.
I'm not picking a fight here.
Hope this clarifies.

I cannot understand how vegans can make the arguments they make about human consumption of animal products while quite happily accepting that other animal species predate each other, especially given that they believe that we all have an equality. The human species is just an animal species that has, perhaps, overdeveloped, but is part of the whole animal ecological cycle and as part of that cycle has been an omnivore. I do not see how, if you accept that, that you can argue that the human species should not stay part of that system.

I would no more defend the current industrialisation of animal production or the US excessive consumption of meat, but I believe that the way forward is, certainly a reduction in meat consumption, a return to organic, animal welfare based farming systems, which means that the animals we eat depend mainly on the pasture they are grazed upon for sustenance rather than bought in feed.

As I have said, ad nauseum, I do not understand why the response to every story of problems is to ban whatever it is. As crystal pointed out herself, we do not ban surgery, despite it's appalling history of damage and butchery, is because, on balance it is to our advantage, what we do is put a lot of effort to set standards and monitor. Why does that not apply to other problems?

PS I was specifically responding to NFK's post of 19.26

That article is nothing short of a fairy story.

NFK, a very good point. There is of course the circle of life and the food chain in nature, but also the circle of growing, sowing and fertilsing in the arable sector.

Like anything "alive" soil needs feeding in order to work well.

Seaweed can work to enrich soil (but can't just be applied as a top dresssing) but surely arable farms that are trying to produce sufficient crops to meet current demand, let alone the increased demand that would happen if the world went vegan, could hardly just keep taking seaweed willy nilly.

www.viva.org.uk/what-we-do/vegan-farming
Vegan argument for anyone interested in the future of farming. Doesn’t involve pesticides, industrial livestock production or slaughterhouse by products.

Neither will there be sheep to eat off sugar beet tops (and produce their own fertiliser) nor to eat the swedes which are not considered fit for human consumption by the supermarkets.

Nor to provide wool so we will have to all use man-made fibres which get into the rivers and oceans and kill sea life, and wear plastic shoes which will never biodegrade.


what then?

I’m with the eat less meat, but quality, humanly treated, local meat. Tastes better (doesn’t need fancy sauces), cooks better and goes further (doesn’t shrink) and is worth every penny. We don’t eat enormous portions. At school we were told to allow 4 ounces per person!

Can I ask chrystal and the other vegans and vegetarians - are you happy with entirely chemical fertilisers for arable fields and what alternatives are there for soil restoration?

One of the drawbacks of arable land which has only been fertilised with chemicals is that it degrades badly as farmers discovered in the 1960’s and 70’s. Fallow fields (herbal leys) need to be grazed to start with and then are usually mown for hay. But hay won’t be needed anymore. Neither will there be sheep to eat off sugar beet tops (and produce their own fertiliser). And no free range pigs rootling and cleaning the soil (whilst mucking it). And of course, no cows will be kept in during the winter to provide the wherewithal for muck spreading.

I've watched shearing and most shearers are excellent and do a good job - and the sheep seem most relieved to have their warm coats removed.

any maltreatment of animals is to be abhorred.
I agree and should be stamped out.

Hello all, and thank you for the responses.

Just like to say, that my own sheep were shorn with great care by our contract shearer, apart from one, that did end up with a bit of a nick.

In fairness, she was a right stroppy thing! You could do anything with her, vaccinate, worm drench, dip etc, she was fine, but try to sit her on her bottom for foot trimming or shearing she went into meltdown! I tried to warn the semi retired chap, the first time he came to us, but he wouldn't listen. He ended up on his a*se, with the ewe looking smug.

The following year when he came, he decided to do her first, get it over and done with.

The nick that she had was quickly sprayed with terramicin and she was fine.I

I fully understand that not all sheep are treated as mine were, and any maltreatment of animals is to be abhorred.

crystal you are a master (or is it mistress) of getting the wrong bull by the horns. I am not talking about 'industrial' farming, I am talking about farming in general, why campaign to ban something, like harvesting wool from sheep because in some cases it is badly and savagely done. Why not campaign for harvesting practices be improved?

monica I think you need to improve your analogies. Slugs and surgery? The purpose of surgery is not to deliberately kill and eat or exploit the patient. Surgery is done for the benefit of the patient, and as such should be regulated and only undertaken by professionals who are highly trained and well paid. I don’t think it has any similarity to industrial farming which is only interested in turning a profit, not done for the benefit of the animal.