Vegan/Plant based.

MissAdventure

Do you think the whole pet thing has grown worse, in terms of dressing them up, referrng to them as children, and ourselves as dog mamas?
Rainbow bridges, puppy drinks at drive throughs, and doggy dates?

Also, the trend for pet hedehogs, sugar gliders, and more exotic animals.

I do. firdttime in many years, I went into Petsmart today (for dog shampoo, he needs a bath) . It was mobbed. I was absolutely gobsmacked at the amount of totally unecesary expensive things no sane dog would ever buy use or be seen dead wearing. What are these people thinking?

There were nearly 20 different dog shampoos to choose from ( I chose soothing oatmilk for the harvest mite itch)
but did not buy any of the additional post-shampoo conditioners, brighteners, glossers etc. They had a range of cat shampoos, who the hell baths a cat?

My dog is third hand from a rescue charity. All his kit is left overs from previous dogs. I say "all" , but today realise a dog who only owns an ancient bowl bed lead and ancient towel is very deprived indeed.

Even his collar tag was inherited from previous dog ( so not even his own name on it)

Lathyrus3 - your argument (above) was that vegans will just have a knee jerk reaction
I am expecting that any vegans reading will just turn away or instantly protest rather than research and consider

I think it's as ridiculous to say this as to say the same of omnivores - and a rather "superior" comment from you.

I would guess that many vegans have thought very deeply (and researched) - just as many omnivores will have done.

I feel you are rather hostile to people who choose to be vegan.

I’m sorry, Notspaghetti, but the first answer I got was a knee jerk reaction.

I don’t think Im hostile to vegans in particular. I admit to being impatient with anyone who is so fixed in a belief that they are not prepared to consider other points of view. That applies to all sorts of beliefs, not just veganism.

The posts I have made have been seriously researched and I have learned much along the way. All I hoped for was that it might prompt others to explore what is a real issue. Even a casual online search will give information on the increasing use of artificial fertilisers to grow plant crops and it’s devastating effects on soil life. If you go back to the beginning of the thread you’ll see my interest was sparked by a programme on fungi and its importance in soil health and that led me on to discover what I did not know before.

My concern for the effects of an increased demand for plant crops such as rice, the use of artificial fertilisers to achieve that and its subsequent consequences on river and marine life come from direct experience as well as recent studies.

I think it is important to really look into the consequences of our life styles and be prepared to learn and change if necessary fir the greater good. The mantra of ‘ do least harm” prompted me to question whether what the poster believed she was doing was actually true. I was prepared to question and explore it. She was not.

I’m not sure that gaining knowledge and wishing that others would want to do that too is superior, but wilful ignorance, the turning away from facts that challenge is not something to be admired, surely. Not hostile, but challenging yes.

Lathyrus3
My concern for the effects of an increased demand for plant crops such as rice, the use of artificial fertilisers to achieve that and its subsequent consequences on river and marine life come from direct experience as well as recent studies.

The eventual unkindness to all animal life through the demands for more plant life as you mention is worth considering.

If you carry your beliefs too far you become a fanatic. I wonder how you feel about accidentally killing a snail or that horse fly which is biting you? How about germs and taking antibiotics or having your children vaccinated? We all draw the line where we think it’s right.

I became vegetarian 25 years ago not for any health related reasons but because of the intense cruelty in the way animals are raised and slaughtered. It was a very easy decision.

Vegan, really, is the way to be in terms of putting animal wefare first.

Everyone going vegan is a way of making sure that lots of animals die, that the planet is harmed by the need for artificial substitutes and an increasing demand for water.

MissAdventure

Vegan, really, is the way to be in terms of putting animal wefare first.

No it isn't. Research Pasture for Life. That is actually better than an animal being in the wild. The animals live on pasture birth to death, usually unimproved pasture rich in plant species, but unlike wild cattle/sheep.they are not at the mercy of predators and if they are ill or injured they are treated by a vet, or quickly put out of their misery.

I suppose its good, if you check all the ingredients in, say, your biscuits come from animals reared and slaughtered the same way as pasture for life animals.
I doubt very much anyone does, though.

Correcting myself.
Some people may check every single thing they eat, to decide if it passes humane slaughter methods, but then can slaughter for ourselves to consume be considered humane, in and of itself?

Much of the demand for “more plant life” comes from growing crops ( particularly soy) for animal feed not from vegans. Some countries, such as China, have increased meat production considerably and has been the driving force towards deforestation.

Cattle should not be fed soy or maize, there digestion is not suite to it and is the main reason cattle need so many antibiotics.

Not all land is suitable for crop growing but can sustain cattle sheep and pigs farmed in an extensive way that gives the animals a good life.

All life is predatory. We all are predators and prey, remember the virus and COVID? Humans are omnivores and have the digestive processes necessary for all types of food.

I can never get my head around Vegans being so tender about furry animals they can pat and ignore all the smaller creatures that are inevitably destroyed when growing crops, anywhere, for any purpose, harvest mice, rabbits, hares, a huge range of insects.

By the way I do not eat biscuits, for the same reason I do not eat industrialised bread. They taste horrible.

vegansrock

Much of the demand for “more plant life” comes from growing crops ( particularly soy) for animal feed not from vegans. Some countries, such as China, have increased meat production considerably and has been the driving force towards deforestation.

But as far as the effects of artificial fertilisers are concerned surely it’s irrelevant whether the crops are fed to animals or humans. The effects of the artificial fertiliser are the same.

Oh you mean the increased demand for crops is because of the increased demand for meat.

I think that’s a valid point.

I think my concern that the promotion of a widespread vegan diet and the consequent elimination of a vast number of animals from the food cycle would have negative consequences for the eco-system is valid too.

Talking here to Monica really.

does it come down to a conviction that humans are unique within the animal world in that they suppress their predatory is nstincts and embrace empathy,.

An evolution that was part of human survival mechanisms but has now also transferred to other species?

Market d be really interested to read any studies on this. Is it behavioural sciences or psychology. Where should I be looking?

I don’t know why when I put in “I’d” it always changes it to “market”

Sorry.

vegansrock

Much of the demand for “more plant life” comes from growing crops ( particularly soy) for animal feed not from vegans. Some countries, such as China, have increased meat production considerably and has been the driving force towards deforestation.

But that wouldn’t be true if everyone went vegan. The demand for more water/land/ fertiliser hungry resources demanded by non-meat eating humans would then take over. The deforestation would continue, providing land for crops to feed humans.

But if the land given over to growing feed for animals was used for food for human consumption then there wouldn’t be the need for a great deal of increased land use. When you compare land use/ water use for meat and dairy production to any arable crop then the meat/ dairy is many times greater in its use of resources.

I’ve just spent a few minutes looking into water sage. Th3 table I found was a word comparison.

Beef takes considerably more than cereals such as wheat or rice. About 7 times as much. Chicken on the other hand only takes a bit more.

I also looked up usage of artificial fertilisers but could only find figures for the UK.

Arable only farms use three times the amount of chemical nitrogen that is used in mixed or predominantly animal based farming. Some mixed farms used no artificial fertiliser at all.

All arable farms relied heavily n artificial nitrogen sending sometimes up to four time more than those who used none.

All that I am reading, seems to me to point to a mixed approach to food production that relies upon natural food chains to be the most beneficial.

Welsh hill farmers currently farming sheep will find it a tad problematic to convert to arable farming. The sheep are usually just pasture fed with supplementary hay etc kept to an absolute minimum so no great water use for them. In fact they utilise land that is largely unsuitable for any other use.

The figures for water usage did make the point that they were an average and varied widely according to the type of soils.

It would be interesting to see how much land used for animal farming could, in fact be turned over to plant crops.

Not just hill farms. The light souls of the Eastern regions have had very heavy water usage these past two years when Randall watering has been so low. Taken by themselves I would surmise the water usage has been higher for them than for cattle grazing in Scotland.

Figures can be quite simplistic. I wonder if anyone is undertaking more detailed studies.

Oh dear. rainfall obviously.

And soil not souls

Lathyrus3

Talking here to Monica really.

does it come down to a conviction that humans are unique within the animal world in that they suppress their predatory is nstincts and embrace empathy,.

An evolution that was part of human survival mechanisms but has now also transferred to other species?

Market d be really interested to read any studies on this. Is it behavioural sciences or psychology. Where should I be looking?

No, we are still predatory, arable farming is destructive to little cuddly animals, very small ones that live in arable crops, and some quite rare. Eating plants is predatory.

The real problem is that most people are so divorced from how their food is grown, it just comes in packages from the supermarket and they expect strawberries all year round. Overseas grown strawberries and other soft fruit grown in huge greenhouses where the crops are regularly sprayed with pesticides and weedkillers, and are picked and worked by workers whose health and safety is not protected and many have their health damaged by these chemical products.

Still what does some persons health matter when there are all those cuddly animals to worry about.

Thanks for answering.

My body has come to a bit of a halt but my mind is still wondering about all sorts of things😀