Panorama

le bon paysan · Feb 15, 2022

Speckle said:
Sadly that is not the case

Soy

Soy

wwf.panda.org

Companies complicit in Amazon Rainforest Fires | Ethical Consumer

As fires continue to rage across the Amazon, Josie Wexler looks at companies that are implicated.

www.ethicalconsumer.org

Is Soya Sustainable? | Ethical Consumer

Mass production of soya is linked to large scale deforestation in South America. In this article, we look at which consumer products are tied to it, and what we can do to create change.

www.ethicalconsumer.org

Cutting down forests: what are the drivers of deforestation?

Three-quarters of deforestation is driven by agriculture. Most comes from the production of beef, palm oil, soy and logging industries.

ourworldindata.org

Land use per 100 grams of protein

Land use is measured in meters squared (m²) per 100 grams of protein across various food products.

ourworldindata.org

Slanted rubbish. Twisted facts.
Follow the money...

Five things about soya beans

Soya beans have been in the news lately. What’s our position? Here’s five things to know about financing soya beans.

www.ing.com

TheRanger · Feb 15, 2022

Speckle said:
Don't start with that strawman argument. We all know that most deforestation is for soya for cattle feed and for land for cattle use, with smaller amounts for soy for biofuels, oils etc.
The impact on the environment, water and land use is substantially less for soy than for dairy.

Well that’s just nonsense. Not even close.

DaveGrohl · Feb 15, 2022

Speckle said:
Please do provide your evidence that the figures quoted in ourworldindata are incorrect?

There are multiple other independent sources that corroborate that data.

NB: I will be looking to see who has funded your alternative research

You probably aren’t aware but volume of sources does not quality make. Virtually all of these "sources" quote the same source material, which is almost certainly OWID or its base material the Poore and Nemecek Report. Sadly both of these base sources don’t use the latest science for their figures, never mind the proper application of the best science when coming up with their figures. There are known to be big problems with the data used by Poore, strange assumptions made and the questionable (to say the least) stacking of multiple assumptions into a disastrous house of cards that falls over at the slightest hint of a question regarding the mathematical tolerances assumed. Some contributors on here were in discussion a while ago with Mr Poore. He was initially responsive but quickly disappeared when he realised his work was actually being questioned by people who were capable of questioning it.

As for evidence regarding OWID and why it’s perpetuating bad science, do you know what GWP100 is?

You could of course just save everyone a lot of time and get yourself onto Facebook and join/subscribe to the Ethical Omnivore Alliance. There you will find several links every day pointing you to scientific reports relating to all things climate related together with nutritional reports and lots holding the vegan propaganda machine to account. And the best thing is, the EOM Alliance is chock full of ex-vegans who are bloody angry at having been fooled by the propaganda machine. Listen to them rather than us.

Speckle · Feb 15, 2022

melted welly said:
Human waste as nutrition source for our food scares me.

It was practised historically when sewage was brought from towns to country, but nowadays with the amount of medication taken by the population I think it could potentially be a total disaster for our soils. Antibiotics, hormones, fungicides, heavy metals. Whiskey industry already won’t accept grain treated with sewage sludge for fear of future problems.

To live off grid and live as part of your own nutrient cycle is one thing, but to import sewage cake made downstream of a hospital or old folks home…..no thanks.

We've also come a long way from medieval times. It's not a case of going round with a pail collecting night soil and using that directly with no thermophilic composting or monitoring.

Speckle · Feb 15, 2022

DaveGrohl said:
You probably aren’t aware but volume of sources does not quality make. Virtually all of these "sources" quote the same source material, which is almost certainly OWID or its base material the Poore and Nemecek Report. Sadly both of these base sources don’t use the latest science for their figures, never mind the proper application of the best science when coming up with their figures. There are known to be big problems with the data used by Poore, strange assumptions made and the questionable (to say the least) stacking of multiple assumptions into a disastrous house of cards that falls over at the slightest hint of a question regarding the mathematical tolerances assumed. Some contributors on here were in discussion a while ago with Mr Poore. He was initially responsive but quickly disappeared when he realised his work was actually being questioned by people who were capable of questioning it.

As for evidence regarding OWID and why it’s perpetuating bad science, do you know what GWP100 is?

You could of course just save everyone a lot of time and get yourself onto Facebook and join/subscribe to the Ethical Omnivore Alliance. There you will find several links every day pointing you to scientific reports relating to all things climate related together with nutritional reports and lots holding the vegan propaganda machine to account. And the best thing is, the EOM Alliance is chock full of ex-vegans who are bloody angry at having been fooled by the propaganda machine. Listen to them rather than us.

And your sources are?
And your evidence is?
And your 'proof' that these are all from the same source?

Derrick Hughes · Feb 15, 2022

Speckle said:
I don't believe that to be the case. I've seen plenty of pro farming programming on the BBC in the past. Panorama is factual though. Regardless of perceived 'angle'.

I've been working with livestock since the age of 8 , I'm now 65 , animal welfare has improved vastly since the the 60s, when we used to milk a few cows , keep hens in battery cages and keep pigs in crates , size of herds has nothing to do with it

Speckle · Feb 15, 2022

DaveGrohl said:
You probably aren’t aware but volume of sources does not quality make. Virtually all of these "sources" quote the same source material, which is almost certainly OWID or its base material the Poore and Nemecek Report. Sadly both of these base sources don’t use the latest science for their figures, never mind the proper application of the best science when coming up with their figures. There are known to be big problems with the data used by Poore, strange assumptions made and the questionable (to say the least) stacking of multiple assumptions into a disastrous house of cards that falls over at the slightest hint of a question regarding the mathematical tolerances assumed. Some contributors on here were in discussion a while ago with Mr Poore. He was initially responsive but quickly disappeared when he realised his work was actually being questioned by people who were capable of questioning it.

As for evidence regarding OWID and why it’s perpetuating bad science, do you know what GWP100 is?

You could of course just save everyone a lot of time and get yourself onto Facebook and join/subscribe to the Ethical Omnivore Alliance. There you will find several links every day pointing you to scientific reports relating to all things climate related together with nutritional reports and lots holding the vegan propaganda machine to account. And the best thing is, the EOM Alliance is chock full of ex-vegans who are bloody angry at having been fooled by the propaganda machine. Listen to them rather than us.

As for your accusation that any of this is vegan propaganda. None of the sources are vegan sources.
I have nothing to do with 'vegan propaganda'. I counter it where I see it and it's not factual.

I'll tell you what have a bit of New Scientist.. pretty much gold standard, independent. 100% not vegan biased in any way (in fact they did an article on health and vegan junk food recently) https://www.newscientist.com/articl...-emit-more-nitrogen-than-earth-can-cope-with/

Speckle · Feb 15, 2022

And here's another one.
More specifically relating to soy

Beef with tofu: is local beef better for the planet than tofu imports?

It might sound like eating beef from a nearby farm is not so bad for the environment, but the latest research has some revealing answers

www.newscientist.com

DaveGrohl · Feb 15, 2022

Speckle said:
And your sources are?
And your evidence is?
And your 'proof' that these are all from the same source?

Do you not actually look at the graphs and figures on your precious OWID website? You will find the source reference at the bottom. Again, do you know what GWP100 is?

Hilly · Feb 15, 2022

JP1 said:
Soon any byres with cows will be a thing of the past.

I think cows will be a things of the past never mond the cows , i half hope for world war 3 to be honest the west is just a hot bed of strokers .

roscoe erf · Feb 15, 2022

Speckle said:
Don't start with that strawman argument. We all know that most deforestation is for soya for cattle feed and for land for cattle use, with smaller amounts for soy for biofuels, oils etc.
The impact on the environment, water and land use is substantially less for soy than for dairy.

Jesus Christ

Hfd Cattle · Feb 15, 2022

Speckle said:
Sure, you're absolutely correct. No vegan athletes, bodybuilders or strongmen. You might want to try spelling my name correctly, or are you too drowsy from all the tryptophan?

Must go to specsavers !

Red Fred · Feb 15, 2022

texelburger said:
Yes your environmental impact is most damaging to the planet.It’s well known that grass is the best medium for carbon sequestration and that grazing livestock is part of the carbon cycle.It also benefits wildlife and leads to increased numbers of animals/mammals such as rabbits,moles,voles,mice along with butterflies ,beetles,worms and many others.A plant based diet ,however,kills many of these animals and insects through cultuvations and sprays,it's non selective taking out the old,young, infirm and pregnant.These,too,are sentient animals.
Forget imported proteins,UK livestock production is sustainable and good for the environment and benefits wildlife.

We used to be a mixed family farm but I put the whole place back into permanent pasture 20 years ago when I started on ESA, then HLS. The flood meadows which comprise half the area have been managed on a mowing/grazing system since at least Roman times, and have evolved a unique flora and fauna. In those areas of the valley where graziers have been evicted in favour of rewilding, the decline has started already with the invasion of rushes and willow which will replace the more diverse wildlife that has led to its SSSI status. (We are also a Ramsar site of world wetland importance)
Alongside the hay meadows are proper "water meadows", which are another rare habitat which once covered the valley floors of the whole south and west of England but survive today in just a few pockets as the small family dairy farms have vanished. Water meadows were constructed purely for the production of early grass for meat from the 16th century onwards and once played a huge role in recycling the nutrients from the river as well as flood control.
We have native cattle and a few rare-breed sheep and I would say that an average of 50-75 animals a year are killed directly for food production, but the benefits of their grazing are beyond measure.
In the days when we had a small farm shop and I used to plough for vegetables and also oats, which do well with low inputs on our higher ground, I killed tens of thousands of creatures every afternoon, and these were the natural organisms that are arguably more important to the environment than introduced species. Inputs of all kinds have been hugely reduced since turning to all pasture. I'm not claiming to be anything special, many other farmers up and down the valley have done far more for the environment than we have, but if grazing animals are one day lost from our traditional grasslands, it will be a disaster.

Hilly · Feb 15, 2022

Derrick Hughes said:
A lot of reasons for downer cows , we had a younger herd of British Friesians , did our b est but most years we had a few , like a say there is a lot of reasons for it, too many to go through on here
To be honest one of the reasons we gave up milking , it's heart breaking to go into the shed in a morning and find one of your best cows down on the floor , you know straight away that their is only a small chance it will stand again , may be something as simple as a a bulling cow riding on it

Rarely have them myself, and the ones i have had a quick decision is made , more bever geg up than do .

SilliamWhale · Feb 15, 2022

Where was the farm then?

Not watched the prog

Derrick Hughes · Feb 15, 2022

These topics are always the same ,they end up discussing many different issues that have nothing to do with the original point , animal welfare on farms , the way some cows were treated , and how calves are removed from cows soon after birth , the financial state of farming has little to do with either

Derrick Hughes · Feb 15, 2022

Hilly said:
Rarely have them myself, and the ones i have had a quick decision is made , more bever geg up than do .

Straw yards or cubicles ?

DaveGrohl · Feb 15, 2022

Speckle said:
As for your accusation that any of this is vegan propaganda. None of the sources are vegan sources.
I have nothing to do with 'vegan propaganda'. I counter it where I see it and it's not factual.

I'll tell you what have a bit of New Scientist.. pretty much gold standard, independent. 100% not vegan biased in any way (in fact they did an article on health and vegan junk food recently) https://www.newscientist.com/articl...-emit-more-nitrogen-than-earth-can-cope-with/

I actually bought New Scientist before Christmas. There was an article on methane. It got a lot right but it also got a lot wrong. Sadly they hadn’t bothered to speak to anyone who could’ve enlightened them and make the article worth reading. This is what happens, the same old misunderstandings get cycled round and round and become established as "facts". I only make that comment btw because you’ve flagged up New Scientist as an authoritative source.

lloyd · Feb 15, 2022

Speckle said:
And here's another one.
More specifically relating to soy

Beef with tofu: is local beef better for the planet than tofu imports?

It might sound like eating beef from a nearby farm is not so bad for the environment, but the latest research has some revealing answers

www.newscientist.com

You having a laugh .
Several of those people in that article are vegans who spout their own biased opinions.There is no mention of the carbon sequestration from the grass that the animals graze on which have a massive positive effect .I wonder why they dont want to acknowledge that fact.

I'm off now to save the planet and the man maintained landscape by having a UK reared beef sandwhich(not GM soya fed).

DaveGrohl · Feb 15, 2022

Speckle said:
And here's another one.
More specifically relating to soy

Beef with tofu: is local beef better for the planet than tofu imports?

It might sound like eating beef from a nearby farm is not so bad for the environment, but the latest research has some revealing answers

www.newscientist.com

OMG it’s George!! And of course relying on GWP100, obvs.

Panorama

Member

Member

Attachments

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

0 %

Up to 25%

25-50%

50-75%

75-100%

100% I’ve had enough of farming!

Share this page