GCSE biology

[HatsOff]

If someone gets the 'beyond meat' goo to be made entirely out of grass, livestock farmers may be done for. Techno-cows.

 

[Danllan]

If someone gets the 'beyond meat' goo to be made entirely out of grass, livestock farmers may be done for. Techno-cows.

Then I'd sell grass to them.

 

[alomy75]

Predator

Don’t worry it could have been worse; you could have been a retired English teacher!

 

[SteveHants]

If someone gets the 'beyond meat' goo to be made entirely out of grass, livestock farmers may be done for. Techno-cows.

They won't - what seems to be forgotten is that people have to actually want to buy/eat this crap.

 

[ollandroverman]

Grass is a very good crop for some of the UK's agricultural land but probably not the best for prime arable land that is capable of producing way more calories with crops like potato's, carrots, etc.
Someone will correct me if I'm wrong but growing wheat for broiler chickens is more efficient than growing it to feed beef cattle etc.
If you're feeding beef and sheep concentrates the land used to produce them has to be added to that animals production. How many in the UK finish stock off grass?
It's a complicated question (we don't even know what the question actually was) with a growing population and increasing competition for land use, I think its worth asking.

Grass is a very good crop for the majority of the UK. Only 25% of our landmass is arable, and with the inputs Vs yield ballance on some the poorer cropping areas, it is arguable that the percentage would environmentally be better being lower than 25%

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

Grass is a very good crop for the majority of the UK. Only 25% of our landmass is arable, and with the inputs Vs yield ballance on some the poorer cropping areas, it is arguable that the percentage would environmentally be better being lower than 25%

And the "best" arable land is actually drained peat, the worst of all worlds for carbon emissions....

 

[kiwi pom]

Grass is a very good crop for the majority of the UK. Only 25% of our landmass is arable, and with the inputs Vs yield ballance on some the poorer cropping areas, it is arguable that the percentage would environmentally be better being lower than 25%

I don't know the percentages, I'd suggest in some areas grass is a crop grown on land that could also grow other crops (same as here) that may produce more calories per acre. The question from a science point of view is what is the best use for the land. That gets complicated when you add in, what is the most profitable for the land owner. Growing crops for an AD plant on good food producing land is not a good use for that land but it is currently more profitable - perhaps through subsidies - for the farmer.

Grass is great if you use it for grazing, poorer grazing for breeding stock, better grazing for finishing but how much beef and lamb is finished off grass? If you're also feeding concentrates, the arable ground used for that also has to go into the cost of the meat that is produced. It may be that it is more efficient to feed those concentrates to broiler chickens or pigs.
I don't know what the actual figures are, just trying to show one of the arguments.

 

[Slippery Slope]

Evening all, just spotted this thread. My daughter sat the biology exam described (AQA exam board)on Tuesday. It was the first point of discussion at teatime when I got home as she is a fierce defender of meat eating!

The question actually wasn’t too biased as it went along the lines of ‘Compare these food choices for health’ with a table above showing different figures such as protein, fibre, carbohydrates etc for both a meat and non meat burger.

Thankfully she answered the question sensibly and left a comment about the non meat burger being full of processed ingredients so in my mind she’s got an A* or whatever the equivalent is these days whether or not the exam board agrees!

It sounds more like a question for a food tech exam in my mind but what do I know?!

Yesterday’s English exam (different exam board) also included a story about a vegetarian lady who worked for the Wildlife Trust!

There’s no doubting the fact that the youth of today are being bombarded with information from the eco-warrior save the planet doom mongers.

 

[vantage]

I would strongly argue that exams, generally are a crap form of assessment.

They only really assess people's ability to memorise things.
You can however, standardise them and have easy mark schemes so millions can be assessed.

I've removed almost every exam in my modules where I can. I think I have two, over everything I teach now.

Hopefully your approach is suiting vantage junior!

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

I don't know the percentages, I'd suggest in some areas grass is a crop grown on land that could also grow other crops (same as here) that may produce more calories per acre. The question from a science point of view is what is the best use for the land. That gets complicated when you add in, what is the most profitable for the land owner.

It gets even more complicated if you add in the target to reverse biodiversity loss as it is easier to manage grazed land for high biodiversity than arable land. Then factor in that excessive carbohydrate consumption, often highly processed, is the fundamental driver of our obesity and you're 2 diabetes epidemic and it gets even harder still.

If you're also feeding concentrates, the arable ground used for that also has to go into the cost of the meat that is produced. It may be that it is more efficient to feed those concentrates to broiler chickens or pigs.

Agreed.

However, the cereals fed to farm livestock are rarely milling what or malting barley, a point totally overlooked by those pushing plant based diets when they compare feed impacts as you have. When we used to grow cereals on our modest grade 3 land we very rarely achieved milling premiums so grew feed whears instead, as do many UK arable farmers.

 

[SteveHants]

Hopefully your approach is suiting vantage junior!

Students generally seem to like not having exams.

 

[DaveGrohl]

It gets even more complicated if you add in the target to reverse biodiversity loss as it is easier to manage grazed land for high biodiversity than arable land. Then factor in that excessive carbohydrate consumption, often highly processed, is the fundamental driver of our obesity and you're 2 diabetes epidemic and it gets even harder still.


Agreed.

However, the cereals fed to farm livestock are rarely milling what or malting barley, a point totally overlooked by those pushing plant based diets when they compare feed impacts as you have. When we used to grow cereals on our modest grade 3 land we very rarely achieved milling premiums so grew feed whears instead, as do many UK arable farmers.

Was just about to post the same thing about the fact that most grain grown isn’t human quality.

I’m wondering why finishing cattle/sheep with some grain is deemed to be somehow "bad". There’s a definite undercurrent on here for one place. If they spend most of their life eating grass/silage then the quantity of grain used is relatively low over the lifetime. Mind, I’d float the idea that maybe we should be looking to reverse the move to low fat continental cattle (and lower fat sheep, pigs etc). These would reduce the grain used whilst providing healthier meat as an added bonus. The pursuit of leaner stock is yet another wrong turn in history. Maybe people are starting to realise this.

 

[kiwi pom]

It gets even more complicated if you add in the target to reverse biodiversity loss as it is easier to manage grazed land for high biodiversity than arable land. Then factor in that excessive carbohydrate consumption, often highly processed, is the fundamental driver of our obesity and you're 2 diabetes epidemic and it gets even harder still.


Agreed.

However, the cereals fed to farm livestock are rarely milling what or malting barley, a point totally overlooked by those pushing plant based diets when they compare feed impacts as you have. When we used to grow cereals on our modest grade 3 land we very rarely achieved milling premiums so grew feed whears instead, as do many UK arable farmers.

Yep everything's complicated.
I ignored the fact that livestock could - perhaps should - be used in every arable rotation, to add nutrients back to the soil, help control weeds and put a decent break in between crops. That might be a better way of doing things but if the combinable cropping farmer can make a decent living from just cereals, then they're unlikely to want the hassle.

Was just about to post the same thing about the fact that most grain grown isn’t human quality.

I’m wondering why finishing cattle/sheep with some grain is deemed to be somehow "bad". There’s a definite undercurrent on here for one place. If they spend most of their life eating grass/silage then the quantity of grain used is relatively low over the lifetime. Mind, I’d float the idea that maybe we should be looking to reverse the move to low fat continental cattle (and lower fat sheep, pigs etc). These would reduce the grain used whilst providing healthier meat as an added bonus. The pursuit of leaner stock is yet another wrong turn in history. Maybe people are starting to realise this.

There's nothing wrong with feeding cereals to livestock, you just have to remember that, that land is part of the production cost of the animal, as well as all the other costs.
You also have to remember that low input organic agriculture won't produce enough calories to feed the world, so just grazing a few sheep or cattle over thousands of acres of ground isn't good either, we need a balance.
Everything's complicated, way to much to cover in a simple GCSE question.