Reply to Professor Richard Barker

[Punch]

Anybody else see this letter in the Telegraph today?
it finishes with the numbers do not add up. Well they are certainly misleading

 

[SilliamWhale]

For a start who cares about calories?

 

[Punch]

It was the 25:1 protein conversion that was asserted. That seems low, also cattle can graze where we can’t grow protein crops and I’m not very good at converting protein in forage

 

[farenheit]

This is a forum for farmers. It’s not really in anyone’s interest to admit it, but livestock farming is globally pretty bad for the environment (it’s not all Welsh hills ) and is a poor conversion of calories compared to plant based diets. However it’s tasty and relatively important for human’s balanced diets. The fact that we subject billions of sentient animals to a pretty poor life and worse death weighs heavily on me though. Again, this is probably something we do much better in the UK. If we went plant based, it would be a net benefit to climate and land use. I accept that the vast majority on here will disagree because their livelihood depends on it (and that includes arable farmers) .

 

[Bald Rick]

Currently on leave from his post at Oxford to be a full time member of the International Sustainability Standards Board … who knew such a thing exists

Richard Barker | Saïd Business School

An expert in corporate reporting, Richard’s research and teaching interests span financial accounting and sustainability reporting, with a particular interest in standard-setting. He also has a broad interest in sustainable business, and he leads Oxford Saïd’s initiatives in this area.

www.sbs.ox.ac.uk

 

[M-J-G]

Most climate cries don't add up, this is just another.

I'd ike to see these clowns grow any edible grains or pulses from most of the land that livestock is kept on.

If they are so worried about producing grain and beans fit for human consumption they should target the alcohol industry, considering how prime arable land is used to grow wheat and barley for brewing and distilling.

 

[Bald Rick]

This is a forum for farmers. It’s not really in anyone’s interest to admit it, but livestock farming is globally pretty bad for the environment (it’s not all Welsh hills ) and is a poor conversion of calories compared to plant based diets. However it’s tasty and relatively important for human’s balanced diets. The fact that we subject billions of sentient animals to a pretty poor life and worse death weighs heavily on me though. Again, this is probably something we do much better in the UK. If we went plant based, it would be a net benefit to climate and land use. I accept that the vast majority on here will disagree because their livelihood depends on it (and that includes arable farmers) .

As a dairy farmer, I would counter by suggesting that the product of my cows is one of the most nutritious and important foodstuff a human of sense could consume (lactose intolerance accepted)

 

[farenheit]

As a dairy farmer, I would counter by suggesting that the product of my cows is one of the most nutritious and important foodstuff a human of sense could consume (lactose intolerance accepted)

Absolutely. As I said it’s very good for a balanced diet. Livestock is still bad for the environment but the solution is probably a smaller global population of humans.

 

[M-J-G]

This is a forum for farmers. It’s not really in anyone’s interest to admit it, but livestock farming is globally pretty bad for the environment (it’s not all Welsh hills ) and is a poor conversion of calories compared to plant based diets. However it’s tasty and relatively important for human’s balanced diets. The fact that we subject billions of sentient animals to a pretty poor life and worse death weighs heavily on me though. Again, this is probably something we do much better in the UK. If we went plant based, it would be a net benefit to climate and land use. I accept that the vast majority on here will disagree because their livelihood depends on it (and that includes arable farmers) .

How will getting rid of animals be of benefit to the climate?

 

[Bald Rick]

Absolutely. As I said it’s very good for a balanced diet. Livestock is still bad for the environment but the solution is probably a smaller global population of humans.

Well the latter ain’t happening so globally we will continue to industrialise agriculture

 

[Bury the Trash]

couldn't resist .....

 

[farenheit]

Well the latter ain’t happening so globally we will continue to industrialise agriculture

That’s the point. We can accept the effect without accepting the solution.

 

[Bald Rick]

That’s the point. We can accept the effect without accepting the solution.

The truth is no one will do anything that affects their lifestyle… unless it’s in the 3rd world were they all strive to better themselves with no thought to carbon or anything else the first world flagellates itself with

 

[delilah]

This is a forum for farmers. It’s not really in anyone’s interest to admit it, but livestock farming is globally pretty bad for the environment (it’s not all Welsh hills ) and is a poor conversion of calories compared to plant based diets. However it’s tasty and relatively important for human’s balanced diets. The fact that we subject billions of sentient animals to a pretty poor life and worse death weighs heavily on me though. Again, this is probably something we do much better in the UK. If we went plant based, it would be a net benefit to climate and land use. I accept that the vast majority on here will disagree because their livelihood depends on it (and that includes arable farmers) .

From one lentil knitter to another, I have to say I find fault with all of that.

Climate change: Take the methane out of the equation - and we all know that's a red herring - and livestock ag scores favourably against any other means of feeding ourselves.

On the sentient thing, insects can feel pain (I just checked) so there's way more animal cruelty in a veg field than a sheep field.

We need @DaveGrohl to explain the calories v's available nutrition because it's beyond me.

 

[soapsud]

The honourable professor was responding to a finance bod who was complaining about government not being joined-up enough. Here's a quick rationalist take for laughs:

A family of four needs only an acre to feed themselves sustainably on vegetables alone for a year.
(Let's forget about the foodmiles on nuts, soya, avocado, etc imported into the UK or lab-grown meat substitutes or other yeast derived gloop mixtures that the corporations can synthesise locally).

There are just less than 68mil people in the UK.
(Let's ignore net immigration/emigration, birth/death rates and other demographics)

There is 9 million acres of farmland which means 7.5 acres is available per person

That's more than enough land for everyone!

So, we needn't worry! The UK could sustainably feed another 400 mill people!

Phew! And there was I imagining that the country was nearly full to overflowing already!

 

[ford4000]

"for every 100g of protein we feed to cattle only 4g is eaten by us"
That's because I'd rather eat 4g of beef protein than 100g of protein from soya hulls, rapemeal, clover etc etc

 

[Hampton]

If Richard Barker stopped from slapping himself on the back, he would realise that we need animals for a healthy crop rotation.
Obviously we could stop crop rotation if Dr Barker invented another post emergence blackgrass herbicide in wheat, some useful herbicides (particularly post em) in his beloved beans, and some decent fungicides, and something to prevent bean nematode and we could all grow the diet he wishes over here.
Instead he would rather write his pseudo intellectual BS in the paper

 

[texelburger]

From one lentil knitter to another, I have to say I find fault with all of that.

Climate change: Take the methane out of the equation - and we all know that's a red herring - and livestock ag scores favourably against any other means of feeding ourselves.

On the sentient thing, insects can feel pain (I just checked) so there's way more animal cruelty in a veg field than a sheep field.

We need @DaveGrohl to explain the calories v's available nutrition because it's beyond me.

Absolutely

 

[Yale]

View attachment 1146924
couldn't resist .....

There you go, finished it for you…..

 

[Levelsman]

The honourable professor was responding to a finance bod who was complaining about government not being joined-up enough. Here's a quick rationalist take for laughs:

A family of four needs only an acre to feed themselves sustainably on vegetables alone for a year.
(Let's forget about the foodmiles on nuts, soya, avocado, etc imported into the UK or lab-grown meat substitutes or other yeast derived gloop mixtures that the corporations can synthesise locally).

There are just less than 68mil people in the UK.
(Let's ignore net immigration/emigration, birth/death rates and other demographics)

There is 9 million acres of farmland which means 7.5 acres is available per person

That's more than enough land for everyone!

So, we needn't worry! The UK could sustainably feed another 400 mill people!

Phew! And there was I imagining that the country was nearly full to overflowing already!

I am not quite sure how the maths works out.
1ac for 4 people.
68m people would require 17m acs.
And you say there's 9m acs available.
A few's going to go hungry!