babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
the film that environmental organizations don't want you to see!
October 18, 2015 - 3:14pm
http://www.cowspiracy.com/
That environmental organizations dont WANT you to see. ?! Whatever substance there is in the film- that statement is pure cowplop.
We dont jump on with you on your bandwagon and push the way YOU want to push it, means we want the issue buried??
Um, so if rearing cattle creates greenhouse emissions, wouldn't the answer be to eat either less or no BEEF?
Again, curious why I'd need to give up fish, for example. Or eggs. Or honey.
(cross posted from the previous thread).
"the film that environmental organizations don't want you to see!" is the quote from the cowspiracy web site.
I agree with you KenS, and that's why I brought this topic up. This is a decades old environmental issue -- see/read the cited books. The film seemed to focus on environmental groups, groups by the way that are actively doing beneficial work. The film failed to put attention on the beef industry.
Eating either less or no BEEF sounds reasonable enough to me.
I almost never eat beef, but is this true also in cases when beef, bison, etc are purely ranched (grass fed) on land unsuitable for farming?
Most of the environmental associations I'm familiar with are very concerned with this issue.
Its on Netflix so I guess I will have to watch it now that I know it is being suppresed.
He does address the grass-fed argument as well as land that is "unsuitable" for (human) farming: two (former) ranchers claim that "if you can grow a feed crop then you can grow a human crop" and he explains that grass-fed is less efficient and sustainable than factory farming (if 100% of the U.S. demand for beef was supplied by grass-fed farms then instead of 50% of the US' land being used for feed and grazing, it would be the entire US, the entirety of Central America, well into South America and well into Canada.
Fact is, meat isn't sustainable.
Sadly, grass is not a "human crop". And it's not the case that wherever grass grows, something humans like -- e.g. wheat -- could also be grown (particularly since "growing" includes "harvesting").
I don't think the point is that we should plant grass across the entire continent and then raise cattle on it. I think the point is that on some lands, grass is the most feasible thing to grow, and that while we can't just mow that grass and eat it, cattle could. See the difference?
You meant to say "beef"... right??
fact is people eat too much of it. more is better. let's have a 16oz steak.
havng gone there i don't know, i think it's a compilation of things.
Chickens can be reared on household waste.
I eat little meat, but I don't see how I could survive as a vegan, as I have a very hard time digesting many legumes. I ate no meat at all today, but a bit of (goat) cheese, on a homemade pizza with organic flour, minced sunflour seeds, and topped with onions, spinach, garlic and other veg.
chickens can be raised on scraps but the meat tastes like garbage. eggs are great though. they have to be finished for a month or so with grain to make the meat taste any good.
your meal sounds like the parent's ones only hemp hearts not sunflower seeds. they grow sunflowers for the blue birds.
i don't eat red meat much never have been able to and when i do it's like maybe 2oz and really crisp bacon only no other pork products they make me gag.
No. Portions of meat for every meal that take up half your plate are not sustainable.
Raising cattle, goats, and sheep on pasture land that won't hold crops is quite sustainable, if you keep it to the amount that the land and hay will sustain, which is really quite a lot.
Raising chickens on household scraps and what people currently use for manicured lawn is also sustainable. Too bad it makes a lot of our city councils freak out.
For that matter, pigs can be raised small scale in similar conditions.
Let's not forget that people have been eating meat since forever. Factory farming is how old, exactly?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intensive_animal_farming
Nutrition and the Environment (unsystem.org)
Happier Meals: Rethinking the Global Meat Industry (2005) by Danielle Nierenburg (worldwatch.org)
I don't know why chickens raised on scraps would taste like garbage as anyone I know who's done it basically fed the chickens parts of vegetables that weren't comestible by humans, and mostly vegetable table scraps. The chickens also scratched around for insects and other edibles.
and other chickens, of course.
the opposition to the cattle industry per se, demonstrates the inadequacy of environmentalism....
local self reliance and autonomy is the solution to our problems, given the need of course to autonomous regional partnerships and federations...opposition may mean the destruction of relatively self reliant dry land farming regions...it is not beef farming per se...it is its form!
opposition to cattle and livestock farming per se may wipe out vibrant local economy, leaving the door open to corporate rape and ecocide!