General election 2020 (5 Viewers)

[magicbastarder]

Land set aside for grazing by animals is generally more biodiverse than land used for crop growing, and is less intensively farmed.

two things to consider here though also - methane from cattle farming, and the actual productivity of the land.

e.g. if you can produce twice as much food per acre (figure literally plucked out of the air) off market gardening, a trite argument would be to stop producing beef, and set half your total land aside for ecological purposes. beef is not exactly an efficient way of turning natural resources into food.

 

[Lili Marlene]

We all live under capitalism, we all experience it, consumer demand and what is and is not subsidized comes from that.

I'd rather find common ground over this experience instead of telling everyone else to stay in their lane and shut up because city dwellers don't understand what it's like to be a farmer, or because farmers don't know what it's like to own zero land, work a minimum wage job for Dublin rents and then get shamed for not buying the more expensive local option.

 

[Squiggle]

We all live under capitalism, we all experience it, consumer demand and what is and is not subsidized comes from that.

I'd rather find common ground over this experience instead of telling everyone else to stay in their lane and shut up because city dwellers don't understand what it's like to be a farmer, or because farmers don't know what it's like to own zero land, work a minimum wage job for Dublin rents and then get shamed for not buying the more expensive local option.

That's not what I was saying.

But, for example, there are people here saying that market gardening is somehow better than animal farming. But Better on what level. It's like saying drums are better than guitar, or classical is better than electronica... it's a subjective opinion and it very much depends on what result you are aiming for? Environmentally there are "good" and "bad" ways of producing every type of food. Crop growing without giving the land a break and varying the crops on a cycle will deplete the soil, making it useless for anything. When the worms (vital for healthy soil) and other insects are dead, and all the birds that feed on them, and all the animals that feed on the birds and the soil is dead it's soylent green or nothing.

Traditional farming worked on a multi purpose use to the land, with rotation between crops (depeleting) and animals (fertilising) and fallow (recovery).

Specialisation in farming is damaging to the land, the water table and ultimately our ecosystem. We seem quick to realise that in the context of other countries (outcry about Palm Oil farming for example) but slow when it comes to what happens at home and affects our own pockets.

 

[Squiggle]

This is worth a read for anyone interested in a different perspective ‘Livestock are not the global warming enemy’ | Veterinary Record

 

[Lili Marlene]

This is worth a read for anyone interested in a different perspective ‘Livestock are not the global warming enemy’ | Veterinary Record

Saying the same here

British farmers are not the enemy in the battle against the climate crisis | Joe Stanley

UK livestock production is among the most sustainable in the world, says farmer and conservationist Joe Stanley

www.theguardian.com

Once again of course, they're saying the issue is Free Trade Agreements, like CETA. I buy it.

 

[flashback]

My father never got a subsidy for farming, because he wouldn't intensively farm

So this is interesting. Your father didn't get any subsidies for farming? At all? If he sold dairy for example, that price was subsidized, right?

There's subsidies in various areas, during the process and at the point of sale, and then afterwards.

@Lili Marlene : as I understand it, we don't live under capitalism when it comes to farming (AFAIK). At all. Farming doesn't work on normal supply and demand type economics. Supply is outstripped by demand, so there are artificial price fixes put in place. Farming as an industry would collapse the moment these subsidies are removed.

So there's direct costs, actual money given to farmers to aid in keeping of livestock Then there's secondary costs which are consequences of destroying the land when flooding occurs and people's houses and businesses are wrecked. Then there's further indirect costs like destruction of rivers, destruction of pollinator stock, emission of methane, etc.

My point is that there's vast amounts of money pumped in on almost every level, up front and elsewhere, all because we insist on having masses of cows. And then we don't even want the milk.

We're paying masses of money to destroy the place, for a product we don't want.

 

[Lili Marlene]

What you are describing is capitalism. You are confusing the family budget and basic supply and demand with modern capitalism.

 

[nooleen]

Don't fight, guys! Can't you see this farmyard guessing game is tearing us all apart?

 

[flashback]

What you are describing is capitalism. You are confusing the family budget and basic supply and demand with modern capitalism.

ok... I guess it's STFU Donnie, you're out of your depth time. I'll be up front and just admit I don't understand economics.

Isn't there something fundamentally different about an industry that completely relies upon financial support from the state to exist, compared to other industries?

I guess that's what I was trying to say.

I'm also not saying that farming should stop being subsidized, I'm mainly saying that prices for meat and dairy are artificially low because of the amount of money the state invests.

 

[flashback]

Don't fight, guys! Can't you see this farmyard guessing game is tearing us all apart?

I don't know shit about economics. Nor farming. But I've lots of opinions!

What could possibly go wrong.

 

[magicbastarder]

That's not what I was saying.

But, for example, there are people here saying that market gardening is somehow better than animal farming. But Better on what level. It's like saying drums are better than guitar, or classical is better than electronica...

i said 'if'... and made it explicit that was based on a figure i plucked out of the air, just as a hypothetical.

and yes, it's complicated, quite often it's a choice of choosing the most palatable poison in terms of the effect on the environment, but that does not mean it's going to be impossible to tell which form of farming is best or worst for the environment (and that's also based on whether you're just measuring for total possible output)

from a quick read (and these figures are open to be corrected), a high-producing beef farm will produce 500kg of beef per hectare per year, not far off two carcasses, i guess. but in 2019 the yield per hectare for peas and beans was 5.4 tons, so over ten times as much, by weight. and how do you measure the difference? if it's calorie content, beef is about three times the calorie content per kg, so if you were to do a comparison based purely on calorie content, you'd produce the same calories on a third of the land from a pea/bean crop. i.e. you could simply retire two thirds of the farm. but as you say, it's a more intensive form of agriculture, but doesn't have the methane problem.

i actually don't know whether the figure of nearly 500kg per acre of beef *also* includes land required to grow winter fodder for it. if it doesn't, the efficiency figure would trend downwards.

 

[Lili Marlene]

ok... I guess it's STFU Donnie, you're out of your depth time. I'll be up front and just admit I don't understand economics.

Isn't there something fundamentally different about an industry the completely relies upon financial support from the state to exist, compared to other industries?

The industries not relying upon financial support from the state to exist, which industries would they be now?

I guess that's what I was trying to say.

I'm also not saying that farming should stop being subsidized, I'm mainly saying that prices for meat and dairy are artificially low because of the amount of money the state invests.

Well you'd be correct in that. So where's the issue?

I'm not trying to be dismissive here, but as long as the consequences are in the future and things can keep ticking along with everyone making money it's all working fine because that's the system we have in place.

 

[magicbastarder]

huh, onions produce at about 40 tons per hectare. diet of onions for everyone from now on.

 

[pete]

IF A FARM CAN'T EXIST WITHOUT SUBSIDIES THAT FARM SHOULDN'T EXIST

 

[pete]

paraphrasing there

 

[pete]

also, go vegetarian.

 

[egg_]

The industries not relying upon financial support from the state to exist, which industries would they be now?

Ah c'mon now. Let's not pretend that farming isn't special. The Common Agricultural Policy accounts for just under 40% of the entire budget of the EU (and back in the 80s it was over 70%)

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/cap-expenditure-graph1_en.pdf

 

[nuke terrorist]

A lot people who work in agriculture are simply farm workers and not landowners themselves.
An Irish friend of mine works as a meat packer in a Larry Goodman factory because he
no other work options. He stars work at 7am but despite not liking his job he never complains.

I worked a in a piggery from part time from 1990-93. for every 8 KG of food the pigs were feed
They would have gained 1KG when they sent to the factory for slaughter.
The numbers are even worse for wasting water for meat production.

Animal farming produces very low yield food. This is bad for the planet and everything else in it.
This only happens because of capitalism. In most countries in the world people eat little meat.

I 'm only bringing this point because it's the one undeniable thing about animal farming:
We would have more food and a better environment with other types of food.

I've been a vegan (apart from medicines) since I was 17 in 1993 but I have a huge amount
of sympathy for people working in agriculture. It's hard work and I'm glad I didn't grow
up on a farm which usually involves a lot of unpaid labour.

I'm not going to hate generally decent people even if I have one major disagreement with them.
People who take the piss of those who produce food and yet are happy to consume
food which is wastefully produced are being fools.

 

[flashback]

The industries not relying upon financial support from the state to exist, which industries would they be now?

OK. I see your point. Can you make the argument there's a sliding scale? As in, small businesses don't get as much state support as farming.

Well you'd be correct in that. So where's the issue?

I'm not trying to be dismissive here, but as long as the consequences are in the future and things can keep ticking along with everyone making money it's all working fine because that's the system we have in place.

I guess that is my point. We're paying for something we don't want, and that maybe we should rethink that. It's not only something we don't want, it's damaging.

And the financial support for all this is a completely top down set up, the decision to change can simply be made.

But yeah, I'm out of my depth in economics. I honestly do not understand the subject.

 

[Lili Marlene]

Ah c'mon now. Let's not pretend that farming isn't special. The Common Agricultural Policy accounts for just under 40% of the entire budget of the EU (and back in the 80s it was over 70%)

https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/farming/documents/cap-expenditure-graph1_en.pdf

Yes, and its sustainable because the maths work right now to make it that way thanks to various debt "instruments" that destroy billions of lives in the global south, and the ecology of planet with it. Neither of which are an issue because the maths work.