Badgers at risk

[pigletwillie]

There is already a huge number of people living on fifty cents / one meal a day because the price of food is rising fast. The reason the price of food is rising is the global demand for meat.

Now you can buy a chicken for £2.50. Not that you'd want to eat it if you knew what was in it.

Paul, saying that the cost of food is going up because of the demand for meat is rather to simplistic an argument, its also rising because arable land is being turned over to palm oil production and a large percentage of grain crops are being used for biofuel as the current high cost of oil makes it worthwhile to do so.

As for the £2.50 chicken, it will have "in it" exactly what a free range non organic bird does, its the welfare issues that are the problem there, not what they are fed.

[Paul Wagland]

Paul, saying that the cost of food is going up because of the demand for meat is rather to simplistic an argument, its also rising because arable land is being turned over to palm oil production and a large percentage of grain crops are being used for biofuel as the current high cost of oil makes it worthwhile to do so.

To some extent I agree with you - biofuels do take up land which could be used for food production. However there is a groundswell of opinion (at government and international level) which says the impending food crisis comes as a direct result of the growing demand for meat. It's the number one cause in my view - even though I'm also dead against biofuels.

As for the £2.50 chicken, it will have "in it" exactly what a free range non organic bird does, its the welfare issues that are the problem there, not what they are fed.

Au contraire PW - Cheap 'battery farmed' meat contains high residues of antibiotics and other medicines that are injected or ingested while the animal is alive - free range meat does not contain anything like the same level because there is less overcrowding and less disease.

And there's worse things going on than that: We all know chicken is sold by weight, but what's to stop unethical farmers from injecting chicken carcasses with water to increase their weight? "Why, the law of course!" I hear you cry, and you'd be right. That's why our dead chickens are shipped to Holland, among other places, injected, and shipped back. "But it's just water!" you shout in understandable frustration. Happily it is also illegal to inject chicken carcasses with water in Holland. That's why they grind up cattle bones, mix them with water and inject the resulting soup into your Sunday roast. Hydrolysed beef protein - an ingredient of most 'value' chicken products. And yes, this was going on all through the BSE crisis when beef protein was the last thing many of us wanted to be eating.

[valmarg]

Going off at a bit of a tangent, we live in a 'very' rural area (except when the Towers is open). One thing OH and I have frequently commented on is the number of 'road kill' badgers that litter the lanes.

Perhaps if PMs were carried out on the corpses, it might prove that culling was already being carried out here. Shoot them, and chuck 'em out on to the roads - roadkill. Who would be bothered to take the trouble to note the difference.

valmarg

[SueA]

Being a 'bunny hugger' myself, I don't think that a cull of badgers is the answer. Surely it would be just as feasible to innoculate badgers against T.B. as it would be to trap & kill them all individually. In New Zealand it was believed there was a link between possums & bovine T.B. & rather than wipe the possums out they trapped & innoculated them.

[beefy]

We're a bit off topic here, but what the hey!



But it has to be said, doesn't it? If the global meat industry continues to expand as it has done recently, there won't be enough food to feed humans (as I've said, meat is a net drain on the World's food resources). The poorest of the World's people will starve. There is already a huge number of people living on fifty cents / one meal a day because the price of food is rising fast. The reason the price of food is rising is the global demand for meat.



According to many different sources I've found, we can increase productivity by 700% by turning livestock farms into arable ones. Seven kg of grain/soya/veg protein to produce one kg of meat isn't sustainable.

I think meat should be much more expensive, as it has been in the past. We shouldn't expect to be able to afford a meat meal twice a day. The Sunday roast is a special event in our society for many reasons, but the extravagance of a leg of lamb or a whole chicken used to be a big part of it. Now you can buy a chicken for £2.50. Not that you'd want to eat it if you knew what was in it.

The rise in cost would help to pay for some of the labour involved in organic farming. And I bet you'd get more people applying for jobs on an organic farm than you would an intensive meat farm. Personally I'd like to see an end to the WTO and the Common Market, so that British farms didn't have to compete with South American or Chinese ones. Prices (and hence farm wages) could be higher (we can afford to spend more on our food in this country, even if we might not want to) but that's a hugely complex issue and one we'd better not get into! I'll settle for saying I'm delighted we have so many economic migrants from eastern Europe - they work hard, they're polite and friendly, most of all they don't expect life on a plate like many people do in the UK.



Let's save that one for a wet Sunday!

Up to this point Paul I was prepared to engage you in a debate but the arrogance of this post makes me think that I'm wasting my time never mind the blatent contradictions in your post.
You admit the demand for meat is rising . Thats market forces -people want meat ,they want to pay for it and so far they don't think its to expensive . The market will find a fair price and when that is reached sales and consumption will level out.

You are prepared to stand back and let people starve rather than let farmers produce meat from ground that won't support cereal or vegetable production .In case you don't know beef can be produced in a system where no cereals are used .Research (that you say you know how to do - you are a journalist ) would tell you that.

You want to turn livestock farms into arable farms .
As I said before vast areas of the country are not suitable for cereal or vegetable production.
Your comment about chickens being injected with water. What you have described happens AFTER the chicken leaves the farm so please explain how this fits in to this debate - unless your scaremongering.

If I may ask what exactly are your credentials as far as the countryside . What do you know about it other than what it seems you can find out on google. Have you ever reared an animal from birth to slaughter - I have . Iv'e been there to assist the cow when she gave birth and make sure the calf was alive ,made sure it got its first drink . Cared for it kept it free of disease and parasites made sure it had enough fresh food to eat. Made sure the housing it was kept in was well ventilated and enough bedding material for it to lie on.And I have taken then to slaughter , stood beside them when they were shot . I refused to let an animal be killed once because it was to be slaughtered in the hal all style were the animal is hung up by the back legs and it 's throat cut without being stunned first.I've missed my cousins wedding because an animal had to have a blood test and i stayed home to wait on the vet coming.It's a 24 hour a day job not a nice 9-5 and clear off to tomorrow so dont tell me how you think you could do a better job until youv'e been there and done it.
Ever since the end of Word War 2 the British farmer has given the country what it wanted from 1945 they produced cheap food to get the country back on its feet. When in the 80's there was milk and wine lakes , beef and butter mountains because the farmer had become so good at producing food the government changed direction and told us to diversfiy they did farm shops , organic farms , open farms ,converting spare buildings to office space or storage units and developing shoots .
Now the government want us to look after the countryside (like the farmers wern't doing that already)so again farmers are changing.
Here endeth the lesson and my part in this thread before I say something that gets me banned.

Edit - I'll make you the offer Paul come and live with me . I'll take you to the farmers I 'll introduce you ,show you round ,show you what nobody else see's and in a week you will never think of it in the same way again.I'll show you the passion that exists out there and none of it for money - its all for the wellbeing and care of the livestock that the farmers care for.

[Paul Wagland]

I'll break your argument up and answer each bit separately. I've cut some of your text for the sake of brevity, but let me know if you feel I've left out something important.

...never mind the blatent contradictions in your post.

I don't see any, do you mean when I say there's a food crisis looming but we should farm less meat? That's because livestock farming is not the most productive method of producing food. Though it may be one of the most profitable.

You admit the demand for meat is rising . Thats market forces -people want meat ,they want to pay for it and so far they don't think its to expensive . The market will find a fair price and when that is reached sales and consumption will level out.

There are markets for heroin and stolen cars, but I don't think we should cater for them. My point being; market forces are not an acceptable answer to the ethical and logistic issues. If the World's richest people want to eat more meat, but can only do so if the World's poorest people starve, then clearly the former should be stopped from eating more meat.

You are prepared to stand back and let people starve rather than let farmers produce meat from ground that won't support cereal or vegetable production.

I can't understand where you get that from. On the contrary, I would wish to stop farmers from rearing meat in order that people can be saved from starvation. Meat takes seven times more resources to produce than vegetable matter - and that's a very conservative estimate. The BBC recently said it was 21 times as much! Broadly speaking, if we produced less meat we, as a planet, would have more food.

As I said before vast areas of the country are not suitable for cereal or vegetable production.

And vast areas of the World, currently used for rearing livestock, ARE suitable for cereal or vegetable production. I don't think the whole World should be turned over to arable crops, just more of it.

Your comment about chickens being injected with water. What you have described happens AFTER the chicken leaves the farm so please explain how this fits in to this debate - unless your scaremongering.

This was to answer a point made by Pigletwillie. A criticism of the meat industry is not by default scaremongering.

If I may ask what exactly are your credentials as far as the countryside ..... Iv'e been there to assist the cow when she gave birth and make sure the calf was alive ,made sure it got its first drink.

I'm not a farmer but that doesn't void my right to an opinion, I'm sure you'll agree. In any field of ethical debate, anybody with a financial interest would usually be excluded. Your experience of farming is valuable, but your personal financial investment in the industry (one of the first things you mentioned in this thread) will surely colour your views.

If you want to know, my uncle is a sheep farmer in the Yorkshire Dales. I have been lambing and assisted sheep during labour and birth. I am also an RHS-qualified horticulturalist with ten years' experience researching and writing on environmental issues.

Edit - I'll make you the offer Paul come and live with me . I'll take you to the farmers I 'll introduce you ,show you round ,show you what nobody else see's and in a week you will never think of it in the same way again.I'll show you the passion that exists out there and none of it for money - its all for the wellbeing and care of the livestock that the farmers care for.

I do appreciate the offer and I can see you really feel what you're saying mate, but in my view that doesn't change the basic facts. You'd be more than welcome to come and try our veggie cooking though

[johnygreenfeet]

beefy
you mist out the bit about when is dark and very cold and the rain is coming at you sideways and your standing knee deep in mud trying to get your animals in or puting a fence back that some towney has just driven through and you look around and your the only one

i have been there to i know

[Madasafish]

I have had to restrain my self on commenting on Paul's reply above.

It is unfortunate that he does not appear to realise you cannot "make" people eat less meat. and the people who produce most meat in the world (the US) also produce most grain. Think about the consequences.

And "In any field of ethical debate, anybody with a financial interest would usually be excluded."

Well in this debate, we all have a financial interest as consumers and producers so lets exclude everyone. !

I'm afraid the Law of Unintended Consequences reigns.

Poultry are the most efficient convertors of grain to meat so the statement "Broadly speaking, if we produced less meat we, as a planet, would have more food" is just plain wrong.


I'm afraid I could go on. But I have rarely read such a far ranging reply which has no concept of the consequences of what is proposed.

It also fails to mention the key next logical conclusion.- alcohol is made from grain . Logically all alcohol production should therefore cease.

The economic consequences for farmers will mean much land will no longer be farmed as unsuitable for growth of grain.

Finally " My point being; market forces are not an acceptable answer to the ethical and logistic issues."

So what do you propose? Compulsion?

I'm afraid I find your argument wrong naive and not impractical: because nowhere is one single practical workable argument. Just a statement of beliefs .

The problem is not food supply. It's population growth.

And anyone with any intelligence can see a substantial part of the world's population is currently at risk of famine: and is doing nothing to stop it through their own efforts.
Preaching about the rich eating less meat is not the issue. The rich nations are largely self sufficient either by growing or paying for their own food. (and you seriously expect them to give up the fruits of their own labour? get real!)

The problem is those countries which can neither feed themselves or afford to import food. Like most of Africa. Or other countries - usually at war. They have been supported by food Aid: mainly from American farmers .. whom you are proposing to stop eating meat.

Your recipe is unworkable . Ignores human nature. Ignores facts.

[valmarg]

Well said Madasafish, and can you imagine some of the Staffordshire Moorlands being made over to 'arable land'.

Come global warming/climate change, the boggy bits may be converted to paddy fields to grow rice, but at the moment most of the land is not suitable for 'arable land'.

valmarg

[Paul Wagland]

Anyway, the point of the thread when I started it was to bring attention to a recent government-commissioned, independent study. It took 8 years and £34million and has concluded a cull of badgers will have no benefit in the fight against bovine TB.

Despite this a group of MPs have decided they'd like to see badgers culled anyway. The RSPCA have started a petition against a cull and if you're interested you can sign it here:

RSPCA || Badgers

Just click the link that says 'Take Action'

[HeyWayne]

I say we start eating badgers!

[Madasafish]

>valmarg
can you imagine some of the Staffordshire Moorlands being made over to 'arable land'."

Yes.
In about 10 years the soil would be about 100metres further down the hillsides, or there will be rows of tractors immersed up to their axles in mud, and the cost of grain produced there would make it uneconomic even at prices 3 x current levels!

I think badgers are fascinating: we have several setts within 1 km of us... but a selective cull seems sensible.