Forum home Wildlife gardening

Pheasants

12346

Posts

  • HeliosHelios Posts: 87
    One of the reasons I don’t eat fish either.
  • PosyPosy Isle of Wight.Posts: 2,286
    I think the discussion about whether one eats meat and fish is essentially different from sport killing. And farmed products are intended for food while sport often throws away the end result. And no, I would not suggest that the food industry is without fault, but it is entirely different from going out with a gun to see what you can hit.
  • GemmaJFGemmaJF Posts: 2,286
    FlyDragon said:
    And to add, the argument of "if you eat meat, you should kill the animal at least once" is a fallacy.

    We're (supposedly) an intelligent and compassionate species, but we're also omnivorous by nature. Leaving the necessary food chain killing of animals to those with the tools to do it humanely isn't wrong or avoiding, it's simply a fact of modern life.

    Otherwise we can apply the same argument to war (if you want peace, you should join the military and fight) or your smartphone (if you want technology, you should work in a cobalt mine in Africa), your clothes (labor factory in the far East) and so forth. It's a subtle ad-hominem attack.
    Just to point out, we are historically omnivorous, but in 2020 there is absolutely no need for humans in the developed world to eat any animal product and actually a fair amount of evidence that we're healthier if we don't.  (and of course its much healthier for the animals and the planet too!) 

    Eating meat/dairy/eggs is a choice, not a necessity. 

    I don't judge anyone for making that choice, as that's what most of us were brought up with and consider normal, and I ate meat myself for more than 30 years.  But it is still a choice, especially with all the information and alternatives available now. 
    Is any human food production sustainable without farmed animals though? Currently the production of cereal crops is sustained by byproducts of the petro-chemical industry.

    If we all chose to be vegetarian, is that sustainable without the petro-chemical industry?

    We are currently growing food by releasing energy from oil. The alternative is to fertilise with animal manure and animal byproducts.  

    A future without farmed meat simply cannot exist. There is no logic that we can keep taking from the land without putting back, by only growing plants for food. All modern natural ecosystems are a balance between plants and animals.

    The most hopeful direction at the moment is regenerative agriculture, at its core is keeping animals in more natural healthy environments as part of a complete system that heals the soil, benefits the animals and produces high quality food 
  • PosyPosy Isle of Wight.Posts: 2,286
    Totally agree, Gemma!
  • FlyDragonFlyDragon Greater ManchesterPosts: 649
    GemmaJF said:
    FlyDragon said:
    And to add, the argument of "if you eat meat, you should kill the animal at least once" is a fallacy.

    We're (supposedly) an intelligent and compassionate species, but we're also omnivorous by nature. Leaving the necessary food chain killing of animals to those with the tools to do it humanely isn't wrong or avoiding, it's simply a fact of modern life.

    Otherwise we can apply the same argument to war (if you want peace, you should join the military and fight) or your smartphone (if you want technology, you should work in a cobalt mine in Africa), your clothes (labor factory in the far East) and so forth. It's a subtle ad-hominem attack.
    Just to point out, we are historically omnivorous, but in 2020 there is absolutely no need for humans in the developed world to eat any animal product and actually a fair amount of evidence that we're healthier if we don't.  (and of course its much healthier for the animals and the planet too!) 

    Eating meat/dairy/eggs is a choice, not a necessity. 

    I don't judge anyone for making that choice, as that's what most of us were brought up with and consider normal, and I ate meat myself for more than 30 years.  But it is still a choice, especially with all the information and alternatives available now. 
    Is any human food production sustainable without farmed animals though? Currently the production of cereal crops is sustained by byproducts of the petro-chemical industry.

    If we all chose to be vegetarian, is that sustainable without the petro-chemical industry?

    We are currently growing food by releasing energy from oil. The alternative is to fertilise with animal manure and animal byproducts.  

    A future without farmed meat simply cannot exist. There is no logic that we can keep taking from the land without putting back, by only growing plants for food. All modern natural ecosystems are a balance between plants and animals.

    The most hopeful direction at the moment is regenerative agriculture, at its core is keeping animals in more natural healthy environments as part of a complete system that heals the soil, benefits the animals and produces high quality food 
    Any system that kills the animal in it’s youth, separates young from mother too soon, or relies on harmful changes caused by artificial selection, does not benefit the animal.  

    Of course there are ways to farm sustainably without needing to abuse animals.  A quick google search will give some interesting results. 
  • GemmaJFGemmaJF Posts: 2,286
    edited July 2020
    FlyDragon said:
    GemmaJF said:
    FlyDragon said:
    And to add, the argument of "if you eat meat, you should kill the animal at least once" is a fallacy.

    We're (supposedly) an intelligent and compassionate species, but we're also omnivorous by nature. Leaving the necessary food chain killing of animals to those with the tools to do it humanely isn't wrong or avoiding, it's simply a fact of modern life.

    Otherwise we can apply the same argument to war (if you want peace, you should join the military and fight) or your smartphone (if you want technology, you should work in a cobalt mine in Africa), your clothes (labor factory in the far East) and so forth. It's a subtle ad-hominem attack.
    Just to point out, we are historically omnivorous, but in 2020 there is absolutely no need for humans in the developed world to eat any animal product and actually a fair amount of evidence that we're healthier if we don't.  (and of course its much healthier for the animals and the planet too!) 

    Eating meat/dairy/eggs is a choice, not a necessity. 

    I don't judge anyone for making that choice, as that's what most of us were brought up with and consider normal, and I ate meat myself for more than 30 years.  But it is still a choice, especially with all the information and alternatives available now. 
    Is any human food production sustainable without farmed animals though? Currently the production of cereal crops is sustained by byproducts of the petro-chemical industry.

    If we all chose to be vegetarian, is that sustainable without the petro-chemical industry?

    We are currently growing food by releasing energy from oil. The alternative is to fertilise with animal manure and animal byproducts.  

    A future without farmed meat simply cannot exist. There is no logic that we can keep taking from the land without putting back, by only growing plants for food. All modern natural ecosystems are a balance between plants and animals.

    The most hopeful direction at the moment is regenerative agriculture, at its core is keeping animals in more natural healthy environments as part of a complete system that heals the soil, benefits the animals and produces high quality food 
    Any system that kills the animal in it’s youth, separates young from mother too soon, or relies on harmful changes caused by artificial selection, does not benefit the animal.  

    Of course there are ways to farm sustainably without needing to abuse animals.  A quick google search will give some interesting results. 

    I have considerable interest in farming and farming technique. Saying search 'Google' is not the answer.

    Name a sustainable animal free farming project on a large scale that is not using byproducts of the petro-chemical industry. There simply is not the land to produce green manures in sufficient quantity to use as an alternative considering the current wold population. The numbers do not add-up.

    When saying 'benefit' the animals, consider pastured chickens that live a life eating natural foods, in the open. Compared to artificially fed chickens that never see the light of day. Consider that they follow cows that pooped on the land bringing goodness to the soil and the soil is never tilled. Consider that the chickens then produce droppings high in nitrogen, to feed the pasture for the cows.

    Out of interest, do you know that modern intensive agriculture is the second largest contribution to CO2 emissions? I don't think we can really welcome an increase in tilling and growing crops for a world of vegetarians as the answer to everything. 

    It is really a political argument that we should all be vegetarian, rather than a logic argument.
  • FlyDragonFlyDragon Greater ManchesterPosts: 649
    edited July 2020
    You are forgetting that a huge proportion of the crops we currently grow are used to feed livestock.  

    It’s not about politics, it’s about ethics.
  • GemmaJFGemmaJF Posts: 2,286
    FlyDragon said:
    You are forgetting that a huge proportion of the crops we currently grow are used to feed livestock.  

    It’s not about politics, it’s about ethics.
    I haven't forgotten that at all. In fact the systems of regenerative farming hark back to pre-war practice with plenty of modern good thinking to bring about repair of ecosystems.

    It was figured out during WW II that it made sense to feed people vegetable and cereal crops directly, rather than feed livestock. It was an emergency situation.

    It resulted in the development and widespread use of artificial fertilisers, pesticides, herbicides and insecticides.

    As it was the only way to farm effectively without animals.

    If you are an advocate of modern industrialised intensive agri-business that relies on the petro-chemical industry, then your argument is a good one.

    What about the animal suffering of native species eradicated from the planet, no longer able to form ecosystems, rear young, or even exist that occurs because of the habitat destruction and poisoning of intensive arable farming? Regenerative agricultural, including animals is the first real sustainable alternative to repair ecosystems on farm land.

    Do you even think about those implications at all when you advocate a vegetarian diet? Even your vegetarian diet is causing animal suffering, it is removing the very right of many species on this planet to even exist.


    It's entirely political. I have no problem if you personally choose not to eat meat because of your ethics. To advocate nobody should eat meat is political.




  • SlipperyElmSlipperyElm Posts: 111
    Wasn't this thread initially started to speak of white/albino pheasants?  I think that's what @Guernsey Donkey 2 intended?  I see s/he hasn't become involved since.

    How rude, but typical, from what I've seen of this forum,  of you all to hijack it in order to 'sound off' on your own viewpoints.
  • FlyDragonFlyDragon Greater ManchesterPosts: 649
    edited July 2020
    http://www.biocyclic-vegan.org

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jan/12/were-humus-sapiens-the-farmers-who-shun-animal-manure

    It is possible, it just needs a lot of investment and for people to have the necessary vision. 

    I'll leave it there though, I come here to talk about plants and ponds not to get into big ethical debates! 
Sign In or Register to comment.