The Accidental Smallholder Forum
Community => Coffee Lounge => Topic started by: Womble on July 23, 2018, 01:08:40 pm
-
I've been doing some research for work into "alternative" (i.e. not dead animal based) protein sources, and came across this report from Beef & Lamb New Zealand (https://beeflambnz.com/sites/default/files/levies/files/Alternative%20Proteins%20summary%20report.pdf) (their equivalent of AHDB (http://beefandlamb.ahdb.org.uk/)).
The report paints a picture of four possible futures for the NZ red meat industry in response to the availability of protein from non-animal sources:
1) Demand falls as red meat is 'pushed to the side of the plate'
2) Red meat becomes a speciality choice (similar to bottled water)
3) We continue to eat red meat, but reluctantly, due to ethical concerns.
4) Red meat continues to be an every day choice, but perhaps augmented or 'diluted' by alternative protein sources, for example to reduce cost.
All in all, I found the report rather interesting, particularly because this was written from the meat industry's viewpoint, rather than say a vegan pressure group.
It also got me thinking - which of those scenarios could threaten or benefit smallholders? Well, I reckon that:
1) If meat consumption falls full stop, that has to impact us. Livestock farms would go out of business, and the countryside would change markedly. Smallholders would continue to farm, but more occupying a nice than the centre ground.
2&3) If red meat became a speciality choice, smallholders could do pretty well. If you're only going to eat meat once a week because of ethical concerns, then at least make sure your meat has been as ethically and locally grown as possible.
The challenge here is that if synthetic meat were available that was just as nutritious and tasty as the real thing, but nothing had to die, then why wouldn't we switch to it? I'll be honest, I absolutely would!
4) We're in the same boat here as the rest of the farming industry, so maybe we'd diversify and grow more veg instead!?
Anyway, make of that what you will. If you have a spare 15 minutes, the summary report (https://beeflambnz.com/sites/default/files/levies/files/Alternative%20Proteins%20summary%20report.pdf) makes for interesting reading, and if you have a spare hour or two, the whole thing (https://beeflambnz.com/news-views/alternative-proteins-research-published) is available here!
-
I am constantly amazed and bemused by the vegetarians and vegans I know who "can't eat the lovely little lambs gambolling in the fields" - but don't seem to realise that if we all went vegan, there would be no lovely little lambs gambolling in the fields, or who gleefully post videos of a "Cornish traffic jam" as a suckler herd of beef cattle are moved along the road, but don't seem to realise that such sights would end if we ate no beef. ::)
-
Yes, I know what you mean Sally. Whenever anybody says to me "but you can't eat your sheep surely?", my standard reply is "don't be silly, of course not...... we eat their children!".
But the truth is, I still don't like it.
We started keeping livestock because we weren't going to go vegetarian any time soon, and the best way to make sure our food had the best life possible was to raise it ourselves.
Now if I could get a perfectly passable burger out of a mycoprotein fermentation plant without anything having to die, and whilst at the same time being far more efficient in terms of grain conversion then actually, I think I probably would. Then I think we'll keep llamas instead. I've always liked the look of llamas.
-
Sally,
It's called progress and evolution. Remember how we once enjoyed the sight of people hanging in gibbet cages at the crossroads with the crows pecking their eyes out? Or serfs toilling in the fields with our master cracking his whip at the lazy? Slavery was a good economic model for low cost agriculture.
I'm not a vegetarian (OH is vegan) but if there was as satisfying an alternative to meat I would use it instead. As for lamb - not a fan anyway.Indesputably land is more productive when growing plants than animals on it quite apart from some of the obvious horrors associated with poor animal transport and slaughter (particularly abroad).
Wombles paper reflects an industry's desire to keep selling and exporting. Reality is that we should be looking at avoiding the pollution, congestion and cost of transport. Governments never think long term and their economics are muddled and compartmentalised. The UK has vast tracts of unused land - reduce pollution and one could farm roadsides and boundaries. A lot of land could be improved. Lifestyle would be better outdoors instead of being a barrista or waitress and going to the gym - yeah we could actually pick our own fruit and veg and have employment. The balance of payment and energy savings would likely even allow a better salary structure so welfare subsidies weren't needed and folk could afford UK stuff. The whole thing is a financial con anyway.
-
A lot of soils will suffer if farmed animals disappear. Where will good organic fertilisers come from? Lack of selective grazing on marginal lands will be harmful for ground nesting birds. Permanent pasture will become a thing of the past along with all the species of wildlife that colonise such areas. Cutting and composting the grass does no good for the poor dung beetle and there will not be the stock to use it as conserved forage. I supose it will be a poor fodder for biodigesters. I foresee a very bleak future for this island should the vocal vegan minority get their way.
-
It's not just animals that produce faeces or die and decompose. It's all an attitude of mind and how one processes stuff for disease control.As for your permenant pasture.. well that bodes the questions of how much does one need as protected land in the same way that we have national parks etc. It's hardly beyond the wit of man to maintain some herds without eating them (I never suggested getting rid of all livestock - we keep some as we keep other reserves for endangered species and wildlife preserves). Nor is it beyond the wit of man to find mechanical alternatives.
I gently smile at the ideas of maintaining the status quo and suggestions of restorations to how things were. My point being that it's all a question of where in history you pick a restore point. You can bet that if the Norman's had had access to UPVC double glazing then their castles wouldn't have been as draughty. Do we really want packs of wolves and wild boar roaming free along with rabid dogs and throwing the contents of chamber pots out of the window into the street. Go far enough back and we need to park huge blocks of ice and shiver in caves.
Remember the Luddites.
The quaint idea of a simple pastoral existence.. ox ploughs, homespun, wattle and daub? Well who is prepared to have that as well as no air ambulances, MRI's, pesticides and aspirin and electricity....?
-
Loadapish
-
My simple, personal take is that as a nation, we all eat far too much meat nowadays and that has just become the 'norm'. As the population grows, this level of consumption cannot be sustained. Chicken for example is a now a 'cheap meal', whereas it used to be something to relished as part of a Sunday roast.
We seem obsessed by producing 'meat alternatives' such as insects and lab grown protein, which for me is a step too far for my brain to process, when we could just eat less meat, enjoy what we do eat more and learn how to cook better veggie based meals more often.
-
I support the less meat slow grown approach with lots more veggies. I love vegetables, and we eat quite a lot of non meat meals. We probably do need to maintain some grazing animals, for meat and also for fleece and skins. We cannot continue to rely on man made chemical based fibres for clothing, furniture, carpets etc. Yes, animal based clothes might cost more, but perhaps there should be encouragement for everyone to own fewer items of clothing and wear them out, not throw them out after a few weeks.
-
Different take on this.
There is evidence that excess carbohydrate consumption is adversely affecting our health and causing metabolic disease in animals, mostly seen in ponies as EMS and humans showing as mainly diabetes.
I have not eaten meat for over 30 years but now looking at the evidence the whole high carb low fat diet that has been pushed at us since the 70's is based on poor evidence and actually bad for us.
Humans evolved eating meat, and living on dairy, the few primitive cultures that are left live nearly entirely on animal products. Growing cereals happened very late on and even then due to storage difficulties we didn't eat a lot of it. Now healthy cereals are pushed at us when even Dr's that agreed with this are now changing there minds, and no one can agree what is a healthy diet.
Here is a fairly simple discussion of the problem, sorry its Australian.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GUIBNKnT1M (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GUIBNKnT1M)
The effect of huge cereal production has been the wheat prairies that cover large parts of countries and vegetable oil that have been seen as healthy have decimated some areas in their production.
It may not be possible to field the world from small integrated farms. The land grows animals that feed the land that in turn feed us, but it is a system that worked for a couple of thousand years, and I can see 'real' food produced with provenance becoming like a good bottle of wine, something you eat less of but pay more for. The trouble is we expect to eat dairy products cheaply but as a population do not engage in how its produced. Actually having to pay more for milk may increase animal welfare.
We need protein and fats to live, we actually do not need carbohydrate, so its either going for bulk protein going to be developed from something like insects or developed in the lab.
I have not eaten meat for so long I would find it very difficult to make it a large part of my diet, but I do produce animals for meat, I take them to the butchers my self.
-
..... own fewer items of clothing and wear them out, not throw them out after a few weeks.
I wore my blazer last week. It's getting a bit tight over the shoulders but I suppose one does change shape after 50yrs. As for the trousers..I had to give up with those and wore a pair of whites only 20years old. OH went through my wardrobe and threw loads of stuff away. Some only had one or two holes. She threw my favourite anorak away on the grounds that it's diffcult to get an arm into the sleeve without ending up in the lining and that's too frayed for any more restitching. We argued over that. I'm now down to one funeral/wedding set, a few pairs of jeans and a small pile of t shirts and a lot of empty space. :-)
-
Different take on this.
There is evidence that excess carbohydrate consumption is adversely affecting our health and causing metabolic disease in animals, mostly seen in ponies as EMS and humans showing as mainly diabetes.
Growing cereals happened very late on and even then due to storage difficulties we didn't eat a lot of it. Now healthy cereals are pushed at us when even Dr's that agreed with this are now changing there minds, and no one can agree what is a healthy diet.
The effect of huge cereal production has been the wheat prairies that cover large parts of countries and vegetable oil that have been seen as healthy have decimated some areas in their production.
And how much to the Monsanto / Bayers of the world love the cereal / corn prairies? An awful lot. And they have a very strong government lobby. Any coincidence?
Personnaly, I'll not eat some lab grown protein meat substitute. Ever. I can arsie my own meat. I'll never be able to prpoduce some "protein" grown in a Petri dish. Just another way for the corporates to control us.
-
Another interesting theory from the GP that diagnosed me with gluten intolerance is that wheat is put in so many foods these days that we get an overload of it. Some of us then develop an intolerance.
When I was diagnosed (more than seven years ago), I was discussing with my OH the changes that were going to have to be made. He suggested going back to making gravy with Oxo cubes and adding cornflour to thicken it. When he went to buy some Oxos, he discovered that they contain wheat. On another occasion, I went shopping when I had missed my lunch and was very hungry. I saw onion baghees on the deli counter and, knowing they are made from chick pea flour, bought a large one which I ate as soon as I had paid for my shopping. Later I developed symptoms suggesting I had eaten gluten. Later I checked the ingredients of the onion baghees and discovered that there is some gram (chick pea) flour but a large proportion of wheat flour. I suppose wheat is cheaper.
-
The thing is, agriculture as it's currently done is hugely unsustainable. Much of the most fertile soil in the UK is on track for being infertile within a generation (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/24/uk-30-40-years-away-eradication-soil-fertility-warns-michael-gove), so we need to find ways of getting the same amount of land to feed more people, and sustainably.
One of those ways is to improve carbohydrate to protein conversion rates in our food production processes. (The simple truth is that grain => beef muscle => human muscle is really not an efficient way of doing things!). So no, I don't see manufactured protein sources as anything terrible (most are no more petri-dish manufactured than say beer or yoghurt), though I won't be rushing to eat cricket flour (http://www.eatgrub.co.uk/product/eat-grub-cricket-protein-powder-cricket-flour/) any time soon.
It's also important for those of us with land to farm it in the best way we can. However, we shouldn't kid ourselves - we are the privileged few. The vast majority of the world's population simply doesn't have that option.
-
So if we take the grain - muscle - protein conversion point on its own, and look at that in isolation using say pigs as an example, that would make the current mass-produced, inside only barn reared, artificially inseminated, never been outdoors or seen the light of day animals far more sustainable than our own favoured 'slow-reared' traditional breeds which have a much nicer life.
I don't much like the sound of where that is going!
Maybe we all have a moral obligation to produce meat using our own land as efficiently as possible for the overall good of the nation...?
Dig for victory of the modern age?
-
The thing is, to quote John Muir:
"When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe."
So it's quite wrong to look at *anything* in isolation. "Zero emission" electric cars are a good example. Sure, nothing comes out of an exhaust pipe, but that doesn't make them zero emission or zero impact by any means.
Maybe we all have a moral obligation to produce meat using our own land as efficiently as possible for the overall good of the nation...?
Dig for victory of the modern age?
ABSOLUTELY!! I think it's incumbent on us all to make our wee bits of land as productive as possible, provided that's also done sustainably. I think it might have been John Seymour who said that whilst smallholdings could never be as productive per unit of manpower as large farms are, they could and should be more productive per unit of land occupied. Also, I have thirty wooly compost heaps running about outside and continually burping and farting greenhouse gases. I reckon I have a duty to keep that flock productive, in order to earn their right to fart!
(I think).
-
One of those ways is to improve carbohydrate to protein conversion rates in our food production processes. (The simple truth is that grain => beef muscle => human muscle is really not an efficient way of doing things!).
There is much land in the UK - including our own - which is either unsuited to growing anything except grass, or would take considerable intervention and manipulation on an ongoing basis to grow anything other than grass. It has always seemed to me therefore that growing livestock on these areas is in fact enabling us to make proteinaceous food out of areas which would otherwise be completely unproductive.
-
Emotion and self-interest always overule logic. Logic simply shows that if you keep pulling stuff out of the ground without putting the same stuff back then there's going to be a deficiency. And while you might not notice the losses of micronutrients for a long time then eventually those trace elements will be depleted.... back to my 'mince up your granny' argument.
Also just because something seems hard to do isn't a reason not to do it. Logic also shows that it'd make more sense to build houses and factories on poor ground than wonderful alluvial soils. The fact that early man started such settlements for all their logical reasons doesn't mean we carry on.
Logic also tells us that the simplest solution is population control but then the 'powers that be' wouldn't feel so powerful.
Land that will only grow grass would almost certainly and naturally (albeit over a long period of time) become land covered in forest if it wasn't kept as grazing. Or again it's the place one puts the greenhouses and polytunnels for the harder to grow stuff and hydroponics and so forth. Or you start the forest by digging spaced pits for trees and help the process along.
Government has no real interest in these matters because by the time they make an impact their term in office is up. It's why you always get the 'by 2030' type of promise. It's a promise they don't need to meet.
When I went shopping for this land I looked at a lot of places. I do appreciate the issues of chalk downland and moors etc. I looked at several welsh holdings where there was a genuine inch or less of topsoil over shale, where early settlers had built drystone walls around little fields as much to get the rocks off their land as for the boundary purpose. But I also noted that a lot of those holdings were surrounded by patches of woodland where folk had given up on the back-breaking task of digging out the trees all those years ago. And I also appreciate that those woods are still self sustaining by clinging on to cracks and surviving on their own recycled leaf mould. A bit of help and you have an orchard.
Or for those with the stomach for logic.. there's 600,000 deaths per year UK and we use energy to burn them..
-
Government has no real interest in these matters because by the time they make an impact their term in office is up.
BULLSEYE! :rant:
-
Oh it gets worse than that PG. 200 years ago we made horses walk round in circles and harnessed the energy. Now we use energy to walk horses around in circles! :o
(http://www.stxequinefitness.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/T67_9291.jpg)
Some really interesting points have been made on all sides of this debate. Well done folks - TAS really is the internet at its finest :thumbsup: .
-
^^^ I agree.
It makes a very nice, refreshing change to see a healthy debate on an internet forum which does not rapidly descend into pointless point scoring and one-upmanship (like another forum I frequent).
I doubt us smallholders will make that much of a diffidence in the global scale of things, but from small acorns and all that!
Maybe one day we will save the world. :farmer:
-
Maybe one day we will save the world. :farmer:
Or maybe the world will save itself by kicking our species out.
-
I doubt us smallholders will make that much of a diffidence in the global scale of things, but from small acorns and all that!
Maybe one day we will save the world. :farmer:
I actually believe, that on a global scale, smallholders have the capacity to make a difference and do.
-
I doubt us smallholders will make that much of a diffidence in the global scale of things, but from small acorns and all that!
Maybe one day we will save the world. :farmer:
I actually believe, that on a global scale, smallholders have the capacity to make a difference and do.
Indubitably since much of the third world is such. I doubt many here would fancy the effort of a small scale rice paddy for it's financial rewards.. let alone scratching a dodgy living growing poppies in afghanistan or hand harvesting coffee berries in Nicaragua for subsistence. Which is full circle to my rant about 'who is going to pick our fruit'.The sadder aspects are the deforestation for new palm oil plantations with the burning involved.. but hard to blame folk just trying to survive so we get cheap soap.
-
What I don't get is the current trend to curtail the consumption of red meat. What the general public really need to understand is that red meat can be raised on grass-only, on land that is not suitable for growing crops, but chickens and pigs(*) can only be raised (in the quantity that they are currently demanded) by feeding them grain that is grown on land that could be used for growing food for people. Which is the most sustainable? And I would say that red meat animals have a better life - a longer life and they are more able to express their natural behaviour, in general.
[* excluding breeds like kune kune that will graze]
-
Very true. We've switched our pigs onto Allen and Page's Sow Cakes, which do not contain soya, for this very reason. There is still some wheat, barley and oats in it, along with beans, grass, linseed, molasses, but no soya - and all GM-free. And all our herbivores now get Dengie All Stock Grass Pellets - containing just grass (and not all rye grass, either.). Also GM-free.
And the chickens get the A&P Layers Pellets - also soya-free and GM-free.
I often ask local vegans to tell me how to put together a locally-sustainable vegan diet. I haven't had any offers to date.
-
I'm slightly confuse Sally, since Foobar was making apoint about raising animals just by grazing poor land (I'll ignore my previous land improvement argument). As a point of order there are soya varieties growable UK - Ustie being specially bred for that. I've also successfuly grown peanuts. Granted yields may be better in other parts of the world for those crops but if someone bothered to sit down and work out suitable vegan or vegetarian diets totally grown within the UK I'm sure it could be done.
What one needs to do it calculate relative yeilds when crops are grown in their 'natural habitat' compared to domestically and calculate the trade swaps on them allowing for equal wages and transport and environmental costs.There's a whole slew of stuff we could grow and don't - daft that we import wine when the Romans considered britain the best vine region (perhaps it was warmer then). There are varieties of Pecans that are frost hardy. Wales has the ideal climate for monkey puzzle nuts as a fod source. We don't eat sweet chestnut porridge any more, pears are undervalued and why the heck we import french apples i'll never know (or any apples for that matter with modern storage solutions). Almonds grow here, quinoa does ok , kale, watercress - all components vegans appreciate for their dietary needs and high in Calcium.
-
It all makes about as much sense as why our lobsters are caught here and then sent to the continent, while the lobster we actually eat here mostly come from Canada! What on earth is that all about?!
We import lamb, yet my neighbours lamb is nearly all sold to be exported, as is the lions share of the rest of it locally (or so I am told).
The economies of scale seem to drive the financial decisions taken by all the major players nowadays, yet without some form of legislation to control it, it will just continue. Consumers demand cheap produce, so the suppliers provide it.
We all know that what we produce on our holdings does not always make financial sense, but we do it anyway because we want to and it feels 'right' to rear your own meat/veggies/whatever. I am fortunate though, as I do not (thankfully) have to make a choice between feeding cheap chicken to my children, or watching them go without.