Livestock turns food we cannot eat into protein

I think that we should really take this American graphic on board.

They, unlike the UK, have lots of factory farms and their normal method of raising livestock is to finish them by fattening them on grain.

And isn’t it funny how everyone knows this but does not seem to recognise that eating grain is fattening – and humans are animals as well?

The best UK livestock is entirely grass fed, which is possible in our rainy country, where the cropped and trampled grass keeps carbon in, while the animal excreta keeps the ground fertilised. Cow farts may happen but they are as nothing compared to the human transport footprint and of course flying especially, where we now know that 70 per cent of flights are taken by the wealthiest 15 per cent in society. Over half of the UK population doesn’t fly at all, predominantly because they don’t have the economic means to.

I think we all have to hope that the vegetarian deceit that the world benefits from not eating meat is exposed as a myth.


  1. brian faux -

    This is nonsense.
    It implies that a huge amount of land can only sustain grass.
    Energy losses entailed in growing crops to feed animals and then humans are enormous.
    You could take the best 10% of the `46%` pasture, grow veg on it and get the same calorific value without having to suffer the losses of energy transformation via cattle.
    Leaves 36% for trees…..
    You can`t escape the laws of thermodynamics.

    1. Peter May -

      But we do need to eat meat! Not lots but some. You cannot bring up a family without it. Indeed it is illegal in Belgium and the German government issues regular health warnings against trying!
      Livestock also helps to keep soil fertilised.
      Rather than going anti-meat in my view farming should ensure it is not feeding livestock things humans could eat. And we have to recognise that not just trees (good luck with eating them) but trampled grass also fixes carbon too.

  2. brian faux -

    I`m not sure that there is any solid evidence for the necessity of meat in our diet (btw I`m not a vegetarian) although I agree that a fully vegan diet probably requires a lot of nutrition expertise which many people may not have.
    However, without any health disbenefits, meat intake could easily be slashed by a very large percentage – and in many cases would actually increase health anyway.
    Sounds a bit counter intuitive for farmers to grow things merely because humans can`t eat them – bit of a waste of land.
    Lots of good stuff from trees – fruit and nuts + timber for making bedframes (and a living for me)
    I don`t think it`s actually illegal to bring up your kids on a vegan diet in Belgium or Germany (or anywhere)- sounds like a Borisism. Yes if kids are found to be malnourished then veganism won`t count in your favour in court but this is a degree or two off illegality.

    1. Peter May -

      It sounds like a Borisism but according to the Belgian academic, Frédéric Leroy, this is really the case.
      And, also what are you growing between your fruit and nut trees!?

  3. Mike Ghirelli -

    Simple fact: a major source of methane entering the atmosphere from agriculture is rice. Methane used to be called marsh gas. It is generated in rice padi fields which are effectivelyman-made marshes. Rice is the staple crop for billions – in China, Japan, India, Indonesia and other parts of sough and east Asia. If we are to benefit the environment by abandoning meat-derived protein, should the half the world’s population dependent on rice likewise find an alternative food source? What would that be the alternative food source westerners are going to persuade Asians to eat? And how is this change in diet and agricultural economy going to be enforced – democratically? The vegan puritans insisting that meat consumption is the new sin are going to have to tell several billion people dependent on a rice diet that they too are living in sin.

    1. Peter May -

      That’s a very interesting point…

  4. brian faux -

    There are lots of `facts` around and their verity, let alone analyses are problematic to say the least.
    Which is why I prefer to begin with the simplest model – ie that indicated by pretty fundamental principles like conservation of energy and then work up from there.
    The food chain is more a food pyramid: carnivors are at the top and can only be supported by a larger population of herbivores, in turn supported by a larger population of food producers relying on sunlight. As Omnivors we can move up or down a bit on the pyramid-the further down we go, the more room there is.
    If all the people living mainly off rice were to convert to a more meat based diet then there would simply not be enough space in the world to accommodate sufficient meat animals.

  5. Johnson Matthey -

    The left:
    Cites a report which links back to this.

    Which indicates that the top 40% of the income distribution takes 61% of flights. About half of the population takes no flights at all.
    And decides to endorse a spurious claim from an organisation that doesn’t reveal its donors that: “. Over half of the UK population doesn’t fly at all, predominantly because they don’t have the economic means to.”

    If you can do the arithmetic we can work out that the half that isn’t taking flights includes rather a lot of people that can afford to. There is some other reason they are not.

    Doesn’t make much of a difference to the specific argument but for the love of Allah, please show some consideration to the real issues that affect the poorest – criminalisation of drugs and alternative lifestyles, exhorbitant and regressive Council Tax, lack of opportunity and lack of local authority powers. Insufficient ability to take an air plane journey is the least of their worries.

Comments are closed.