Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Ethical food consumption

245

Replies

  • daneejeladaneejela Posts: 455Member Member Posts: 455Member Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    I actually think of it as a little broader.
    ..

    It's really complicated, in some cases, because real-world actions all have side effects, so many things are profoundly interconnected these days, and one gets into trying to assess comparative harm. Since much of the readily-available information is going to come from advocacy organizations on one side or another, it can be difficult for a non-expert to sort out what really is more ethical, or at least less unethical: Eating plant-based foods that require clearing forest land, and transport from far-away places, maybe exploited labor; or meat that's produced locally and with transported inputs? Efficent factory-style operations that help more humans, and economically less advantaged humans, to get better nutrition? Lots of dimensions.

    Like I said, I think nice people do what they can, and do the best they can with it. It's hard to discuss, without getting into quasi-religious arguments about it, IMO.

    This is one of the reasons why I have wanted this thread not to become another vegan vs not vegan debate, but to start a discussion and investigate what we all can do to make things, not perfect, but a bit better.

    Many people have disagreed with my opening post, which I find surprising since it's really not about doing this or that, but to try to see what each of us, in its own ethical principles, can make to live a bit more compassionate life.

    I agree that reality is never simple. I gave a wool example of how a good intention can lead to a very doubtable result. That's why I would be happy to share what I do know and to learn what I don't know about food production.
  • daneejeladaneejela Posts: 455Member Member Posts: 455Member Member
    I guess my question would be "Is something morally appropriate just because it's natural?"

    I think we (speaking generally) tend to elide a lot of useful moral conversations by accepting a behavior just because it is "natural" (or dismissing one just because it is "unnatural"). Sometimes it turns into a way of saying "We're okay to do this because it's the way we've always done it."

    Fair question...I would say no - just because it's natural or just because it's the way we've always done it doesn't prove anything, but that it's able to survive the test of time.

    But, I think it's fair also to question and reason things we do for the first time...I think that you'd agree that only because something is new or high tech doesn't mean that it's good or morally appropriate per se?

    Also, please note, that I don't think we should ditch technology and go live paleo life. I devoted my professional life to technology and I do believe that it has its place and usage, but it's only a tool.
    A tool that can be used for example to lower costs and secure animals living some decent semi-free life or a tool to put 10 chicken into a square meter, isolated from the land, sun or outside air.

    What is ethical food consumption for you personally? Do you see anything we can do to be more ethical in your own ethical principles?
    edited January 9
  • lilann1961lilann1961 Posts: 91Member Member Posts: 91Member Member
    This is probably my most favorite debate topic thus far and I like to think my ramble supports the middle group. Those who acknowledge the need for change and do their part. My family and I try to lessen our impact on the environment through our shopping, eating and living habits. I like to think that one family does make a small difference, but it will take a global effort to turn things around. I am not vegan or vegetarian and I see the arguments daily on the fine line between what one person feels is ethical vs another. I respect their decisions and their views behind them, but I don't believe that is the only way, as each decision has an impact. For every meat animal that is spared or not born, there are bees pollinating the plants that replace that protein, etc and we are all aware of the honeybee decline (this is just one example). We need to learn on a global scale to work with nature, rather than against it (think herbicides, pesticides, biodiversity, protecting ecosystems, etc).

    In my mind, these are examples of my "ethical" choices:
    I go meatless once a week. I have researched the environmental (land) impact of raising meat animals, as well as the factory farms. KNOW YOUR FARMER. Support them. It is a hard, demanding job/life. I respect all they sacrifice.
    I reuse, recycle and terracycle everything possible.
    I grow a garden and compost. My yard has untouched, native areas that bring in wildlife. Biodiversity in your own little ecosystem WILL maintain a healthier, more robust output. I don't use herbicides or pesticides and maintain a chemical free property (my neighbors do not, and I do worry of the carryover).
    I belong to an organic CSA (community supported agriculture) - this is a local farm that has pickup sites across the city. I buy a share for the growing season and, in turn, get weekly boxes of the bounty.
    I know my farmers. I know where most of my meat comes from, where and how the animals are raised, when my CSA veggies and fruits were picked (and who grew and picked them). I believe even though it is a short life, it deserves respect and a full life before it is processed.
    I keep my own hens (four total) for eggs. No roos (even if I did, no incubator here...silkies make the best mamas) They free range in my yard (supervised - predators need to eat too), fertilize my compost, eat my scraps and keep the bugs down. If I had more space (and was not in suburbia), I would have other livestock, including bees.
    Supporting local for supplies (soap, toiletries) and food to cut down on transport/shipping and support my community.

    Just think, if everyone did something on a "small" scale, it would limit the need for the big scale operations and hopefully drive change on how they are managed.
    edited January 9
  • jm_1234jm_1234 Posts: 141Member Member Posts: 141Member Member
    My own personal views...

    What does ethical eating mean for you? It just means trying to do better, and for each person at a given moment in time it looks different based on their knowledge and lot in life. I've realized that no matter what I do I cause harm so I just try to minimize it where I can. My views are shaped by moral theology and the concepts of material and formal cooperation.

    Regarding eating meat, the only situation I've come up with that has the least amount of harm, maybe no harm, is if I eat an animal that dies of natural means - old age, accident, etc. I'm still considering the harm regarding natural (predator introduction) vs unnatural (hunting) population control so until then I refrain from eating game.

    Do you do any daily efforts in order to achieve it? I try to learn more and am becoming vegan. I'm still working on finishing some dairy products at home.

    Do you have any tips or suggestions on how to be better at it? Continue learning, especially information that is counter to your current belief. Don't be content with what you know. Kaizen.
  • AnnPT77AnnPT77 Posts: 13,696Member Member Posts: 13,696Member Member
    liftingbro wrote: »
    daneejela wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »

    Are you aware of the land requirements for successful farming/cattle pasturing? Just because land is "abandoned" doesn't mean it can be effectively used for those activities.

    Yes, I grew up in the countryside, on a small, family farm. We had sheep, pigs, chickens, geese, etc. so I do know something about it, although not everything for every kind of animal.

    What I do know, however, is that last 20 years (in my country, probably more in the more developed countries) there has been a huge trend toward industrial farming even in small or family businesses. Even between people who just grow animals for their own needs. It's quite irrational since they do have land, they do have customers willing to buy and pay a bigger price for it, they have lower initial costs regarding equipment, and yet many of them choose to go high tech and usually fail in few years because of too big initial costs and credits they cannot pay off.

    To give you a small example - nowadays nobody has a hen with eggs/chickens, almost every household has an incubator for laying chickens.

    Well, I like to support those who make an additional effort to go beyond something that is a current, IMO very cruel, trend.

    EDIT:
    Regarding pastures - I just feel the need to share an image where my ancestors were raising sheep and planted olive trees (it's a very rocky terrain, in live, it looks almost like a surface of the moon):
    m5rry7gs1cy9.png

    Those sheep actually play a big role in keeping vegetation alive on these islands.
    My point is - not all land is good for everything, but through history, we adapted to survive and thrive even on the poorest land.

    Sheep and goats can be raised on just about any land because they are smaller and require less food. You can't have cattle on that sort of terrain, they would go lame from the rocks and wouldn't have enough grass.

    Sheep and goats are not going to support the meat/milk needs of the world on their own.

    I love goats milk and mutton. I grew up on a farm too.

    I'm not disagreeing with you here, I'm just adding my take on the overall discussion, somewhat in context of your comments. Please don't take it as criticism, because it isn't. Given some of what you said, I think we agree to a decent extent, so maybe take this as an amplification on your next to last paragraph.

    I think it matters what scope of view one puts on these things.

    Yes, it's possible to raise meat on land that's less useful for other purposes, and choices about which forms of meat to raise will influence which land can be used. Typically (generalization!), if more marginal land is used, it's going to take larger amounts of marginal land (vs. rich land) to get a similar magnitude of output. Backing up to a global view, does that scale?

    We have an issue now, of a huge global population, some of whom are still severely undernourished/hungry, sometimes even starving. (A good bit of this has political rather than environmental causes, but that's a whole other discussion. Still, it's relevant.)

    So far, we (the population of the world at large) are mostly unwilling to take the kinds of actions that would greatly rein in population growth, let alone reduce population (which latter would have serious economic side effects of its own, I suspect). We don't even do the more minimal things very well, that would help people who want to limit birth rates, do so effectively (like make safe and easy birth control ubiquitously and cheaply available.) So, lots of people.

    Lots of people need lots of food. In this context, strategies like industrial production and technology (GMOs, chemical adjuncts, etc.) are increasingly used, and possibly actually needed, for currently required scale.

    It's possible for us, as mostly kind of rich (in global terms) mostly first-worlders, to make choices to (say) eat less meat, or eat more goats/sheep that can live on marginal land? Sure. Might that be more ethical? Maybe.

    But does that scale? Can we feed everyone? And what about adjunct implications: Monitoring, protecting, then rounding up a bunch of steers in a smaller, richer-land pasture/feedlot situation (or milking cows in a huge automated milking facility) is somewhat efficient, and we can use relatively efficient transportation methods to move them to slaughterhouses, and meat to cities.

    How does that compare, in terms of environmental impact, to potentially-larger distances involved in managing and transporting the sheep/goats that are raised more spread out, on more marginal land? What, if anything, are the impacts on things like water quality, if larger areas of wild land are disturbed by sheep/goat production?

    Further, let's assume we want to keep other aspects of our first-world-ish lives going. We want the quite affordable clothing, and our tech devices, and air-conditioning/central heating, and so forth. What do the people who make those things possible eat? Where does it come from? What are their working conditions? Can they afford to pay a premium for kindly-raised meat?

    I'd say the same kinds of things about "have a home garden for veggies". I agree that that's a good thing to do. But small-holding and (semi-)subsistence farming also don't scale, if we want our modern conveniences, and maybe even want less-well-off populations get more modern conveniences, too. There isn't enough land for everyone to have a big yard, let alone acreage, that's in places with the right weather, and that just economically works, as a system. We need dense cities and high rise apartments, to a certain extent (and concentrating populations reduces certain environmental impacts, like those of transportation, though it does increase others.)

    I'm probably overthinking it - I usually am - but this stuff just seems really frickin' complicated, to me, as a question of applied ethics.

    I don't feel like we can ethically force other people all over the world to stop having offspring.

    I don't feel like we can ethically do anything other than our best to help see that those people have adequate nutirition (and other basics of tolerable life).

    I don't want to give up my cushy, rich and happy life any more than most other first-worlders do.

    I'm skeptical about theoretically ethical solutions for me and my immediate situation, that don't seem to scale. Frankly, it feels a little boutique-y, to me. Not that I'm saying all of them are not worth doing, for individuals who can afford them, not at all.

    I try to do what I can, but IMO this stuff is complicated, and IMO there's no individual way for each of us to remediate all of our global impacts. I just try to do the best I can, with my simplistic brain, my selfish desires, my daily habits.

    If it's practical to grow a garden, stop eating meat, hunt that deer, keep chickens, milk your own cow, that's great. It isn't practical for everyone, and it mostly doesn't scale. (That's how I got to the idea in my previous post: Do the things that are easy for me, at least for starters, to mitigate my global harm. And use some of my modest discretionary income to support efforts to fix some of the global problems at scale.)

    TL;DR: Best attempts at ethics on the individual scale might not automatically yield ethical outcomes on the global scale. It's complicated.
  • daneejeladaneejela Posts: 455Member Member Posts: 455Member Member
    @AnnPT77

    I love when people are not oversimplifying things and instead think in-depth...but at the same time, I feel like there is a risk of ending in a foggy relativism where everything is the same. It's not.

    I don't think we know and can fix all the word's problems. But, we can do certain things. Small changes like this one:

    I also believe in using the whole animal - I’ll buy various cuts or offal and use that in recipes..

    @liftingbro
    It can be that the environmental movements have a political agenda, but that does not change the fact that some animals are raised with more compassion and some are raised with much less. In my little village, I've witnessed both. And the reason why one farm chose one approach over another was usually just in motivation and "trend".
  • VictoriaTuelVictoriaTuel Posts: 1,582Member Member Posts: 1,582Member Member
    I think this is a great topic to be thinking about, and more people should definitely examine the ethics of their consumption. Personally, I'm vegan because I have the ability to cook my meals myself, and I live in the Midwest of the US with plenty of fresh produce (yet people in my small town can be almost aggressively anit-vegan, which is weird to me - we have so many awesome local farms!).

    I also think there needs to be more of an onus on companies to provide CLEARLY LABELLED ethical, environmentally responsible options. Whether that's through regulatory bodies or (some people will hate this) government policies, corporations need to be rewarded for being ethical and punished (financially) when they're not. Things like using reusable/recyclable/recycled packaging, treating workers with respect, and having clear sourcing pathways, should be subsidized as opposed to factory farming. One of the greatest tricks corporations ever played on us was making consumers responsible for recycling/throwing away their products and packaging when they're the ones creating it in the first place.

    On an individual level, I think "ethical" consumption is different for everyone because we all have different moral frameworks. Personally, I don't think it's moral to knowingly cause unnecessary harm, so being vegan is a natural extension of that for me. I also eat food from local farms when possible, because I think it's moral to leave a planet/ecosystems available for future use, and transit miles are also an issue (RIP my beloved mangos).

    I'm all for reductionism/reducetarians (someone needs to make a better weird for this :lol:), where people reduce their meat and animal product consumption as much as possible and sustainable in their lives. A lot of people doing something is going to have more of an impact than a few people doing everything. I took a train home for the holidays because it's more environmentally friendly; however, I also flew intensionally because I have family across the world. No one's going to be perfect, but we can all do some research and do our best!
  • CSARdiverCSARdiver Posts: 6,279Member Member Posts: 6,279Member Member
    There's an element here that only the first world could discuss. A self imposed problem of affluence and abundance.

    It's of critical importance that one practice what they preach, so I applaud your effort. Firstly, it imparts experience and trust, but more importantly it forces one to embrace the ramifications of their decisions. I'm not very interested in marriage advice from a divorced counselor - I'm very interested in speaking with a couple celebrating their 25th anniversary.

    I'm fascinated with the concept of homesteading and recently moved back to a rural community so that my kids can experience a connected life. We have a stocked pond and more animals/crops will be phasing in as we move along.

    The world is incredibly complex - far more complex than a human mind can comprehend. To assume that we have any solution other than fixing our own mess is absurd to the point I have to question mental stability. It reeks of signaling rather than pursuing virtue.

    Humans tend to have fewer children when their standards of living raise. The world has dramatically improved at an unprecedented rate over the past 50 years. The starvation rate has decreased by 80%, the extreme poverty rate has decreased from 55% to <10% during this time. There's plenty of food to provide the world's population, even the logistics has been resolved.

    There are ~ 7 billion people spinning around this rock - there are ~15.77 billion acres of habitable land.

    By this same point there's an inherent technical growth curve nations tend to go through in their natural evolution. One from subsistence to consumption to conservation and reduction. So if your goal is truly to provide a positive impact, then the most positive gain is getting the third world through their consumption phase as fast as possible.



  • liftingbroliftingbro Posts: 2,035Member Member Posts: 2,035Member Member

    I also think there needs to be more of an onus on companies to provide CLEARLY LABELLED ethical, environmentally responsible options. Whether that's through regulatory bodies or (some people will hate this) government policies, corporations need to be rewarded for being ethical and punished (financially) when they're not. Things like using reusable/recyclable/recycled packaging, treating workers with respect, and having clear sourcing pathways, should be subsidized as opposed to factory farming. One of the greatest tricks corporations ever played on us was making consumers responsible for recycling/throwing away their products and packaging when they're the ones creating it in the first place.
    I really, really, hate it when people push the answer is more regulation and government. You are basically using the government to enforce what you feel is morally correct. And blaming companies for packaging...good one. It wouldn't be possible to deliver the amount of food to market as we did now without packaging and over the years more an more companies are using recyclable materials for packaging.

    On an individual level, I think "ethical" consumption is different for everyone because we all have different moral frameworks. Personally, I don't think it's moral to knowingly cause unnecessary harm, so being vegan is a natural extension of that for me. I also eat food from local farms when possible, because I think it's moral to leave a planet/ecosystems available for future use, and transit miles are also an issue (RIP my beloved mangos).

    I'm all for reductionism/reducetarians (someone needs to make a better weird for this :lol:), where people reduce their meat and animal product consumption as much as possible and sustainable in their lives. A lot of people doing something is going to have more of an impact than a few people doing everything. I took a train home for the holidays because it's more environmentally friendly; however, I also flew intensionally because I have family across the world. No one's going to be perfect, but we can all do some research and do our best!
    I'm certainly all for reducing waste and for fair treatment of animals as well but obviously there are different scales among people for both of those. I too hate the wasteful nature of consumerism and do what I can to not waste anything or pollute. I do hunt and fish, as it's the most healthy and environmentally safe method of obtaining meat and I do enjoy the sport aspects as well. However, I don't ever kill anything and not eat it. I know how tan hides and older methods of making clothes.

    I think if my family would be on board with it I would give homesteading a go and have my own livestock and garden to live off of out away from other people.
  • VictoriaTuelVictoriaTuel Posts: 1,582Member Member Posts: 1,582Member Member
    liftingbro wrote: »

    I also think there needs to be more of an onus on companies to provide CLEARLY LABELLED ethical, environmentally responsible options. Whether that's through regulatory bodies or (some people will hate this) government policies, corporations need to be rewarded for being ethical and punished (financially) when they're not. Things like using reusable/recyclable/recycled packaging, treating workers with respect, and having clear sourcing pathways, should be subsidized as opposed to factory farming. One of the greatest tricks corporations ever played on us was making consumers responsible for recycling/throwing away their products and packaging when they're the ones creating it in the first place.
    I really, really, hate it when people push the answer is more regulation and government. You are basically using the government to enforce what you feel is morally correct. And blaming companies for packaging...good one. It wouldn't be possible to deliver the amount of food to market as we did now without packaging and over the years more an more companies are using recyclable materials for packaging.
    Haha I knew someone wouldn't like that comment :lol: Of course some packaging is necessary in our food supply chain, I'm in no way suggesting everything needs to be zero waste or such. I don't think this is all simply morals either. People deserve to know what they're purchasing and where it came from, and many labels and packaging nowadays is deliberately (and accidentally) confusing on that front. It's awesome that companies are using more recyclable materials and I've started to see labels on things saying "recycle paper box, throw away inner liner," which is great! I just think we need to work towards making the most sustainable options the easiest to find and follow instead of the other way around. Having a required, intuitive, codified marking system for all allowed packaging products with a publicity campaign would make it a lot easier for people who work multiple jobs and don't have the time to research if this random bottle with what they think is a 3 on the bottom is recyclable in the town they just moved to. I'm sure people who work in these industries and have more experience than me would have even better ideas for policies! That would also help with OP's original concern of doing the best we can. Why don't we facilitate everyone doing better for their health, the environment, whatever's important to them than they are now instead of making it harder?
    I'm certainly all for reducing waste and for fair treatment of animals as well but obviously there are different scales among people for both of those. I too hate the wasteful nature of consumerism and do what I can to not waste anything or pollute. I do hunt and fish, as it's the most healthy and environmentally safe method of obtaining meat and I do enjoy the sport aspects as well. However, I don't ever kill anything and not eat it. I know how tan hides and older methods of making clothes.

    I think if my family would be on board with it I would give homesteading a go and have my own livestock and garden to live off of out away from other people.
    I think we agree here? If what you're doing fits into your moral framework, I'm not going to stop you from doing you. Everyone's priorities are also different, and there's only so many hours in a day. You seem to be doing the things you can and have worked to develop knowledge and skills to more fully utilitize what you have and that's exactly what most people on this thread are advocating!
  • lynn_glenmontlynn_glenmont Posts: 7,550Member Member Posts: 7,550Member Member
    liftingbro wrote: »
    daneejela wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »

    Are you aware of the land requirements for successful farming/cattle pasturing? Just because land is "abandoned" doesn't mean it can be effectively used for those activities.

    Yes, I grew up in the countryside, on a small, family farm. We had sheep, pigs, chickens, geese, etc. so I do know something about it, although not everything for every kind of animal.

    What I do know, however, is that last 20 years (in my country, probably more in the more developed countries) there has been a huge trend toward industrial farming even in small or family businesses. Even between people who just grow animals for their own needs. It's quite irrational since they do have land, they do have customers willing to buy and pay a bigger price for it, they have lower initial costs regarding equipment, and yet many of them choose to go high tech and usually fail in few years because of too big initial costs and credits they cannot pay off.

    To give you a small example - nowadays nobody has a hen with eggs/chickens, almost every household has an incubator for laying chickens.

    Well, I like to support those who make an additional effort to go beyond something that is a current, IMO very cruel, trend.

    EDIT:
    Regarding pastures - I just feel the need to share an image where my ancestors were raising sheep and planted olive trees (it's a very rocky terrain, in live, it looks almost like a surface of the moon):
    m5rry7gs1cy9.png

    Those sheep actually play a big role in keeping vegetation alive on these islands.
    My point is - not all land is good for everything, but through history, we adapted to survive and thrive even on the poorest land.

    Sheep and goats can be raised on just about any land because they are smaller and require less food. You can't have cattle on that sort of terrain, they would go lame from the rocks and wouldn't have enough grass.

    Sheep and goats are not going to support the meat/milk needs of the world on their own.

    I love goats milk and mutton. I grew up on a farm too.

    Sheep and goats are more efficient converters of plants into animal protein than cattle, so your assertion is illogical.
  • mbaker566mbaker566 Posts: 10,655Member Member Posts: 10,655Member Member
    liftingbro wrote: »
    daneejela wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »

    Are you aware of the land requirements for successful farming/cattle pasturing? Just because land is "abandoned" doesn't mean it can be effectively used for those activities.

    Yes, I grew up in the countryside, on a small, family farm. We had sheep, pigs, chickens, geese, etc. so I do know something about it, although not everything for every kind of animal.

    What I do know, however, is that last 20 years (in my country, probably more in the more developed countries) there has been a huge trend toward industrial farming even in small or family businesses. Even between people who just grow animals for their own needs. It's quite irrational since they do have land, they do have customers willing to buy and pay a bigger price for it, they have lower initial costs regarding equipment, and yet many of them choose to go high tech and usually fail in few years because of too big initial costs and credits they cannot pay off.

    To give you a small example - nowadays nobody has a hen with eggs/chickens, almost every household has an incubator for laying chickens.

    Well, I like to support those who make an additional effort to go beyond something that is a current, IMO very cruel, trend.

    EDIT:
    Regarding pastures - I just feel the need to share an image where my ancestors were raising sheep and planted olive trees (it's a very rocky terrain, in live, it looks almost like a surface of the moon):
    m5rry7gs1cy9.png

    Those sheep actually play a big role in keeping vegetation alive on these islands.
    My point is - not all land is good for everything, but through history, we adapted to survive and thrive even on the poorest land.

    Sheep and goats can be raised on just about any land because they are smaller and require less food. You can't have cattle on that sort of terrain, they would go lame from the rocks and wouldn't have enough grass.

    Sheep and goats are not going to support the meat/milk needs of the world on their own.

    I love goats milk and mutton. I grew up on a farm too.

    Sheep and goats are more efficient converters of plants into animal protein than cattle, so your assertion is illogical.

    and sheep and goats have been used for their milk for 1000s of years.
  • liftingbroliftingbro Posts: 2,035Member Member Posts: 2,035Member Member
    liftingbro wrote: »
    daneejela wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »

    Are you aware of the land requirements for successful farming/cattle pasturing? Just because land is "abandoned" doesn't mean it can be effectively used for those activities.

    Yes, I grew up in the countryside, on a small, family farm. We had sheep, pigs, chickens, geese, etc. so I do know something about it, although not everything for every kind of animal.

    What I do know, however, is that last 20 years (in my country, probably more in the more developed countries) there has been a huge trend toward industrial farming even in small or family businesses. Even between people who just grow animals for their own needs. It's quite irrational since they do have land, they do have customers willing to buy and pay a bigger price for it, they have lower initial costs regarding equipment, and yet many of them choose to go high tech and usually fail in few years because of too big initial costs and credits they cannot pay off.

    To give you a small example - nowadays nobody has a hen with eggs/chickens, almost every household has an incubator for laying chickens.

    Well, I like to support those who make an additional effort to go beyond something that is a current, IMO very cruel, trend.

    EDIT:
    Regarding pastures - I just feel the need to share an image where my ancestors were raising sheep and planted olive trees (it's a very rocky terrain, in live, it looks almost like a surface of the moon):
    m5rry7gs1cy9.png

    Those sheep actually play a big role in keeping vegetation alive on these islands.
    My point is - not all land is good for everything, but through history, we adapted to survive and thrive even on the poorest land.

    Sheep and goats can be raised on just about any land because they are smaller and require less food. You can't have cattle on that sort of terrain, they would go lame from the rocks and wouldn't have enough grass.

    Sheep and goats are not going to support the meat/milk needs of the world on their own.

    I love goats milk and mutton. I grew up on a farm too.

    Sheep and goats are more efficient converters of plants into animal protein than cattle, so your assertion is illogical.

    If that were the case the industrial farms would use more goats and sheep. It would be much more profit for them if it really worked that way. industrial farms are all about profit so I think it's pretty illogical to think that goats an sheep could produce the same as cattle.
  • amtyrellamtyrell Posts: 1,328Member Member Posts: 1,328Member Member
    I think different people have different ethical priorities. If you live within your own set of ethics that is a good thing. Often different ethical priorities conflict with one another.
    Minimal package vs accessible foods
    Local vs organic
    Vegitable based vs local in winter
    Meat vs processed vegan proteins
Sign In or Register to comment.