Counterproductive environmental measures

[Forhorse]

The hatched areas represent the agricultural areas intended for animal feed (83% of the total).

83% of the total of what is currently exploited ... but if you remove the part "meadow without cultural potential" and "unproductive steppes and savannah" you will not suddenly have 83% more cultivable area.
These "grazed lands" are mainly grazed because they are not good for anything else (even a forest would be very unproductive) stockbreeding is therefore a way of valuing these lands.
If Aveyron and its surroundings is best known for its Roquefort, it is because the land is only good for sheep breeding ... because if wheat, rice were growing there the renowned local specialty it wouldn't be cheese.

[sicetaitsimple]

The hatched areas represent the agricultural areas intended for animal feed (83% of the total).

83% of the total of what is currently exploited ... but if you remove the part "meadow without cultural potential" and "unproductive steppes and savannah" you will not suddenly have 83% more cultivable area.
These "grazed lands" are mainly grazed because they are not good for anything else (even a forest would be very unproductive) stockbreeding is therefore a way of valuing these lands.
If Aveyron and its surroundings is best known for its Roquefort, it is because the land is only good for sheep breeding ... because if wheat, rice were growing there the renowned local specialty it wouldn't be cheese.

Absolutely not, for example, we would have to delete the name and the herd of "Sisteron lamb" and convert all these magnificent lands into cereal fields! It's easy, we really wonder why the locals haven't thought of it before!

[Macro]

Yes but there guys ... You forget that raising the sheep to steal the milk from your little one to make cheese .... It is animal abuse to the point ... In addition to obliging them to go graze on arid lands while the grass is so much oily in Normandy ... what torture Lamb of Sisteron ... Great god ... You eat baby animals ... But let the lightning of the sky fall on you ... You eat baby animals

[Forhorse]

Hey yeah, what the hell our elders were ... they pissed off for millennia raising animals to eat them when they could have eaten grass directly. You still have to keep a layer!

[Paul72]

...
The only example of meat: the vast majority of European agricultural land feeds livestock, and we still have to import to feed it (a deficit for a continent which practices industrial agriculture and has a lot of agricultural land)
...

The damage to environmental propaganda by Greenpeace activists, where this story comes from. What naivety!

83% of the land is allocated for animal feeding. You can go back to your catafalque ...

Distribution of grazed land and cultivated land by type of land and by use. The hatched areas represent the agricultural areas intended for animal feed (83% of the total).
https://resiliencealimentaire.org/secur ... ue-manger/

And as I said before, it's not enough, we massively import soybeans, among other things. We have plenty to feed much more and much better by reducing the animal share (without removing it) for the benefit of plants.

[Exnihiloest]

Hey yeah, what the hell our elders were ... they pissed off for millennia raising animals to eat them when they could have eaten grass directly. You still have to keep a layer!

But now we have the new generation, born from the last rain, who comes to give ecological lessons, in other words to regurgitate the masses of Green Peace and other NGOs or militant blogs, or of France-Info, by adding salt of their lack of culture. They take our ancestors for fools, as if the more or less polluting solutions they have implemented in the past had not been for good reasons and certain advantages, such as not killing themselves at work or avoiding famines, or even having fun by eating meat, but this is a sin of flesh (the new religion has joined the old!).

The funniest thing is that whoever complains about soya imports (and while it is also a consequence of the increase in vegetarianism pronounced by the same environmental movement, it is necessary to compensate for the lack of animal proteins), inquire moreover to know how to destroy hièble elderberry. The control of nature, we want to prohibit others, but when it is for his small personal arrangements or those of his clan, then it becomes allowed. We see it in the challenges to the risk control of certain natural products such as nettle manure when it is required for chemicals, or in the exemptions for the use of chemicals in organic farming. "Do what I say, not what I do": (almost) all pies.

[Paul72]

Precisely, the new generations benefit from the experiences of their elders. The good ones ... and the bad ones.
These are not the morons criticized by some dinosaurs. Not all (there are also dinosaurs among the young people who continue to perpetrate traditional bullshit)

[realistic ecology]

We have plenty to feed much more and much better

You are partly right, we can feed 7 to 8 billion Earthlings: and by doing so you are paying a deserved tribute to the green revolution which, with fertilizers, pesticides and new varieties, made this abundance possible.
But you are only partly right. What do you do with the one to two billion people still suffering from undernutrition and / or malnutrition?

You are only partly right, because we must also think about the next move: there will soon be 2 to 3 billion more mouths to feed.
And that, it will have to be done with less cultivable soil, because it is inexorably nibbled by asphalt and concrete.



Source: Based on World Bank data

Land is increasingly lacking, we must produce more with less

You suggest eating less meat. It's a great solution ... for those who eat too much.
But it is the poor and emerging countries, where everyone still eats little meat, which are the biggest consumers of meat overall.



Do you want to go and preach to the Indians that they eat too much meat?

Red meat is not green

[GuyGadebois]

We have plenty to feed much more and much better

You are partly right, we can feed 7 to 8 billion Earthlings 

No, 12 billion, the rest we throw away. Long live the productivist model, speculation that starves and kills, globalization, the sharing of resources. I missed you and your nonsense.

The planet's resources can feed 12 billion people, but speculation and the control of multinationals over raw materials are creating a shortage. Consequence: every human being who dies of hunger is murdered, affirms Jean Ziegler, ex-UN special rapporteur for the right to food. He denounces this “massive destruction” by the financial markets. Human-made mechanisms that man can overturn. Interview.

http://www.informaction.info/cqfs-les-r ... s-dhumains

Indeed, each year, almost a third of all the food produced and intended for human consumption is either lost or wasted… while one food out of seven is thrown in the world, even before being sold. Food losses and food waste have all kinds of consequences for economies, food security and the environment. They mainly affect fruits and vegetables.

While 820 million people do not have enough to eat worldwide, 13,8% of food is thrown away before it even reaches the shops.

https://www.vaticannews.va/fr/monde/new ... ertes.html

[realistic ecology]

The planet's resources can feed 12 billion people, but speculation and the control of multinationals over raw materials are creating a shortage.

So farmers produce ... and what they produce disappears forever in a black hole created by the evil multinationals. It is a new confirmation of quantum mechanics.

The FAO, a hard worker, stuck in reality, flies lower than quantum mechanics:
“It is clear from this that a significant increase in production is necessary for the sector to meet the growing demand for food for humans or animals and for raw materials for industrial use. However, the available quantities of land and water are decreasing in many places of the world. "[...]
“[In East and South Asia] The agricultural sector is however facing to increasing constraints, linked both to the available areas and to water management than lack of manpower. The increase in agricultural production of nearly 20% over the next ten years will require intensification and efficiency gains. "(" OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2016-2025 "- OECD / FAO, 2016)

You denounce waste, you are right. But don't stop on the way, don't be shy, come up with your solutions. What are they ? Garbage inspection brigades to verify that there are no leftovers, refrigerator inspection brigades to verify that there is no expired deadline, intervention brigades in silos to check that there is no hidden vermin? Or what ?
I am curious about your solutions, I will forward them to the FAO and to the Vatican, which obviously are less ahead than you on the subject.