Reducing our meat consumption, what consequences for French agriculture?

[sicetaitsimple]

Subject resulting from a discussion start on the thread "vegetable garden of the lazy", but which was not really in its place because it speaks above all about the vegetable garden.

I copy the remark of Did67 and my contribution:

by sicetaitsimple »08/02/21, 19:34 PM

Did67 wrote:
In any case, when someone "seeks" me on the fact that I give "good hay" (well, mine is not, but I reason globally) to my vegetable garden, I answer one of the following two things:

- I find it more honorable to produce good vegetables with hay than to feed a horse that I will annoy him with scoliosis on weekends (700 recreational horses in France !!!!)

- and indeed, as you say, we have to rethink our overall system: we will be better off if we consume half the meat, which means a lot of hay saved! With which we can produce good vegetables.


It's a very interesting subject (consequences of meat consumption on the rest of agriculture), maybe it deserves a dedicated thread, unless it already exists?
Let's forget about "leisure" horses, it's very specific.
Apart from that, in France, those who eat hay are the cattle, and in a very minor way the sheep. Pork and poultry eat something else.
So reduce the consumption of beef? This is possible, of course, but it implies a decrease in milk production.
However, if we reduce the consumption of meat overall, it will be necessary to increase the consumption of dairy products (and of cereals, legumes, eggs and therefore of chickens, ...). And the size of the cattle herd is first of all linked to the desired milk production!

In short, it's interesting and complex. Of course, we can all go vegan! So there are the consequences on French agriculture ....

To your good heart for your reactions!

[plasmanu]

It pains me to post this when I have a deer in the freezer and wild boars roaming around the house.

"The surprising reason why eating meat is bad for your health"
https://www.futura-sciences.com/sante/a ... nte-85599/
"A diet too rich in sulfur amino acids prevents the body from producing hydrogen sulfide, a toxic gas in large quantities but beneficial when it is produced in physiological doses by the cells.

Numerous studies have shown that excessive consumption of meat has harmful consequences for health. Red meat has even been classified as possibly carcinogenic to humans by the WHO, and people who eat a lot of red meat have a higher risk of death. In particular, saturated fats, iron or even polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and aromatic amines were questioned. But, according to various studies, it is another ingredient which would be at the origin of the deleterious effects of meat: hydrogen sulfide (H2S).

H2S: a toxic gas, but essential for the human body ..."

In any case, I'm happy to have 3 horses in front of my house, it's a manure tank. Do not forget that the hay is partially digested, we can make a mulch

[Janic]

Did67 wrote:

(...) I answer one of the following two things:
- I find it more honorable to produce good vegetables with hay than to feed a horse that I will annoy him with scoliosis on weekends (700 recreational horses in France !!!!)

and what then of the other animals that will not have scoliosis, but will be slaughtered to meet human killing needs?

and indeed, as you say, we have to rethink our system globally:

fully agree!

we will be better off if we consume half the meat,

and even better without, since these products are anti-physiological for humans!

However, if we reduce the consumption of meat overall, it will be necessary to increase the consumption of dairy products (and of cereals, legumes, eggs and therefore of chickens, ...). And the size of the cattle herd is first of all linked to the desired milk production!

We find in your reflection a usual assumption based on the famous indispensable proteins "invented" by the suppliers of bidoche and which served to justify their massacres.
Hence this compensatory behavior, of those who reduce their consumption of corpses, with leguminous forces (soya type) and forces by dairy products:

It is Falling from Charybdis to Scylla:
In trying to avoid one evil, it is to fall into an even greater one. Synonym: going from bad to worse.

However, it seems that no one, among (official) dieticians, has ever really looked into the physiology / anatomy, which determines the food family of each living being and that everyone can check on himself, his children, his pets. or wild: weird!
This would allow to verify on part and through lived experience that the non-consumption of meat does not require any particular compensation and especially not to increase anything, but on the contrary to reduce these intakes of over-protein foods without real need: dairy products, legumes, eggs of all kinds.

In short, it's interesting and complex. Of course, we can all go vegan! So there are the consequences on French agriculture ....

It is complex like any change of mentality and customs, which is why it takes time and reflection.
But we must not confuse vegetarianism, veganism and vegan, three general families with very different reasons and behaviors. As for agriculture, soil fertility is less dependent on external contributions (except when the flora and fauna of the poorly managed soil are rebalanced, and when these are sufficient to promote non-intensive production for the needs of human consumption.

[Rajqawee]

I suggest to you, not to pollute the thread of the subject with the interest or not, for humans, to eat animal products or not.

It is a rarely healthy debate, so much the positions of the ones and others are polarized.

I'm telling you (for having been meat, then vegetarian, then vegan, then re-vegetarian, all in 10 years), you can find serious sources that will support all positions, in terms of food (from veganism to carnivorism ). It doesn't help us much! Having said that, the question of "but we will have to replace it with something else" is often the question that is asked.
We eat about 3 times more meat than 100 years ago.

Today, we could reduce meat consumption by at least 2, without any negative impact on human health (we speak for normal people, without specific diet or other), without having to supplement with other animal products. Yes, that we are sure, since we really eat too much.

A French person eats on average 85kg of meat per year: https://www.franceagrimer.fr/fam/conten ... ?version=1

If we consider that a portion of meat is 100 to 120g, it is two portions of meat per day. Everyday. If we divided it by two, we would therefore obtain one in two meals with meat, which is still meat every day!

If we start with this idea, to discuss (divide consumption by two):

Remember if ever, all animal farms:
- occupy cultivable areas, even sheep from mountainous regions, in winter
-some occupy both surfaces (just to live what) and consume biomass that comes from another surface (hay, but not only. Corn, wheat, soybeans etc)

The deforestation that has taken place in recent years is largely due to the growing demand for meat.

https://www.viande.info/elevage-viande-gaz-effet-serre

https://www.viande.info/elevage-viande- ... -pollution

We would therefore recover, roughly, half of the land used today to produce (directly or indirectly) meat. That is to say about 20% of arable surface, in France (https://www.viande.info/elevage-viande- ... imentation)
As it is not energy efficient, on arable land, to produce meat (we recover more protein or calories per m² by cultivating directly above cereals or legumes, and this of factors ranging roughly from 3 to 7) , we could therefore transform 1/3 of these areas into plant production (which therefore produce a little more protein or calories than what we lose), and keep the other two thirds to do what we want.

[eclectron]

In short, it's interesting and complex. Of course, we can all go vegan! So there are the consequences on French agriculture ....

To your good heart for your reactions!

Complex as long as one seeks to favor / maintain financial profitability and that this criterion is considered to be an intangible, see the only social project that is worthwhile.

When we see things without an ideology to reconcile, it is already much less complex.

Rajawee has said it all, no concern to reduce the share of livestock on land, quite the contrary, no concern for health to reduce the consumption of animal proteins, quite the contrary.
The only concern is for the economic sectors in place.

Wouldn't there be a little kinship with Exni?

[sicetaitsimple]

I suggest to you, not to pollute the thread of the subject with the interest or not, for humans, to eat animal products or not.
It is a rarely healthy debate, so much the positions of the ones and others are polarized.

Completely agree! It was not the idea of ​​this thread to discuss the comparative virtues of different types of food for health, but to reflect on what French agriculture would look like if consumption was overall reduced, let's say 50% to have a common reference.

Now, nothing prevents those interested in opening a thread dedicated to comparative nutritional aspects (which may already exist?).

[Rajqawee]

We can go a little further:

-There is the purely economic sector, "the big bucks" behind it. Well, sure, they're not going to gain as much from selling chickpeas as they are from kg of beef. I don't have such a simple solution.
-There is the social sector, namely "yeah you're nice coco, but what do we do with breeders?"

For this last point, I would say that the reconversion of breeders is perhaps not that difficult to carry out. After all, I think it is easier to make them move towards other agricultural productions (milk, eggs, cheese, for the most obvious, even vegetable) since it is a known and controlled environment for the most part. 'between them.
The other downstream sectors are numerous and potentially just as rewarding!

[Janic]

Rajqawee »09/02/21, 10:51

I suggest to you, not to pollute the thread of the subject with the interest or not, for humans, to eat animal products or not.

it is however fundamental, as shown by the episode of the mad cow, due to human madness precisely for the sole purpose of increasing the muscle mass of animals and reducing the time devoted to breeding, thus dispensing with higher plant production.

I'm telling you (for having been meat, then vegetarian, then vegan, then re-vegetarian, all in 10 years),

A sign that you were looking for your way, which is normal, or that you are unstable by browsing to the right and to the left without exploring each option experimentally in depth !? However, one or the other can only be validated experimentally and over several generations to make comparisons between each.

you can find serious sources that will support all positions, when it comes to food (from veganism to carnivorism).

Sorry but what you call serious when it comes to ideologies and not practices, it is just not serious!
Finally, it is a very modern mania to want to separate, mode of culture and mode of food; food fashion and health; health and agricultural mode as if each part were independent of the others.
For the rest, it is obvious that reducing overconsumption is a matter of simple logic.

For this last point, I would say that the reconversion of breeders is perhaps not that difficult to carry out.

quite the contrary! this does not only involve breeders, but all the upstream and downstream sectors, which represents a significant amount of jobs and social situations. We see it with the anti-meat demonstrations, which has led more and more breeders and butchers to change their minds and then advocate quality meat (implying that before it was precisely not the case) and thereby increasing the selling price. All this in a sort of vicious circle since all the links in the chain are linked.

[Macro]

We can go a little further:


-There is the social sector, namely "yeah you're nice coco, but what do we do with breeders?"

For this last point, I would say that the reconversion of breeders is perhaps not that difficult to carry out. After all, I think it is easier to make them move towards other agricultural productions (milk, eggs, cheese, for the most obvious, even vegetable) since it is a known and controlled environment for the most part. 'between them.
The other downstream sectors are numerous and potentially just as rewarding!

The milk, the cheese .... Where do you get them from? teats of the farmer ???? You will not often go through the raclette box

[Rajqawee]

We can go a little further:


-There is the social sector, namely "yeah you're nice coco, but what do we do with breeders?"

For this last point, I would say that the reconversion of breeders is perhaps not that difficult to carry out. After all, I think it is easier to make them move towards other agricultural productions (milk, eggs, cheese, for the most obvious, even vegetable) since it is a known and controlled environment for the most part. 'between them.
The other downstream sectors are numerous and potentially just as rewarding!

The milk, the cheese .... Where do you get them from? teats of the farmer ???? You will not often go through the raclette box

Yes, some farms produce milk and cheese, and as we make a lot (too much ...), we ended up selling lambs and veal. Well.
This is clearly not where meat consumption takes place, as the sources above show: it is chicken, pork and beef, the big winners.
The oxen are "useless" in our agricultural model, they are animals that are raised only to eat them. If we reduce production, we limit nothing else (well yes, the income of some).
It's the same with pork.
And it's the same with chicken.

Regarding milk and cheese production, there too we could produce less. But if we get there, we will have already taken a big step forward.