babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » Is vegan farming possible?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Is vegan farming possible?
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 19 August 2008 02:19 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A continuation of the side-discussion here.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 19 August 2008 02:51 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Any type of farming is possible. The questions are whether or not farming methods are sustainable over the long-term and productive enough to feed the population.

No farming method is perfect. So in each case people can weigh the pros and cons.


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Left J.A.B.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9046

posted 19 August 2008 03:17 PM      Profile for Left J.A.B.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There are all kinds of ways to produce food. Some are good in the short term, but bad over the long term, others are complicated and some are just plain bad.

What matters is the claims made by those who promote a certain view. To my mind the claims made by those who believe it is no big deal to eliminate livestock farming are as dubious and very simular in tone and nature to the salespeople for large multi-national GMO corporations. Neither of them understand, or care what the long term implications of what they are suggesting or the damage that would be done if everyone was doing that.

What always gets me to take the bait is the lecturing tone from people from those who's only connection to food is the grocery store onto those who work the land.

As I said before. We do not have livestock. I could produce food without manure inputs using chemicals or other means but you would have to expect to pay a lot more, and I don't just mean something like the organic premium, but way, way more if you want to eliminate other nasty things like sludge, and chemicals. And yes water is a chemical but where do you think all that irrigation water from vegetable production comes from and runs off to?

Most farmers are probably too polite to say it, but I have never felt compelled to be polite, nothing is more foolish than the comments "I have a garden so I understand farming". I must admit I use to think that way, but there is nothing like real life experience to disabuse you of such delusions.

[ 19 August 2008: Message edited by: Left J.A.B. ]


From: 4th and Main | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
scooter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5548

posted 20 August 2008 07:37 AM      Profile for scooter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I don't think it is possible, assuming vegan farming would be organic.

Where do you get the "natural" sources of nitrogen to maintain high yields without putting more land into production to offset lower yields.

SOURCES OF NITROGEN FOR ORGANIC FARMS


From: High River | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 20 August 2008 09:41 AM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scooter:
I don't think it is possible, assuming vegan farming would be organic.

It is certainly possible. Things like legumes add nitrogen to the soil. It would be difficult on a large scale.

quote:
Where do you get the "natural" sources of nitrogen to maintain high yields without putting more land into production to offset lower yields.

There seems to be this myth that because there is nitrogen present in animal manure that either that nitrogen was created by the animal or the composting of the manure - it wasn't. An animal gets its nitrogen from plants. Manure actually loses nitrogen through ammonia etc.

If you grow crops by say using horse manure all that is happening is that nitrogen is being removed from the area where the horses are eating or from horse feed brought in from else where and then that nitrogen is being added to your soil. Nitrogen and other nutrients are still be depleated from the soil somewhere. Nitrogen is added to the soil either through human sources (about 60%) mainly in the form of synthetic fertilizer, or natural sources such as soil bacteria, algae and lightning release.

manure chemistry

[ 20 August 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Left J.A.B.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9046

posted 20 August 2008 10:37 AM      Profile for Left J.A.B.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wrong, wrong, wrong, especially if the issue is organic production.

Legumes fix nitrogen they do not create it in enough abundance. In other words they help bring the nitrogen already present in the soil to the roots of companion plants. That is why many organic farmers undersow their crops, especially spring cereals with red clover. Not enough nitrogen and the legumes take on an unhealthy limey green colour.

Livestock manure has way more than just shit and piss in it to be blunt, especially in organic production. Straw, a by-product of cereal production is a significant component of composted manure. Many farmers also use things like wood chips, which works well. Manure also helps with the health of the micro-organisms that make soil healthy. It isn’t just the shit. By the way, the volume of manure is high. To be blunt again ruminants shit a lot and it has been digested several times really concentrating the soil health giving properties.

Growing vegetable on a scale large enough to feed more than a few people a couple of nice means and do a little freezing simply takes more out of the soil than plow downs can provide. Since we have no livestock we have to buy composted manure. If we could get away with none, we would if only due to economics. It can’t be done, not sustainably anyway. If you don’t give a crap about your land or are willing to grow conventionally no big deal, but organic and vegan in that way can’t work, not if you are farming and growing food for others.


From: 4th and Main | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 20 August 2008 11:41 AM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Left J.A.B.

Are you saying that nitrogen is being created in the process of manure composting? If so provide a link.


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Left J.A.B.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9046

posted 20 August 2008 11:55 AM      Profile for Left J.A.B.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No I am saying, if you would like take some time to actually read what I wrote, that livestock manure provides more of the nutrients needed in proper soil health than plow downs. It is very, very simple.

I know this from very practical and expensive experience. Talk to any farmer who is farming organicly and they will tell you that plow downs are a poor substitute for manure. Sometimes you have to do it, but you pay a price over time.
One advantage to plow downs that manure doesn't deliver is of course weed suppression, so a combination of the two is the ideal and that is what we do.

[ 20 August 2008: Message edited by: Left J.A.B. ]


From: 4th and Main | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 20 August 2008 12:17 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Can I just put in a somewhat off-topic remark that it's really neat having all these progressive farmers on here? Okay, please continue.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 20 August 2008 12:19 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Left J.A.B.:
No I am saying, if you would like take some time to actually read what I wrote,

I don't really care what you wrote. The previous post was about nitrogen, nothing else. The previous poster said that there was not any natural sources of nitrogen that a vegan organic farmer could use, but there are. Something that you even admit, you don't really like those sources and that is fine. But if a vegan organic farmer or gardener does and can find a way to make it work then, guess what? That is fine for them too.

quote:
that livestock manure provides more of the nutrients needed in proper soil health than plow downs. It is very, very simple.

It is very, very simple. You bitch about vegan organic farming (something I don't promote) not being sustainable because the soils will lose nutrients, while at the same time your method of farming loses nutrients too. Maybe, not as much, maybe not as quickly, but it still does. Furthermore you bitch about the use of chemical fertilizers as being a scourge of the earth while your farm is dependant on them. No you don't use them yourself, but the food that the horses which provide your manure had to have been dependent on chemical fertilizers at some point in time. As long as human consumption takes nitrogen out of the food chain that nitrogen will have to be replaced, something that chemical fertilizers do, and it is necessary as natural sources cannot provide close to enough through soil bacteria, algae and lightning release to make up for the loss.

It is time for you to stop bitching about every other farming method, while pretending that yours is perfect.


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Left J.A.B.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9046

posted 20 August 2008 12:39 PM      Profile for Left J.A.B.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thanks for proving your absolute ignorance, but nitrogen is not provided in droves by plowdowns, instead legumes fix nitrogen as I pointed out. They only pull up nitrogen already in the soil, plowing it back in returns some of it but they do not create it- there is a significant difference. Something you missed when you incorrectly answered a previous poster.

As well, as a certified organic farmer the manure we use has to come from a certified organic source. That means the feed the animals eat, in our case sheep and cattle, must only be fed certified organic feed. Certified organic feed for sheep and cattle includes forages like timothy grass, alfalfa and others. (All of which must have been planted from organic seed or passed through a 5 year transition period) It also includes organicly grown grains, which of course has no pesticides, herbicides or chemical fertilizers used in its production.

If you want to take the time to actually read what other posters post besides yourself you might find I never said what we do is the bees knees. I recognize as Bookish Agrarian said early in the other thread that food production is very complicated. People make their choices and I totally fine with that as long as it doesn't impact on my choices. What I object to is making claims that simply can not be substantiated by real farmers producing real food in the real world. Your claims are as full of manure as the claims of the fine people at companies like Syngenta and Monsanto.

Edited to add -

quote:
No you don't use them yourself, but the food that the horses which provide your manure had to have been dependent on chemical fertilizers at some point in time.

By the way where did my horse come from? I have never claimed to have had horses, received manure from horses or even ridden a horse. If that is the level of your comprehension no wonder you are having such trouble with your understanding of how nitrogen works in the Canadian seasonal context.

[ 20 August 2008: Message edited by: Left J.A.B. ]


From: 4th and Main | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 20 August 2008 01:37 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Left J.A.B.:
Thanks for proving your absolute ignorance, but nitrogen is not provided by plowdowns, legumes fix nitrogen as I pointed out. They only pull up nitrogen already in the soil, there is a significant difference. Something you missed when you incorrectly answered a previous poster.

Yes, I understand that twice you have repeated wrong information. Yes legumes do fix nitrogen, but what that does is it takes the unusable N2 that exists in the atmosphere and converts it to nitrogen compounds that the plants can use as fertilizer such as ammonia, nitrate and nitrogen dioxide. Again, the legumes are adding usable nitrogen to the system, the animals and their manure are not.

quote:
As well, as a certified organic farmer the manure we use has to come from a certified organic source. That means the feed the animals eat, in our case sheep and cattle, must only be fed certified organic feed.

Any farming system must be adding nitrogen to make up for the nitrogen lost to human consumption. Manure cycles it. Some of the loss can be made up by for instance alfalfa - which adds nitrogen to the soil by...........FIXING NITROGEN - the exact same method you deride above. And alfalfa, which you say is used is a...................LEGUME - something you deride above. Brilliant.


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Left J.A.B.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9046

posted 20 August 2008 01:40 PM      Profile for Left J.A.B.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about so I think I will end this by riding my horse of into the sunset and go do some real work creating food so urban know-it-alls can eat too.
From: 4th and Main | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 20 August 2008 01:48 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Left J.A.B.:
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about so I think I will end this by riding my horse of into the sunset and go do some real work creating food so urban know-it-alls can eat too.

Saying that someone has no idea what they are talking about is much easier than proving it. I encourage everyone to look it up themselves.


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Left J.A.B.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9046

posted 20 August 2008 01:51 PM      Profile for Left J.A.B.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's right a farmer who actually farms couldn't possibly know anything more than an online source.

I wonder why farmers are often suspicious of urban know-it-alls?


From: 4th and Main | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 20 August 2008 01:51 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hmmmm.

Why do vegans need food that from seed to fruit has never been in contact with any animal or animal refuse? Where does that leave berries and pollinators? Will vegans swear of berries or will they eat only eat berries manually pollinated by humans ... wait, humans are animals, too ... machines, yeah, that's it, machines?

Don't get me wrong, if someone wants to be a vegan, that is their choice. But you know, animals belong on farms even if just to work and/or graze and poop.

And, yes, you can raise food without animal manure. But animal manure is the most natural fertilizer requiring no mining, no transportation and distribution, and no carbon inputs.

If you are doing a small plot, you can use clover for nitrogen or

http://msucares.com/news/print/agnews/an04/040311.html


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 20 August 2008 01:58 PM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Hmmmm.

Why do vegans need food that from seed to fruit has never been in contact with any animal or animal refuse?


I think it makes sense to see vegans as doing something like anti-capitalists who avoid shopping at walmart, avoid buying sweatshop clothing, and purchase fair trade coffee rather than as people aiming at some kind of moral purity. Just as the former cannot entirely disengage from capitalism, vegans cannot entirely disengage from cruelty to animals. There are people in both camps who seem to think such disengagement is not only possible but the ultimate aim. The rest of us know it's not possible (though we do what we can nonetheless) and that the ultimate aim is to get rid of a system and replace it with something better.


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 20 August 2008 02:05 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Left J.A.B.:
That's right a farmer who actually farms couldn't possibly know anything more than an online source.

I wonder why farmers are often suspicious of urban know-it-alls?


That's right, lets burn all the books.


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Left J.A.B.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9046

posted 20 August 2008 02:13 PM      Profile for Left J.A.B.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh of course a rural person would be a reactionary who would want to burn books.

Anyone who knows anything about growing food knows that there is the book knowledge and then the real knowledge. Personally I have always found that the first thing you do is read about the answer, then go talk to an old farmer to find out how it REALLY works. The greatest set back to farming in Ontario at least has been the University of Guelph, but clearly you think GMOs, pesticides, herbicides and all the rest that kills things is okay as long as no animal flesh is involved. Where I come from we call that hypocrisy.


From: 4th and Main | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 20 August 2008 02:16 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Trevor and Left J.A.B., would it be possible to discuss this without attacking each other? It would be much more pleasant for the rest of us to read, and perhaps people might feel like joining in.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Le Téléspectateur
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7126

posted 20 August 2008 02:33 PM      Profile for Le Téléspectateur     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
That's right, lets burn all the books.

God you're annoying. Please locate some humility.

quote:
I think it makes sense to see vegans as doing something like anti-capitalists who avoid shopping at walmart, avoid buying sweatshop clothing, and purchase fair trade coffee rather than as people aiming at some kind of moral purity. Just as the former cannot entirely disengage from capitalism, vegans cannot entirely disengage from cruelty to animals. There are people in both camps who seem to think such disengagement is not only possible but the ultimate aim. The rest of us know it's not possible (though we do what we can nonetheless) and that the ultimate aim is to get rid of a system and replace it with something better.

I think what some people have a problem with is the inconsistency of veganism as a political movement. I really have a lot of respect for vegans who go to a lot of trouble and work for their ethics. At the same time the privileging of non-human animals seems to be pretty widespread in "the movement" (if you don't mind me calling it that). You bring up capitalism RosaL. Why is it that a vegan will not eat honey or milk because those products exploit bees or cows but they do not consider the exploitation of human labour in nearly all food. Farm minimum wage is lower than regular minimum wage in Ontario. We can all agree that minimum wage is not a "living wage". People who work minimum wage jobs in a capitalist society do not do so voluntarily but are forced out of necessity. Is this so different from a cow who is milked or a bee colony giving up some of its honey without consent?


From: More here than there | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Le Téléspectateur
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7126

posted 20 August 2008 02:35 PM      Profile for Le Téléspectateur     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The greatest set back to farming in Ontario at least has been the University of Guelph


hahahaha! yeah right. I would say that it was the invention of the tractor.


From: More here than there | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Left J.A.B.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9046

posted 20 August 2008 02:40 PM      Profile for Left J.A.B.     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Nah, if you want to go that route I would say it was the freezer, or non-ice fridge.
From: 4th and Main | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 20 August 2008 02:47 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Left J.A.B.:
Oh of course a rural person would be a reactionary who would want to burn books.

I never said a thing about rural people. You have no idea if I am a rural person, nor do you have any idea if I have spent long periods on farms. However, you assume in both cases.

quote:
Anyone who knows anything about growing food knows that there is the book knowledge and then the real knowledge. Personally I have always found that the first thing you do is read about the answer, then go talk to an old farmer to find out how it REALLY works.

Yup, so legumes don't add nitrogen to the soil then. The books are wrong.

quote:
The greatest set back to farming in Ontario at least has been the University of Guelph, but clearly you think GMOs, pesticides, herbicides and all the rest that kills things is okay as long as no animal flesh is involved. Where I come from we call that hypocrisy.

First of all - I have never said that no animal flesh must be involved in farming. I have said that I don't participate in eating animals. That is my choice, others can make theirs.

The herbicides, pesticides and synthetic fertilizers which you deride support a population of almost 7 billion. Until organic farming can show it can do the same it will not get my support. Yes I support farmers growing crops organically if they choose to do so, but I do not and will not support government policy encouraging such.

I have never said there were no issues with herbicides, pesticides or synthetic fertilizers. There are issues with all farming techniques. The downside of not using herbicides, pesticides or synthetic fertilizers will be much more farm land use. I find that less unacceptable. A decrease in herbicides, pesticides and synthetic fertilizers can be achieved through more better farming techniques - much of which would be learned from organic farming, and possibly the use of GMOs.

Yes I support the use of all methods to feed people and reduce environmental impact. I don't have a reflex hatred and fear of GMOs based on fiction, fearmongering or a religous-like faulty understanding of biology.

[ 20 August 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 20 August 2008 02:50 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
LT, there are a lot of vegans who take human exploitation into account. During my vegan days, when I was doing a lot more reading of vegan blogs and discussion forums, they talked about that sort of thing all the time.

I'd point you at the one I lurked on quite a bit, but unfortunately, they've had to make their forum almost completely "private" because they got trolled so much by omnivores.

[ 20 August 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 20 August 2008 02:51 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:

God you're annoying. Please locate some humility.


I have said that legumes add nitrogen to the soil. Animals and manure do not. Pretty simple. Left J.A.B. continues to say that I am wrong, wrong, wrong.


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Le Téléspectateur
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7126

posted 20 August 2008 02:56 PM      Profile for Le Téléspectateur     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
I have said that legumes add nitrogen to the soil. Animals and manure do not. Pretty simple. Left J.A.B. continues to say that I am wrong, wrong, wrong.

Ok, so for the sake of the thread can't you guys just agree to disagree on the matter? It was just a little overwhelming.


From: More here than there | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Le Téléspectateur
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7126

posted 20 August 2008 02:58 PM      Profile for Le Téléspectateur     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
LT, there are a lot of vegans who take human exploitation into account. During my vegan days, when I was doing a lot more reading of vegan blogs and discussion forums, they talked about that sort of thing all the time.


Hmmm, I guess I was basing my comment on personal encounters. Not the best sample of the population.

quote:
I'd point you at the one I lurked on quite a bit, but unfortunately, they've had to make their forum almost completely "private" because they got trolled so much by omnivores.

Jeebus, I can only imagine!


From: More here than there | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 20 August 2008 03:12 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

I'd point you at the one I lurked on quite a bit, but unfortunately, they've had to make their forum almost completely "private" because they got trolled so much by omnivores.


I stopped going to veg forums a couple years ago due to the constant trolling by omnivores (I also lost interest in the same things being discussed over and over again). From what I can remember the members appeared to on the whole to be more concerned about human and environmental exploitation then almost anywhere else I have been. That is not to say it was the case for everyone. Of course there were some who had a profound dislike for humans, which I don't find too surprising as many worked or volunteered in fields where they dealt with animal cruelty day in day out. All they ever witnessed was the darker side of people.

[ 20 August 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 20 August 2008 03:16 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:

Ok, so for the sake of the thread can't you guys just agree to disagree on the matter? It was just a little overwhelming.


Sure I can agree to disagree, but it is a thread on whether vegan farming is possible. The topic of nitrogen unsurprisingly came up, so it is hard to discuss that while avoiding legumes. For the sake of the thread I will exit.

[ 20 August 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 20 August 2008 06:06 PM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Michelle interesting topic. However, I am unsure of the market for farmed vegans. We are always looking for new opportunities so if you think there is a market I might be willing to try. What would you use a farmed vegan for?
Sorry I can never resist the bad joke.

Hopefully funny story that relates in a tiny way to the topic. Back in my university days when I was a little footloose and fancy free I was sort of seeing a vegan. After a, uuhh shall we say multi-event evening, I simply could not resist asking a totally inappropriate question related to one of those ‘events’ and being a vegan. I will leave it to your imagination, but that sort of ended the evening and I had a really red hand mark on my chest for a few days. My face was too far away! We still remain good friends and she has never actually answered my question.

Before I address the issue I want to address the controversy in the thread.

I think Trevor is confusing several things. It is entirely true as Left JAB states that plowdowns do not provide enough nitrogen in many cases. Soil is a living thing, and all soil is not created equally. Even on our relatively small 260 acre farm operation we have at least 4 soil types, sometimes in one field. What is really important is organic matter, clay soils and sand soils need more than what a plowdown can provide. Loamy soils it doesn’t matter as much. I will for example spread manure out of rotation on our sandy fields or areas if I am expecting a dry summer, on the clay in other years. My grandfather always saved his chicken manure for hilltops as they leach faster than the valleys. (By the way, I am too lazy feeling tonight to look it up, but isn’t the pro GMO, pesticide and herbicide Trevor a Green apologist. How the heck does that work?) As well Trevor you are woefully behind on the research on organic crop yields. Long term studies have shown little difference and in some cases better yields than conventional crops. More work sure, but yield is not an issue on well run organic farms.

On the issue.

The answer on reflection is no I think.
Here’s the logic. Vegans do not want to harm other creatures. Since many vegans include bees in that the net has to be expanded. That is of course unless there is some bizarre cutting point on what is a good creature and what is not. That would then have to include the many insects and others killed by pesticide and herbicide. Since these are specifically used to create mass death (that is the whole point) I can’t see how a vegan could be consistent and support their use in their foods. Jimmy ‘n Cricket and his grasshopper friends should be equal to bees shouldn’t they?

GMOs are out as that is a manipulation of life that has been shown to have negative effects on things like butterflies and others. So that means organic farming. (Leaving aside the crickets, grasshoppers and other creatures inadvertently harmed by machinery). Organic farming on a scale to feed others beyond subsistence is dependent on at least some animal manure. In organic and bio-dynamic farming the key to success is organic matter, not just nitrogen. Organic matter health and depth in many soil types can only be maintained with fairly regular manure application.

So in the end if a vegan wants to not be a hypocrite and I believe most are very, very sincere than there can not be any long term vegan farming. As a farmer I feel compelled to look beyond the short term, so while it might work for a time, it would not be sustainable. Food is so damn complicated in today’s world. Nothing is perfect. Vegan’s like others will, if they investigate their food, have to accept a little water in their wine to borrow a phrase.

Sorry for the long post


From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 20 August 2008 06:15 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Trevormkidd:
The topic of nitrogen unsurprisingly came up, so it is hard to discuss that while avoiding legumes. For the sake of the thread I will exit.

You don't have to do that. I have no problem with you discussing nitrogen or disagreeing about it. I just wanted you guys to stop attacking each other while doing so, that's all. It's just a discussion board, you know?

BA, that's really interesting. I was kind of coming to that conclusion myself, that perhaps it just isn't possible to grow truly vegan produce because we actually need animal output (whether human or otherwise) in order to renew the soil, and as you say, the thing about bees is also an issue.

Perhaps the issue is farming vs. gardening. Left J.A.B. seems to be saying that there are some major differences in method between the two. Is vegan gardening possible for someone who just wants to grow their own food? Would permaculture be an answer for those who feel strongly about not using animal products in any way?

(The thing is, though, most permaculture set-ups I've seen use grazing and pecking free-range animals to keep the grounds fertilized, too.)


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 20 August 2008 06:16 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Le Téléspectateur:


hahahaha! yeah right. I would say that it was the invention of the tractor.


No, I would agree it was the University of Guelph and its adjunct in Ridgetown. Cancer with your fries?


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 20 August 2008 06:21 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Is vegan gardening possible for someone who just wants to grow their own food?

I would think yes and I alluded to that above. For a small plot it would be affordable to garden without animal manures. But even squash must be pollinated.

Personally, I think philosophically, veganism as a diet is probably quite healthy and good for the earth. But taken to the extent of applying to farming would be, I think, the otherside of the chemical coin.

All things that belong to the earth are found in the earth including us. I don't think we can avoid that reality and trying can be harmful.

[ 20 August 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 20 August 2008 06:30 PM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Is vegan gardening possible for someone who just wants to grow their own food?

In the long term, no, but for most people it would not be a major problem. However, you would still have to reinvest in the organic matter of the soil even after a couple of years, especially if you grew corn or tomatoes. And really what would be the point of a garden without corn or tomatoes?

I am not sure it would be economical to plant buckwheat and then work it in, not as much as say the bang for the buck of a bag of composted manure. What might be a good idea is to plant sweet clover between the rows. It is good for the soil, nice to walk on in your bare feet, and works well as a weed suppresent.


From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 20 August 2008 08:33 PM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is off topic, but I wanted to address BA's post and questions.

quote:
Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:

I think Trevor is confusing several things. It is entirely true as Left JAB states that plowdowns do not provide enough nitrogen in many cases.


I don't think that I am confusing things. I didn't say that vegan organic farming would be the most efficient type of farming - in fact I said it wouldn't be on both this thread and the last one. I did say that it was possible, although I don't promote or advocate vegan organic farming, nor do I think that such a method could successfully feed the world. However, if someone wants to do that type of farming I say go for it.

quote:
(By the way, I am too lazy feeling tonight to look it up, but isn’t the pro GMO, pesticide and herbicide Trevor a Green apologist. How the heck does that work?)

Yes, I am a GPC supporter. I would say that the environmental movement as well as the Green Party has two sides the romantics and the scientists. I belong squarely on the science side (although when I first became an environmental activist in my teens I was squarely on the opposite side and deeply suspicious and opposed to the science side - I would say now that was due to my ignorance back then, however, people on the other side would say it is due to my ignorance now). I disagree completely with the GPC on this issue, as well as some others. I am not the only one among GPC supporters or environmentalists and I have never tried to hide that disagreement here or elsewhere. I disagree with the other parties on more issues. Sadly there is no Trevor Kidd party - although I am sure I would disagree with that party on something too. Furthermore, despite the GPC stating that they oppose all GMO, they don't actually seem to. I have yet to hear them criticize any GMO in the medical field, such as GMO insulin which has been around for 20 years. Why is that? Because doing so would expose how ridiculous their position is, whereas attacking GMO food and promoting the fear of the unknown doesn't. It baffles me that the GPC could rightly accuse the Conservatives of ignoring and misrepresenting the scientific evidence on climate change, while the GPC at the same time ignores and misrepresents the scientific evidence on GMO. Many environmental groups are even worse, the NDP is a little better.

quote:
As well Trevor you are woefully behind on the research on organic crop yields. Long term studies have shown little difference and in some cases better yields than conventional crops. More work sure, but yield is not an issue on well run organic farms.

A year or two ago I read the two studies that seem to always be mentioned (or at least were at that time) about this and felt them to both to have flaws. However, even the swiss study found yields to be only 20% less which for many people would be more than made up for by the lack of synthetic fertilizers, chemical pesticides etc.

Maybe the yields are equal, maybe not. I read the scientific journals and from what I have read I am not convinced. The farmers, on the other hand will be convinced by economics, and almost all farmers care about their land and the environment, so I think this is strictly a case of economics for them. Of the farmers I know - and I know many - they don't seem to be convinced that yields are equal either, but of course they could be wrong.

quote:
Here’s the logic. Vegans do not want to harm other creatures.

For most that is true. My ethics of eating are from more an Utilitarian perspective along the lines of Peter Singer (who by the way was cautiously suportive of GMO in his latest book, and also criticized environmental groups for their false claims about GMOs. Interestingly the Amish also are fairly supportive of GMO crops. Neither they or Singer are known for making rash, uninformed decisions.) as I know that animals will be harmed regardless I try to find the greatest good for the the greatest number (taking into consideration humans first and animals second, not really from a specicist angle but because I feel what is best for humans will ultimately be best for nature and animals).

quote:
That would then have to include the many insects and others killed by pesticide and herbicide. Since these are specifically used to create mass death (that is the whole point) I can’t see how a vegan could be consistent and support their use in their foods. Jimmy ‘n Cricket and his grasshopper friends should be equal to bees shouldn’t they?

Depends. For instance lets say the claims of Norman Borlaug are true (I have no idea if they are, but lets use this as a hypothetical) when he says that organic farming can feed at most 4 billion people. Well that would leave over 2 billion without food and they are not going to accept it and die, they are going to do whatever they can to find enough food to survive and that would mean destroying natural habitat to grow more farm land, widescale hunting and fishing etc.

At the same time I am aware that any farm system results in the death of many animals. And organic farms can still use natural pesticides, tractors etc. And of course plants have evolved and been bred to have built in pesticides - lots of them.

I always like to bring up the Ames test. Ames who after being an environmental hero in the 70s for documenting the dangers of chemical pesticides and food additives, later found that more than 99% of the carcinogens that people consume from food come naturally from that food. Rather than posting a link to an article (which I have probably done more than once on babble) here is a link to a five minute clip by a chemistry professor at Berkeley: Ames test - carcinogens and natural foods

quote:
GMOs are out as that is a manipulation of life that has been shown to have negative effects on things like butterflies and others.

I have looked up almost every claim that GMO opponents have raised and found little to be concerned about. In every case I can think of the claims are either taken out of context, exaggerations or fabrications. I will continue to examine the claims but past experience has left me very skeptical.

In the case of BT corn killing monarch butterflies and caterpillars the claim is true - a cornell study in '99 did find that pollen from BT corn could kill monarch butterflies. However that was in lab conditions using a potency much stronger (about 40 times) than is used in the field and dusting it on the milkweed, the conditions were artifical. The results were rightly questioned. But, of course BT can kill insects it is a potent natural pesticide used by many organic farmers.

However, many other studies have since found there is little risk as the density of BT corn pollen rarely reaches the levels on milkweed leaves to cause harm to the butterflies or caterpillars. I have yet to find a follow study that confirms the cornell results in more realistic settings. Furthermore butterflies - probably in far greater numbers - are killed by non-GMO conventional corn fields due to the use of chemicals, and they are not completely safe in organic fields that use BT as a natural pesticide. In fact populations of monarch butterflies are up significantly since the introduction and widespread use of BT corn. The National Academy of Sciences gathered all of the studies and evidence several years after the cornell study was published, it found no supporting evidence.

And of course BT corn was developed to help out the pocket books of farmers. Government funded GMO research into changes that could have vastly improved the environment or improved the health of the poor have been almost a completely missed opportunity due to the hysteria of the green movements. In the future I don't think people will look back on those actions kindly. As Richard Dawkins said in a letter to Prince Charles:

"Moreover, if as I expect, the dire prophecies of GM doom fail to materialize, the feeling of letdown may spill over into complacency about real risks. Has it occurred to you that our present GM brouhaha may be a terrible case of crying wolf?" In the more than 8 years since Dawkins wrote this letter all the evidnence supports Dawkins, not the Prince, but that hasn't stopped the crys from growing louder.

[ 20 August 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Farmpunk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12955

posted 21 August 2008 02:29 AM      Profile for Farmpunk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Le T: "Farm minimum wage is lower than regular minimum wage in Ontario."

No it's not. I'll have to check my FARMS manual, however for migrant labourer rates. Rates which don't take into account free flight here and back to the worker's home country, or the rent free housing. But your labouring point is well taken.

Before I go to work, I will say that this has been an interesting couple threads from PETA to here. I will also admit that whenever vegetarianism or veganism comes up on babble, in whatever capacity, I tend to wade in full bore and start hammering on the production end vs the trouble I see with advocating for a non-meat diet and by implication, a no animal exploited food system. My attitude, and the attitude of some of my fellow farmers, has not always been helpful to the greater discussion.

So, my first reaction to vegan farming is "not possible." But, really, it is. I suspect that Trevor and the others are saying is that we're dumping enourmous amounts of inputs into, say, field corn for animal feed for meat. Imagine converting even ten percent of the land currently under conventional corn production into edible vegetable production. That's a lot of beans and chickpeas and whatever, for likely less fertilizer input.

More later. Fairly good discussion.


From: SW Ontario | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 21 August 2008 03:04 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bookish Agrarian:
Hopefully funny story that relates in a tiny way to the topic. Back in my university days when I was a little footloose and fancy free I was sort of seeing a vegan. After a, uuhh shall we say multi-event evening, I simply could not resist asking a totally inappropriate question related to one of those ‘events’ and being a vegan. I will leave it to your imagination, but that sort of ended the evening and I had a really red hand mark on my chest for a few days. My face was too far away! We still remain good friends and she has never actually answered my question.

Many vegans HATE that question! I can answer it, though, if you really don't know the answer. Just like breastfeeding, which is perfectly vegan because a human being has the capacity to fully consent to the use of their body and their bodily fluids by another person, and breastfeeding between humans is perfectly natural, there is nothing inconsistent with being vegan and engaging in oral sex and "swallowing", because the person "giving" the human body fluids is not only consenting, but perfectly capable of consenting and under no duress. And, of course, because sex between humans is also perfectly natural.

But you knew that, didn't you?

[ 21 August 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trevormkidd
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12720

posted 21 August 2008 05:38 AM      Profile for Trevormkidd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Farmpunk:

So, my first reaction to vegan farming is "not possible." But, really, it is. I suspect that Trevor and the others are saying is that we're dumping enourmous amounts of inputs into, say, field corn for animal feed for meat. Imagine converting even ten percent of the land currently under conventional corn production into edible vegetable production. That's a lot of beans and chickpeas and whatever, for likely less fertilizer input.


Yes that is the argument I was making. But, I was not making the argument in a demand for everyone to be a vegan, instead I was making the argument to counter those who are using the necessity of animals to argue against a vegan diet.

Vaclav Smil's book "Feeding the World" (of which I haven't read yet, due to time constraints) was written to see if and how it would be possible to feed 10 or 11 billion people (which is number of many estimates of the human population peak) says in the introduction:

"No complex models are needed in order to demonstrate a large range of plausible outcomes. We would not even have to increase the existing agricultural inputs in order to feed many more than ten billion people in a global economy guided by concerns about consumption equity and offering everybody frugal, largely vegetarian but nutritionally adequate diets. On the other hand, even today's six billion people could not be fed if North America's current average per capita food supply (of which about 40 is wasted!) were to become the global norm in a world that would be using much higher agricultural inputs with no better efficiencies than we do today."

My goal is the former. Smil isn't, as far as I know, a vegetarian, nor is he advocating a strict vegetarian diet for all, the goal must be less meat consumption and on a personal level I choose none at all. Again I haven't read the book yet, but from skimming it, it appears as though Smil advocates animals largely eating the parts of grains and vegetables that humans do not and grazing on fields which are unfit for growing other crops.


From: SL | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Bookish Agrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7538

posted 21 August 2008 07:13 PM      Profile for Bookish Agrarian   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

Many vegans HATE that question! I can answer it, though, if you really don't know the answer. Just like breastfeeding, which is perfectly vegan because a human being has the capacity to fully consent to the use of their body and their bodily fluids by another person, and breastfeeding between humans is perfectly natural, there is nothing inconsistent with being vegan and engaging in oral sex and "swallowing", because the person "giving" the human body fluids is not only consenting, but perfectly capable of consenting and under no duress. And, of course, because sex between humans is also perfectly natural.

But you knew that, didn't you?

[ 21 August 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]



Actually no I didn't but it makes sense.

I haven't thought about the issue in a very, very long time. I never pressed the issue again, and at the time I sure as heck wasn't going to interupt when the thought first popped into my mind from nowhere.

In fact for a good ol'boy from Grey-Bruce the whole thing was a bit of surprise.


From: Home of this year's IPM | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bubbles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3787

posted 21 August 2008 09:19 PM      Profile for Bubbles        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Seems to me that earthworms have an important role in soil structure and nutrient availabillity.

Do not know all that much about vegan priciples, but lichen farming on bare rocks in the arctic might come close to the purist ideals. And that probably would be sustainable for a very long time.


From: somewhere | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 21 August 2008 09:58 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Just as the former cannot entirely disengage from capitalism, vegans cannot entirely disengage from cruelty to animals.

Regarding those insects who pollinate one's vegetables, do you really think that supplying them with a food source is cruel? Same with earthworms. I feed my worms tons of yummy stuff and they give my garden their casings. Every once in a while I dig up one of the bigger ones up and it's almost scary...like a scene out of "Tremors" or something.

The relationship I have with bugs isn't a matter of exploitation, it's one of getting along and helping each other.

[ 21 August 2008: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Policywonk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8139

posted 21 August 2008 11:18 PM      Profile for Policywonk     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm assuming the definition of "vegan" farming refers to no cruelty to animals (difficult, considering working the soil will have both positive and negative impacts on worms and other soil denizens) rather than no use of animals or animal products (impossible, considering the composition of soil). Despite the existence of abiotic pollination (mostly by wind) the vast majority of pollination is biotic. One can talk about pollination by wild bees as opposed to domesticated bees (not just honeybees). There is also humanure. Of course, in order to have a decent harvest and store enough food to survive the winter you need to protect against animals that will eat the crop before and after the harvest. Is depriving them of food cruelty? Or does that depend on how you deprive them of food?
From: Edmonton | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca