The Scottish Government

Farmer Gareth Baird on local food production

Monday, September 24, 2007

Kelso farmer Gareth Baird, Director of the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland, talks about the importance of local food production in Scotland.

This blog is now closed to further comments.

Comments

[Latest First] | [Earliest First] Page: [1] [2]

• 1. James Boyle - East Ren

  Friday, February 29, 2008 00:43

  Local food is only desirable if it involves producing plant-derived foodstuffs; animal products are enormously inefficient, add to excess CO2 and methane production and contribute to cancers - not a good advert for animal foods.

• 2. alexander phillip - dumbarton

  Tuesday, March 4, 2008 11:17

  If you want to be vegetarian fair enough but most people enjoy eating quality meat and we should where possible support local/Scottish farmers and their produce.

• 3. charlie solomon - larbert

  Tuesday, March 4, 2008 18:25

  hi re alexander phillip's - dumbarton
  comment does he not or his family not have onion, carrot, turnip, and have a portion off potato's with his stew along with a side dressing off califlower/or cabbage.
  dont get me wrong i still like my steak or meat of any discription but meat without
  onion and veg is like fish with out chip's always buy local if you can.
  it is more expensive at the moment but if everybody buys it then i should get cheaper but you cant beat local grown produce the next time you are near a dairy take along supermarket milk then taste the farms or dairy milk no comparision why because there is no water added.
  all the best charlie
  
  
  

• 4. Anne Gallagher - Bridge of Allan

  Wednesday, March 5, 2008 10:17

  I agree with James. We should eat less meat because it is inefficient, healthwise it is problematical and it is unfair on animals. Our diet needs to eat more greens, more root veg, more grains and more berries like our ancestors. Keep meat for occasional.
  And we should demand products without all the additives and with too much fat, sugar. salt added.

• 5. Bill Maxwell - Kincardineshire

  Thursday, March 20, 2008 23:32

  Re. Comment 4:
  
  You make good points but spoil them by adding in tosh like "healthwise it's problematical" and "it's unfair on the animals". The animals wouldn't have been born in the first place if they weren't bred for food. Cattle aren't pets; they are called FARM animals for a reason.

• 6. Jonny -

  Wednesday, March 26, 2008 07:26

  Re #5
  
  Cats and Dogs in parts of China are called "farm animals" as well. Does that make it right to eat them?
  
  The argument that an animal wouldn't be alive if it wasn't for the meat industry is flawed. Would you choose to be born into a world where you lived only a year or two were imprisoned and poorly treated and then slaughtered to be eaten or would you choose not to be born at all? Ask many people if they would like to exist in a world where humans were farmed for foor and they will say no - I think the cows might too.
  
  I used to use the same arguments myself until a year or two ago when I became vegitarian, in the end I realised that I was just making excuses and didn't want to think about the fact that I was supporting killing animals so I could eat them when I could survive just as well without.
  
  
  However without turning this into a debate about ethical reasons for not eating meat there are good economic and environmental reasons too.
  
  1) The meat farming industry is heavily subsidised. Millions of pounds each year are spent subsidising meat farmers because it is not a profitable industry. What other industry year on year can say to the government "I made a loss this year give me taxpayers money so I can make a profit"?
  
  We would save a lot of money not subsidising this industry.
  
  
  2) It is really bad for the environment. About 80% of all the worlds greenhouse gas emissions come from the meat farming industry. Stop farming meat and you could more than meet all the targets to prevent climate change.
  
  
  3) There is a shortage of food in many parts of the world. Three times as much food can be grown in the same area as meat is farmed... growing crops instead of meat would prevent world hunger.
  
  
  
  There are more reasons but I think those three are enough to seriously re-consider the farming of animals for meat.
  
  If that isn't enough think about the ethical reasons.
  
  
  
  Finally, I wholeheartedly object to my tax money supporting an industry which I believe is un-ethical and wrong. It makes me angry to think that money I pay to the government is being used to subsidise what I see as cruel and uneccessary treatment of animals. There would be an outcry if the government subsidised cruelty in this way in any other industry but because people enjoy eating meat they pretend it's ok...

• 7. Alan - Dumfries

  Thursday, March 27, 2008 06:49

  As the world dries up and we realise that producing meat on land that can grow more than grass is not the best option , there will be a reduction of farm animals and these will be kept on farms where grass is the only option.These farms won't need the same level of subsidy because meat will beome expensive and farmers will start to be paid above the cost of production.Grass only systems are the obvious way ahead and back to tradional breeds of cattle.This type of beef has been proven to be much healthier than the cereal fed systems we have adopted over the years.Agriculture will have to be subsidised as long as supermarkets continue to source at current prices but the way world food production is heading and demand is rising farming looks set for a bright future,but consumers are in for a shock if subsidies were to go.Maybe we could get rid of subsidies and use the money to reduce taxes so that people could pay above the cost of production for their food ,oh! what about the poor?

• 8. James Boyle - East Ren

  Thursday, April 10, 2008 00:58

  Jonny talks a lot of sense. He's got his percentages a wee bit mixed up - livestock contribute 18%, not 80% - to greenhouse gas emissions, but this is more than all global transport put together (8%).
  
  Bill is wrong to say that "healthwise it's problematical". That's exactly what it is; eating meat is associated with increased heart disease, colo-rectal cancer and increased rates of E coli, Listeria, Salmonella, vCJD etc. Meat should be taken off the menu altogether. In a civilised society we know how to produce a healthy diet without meat or animal products. It's not rocket science.

• 9. Lewis - Edinburgh

  Wednesday, April 23, 2008 20:55

  Woa, this is being hijacked by animal rights and so called tree huggers.
  The Q is producing food in Scotland.
  All farmers should be using the land they have to produce food of all sorts for the nation, and not be allowed to grow only grass to satisfy an industry that is keeping prices artificially high and for political reasons.
  We should use the food and the Scottish Government will decide what to do with the surplus.
  Prices can be quoted on quality and supply.

• 10. James Boyle - Glasgow

  Sunday, April 27, 2008 02:15

  Yhis is not an animal rights issue Lewis - and I've never hugged a tree in my life (you got the "so-called" right!). It's bigger than animal rights.
  
  From an entirely scientific/health perspective, we should be encouraging people in this country to move away from eating animal products towards consuming plant foods. This will both improve the nation's health at a stroke and help us to meet targets for reducing CO2 and CH4 emissions.
  
  It will also enable us to kill less animals - but we no longer have any moral right to kill them, so this is no big deal.

[Latest First] | [Earliest First] Page: [1] [2]