Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
Just do this:
How about we... i dunno... not farm animals? It's bad for health, it's bad for the animals, it's bad for the environment. Every pandemic we've ever had has been caused by animal ag. That's COVID, SARS, MERS, AIDS, etc.
I agree with your first two sentences.
But at least with COVID and AIDS, neither of those are attributed to animal agriculture. They crossed into humans through exposure to animals, but in the case of AIDS that was non-human primates most likely. And in the case of COVID it was most likely bats. But in neither of those instances were those animals part of an agricultural system. In other words they weren't being farmed
Swine flu, yes absolutely. Aids and COVID? Not so much.
Curious about your diet, and where you get your food? Also curious how that scales to 350 million people (to feed the US)?
I'm not remotely implying what we're doing, as a society, is right or sustainable but it's super easy to just say "Just stop doing bad things".
Solutions, at scale are quite complicated and nuanced. Private companies that grow our food at scale now will only participate if it's profitable.
Also, if you're not sustainably growing your own food, are you not just like the rest of us (Part of the problem)? I know I don't have the land, or time to grow my own food.
Sticking our head in the sand (current administration) is definitely not gonna turn out well, so I'm guessing there's some fun times ahead!
Mostly beans, wheat, and oats, in different form factors. More salads.
Your body only requires a tiny amount of protein and that's also the easiest thing to replace.
I try to buy local fruit and veg only. Fun fact: if we all went vegan, we could free up 70-80% of the land currently being used for animal ag. We could rewild that land and still have excess food. We currently grow enough plants to feed 15B people, but we feed that to the animals instead.
We currently grow enough plants to feed 15B people, but we feed that to the animals instead.
a lot of the plant matter fed to animals is parts of plants we can't or won't eat.
and a lot of the land used isn't crop land, but grazing land
and they're is no reason to believe the land would ever be rewilded.
Even just replacing 25-50% meat with plants in the US would have incredible outcomes for the people. I guarantee we would be a far healthier population. The cheap meat being served up to Americans is not good.
It's mostly corn.
Granted, it's not processed in a way to be fit for human consumption.
But still, most of it is corn. Some of it is corn cobs and stalks but most of it is kernels.
Outside of that, other grains are very common. Oats for example.
So, they are right. Raising plants to feed animals so we can eat the animals is less efficient than raising plants for us to eat. Especially in regards to cattle. Which is one of the most inefficient things in the US food system. The only reason it's so cheap is because of subsidation, both of the cattle and the corn that's grown to feed them.
And countries much larger than our own survive on rice and beans just fine. As queerminest eluded to in her comment.
As far as local food, I have a co-op. So I buy local vegetables and fruits when I can.
Raising plants to feed animals so we can eat the animals is less efficient than raising plants for us to eat.
if that were the situation, you might be right. but since we actually feed livestock mostly crop seconds and byproducts, it's actually a conservation of resources in a lot of situations, with minimal competition with human food sources
1 kg of meat requires 2.8 kg of human-edible feed for ruminants and 3.2 for monogastrics
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211912416300013
we show that plant-based replacements for each of the major animal categories in the United States (beef, pork, dairy, poultry, and eggs) can produce twofold to 20-fold more nutritionally similar food per unit cropland. Replacing all animal-based items with plant-based replacement diets can add enough food to feed 350 million additional people, more than the expected benefits of eliminating all supply chain food loss.
your shepon paper shows a great deal of spinach being fed to chickens. why would it be fed to chickens if it were suitable for human consumption? I don't actually know, but my guess is that it is not suitable for human consumption, and that is why it is fed to chickens. that's a conservation of resources. the potatoes fed to cattle are likely the same.
this paper doesn't discuss this discrepancy at all. I have to say I don't find the analysis very compelling.
do you have the full papers? I can't really examine these claims from the links you provided.
soybean cakes, which production can be considered as main driver or land-use, represent 4% of the global livestock feed intake.
you clipped this out of the abstract, but it's highly relevant to what I've been saying: this is a byproduct of pressing soybeans for oil. if we didn't feed it to livestock, it would be industrial waste.
beef cattle spend most of their life grazing.
Where they emit the most methane and still are given supplementary feed. There's also not enough land to sustain a grazing only production system with the massive demand we have
We model a nationwide transition [in the US] from grain- to grass-finishing systems using demographics of present-day beef cattle. In order to produce the same quantity of beef as the present-day system, we find that a nationwide shift to exclusively grass-fed beef would require increasing the national cattle herd from 77 to 100 million cattle, an increase of 30%. We also find that the current pastureland grass resource can support only 27% of the current beef supply (27 million cattle), an amount 30% smaller than prior estimates
[...]
Taken together, an exclusively grass-fed beef cattle herd would raise the United States’ total methane emissions by approximately 8%.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401/pdf
no one said they are exclusively grass fed, not that we should be doing that
it's not mostly kernels. livestock are fed the entire plant, and the kernels are a slim minority of the weight.
Still results in overall reductions in arable-land usage. Even more than just eliminating 100% of food-waste
we show that plant-based replacements for each of the major animal categories in the United States (beef, pork, dairy, poultry, and eggs) can produce twofold to 20-fold more nutritionally similar food per unit cropland. Replacing all animal-based items with plant-based replacement diets can add enough food to feed 350 million additional people, more than the expected benefits of eliminating all supply chain food loss.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1713820115
Grazing usage isn't free from harms either
Livestock farmers often claim that their grazing systems “mimic nature”. If so, the mimicry is a crude caricature. A review of evidence from over 100 studies found that when livestock are removed from the land, the abundance and diversity of almost all groups of wild animals increases
in didn't say it's free from harms. I'm saying we aren't using that land to grow crops.
My point is, you try to... I try to also, but in the dead of winter there's no a local fruit and veggies. I'm also not vegan/vegetarian, I eat meat. Fish, and chicken primarily but I don't raise either, so I have to rely on someone else to do that for me.
We do actually get probably half our eggs from someone at my wife's work, and some. fruits and vegetables at the farmers market down the street in the summer. But they're closed now and have been most of winter.
It's harder than just saying "just stop" was my point. I'd love to be part of the solution where I can but there's zero chance of me not eating meat if it's available.
It's worth noting that environmentally, where the food comes from matters far far less than what you eat. Production emissions are far larger than any transportation emissions
Transport is a small contributor to emissions. For most food products, it accounts for less than 10%, and it’s much smaller for the largest GHG emitters. In beef from beef herds, it’s 0.5%.
Not just transport, but all processes in the supply chain after the food left the farm – processing, transport, retail and packaging – mostly account for a small share of emissions.
This data shows that this is the case when we look at individual food products. But studies also shows that this holds true for actual diets; here we show the results of a study which looked at the footprint of diets across the EU. Food transport was responsible for only 6% of emissions, whilst dairy, meat and eggs accounted for 83%.
Vegan here. Sticking to the two questions you asked before you got lost in scope creep and logical fallacy: I get my food from the supermarket, mostly. And it scales way better than animal ag because farming plants requires radically less resources per calorie than farming animals.
Just like most other positive decisions in the world, it's not revolutionary on it's own. Nor is it aiming to be, nor does it need to be.
I don't disagree with your general sentiment, but what I see as responses here are often empty responses... Just the obvious "we should stop being terrible arbiters of our planet". Like no shit, but it's hard and MOST humans are not gonna ever be vegan/vegetarian unless forced.
What a strange thought. How would you define the driving factor behind any food consumption other than forced?
MOST humans are not gonna ever be vegan/vegetarian unless forced.
Maybe. What about you, though?
I am 100% in that category. I have some aspirations to be in a lifestyle where I catch a lot of my own fish but zero desire to move off animal protein to a vegetarian lifestyle.