You're viewing a single thread.
Cool Fact: Vegans consume a total of less plants than omnivores. Animals eat plants, so if you eat them, you're eating an animal plus everything it ate to grow up.
I absolutely agree, eating meat should count as eating at least one salad too.
Take that, doctor.
Animals on average convert about 10% of the mass they eat into their own body mass.
So when a lion dies and turns to grass, the antilopes only get back 10% of the grass they ate to make meat for the lion.
Circle of life, my ass. More like a trickle down pyramid scheme.
It's even less. The Antilope converts 10% of grass to meat, the lion converts 10% of Antilope meat to lion meat. So it's 10% of 10% bringing us back to the root problem of everything... The 1%!!!!
I mean, obviously you won't get 100% of the energy back because most of it is spent on heating you up and moving and also heating you up, but yeah, I feel like God could've really done with some optimization techniques.
Only a matter of time before plant-based alternatives fully take over from meat. Meat farming is not sustainable, as you mention all the land used to farm food for animals could be used to just farm more food for us directly.
We just have to get rid of the stigma around plant-based "meat".
At this point it isn't so much the stigma as it is the price for a lot of us. If it was the same or cheaper than regular meat prices in my area I would buy it instead.
Prices are coming down, but they won't come down a lot until more people buy it, but more people wont buy it unless it's cheaper...
Here's hoping there's some more restrictions imposed on meat.
Yea it's a catch 22 unfortunately.
Huh. Now that you mention it, even where I live i actually didn't hear any comments after soy shit fell. I didn't notice. Still ain't buyin substitute cu I love meat but it's no longer due to hearing how bad it tastes - in fact I did hear some good comments lately.
It is worth mentioning that the types of plants that people and animals eat are different. Humans can't digest cellulose and hemicellulose where herbivores can.
Yeah, we can't really eat grass, but thinking that most cattle nowadays actually graze is... inaccurate, to put it mildly.
Factory-farmed cattle are almost always fed grain made of corn and soy, both of which are completely fine for humans to eat, in case someone was unaware.
Producing 1kg of beef takes several kilos of feed.
Just so you know cattle are only grain finished, personally I don't like the practice. More details in my reply to a different comment. https://lemmy.world/comment/8250179
Grass fed: small minority of beef cattle, finished on grain after grazing for about a year. Typically slaughtered at 18-24 months of age.
Grass finished: even smaller minority not fed grains and allowed to graze their entire lives. Typically slaughtered around 18-24 months of age.
Normal: majority raised in feedlots on heavy grain-based diets. Typically slaughtered closer to 16 months of age.All are slaughtered well shy of the 20+ year life expectancy of a cow in a sanctuary.
I grew up with an uncle who raised steer and the sheer amount of land it took just to grow the corn and grass they ate was astounding. The animals also needed constant medication to stop them getting each other sick due to diet and proximity. So that's the regular non organic, non grass fed/finished reality. With human population the way it is that kind of farming is pretty much the only way we can sustain eating meat in the amount we do.
I wonder, realistically, how much land it would take to produce our meat, at the current rate of consumption per capita, to grass feed/finish all those animals.
According to this study, we would have needed an area about three quarters the size of Texas to meet 2010 demand. Who knows what it would be today. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/2/2/127
I have never even heard of a cow calf operation operating as a feed lot. Every single cow calf operation I have ever seen, heard of, ect feeding pasture or grass hay.
And you did we were I said I disagree with feed lots right?
Yeah, instead of using that land to grow monocultured grass, we could use it to grow plants we do eat. It's not like we would keep growing grass there and say "Darn! We can't eat this grass!", we wouldn't need to plant plants we don't eat in the first place.
Yeah I agree and we need to start with lawns.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/lawn-largest-crop-america_n_55d0dc06e4b07addcb43435d
Also many animals are grassed on areas which are unsuitable for farming. And if done in a responsible manner allows for the natural diversity of an area to be maintained.
Monocroping corn or potatoes is just as bad.
I totally agree, lawns are a huge waste of space and resources. I've torn up every lawn on every property I've rented or owned and replaced it with local plants for native pollinators (honeybees are invasive and harm native pollinators).
I'd agree if there would ba a "could" in there or something. The reality is that a lot of soy (that humans can digest) is fed to animals...
I can't digest soy, soy is actually one of the most common allergies. I am actually finding that as I get older all legumes are getting a little hard for me to digest (not sure what that is about). I am someone who would have not lived though childhood with out the ability to have both the protein and calories I got from eating meat. (I couldn't do dairy as a child either)
I get what is being said about gain finishing. A practice that is really more of a result of corporate agriculture than anything else. I just find these black and white statements about how non ag people think ag should work. Fail to take into account pastoralism or dry land grazing, while also glossing over petrochemical fertilizer uses. All the best studies I have read on the climate affects of any type of agriculture come to the conclusion that it is near impossible to tell, due to the vast number of variables. The ones that come to some strong conclusion tend to throw out a lot of data because it is too hard to use.
I have nothing against reducing meat intake nor will I ever say that vegetation diets are "bad" I just find that people are often unwilling to understand the systems they want to change.
I am someone who would have not lived though childhood with out the ability to have both the protein and calories I got from eating meat. (I couldn't do dairy as a child either)
A soy allergy isn't a death sentence. Eggs exist, and so do tons and tons of other sources of protein.
Cannabis seeds, for one, are great source of protein and contain all the essential aminoacids.
I was unaware of the term "grain finished", so I looked it up.
When beef is grain-finished, cattle are free to eat a balanced diet of grain, local feed ingredients, like potato hulls or sugar beets, and hay or forage at the feedyard.
You're not seriously suggesting that most cattle enjoy such conditions?
If you just plain do the math of the area needed for grazing versus the average consumption of beef per capita you can see that most cattle is definitely not just "grain finished".
So for me soy was a death sentence. As a child I would get an anaphylactic reaction to soy. So yeah I had to be very careful.
I did eat eggs, lots of eggs. The thing is a large egg has about 70 calories. In my teens and 20s I had a maintenance diet of over 3000 calories a day. I could easily eat a meal of over 1000 calories and be hungry in a few hours. That is 30+ eggs a day.
I assume you mean hemp seeds? Right? It's great that food sources like that exist. Having said that, I don't really think they were available during the Reagan administration....
No I don't think Grain finishing is a good thing. As I said it is a thing that exists because of commercial ag. I personally think. That JBS, national, Tyson, and Cargile are destroying the meat industry for their own gain. No one except their shareholders benefit. That is why I always advocate for people to buy their meat from the rancher. It is much better for the animals, Grass finished tastes better, and it supports independent producers.
If you just plain do the math of the area needed for grazing versus the average consumption of beef per capita you can see that most cattle is definitely not just "grain finished".
Feel free to show me the math. Look I am not trying to be mean but that statement is just not true. That is not how cow digestion works. Both steers and nursing/pregnant heifers need to be on a grass diet. If you really want I can give you a much better break down of how exactly it works. It may be through silage or haylage, but they are not a grain diet. Grain is what makes beef marbled, that is why cows are just finished on it. Too much fat in the beef reduces its value.
Look I agree that industrial ag practices are not the right way. And as I said last time it is very important to understand a system to be able to create real change.
Yeah, eating soy with a severe soy allergy can lead to anaphylactix shock, but having a soy allergy doesn't mean you won't be able to get protein elsewhere, meaning you just have to not eat soy.
You can easily die of lactose intolerance as well. Diarrhea is historically in like the top 3 causes of death.
I assume you mean hemp seeds? Right?
The plant is called cannabis.
"Hemp" is for people who don't understand that "hemp" is a political term and that "hemp seeds" are in fact cannabis seeds and that even the most psychoactive cannabis has no psychoactive alkaloids in the seeds.
No I don't think Grain finishing is a good thing
Not what I asked. I asked if you seriously think most cattle is "grain finished" when literally a vast majority of the world's cattle is fed solely on feed and never even see grass.
"Feel free to show me, I'm unable to back up anything I said and I think it's up to you to disprove me instead of me being able to support the things I'm saying."
And you talk about being annoyed by people who don't know what they're talking about?
Which country's data should we use?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_meat_consumption
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-per-kg-poore
https://www.statista.com/statistics/269236/grazing-land-worldwide-by-region/
There's the data
Why the ad hominem attacks?
You said that
soy is not a death sentence Even when it was for me and your reply to that seems angry. Well talked about this. I couldn't eat soy or dairy. I ate eggs , but they are not calorie dense enough. And yes I ate lots of legumes. My mom fed us lots of lentils when I was a kid. And as I as said I literally couldn't eat enough calories without meat. As I have gotten older I have been able to eat a little less meat which is nice, but there are many people like me who have shit digestion. We live our lives chronically under weight despite eating 4 or 5 meals a day. I literally didn't have the option. Meat and animal fat were the only foods that were calorie dense enough to keep me alive. Are you saying I should have died?
The plant is called cannabis Again why the anger? I know what it is call. There is a clear definition between hemp and marijuana. Yes they are both part of the cannabis family but we both know you are not buy marijuana seed at the food co-op as a supplement.
Also you completely failed to respond to them not being available to me as a child.
Not what I asked. I asked if you seriously think most cattle is "grain finished"
That is not what you asked, you asked.
You're not seriously suggesting that most cattle enjoy such conditions?
Why are you trying to change what you said instead of a good faith effort to reply with counter points. I am always happy to have a good discussion.
I look at your data it says nothing about how cattle many cows are gain finished or not. You completely failed to reply to the fact that cows can't be on an all grain diet despite your previous statement to that.
Why the ad hominem attacks?
I don't think you understand what that means.
Even when it was for me
You're alive, dummy. Because you don't eat soy. If you were allergic to oxygen, that argument might apply.
Again why the anger?
What's this about anger? You might be projecting. So me noting that hemp is cannabis made you feel stupid, so you feel angry. It's understandable, dw.
Also you completely failed to respond to them not being available to me as a child.
"My parents didn't care about my dietary requirements so that means that it literally didn't exist"
I know what it is call. There is a clear definition between hemp and marijuana. Yes they are both part of the cannabis family but we both know you are not buy marijuana seed at the food co-op as a supplement.
"Marijuana" :DD
"cannabis family"
They're both the exact same plant; cannabis sativa. "Hemp" just refers to the cannabis that isn't too strong.
From your comment:
Just so you know cattle are only grain finished, personally I don't like the practice. More details in my reply to a different comment. https://lemmy.world/comment/8250179
As if no cattle was fed only on feed. And then you have the audacity to pretend to be angry at people who don't understand agriculture. "Grain finished" means "mostly grass fed" and that just isn't fucking true, hahahahaahah
You're alive, dummy
ad hominem
1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect an ad hominem argument 2 : marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
Ad hominen means trying to win the argument through the properties of the other person.
It's a common mistake. Some, uh, less capable people confuse "ad hominem" for "insult".
You're alive. Thus your soy allergy wasn't a death sentence, was it? Are you dead?
Hemp IS cannabis, dummy, and most beef are not "grass finished" but feed fed.
Not like you're trying to avoid having said something stupid about a thing you don't understand, is it..? ;>
This seems like a dubious line of reasoning. It's like making the claim that if you eat moss your net water consumption is lower than if you eat the leaves off an oak tree because of all the water it takes to grow. I mean I guess it's sort of true but it's also sorta weird. The argument is basically eat closer to the bottom of the food chain and the younger the better, but I don't think you're going to be happy if people eat more puppies and veal...
So it's about efficiency. A given organism is going to have a particular conversion ratio in terms of how much mass/calories/nutrients whatever you're measuring it has to take in to increase it's own content an equivalent amount.
Since the vast quantity of food consumed by animals goes into energy rather than body mass they're very inefficient. Particularly larger creatures like cows which "waste" (obviously not from the cow's perspective) that energy breathing, moving, pumping blood, digesting, feeling and so on.
Infants are probably less efficient, as pregnancy is very stressful biologically.
Except 95% of what an animal eats ends up back in the soil as manure.
Hi, what is it like to be stupid? I really would like your expert opinion on this
If you ever had a clue, it died of terminal loneliness.
If you ever had a friend they would ditch you immediately