PeggyLouBaldwin @ PeggyLouBaldwin @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

147

Joined

1 yr. ago

being locked into a two-party system is not rational.

do you know how i know that you're not well-read?

your disgusting amp link doesn't show anything of import.

strategic voting is what leads to party consolidation.

since soybeans can be fed directly to animals, there is no need to make soy meal first. they are placed in an oil press, and the byproduct of pressing them for oil is soy meal. these are bare facts.

7%, is feeding of entire soybeans

right. which is what i said.

it's not a majority of the revenue. it's about half of the revenue from beans that are pressed for oil, but there are other uses.

most people get at least some of their food for free, subsidized, or through farming, gardening, or hunting. this study only accounted for foods taht people buy. it's misleading to claim this represents accurately how much people spend on food.

your five-year-old study might seem to be relevant on the surface, but you will find that the data sources for, for instance, biodiesel prices date to 1999. it is not ph.d. level research. i would expect something of this caliber from a rigorous high school.

Some vegetarians spend less money on food, others don't

why didn't you include the name of the study?

First, it is always unclear whether the omitted-variable bias exists because the “true” model is unknown. Thus, future research may include more covariates other than the ones considered here to minimize the bias. Moreover, studies like the present study rely on consumers’ capacity to honestly report information on the food consumed. Future research may consider other methodologies that can actually observe and report all foods consumed and the cost associated with them. This way, it will also be possible to capture other personal, cultural, socio-economic, and behavioural characteristics of the consumers which are difficult to assess using the present methodology. However, data of this nature would be expensive to collect.

i refuted the one i had already seen. i'll deal with the others later.

so why include the misleading one?

your seven-year-old research about soy markets is outdated. while the oil has always been worth far more than its weight in the bean, it is now around 50/50, even though beans are only about 20% oil.

i'm so glad you found the OWID link. do you see how the chart shows the vast majority of what is fed to animals is called "soy meal" or "soy cake"? that's the byproduct of pressing soybeans for oil. they literally eat our industrial waste. down at the bottom of the chart you can see the 7% that is fed directly to animals

the oxford study doesn't account for people who don't pay money for food, grow their own, hunt, fish, raise livestock, or even have it subsidized. basically, it doesn't account for poor people anywhere in the developed world. you are jumping to conclusions to say that it is cheaper for anyone but the wealthiest people.

almost all soy, including what is grown in the region formerly occupied by the amazon, is pressed for oil for human use, only about 7% of it is fed directly to animals. after processing the soy forhuman use, the waste product is what is given to animals, and cows get only a fraction of the soy. most of the soy fed to animals goes to poultry and swine.

in your own link, he calls putin a gangster.

he never said give up or rgive putin any part of ukraine. he called the invasion illegal. and the united states is IN nato, so the president (which he is running to be) would actually have influence over nato policy.