abraxas @ abraxas @lemmy.ml

Posts

1

Comments

387

Joined

2 yr. ago

No, that's not the takeaway I got from your message. It's the takeaway I get from a lifetime of growing up close to the source of my food. In an honest analysis, evidence after evidence shows the primary issue with food production is DEFINITELY locality. I have no problem living a carbon neutral life eating locally and balanced. And there's plenty of farmable land around me being underutilized, not utilized, or exported. And I don't live in a "megafarm state".

As for meat being "overrepresented", I agree with you with dozens of caveats. The problem is that meat is generally quite healthy so long as it's not heavily processed, and while there may be an environmental impact to meat overrepresentation, there is less of a health one (possibly more of a health gain). How much it's overrepresented is an especially hard problem because part of its overrepresentation comes from its sourcing. The well-balanced diet (health and ecologically) involves at least 2 meat/fish meals per day in my area, possibly 3 if you include dairy and eggs. In some other areas, that ecologically balanced diet might only be 1 meal of meat a day or less (though there may be no local way to find a nutritional balance in those areas).

But your soy point isn’t really correct

I think I'll agree to disagree here. Nothing you said in your rebuttal really disputed my point effectively, and I don't think you recognize that effectively enough for us to discuss it. Something I'd like to point out - soy flour really isn't that healthy and there's no reason to believe soy meal would be consumed by humans in larger amounts if it weren't consumed by animals.

And to reiterate, I’m not saying to burn down all animal agriculture and make everyone everywhere vegan

I know that. I probably wouldn't have replied to you (at least not as well-cited) if you were. Hardcore vegans that want everyone cutting out meat are brainwashed, and the only time I've seen them deconverted (rarely) was when they faced health issues due to also not actually spending the time and effort on nutrition required to attempt to sustain such a lifestyle.

I tried, so hard. Once you snort a line of a well-tuned IDE, it's hard to decide "I'm going to learn these 30 extensions to replicate that experience in vim".

Flip-side, I hate vim mode IDEs, too, because it tends to collide with native IDE functionality. So I just "dream of vim" and pull it up for certain specific tasks.

The problem with eating locally, is that it isn’t a viable way to feed humanity

Well, it is for me :). But while you're not wrong, it's a sad fact that many states export so much local food, meat, only to import crops from the other side of the country. Hell, someone tried to open a seafood restaurant in my home town that bought their products from 2000 miles away, products that were harvested from a dock less than 20 miles away from the restaurant itself.

I wager that my home region's exports are nearly enough to feed its populace despite having 2 of the biggest cities in the country. For the rest, of course we'll never have a zero-logistics food supply. But if you want to reduce impact, the ROI is much better dropping logistics by 10% with more local food (and localizing meat farms wherever possible, since that also increases the organic fertilizer utilization) than dropping meat consumption by 10%.

Add to that, that demand for meat (especially beef) means that a lot of animal agriculture requires the shipping of plant feed for that meat

Regulations can help with that. Oddly, that dynamic only works well with large farms. Small-scale feed operations tend to be local. Just like manure operations. Corn grows bloody everywhere, and you can grass-feed beef 90% of the way there. And the best way to grow corn? With cow manure. You're absolutely right that a cow farm 1000 miles away from a corn farm is a problem. The corn needs the cows. The cows need the corn. In at least 48 of the 50 states, the climate is amenable to both cows and crops with feedable waste. And in my area, ever farm does rotations. Guess what you use with all the cover crops you'd otherwise have to burn? YUP, feed em to the local cows.

see how the majority of soybean farming (77%) is for animal feed

70% of harvested soy material, call "soy meal", is inedible by humans and is used for cow crops. It is untrue that "the majority of soybean farming" is for animal feed. The true statement is "the majority of soybean output" is for animal feed, and nothing will ever change that. That's sorta the point of agriculture and horticulture. EVEN in factory farms (but moreso outside of that grouping) there is a critical synergizing effect between meat and animal farming, and it harms the environment in various ways to move away from that synergy.

And, similar to the point above, ‘grass fed’ beef just isn’t possible to do while meeting demand

"CAN" vs "IS". Current field rotations apparently would allow 1/3 the feed calories to be pasture grass, if we changed absolutely nothing about farming practices. But due to logistics, only 4% of cattle is grass-fed. Instead, we destroy all that pasture grass ungainfully and dispose of all that manure ungainfully. You want the one and only environmental problem in our food industry, that is it.

That said, I'd like to remind you of the discussion point above. We have corn and soy waste that are going to be destroyed otherwise. It is less ideal for us wanting tasty cows that it is mixed willy-nilly into the feed, but it does mean we would actually be able to fully waste-feed cattle on JUST the grass, soymeal, and other crop waste we have... if the megacorps in BOTH farming industries making the decision cared about the environment more than saving a buck. Which, perhaps, is why you have so many small self-sufficient farms that simply do not compete with the big guns.

Transport is a teensy tiny part of the climate/environmental impact for food

Food Transport is estimated to be as high as 3 gigatons tons of CO2 emissions per year, a full 20% of all food-related CO2 emissions. From my point of view (not considering all animal-related CO2 emissions as a single line-item), that makes transport the single largest cause of CO2 related impact in the entirety of agriculture/horticulture.

For context, ALL manure CO2 emissions is only 2.6 gigatons (full disclosure. I lost and re-found this link, and see another source estimates manure closer to 7B. I'm sure you know my thoughts on that. Food Transport is still of dominant significance and fertilizer impact cannot be that effectively reduced). And in many cases, that manure is less harmful to the environment, yes EVEN CO2 impact, than the other fertilizer options that replace it when used in crop farms.

There's a strong argument for "less meat" being good for the environment, but I am convinced (in part from hands-on experience) that the only arguments for "no meat" being any good are entirely fabricated.

I actually hate how distanced we are from meat in general, and agree that in general people should have the opportunity to kill their own meat.

That said, here's a real counterpoint. PTSD. I know people with severe PTSD from witnessing some unspeakable brutality like the violent death of a loved one or friend. Nobody should ever ask a PTSD patient to kill an animal themselves. Which is the problem with the whole "have to kill animals" thing entirely. Too many people have some traumatic event.

Honestly, I think that's where a lot of vegans come from. I have an extended family member who snapped after watching one of those vegan documentaries. She was weird before then for reasons none of us really knew, but she starved herself until she was hospitalized for malnutrition and her hair started falling out. When she got out, she wouldn't eat meat anymore and wouldn't talk about it. She isn't a "vegetarian" in any good meaning of the word, constantly struggling with nutritional issues and avoiding meat entirely because she can't bring herself to eat it. It has become a quiet ethical thing to her, but it's more than that.

So IMO, we gotta cure PTSD before making people kill. I DO think we should offer "kill and butcher your own meat" as an elective field trip in school. I got to visit my first farm in middle-school and it really helped give me a balanced view of the world of food. Even if it was just a chicken, if I could've killed my own, cleaned it, and cooked it, it would've really rounded out my head on the topic back then.

Well, yes. It's doubly true with food because our tastebuds tend towards liking the foods we are used to eating.

You know there's a lot of valid ethical frameworks that do not espouse veganism?

It's safer to say "YOUR ethics aren't a concern to him", or to me. There's a lot of philosophers who eat meat. And it's not hypocritical. They just think you're wrong. You aren't God (and even if you were, God doesn't get to decide ethics).

As for adverse health effects, I have known dozens of ex-vegans, one with an degree in nutrition, who left veganism despite their ethics, for health reasons. Generally speaking, it's easier to "accidentally" have an reasonably ok diet with a full balanced mix of foods than it is for a vegan to intentionally have one.

or environmental impacts of the meat industry?

This is actually an incredibly complicated accusation, and unless you enter the conversation with the conclusion in mind, there's not enough evidence/arguments out there to show that it's "the meat industry" that's the real environmental problem with our food industry. As someone who has shared a table with experts on a few occasions and then done some of my own armchair research, I'm convinced the two real problems are non-local food and factory farming. The former creates polluting logicistical overhead in transport and over-storage of food (fossil fuels for driving, non-recyclable plastics, etc) and the latter in willful destruction of environment to get more output cheaper, when we have plenty of room and plenty of margins to "do it right"

As for "to do it right", part of doing it right is acknowledging that we have a compost/manure shortfall against crops NOT because we're not producing enough manure but because we don't have localized meat farms balanced in each area around their crop farms, and/or that it's considered acceptable to use fertilizers despite the presence of manure that would better fertilize a crop. So the better answer? Local meat, and transition away from factory farms. And if you've got the land and the courage for it, keep some chickens for eggs and goats for meat/manure.

My 2c anyway.

or is all about how delicious steak is to you?

AND it is about how delicious a steak is to me. Have you ever walked a local farm with the people who do all the work? Helped them pick out the pigs for the meal? Known the love that is involved in the whole process, and the fact that the animals have it 100x better than they'd have had it in nature.

So yes, there is nothing like cutting into that pork chop having a REAL appreciation for the pig's sacrifice, a real appreciation for the work everyone put into it all.

Nothing like going to my local farm and eating their meat while watching a movie about how GOOD the meat I'm eating is because some other meat is so terrible.

Thanks for the idea :) I'm gonna bring it up for the next local farm-to-table

Worse, if someone attempts to convince me of something I already think is wrong and uses an argument that I am convinced is flawed, they will only make me more sure I was right in the first place.

In my experience, my organic local crops still involve animal deaths. And need cows to fertilize.

Balanced is simply better than vegan. Not everyone eats balanced, but people who do should not be shamed for it.

Taking a step crazier, there are some animals that produce SO MANY calories that they represent less animal deaths per calorie than eating crops. Cows and Pigs are an example of that. I'm not going to get into hard numbers because everyone likes to hate on the other side's numbers and my experience living in a farming community looks more like the numbers that make animals look bad. If you want to math it out, the farm industry estimates about 40 mouse deaths per acre farmed, and vegan advocates defend a 15 total animal deaths per hectare figure. Grass-fed cows are more death-efficient than corn (the gold standard efficient crop, if less efficient than potatoes) at around 10 deaths-per-acre of farmland. I've never seen an acre of farmland without at least 10 animal carcasses on it in a full growth+harvest cycle.

Of course it would be better for the planet and our wallets to not eat meat, but our diet more or less requires some amount of meat for iron and protein

I think people really get a skewed view of this. It's better for our planets if we eat less meat, and if people who need high protein intake won't stop eating meat it's a bit better if you eat zero meat to competensate. But it's a "little vs a lot" thing . We still need meat to support the horticultural industry.

I mean, the cows and pigs in my area serve the important purpose of providing much of the fertilizer for all the vegetable farms in my area. They would still be there, getting fed, if nobody ate them or drank their milk. Their deaths would just be more of a waste. There is a point where too many cows/pigs are producing more fertilizer than crop farms need. But you want to hear something scary? WE AREN'T THERE YET; not even close. In the US at least, we only produce enough manure to support 20% of our horticulture, and the rest is supplemented by compost and synthetic fertilizer. And that synethetic fertilizer? Pretty terrible for the ecosystem and wild animals as well.

The real answer is that we haven't solved the problems. It does "feelgood" to know that we can genuinely help a little by eating a little less meat. And we should all be doing that. But all of us going vegan is a real problem for reasons unrelated to the (very real) nutritional issues.

I would say that's not really true. Of course there's ethical concerns about eating most plants, regardless of whether a specific person holds those concerns or not. Eating local has been an important ethical push since before veganism ever took the spotlight. In my state, it's always been about "eat local, save the environment" and "eat local, support our farmers". Always.

I grew up knowing that a local clam chowder was simply the right option over getting corn shipped in from Idaho. We have some local corn farmers and I'll buy a bag every year at harvest time, but otherwise I don't eat corn.

In return, you better believe people DO have local-food recipes that try to replicate non-local foods. We do curries of local veg instead of traditional veg (despite the presence of Asian markets), etc etc.

It's just that it's easier to make a good and balanced meal without "Faking it" when that meal contains meat.

I wouldn't call Keto a fad diet at this point. It's one of the most popular diets in the world often recommended by doctors to their patients (especially patients with Type 2 Diabetes)

I mean, there's quite a bit of "faking it" for Keto as well. Trying to replicate grains and grain products in particular. Pork Rinds are advertised as an alternative to chips. And look up "Fathead Dough" recipe. Yes, some of the replacements are still plant, but the idea is to add a bunch of egg, cheese, and animal fat to bind together Almond Flour into a cohesive dough for breads and pizza crusts.

Honestly. I’m looking for vegan and vegetarian recipes and while it usually tastes “fine”, it’s mostly just “meh”.

If it's about eating ethically, I highly suggest trying to eat locally instead. It's much better for the environment, and you can usually get a better nutritional balance.

I mean, if eating "meh" makes you feel good, go for it. Just please make sure to study all the supplements you need and keep researching because there are regularly discoveries that might change the supplement intake you require.

I'd say either you live somewhere where ALL those things are really cheap, or you don't know what it's like to be poor. I do well enough for myself and there are items in your list I wouldn't eat regularly even if I wanted, on price alone. Lamb and Venison are good examples, as are some fish despite the fact I live on the ocean. And Beef and Pork (I don't get this one) prices have skyrocketed of late around here.

I hope not. Far better for the world (and animal welfare ironically) is to eat locally (which is impossible for vegans in most regions). It's simply better for me to eat local proteins (still more than 3 - chicken, pork, beef, shrimp, halibut, cod, and I'm allergic to others but other people eat them) with produce I buy from the farm down the street than for me to grab an Avacado ("from Mexicooooo")

...but to your point, most people have favorites or patterns/habits. Before I became allergic to clams, milk, and scallops, I would eat Clam Chowder or family-fished scallops virtually every day.

If you ask every vegan I've ever had a discussion with, that would be every non-vegan in the world.

Most people who eat meat also eat some subset of vegetables and know they like/hate some other subset of vegetables.

The human body loves getting addicted to the unhealthy sugar carbs found in some plants, but our taste buds do tend to have a healthier long-term relationship with the umami balance you get more easily from meats and seafoods.