• Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    The entire industry is built on suffering. It’s bad for the animals, the workers, the climate, your health.

    I get a lot of downvotes for being vegan (and I’m usually being a prick about it, so - fair) but surely even the meat eaters must recognise that animal ag needs to scale way down to be at all sustainable. At the very least we need to stop subsidising it so it’s cheaper than alternatives.

    • SupraMario@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      You want to stop subsidizing one of the best ways to provide food to people?..yeah that’ll work out really well.

      You know why governments subsidize farms? So we all don’t starve.

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          No, no it’s not. All govs do this now so we don’t end up with another famine. One bad year and farmers basically will go bankrupt and have to sell.

          Hell go watch Clarkson farm if you want to actually learn something in a funny way.

      • Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        I’m not starving and I don’t eat meat. I just pay more for my food even though it costs less to produce. We should be incentivising more sustainable choices, because unless we scale down animal ag we all actually will starve.

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          It’s not cheaper to grow crops, the amount of work that goes into growing crops is a reason we have a shortage of labor to harvest them. It’s back breaking work and requires a ton of time. It’s also not a for sure thing. One bad season and you can lose entire tons of harvest.

          • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            I think you may be underestimating the heavy level of subsidies here

            Research from 2015 shows this subsidization reduces the price of Big Macs from $13 to $5 and the price of a pound of hamburger meat from $30 to the $5 we see today.

            https://www.aier.org/article/the-true-cost-of-a-hamburger/

            Even despite that, overall in most countries it actually ends up being cheaper to do a healthy plant-based diet assuming you have more whole-foods and less say plant-based meats

            It found that in high-income countries:

            • Vegan diets were the most affordable and reduced food costs by up to one third.

            • Vegetarian diets were a close second.

            • Flexitarian diets with low amounts of meat and dairy reduced costs by 14%.

            • By contrast, pescatarian diets increased costs by up to 2%.

            https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-11-11-sustainable-eating-cheaper-and-healthier-oxford-study

            And real world data backs this up

            Compared to meat eaters, results show that “true” vegetarians do indeed report lower food expenditures

            https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800915301488?via%3Dihub —(looking at the US)

            Based on primary data (n = 1040) collected through an online survey, representative of the Portuguese population, through logistic regressions, it was possible to conclude that plant-based consumers, particularly vegan, are associated with lower food expenditures compared to omnivorous consumers. In fact, plant-based consumers are shown to spend less than all other consumers assessed

            https://agrifoodecon.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40100-022-00224-9

            • PeggyLouBaldwin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 months ago

              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.

        • Dkarma@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          Most farms don’t grow food for humans to eat. You know this right? Like there is literally no way to sustain plant only eating for the whole country right now. It just isn’t there.

          • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            We instead grow large amounts of crops that go to animal feed. It takes a lot less cropland for plant-based diets because we don’t have to grow feed to another creature (who then will use up a large amount of that energy)

            The research suggests that it’s possible to feed everyone in the world a nutritious diet on existing croplands, but only if we saw a widespread shift towards plant-based diets.

            If we would shift towards a more plant-based diet we don’t only need less agricultural land overall, we also need less cropland.

            In the hypothetical scenario in which the entire world adopted a vegan diet the researchers estimate that our total agricultural land use would shrink from 4.1 billion hectares to 1 billion hectares. A reduction of 75%. That’s equal to an area the size of North America and Brazil combined.

            https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

            • SupraMario@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              No we do not, I cannot stand this stupid regurgitated lie. You cannot eat the food they do. You cannot eat spoiled food, you cannot eat grass, you cannot eat roots and stalks, 85% of what they eat is from foraging…and you cannot grow crops on the mass majority of the land that they live on.

              The water is even funnier, you cannot drink the water they do.

              • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 months ago

                It still takes more human-edible crops in than it produces out

                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

                Per unit crop land you can produce a lot more with plant-based production

                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

                For another study

                We find that, given the current mix of crop uses, growing food exclusively for direct human consumption could, in principle, increase available food calories by as much as 70%, which could feed an additional 4 billion people (more than the projected 2–3 billion people arriving through population growth)

                https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034015/pdf

                For water usage, it’s also draining from places like the drying up Colorado river. We really don’t want to use more water from that area at all

                Correspondingly, our hydrologic modelling reveals that cattle-feed irrigation is the leading driver of flow depletion in one-third of all western US sub-watersheds; cattle-feed irrigation accounts for an average of 75% of all consumptive use in these 369 sub-watersheds. During drought years (that is, the driest 10% of years), more than one-quarter of all rivers in the western US are depleted by more than 75% during summer months (Fig. 2 and Supplementary Fig. 2) and cattle-feed irrigation is the largest water use in more than half of these heavily depleted rivers

                https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1064&context=wffdocs

                • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Let me say this again…we are not growing in any substantial way human edible food for just meat production. This is so wrong. I’ll say it again…you cannot eat nor drink what livestock eat and drink. All of these “studies” love to leave that out. No one is going to stop eating meat, veganism is not something the majority of people can magically swap over to.