2M chickens to be killed in US processing plants due to lack of employees(wcvb.com)
wcvb.com
2M chickens to be killed in US processing plants due to lack of employees
https://www.wcvb.com/article/2-million-chickens-will-be-killed-in-us-processing-plants-because-of-lack-of-employees/32279804
160 comments
I think the word prematurely is missing
> I think the word prematurely is missing
If its a the processing plant that's kind of true, even if they could run them through the automated 'harvesting' system its probably really expensive to store until an undisclosed time for it to be processed and then sent to market. At a significant loss in Market price, I imagine. So its best to take the subsidy/insured loss and restart again.
This is actually really fucking sad... I hope it encourages more people to focus on the World's broken food supply and its immense waste and do something about it. I hope we don't have to see the same thing that happened with toilet paper, and paper towels happen with our food before people get the message that we have to re-think our entire infrastructure.
> Americans eat 24M chickens per day. So 2M killed is only a fraction of the number eaten in a single day.
That's a horrible calculus, and quite frankly stereotypical of People so detached from their food system: have you taken into consideration the externalities of hatching, raising, and ultimately getting them to Market size? It's actually incredibly costly. And they were probably factory farmed, which makes it even worse given the cruel practices involved.
On a positive note: Spring is finally here, and I saw a bunch of people's Community Garden's today.
If its a the processing plant that's kind of true, even if they could run them through the automated 'harvesting' system its probably really expensive to store until an undisclosed time for it to be processed and then sent to market. At a significant loss in Market price, I imagine. So its best to take the subsidy/insured loss and restart again.
This is actually really fucking sad... I hope it encourages more people to focus on the World's broken food supply and its immense waste and do something about it. I hope we don't have to see the same thing that happened with toilet paper, and paper towels happen with our food before people get the message that we have to re-think our entire infrastructure.
> Americans eat 24M chickens per day. So 2M killed is only a fraction of the number eaten in a single day.
That's a horrible calculus, and quite frankly stereotypical of People so detached from their food system: have you taken into consideration the externalities of hatching, raising, and ultimately getting them to Market size? It's actually incredibly costly. And they were probably factory farmed, which makes it even worse given the cruel practices involved.
On a positive note: Spring is finally here, and I saw a bunch of people's Community Garden's today.
> focus on the World's broken food supply and its immense waste
That is an extremely hyperbolic statement.
According to the United Nations [https://tinyurl.com/y9esnjez] fruits, vegetables, cereals, and roots account for 70% of all food waste. It is unfortunate that due to a global pandemic they had to be put down, but chickens are the most efficient form for preserving and delivering calories from grains to the table.
Additionally, industrialized and developing nations waste food at the same rate - just in different stages of the logistics chain. No system is perfectly efficient, and while there are improvements to be made - it is pretty damn amazing that the majority of 7 billion people have a meal a day.
That is an extremely hyperbolic statement.
According to the United Nations [https://tinyurl.com/y9esnjez] fruits, vegetables, cereals, and roots account for 70% of all food waste. It is unfortunate that due to a global pandemic they had to be put down, but chickens are the most efficient form for preserving and delivering calories from grains to the table.
Additionally, industrialized and developing nations waste food at the same rate - just in different stages of the logistics chain. No system is perfectly efficient, and while there are improvements to be made - it is pretty damn amazing that the majority of 7 billion people have a meal a day.
Well, that raises further questions. How could a chicken farm or chicken meat in a freezer be more efficient forms of calorie storage than a grain silo or a shipment of flour? Do you have a source?
Because frozen meat stays good literally forever. Flour eventually goes bad. Grain can rot.
Your comment inspired me to do a little reading, since this is an interesting idea (and maybe represents an opportunity in the supply chain... maybe what we need is better/newer technology for long-term storage of grains/flour/etc.).
Apparently, flour can (should?) be frozen for long-term storage, and would keep indefinitely: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33890/is-it-okay... (unfortunately that link to University of Nebraska is 404 now).
Long-term grain storage concerns: https://www.agriculture.com/machinery/grain-handling-and-equ... ; as a non-expert, this begs the question of why more climate control is not done, to create indefinite/permanent storage (probably just not economical to do so, but given disruptions like COVID-19, maybe this will change?).
Apparently, flour can (should?) be frozen for long-term storage, and would keep indefinitely: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33890/is-it-okay... (unfortunately that link to University of Nebraska is 404 now).
Long-term grain storage concerns: https://www.agriculture.com/machinery/grain-handling-and-equ... ; as a non-expert, this begs the question of why more climate control is not done, to create indefinite/permanent storage (probably just not economical to do so, but given disruptions like COVID-19, maybe this will change?).
>> flour can (should?) be frozen for long-term storage
It can be forzen but there are lots of difficulties in doing so. Top of the list is moisture. Frozen flower is cold. If you take it out and put it on the shelf flour will condensate moisture, quickly turing it into a useless lump. Microwaving it is difficult. You have to warm it in a totally dry environment. A frozen chicken breast doesn't have these issues.
It can be forzen but there are lots of difficulties in doing so. Top of the list is moisture. Frozen flower is cold. If you take it out and put it on the shelf flour will condensate moisture, quickly turing it into a useless lump. Microwaving it is difficult. You have to warm it in a totally dry environment. A frozen chicken breast doesn't have these issues.
> just not economical to do so
Yup. Grains are so incredibly cheap that's it's not worth preserving them.
My favorite stat to pull out at parties:
The price of a bushel of wheat (aka 60 pounds) has been approximately one British pound since the mid 1300's.
It's currently worth about 4 British pounds, but that says more about how much the British pound has declined against the USD than it says about the price of wheat.
Yup. Grains are so incredibly cheap that's it's not worth preserving them.
My favorite stat to pull out at parties:
The price of a bushel of wheat (aka 60 pounds) has been approximately one British pound since the mid 1300's.
It's currently worth about 4 British pounds, but that says more about how much the British pound has declined against the USD than it says about the price of wheat.
Interesting, but not at all accurate.
First: Its only 'cheap' because Wheat is an almost universally subsidized crop in most of the World. Which means the farmers externalities are obscured in what is actually a ubiquitous but environmentally challenging crop to grow in terms of land use, and irrigation. Harvesting, too if you don't have access to modern combines and want viable yields. Not to mention growing practices themselves and if its a GMO crop its often sprayed into oblivion with all kind of pesticides that cross contaminate and pollute water supplies and kill local insects and soil bacteria, microbes, and unsettle the flora/fauna.
Second: The USD-GBP bushel parallel is also not correct as neither are what they were meant to actually represent since becoming fiat: A pound sterling in the case of GBP, and grains of silver (371.25) in the case of USD. The measurements are off for the analogy that you're trying to make.
First: Its only 'cheap' because Wheat is an almost universally subsidized crop in most of the World. Which means the farmers externalities are obscured in what is actually a ubiquitous but environmentally challenging crop to grow in terms of land use, and irrigation. Harvesting, too if you don't have access to modern combines and want viable yields. Not to mention growing practices themselves and if its a GMO crop its often sprayed into oblivion with all kind of pesticides that cross contaminate and pollute water supplies and kill local insects and soil bacteria, microbes, and unsettle the flora/fauna.
Second: The USD-GBP bushel parallel is also not correct as neither are what they were meant to actually represent since becoming fiat: A pound sterling in the case of GBP, and grains of silver (371.25) in the case of USD. The measurements are off for the analogy that you're trying to make.
> ...frozen meat stays good literally forever.
Can you please point me to where this is investigated? I know rough vacuum-grade vacuum-packed frozen meat rates a 3-year shelf life [1]. I've yet to find information beyond rough vacuum [2], though. I would imagine ultra-high grade vacuum, in a retort bag, in a medical-grade freezer (-140 to -150° C [3], well beyond even commercial food deep freezers in the -30 to -50° C range) can extend that shelf life, but I've never found anyone who experimented and wrote it up.
Flour can be stored indefinitely in the freezer supposedly [4], but I haven't seen anyone investigate vacuum-sealed, oxygen-absorbed, frozen flour shelf life. Whole wheatberries when vacuum sealed with nitrogen flush will keep for 25 years at room temperature, don't know what adding freezing will do.
[1] https://foodvacbags.com/blogs/foodsaverblogs/can-you-vacuum-...
[2] https://schoonoverinc.com/new-vacuum-roughing-gauge-sensors/
[3] https://www.labrepco.com/product-category/cold-storage-produ...
[4] https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33890/is-it-okay...
Can you please point me to where this is investigated? I know rough vacuum-grade vacuum-packed frozen meat rates a 3-year shelf life [1]. I've yet to find information beyond rough vacuum [2], though. I would imagine ultra-high grade vacuum, in a retort bag, in a medical-grade freezer (-140 to -150° C [3], well beyond even commercial food deep freezers in the -30 to -50° C range) can extend that shelf life, but I've never found anyone who experimented and wrote it up.
Flour can be stored indefinitely in the freezer supposedly [4], but I haven't seen anyone investigate vacuum-sealed, oxygen-absorbed, frozen flour shelf life. Whole wheatberries when vacuum sealed with nitrogen flush will keep for 25 years at room temperature, don't know what adding freezing will do.
[1] https://foodvacbags.com/blogs/foodsaverblogs/can-you-vacuum-...
[2] https://schoonoverinc.com/new-vacuum-roughing-gauge-sensors/
[3] https://www.labrepco.com/product-category/cold-storage-produ...
[4] https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33890/is-it-okay...
>> I know rough vacuum-grade vacuum-packed frozen meat rates a 3-year shelf life
That is the number for taste, not food safety. There is lots of guidance that meet is "good" for a few months to a few years. But it is also true that people have eaten mammoth meat frozen for thousands of years. The reality is that long-frozen meat will not taste as good as meat only frozen a few days.
>>Because freezing keeps food safe almost indefinitely, recommended storage times are for quality only. Refer to the freezer storage chart at the end of this document, which lists optimum freezing times for best quality.
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety...
That is the number for taste, not food safety. There is lots of guidance that meet is "good" for a few months to a few years. But it is also true that people have eaten mammoth meat frozen for thousands of years. The reality is that long-frozen meat will not taste as good as meat only frozen a few days.
>>Because freezing keeps food safe almost indefinitely, recommended storage times are for quality only. Refer to the freezer storage chart at the end of this document, which lists optimum freezing times for best quality.
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety...
Dried grain, when sealed against humidity, is stable in a passive store like an old mine for wau over half a century. So, no, grain storage is incredibly low-maintenance, compared to a freezer.
> That is an extremely hyperbolic statement.
It isn't, having worked in both Agriculture and Culinary in 11 countries spanning two continents, and 2 islands I think my position is far more informed than your own and perhaps even those stats you have given as it only gives averages.
Context: I also have a background in logistics and supply chains at VW and BMW, and I can tell you that any Industry losing UPWARDS of 40% of all product from start to end (even more when viewing farm to end consumer depending on distribution channels) and accepts that loss is utterly doomed--the monetary losses are masked in murky mix of poverty and subsidies.
There are many challenges with having a global food supply system, some that we will have to radically alter or abandon altogether, which are mainly environmental in the best of times and scarcity ridden disasters and Humanitarian crises in the worst. I've seen it occur in Egypt, Somalia, Tunisia, Ukraine, Venezuela and had interactions with people on the ground as it happen or that lived through it themselves and we later worked together.
Its easy to dismiss when food is so plentiful at the shops, but this is actually why I went to IBM to go into their Food Safety program and left when I realized it was just vapourware.
I understood that it only takes very simple variable changes to alter the very delicate and fragile system we have in place that we all rely on. There is a massive opportunity loss in not addressing this on so many levels, but even the glaring monetary one seems to go past unappreciated despite the fact that Agriculture is the biggest Industry in the World only second to FOREX, and mainly because FOREX includes the transactions within International Ag supply chains.
Consider also that less 1.7% of the World's population feeds the other ~98% and things start to sink in really fast. The 'technical-debt' like issues with specialty crops that only grow in one specific area (almonds in Central CA is one example) rather than having several cultivars throughout the World are disasters waiting to happen. I'm not sure if its by design or sheer ignorance anymore, as some to profit from either scenario but either way it needs to be resolved.
I'm glad you guys have taken so much interest in this subject, as its a personal passion of mine; I will go thoroughly in all the responses, and please engage if you want to discuss the matter further as I welcome more discussion to get people involved as this is not only a dire problem, but its ultimately a solvable optimization issue given enough focus. And I think tech people are what are needed most, on a calories basis we've already reached a post-scarcity situation in food production already.
> No system is perfectly efficient, and while there are improvements to be made - it is pretty damn amazing that the majority of 7
Agreed, I would go so far as to say its a modern working miracle it does yield that result when you see its inherit flaws we seem to willfully neglect because it doesn't affect +98% of thew World's population, and have gone into detail before why that is in other posts. On the other end of that equation for the farmers is often poverty and suicide.
It isn't, having worked in both Agriculture and Culinary in 11 countries spanning two continents, and 2 islands I think my position is far more informed than your own and perhaps even those stats you have given as it only gives averages.
Context: I also have a background in logistics and supply chains at VW and BMW, and I can tell you that any Industry losing UPWARDS of 40% of all product from start to end (even more when viewing farm to end consumer depending on distribution channels) and accepts that loss is utterly doomed--the monetary losses are masked in murky mix of poverty and subsidies.
There are many challenges with having a global food supply system, some that we will have to radically alter or abandon altogether, which are mainly environmental in the best of times and scarcity ridden disasters and Humanitarian crises in the worst. I've seen it occur in Egypt, Somalia, Tunisia, Ukraine, Venezuela and had interactions with people on the ground as it happen or that lived through it themselves and we later worked together.
Its easy to dismiss when food is so plentiful at the shops, but this is actually why I went to IBM to go into their Food Safety program and left when I realized it was just vapourware.
I understood that it only takes very simple variable changes to alter the very delicate and fragile system we have in place that we all rely on. There is a massive opportunity loss in not addressing this on so many levels, but even the glaring monetary one seems to go past unappreciated despite the fact that Agriculture is the biggest Industry in the World only second to FOREX, and mainly because FOREX includes the transactions within International Ag supply chains.
Consider also that less 1.7% of the World's population feeds the other ~98% and things start to sink in really fast. The 'technical-debt' like issues with specialty crops that only grow in one specific area (almonds in Central CA is one example) rather than having several cultivars throughout the World are disasters waiting to happen. I'm not sure if its by design or sheer ignorance anymore, as some to profit from either scenario but either way it needs to be resolved.
I'm glad you guys have taken so much interest in this subject, as its a personal passion of mine; I will go thoroughly in all the responses, and please engage if you want to discuss the matter further as I welcome more discussion to get people involved as this is not only a dire problem, but its ultimately a solvable optimization issue given enough focus. And I think tech people are what are needed most, on a calories basis we've already reached a post-scarcity situation in food production already.
> No system is perfectly efficient, and while there are improvements to be made - it is pretty damn amazing that the majority of 7
Agreed, I would go so far as to say its a modern working miracle it does yield that result when you see its inherit flaws we seem to willfully neglect because it doesn't affect +98% of thew World's population, and have gone into detail before why that is in other posts. On the other end of that equation for the farmers is often poverty and suicide.
24 million chickens?! That’s one chicken per person per 10 days or so.
That’s a fuckton of chickens.
That’s a fuckton of chickens.
Americans eat 24M chickens per day. So 2M killed is only a fraction of the number eaten in a single day.
However it's still deplorable that we can't find a way to not waste this amount of food.
However it's still deplorable that we can't find a way to not waste this amount of food.
Americans go through 24M chickens a day, but a significant portion isn't eaten. Think of all the food thrown away at restaurants because it sat too long, food that goes bad in the fridge (oops! guilty), food that kids get served but don't eat (as a parent, I see this a lot).
While it is disturbing to hear this, I'm sure this amount of chicken meat is wasted on a daily, or at least close to it.
While it is disturbing to hear this, I'm sure this amount of chicken meat is wasted on a daily, or at least close to it.
Roughly 40% of food created, is wasted: https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/wasted-2017-report....
Well the alternative would probably be empty food shelves like you had in planned economies like the DDR and Soviet Union. Just in time food production just doesn't work for things that have to start production ~2-6 months before they are delivered and have a shelf life of ~1-2 weeks. Fresh bread delivered to bakeries regularly sells out here and this is expected, same with Meat and some vegetables. But there is no way to achieve empty vegetable and Meat shelves without pissing people off.
Part of the current waste is a desire for photogenic foods; minor blemishes don’t sell as well as pristine items.
Another part (not counted in the statistics if I understand right), is obesity. We over-consume to the point of illness.
Another part is deliberate over-production in good years so that we don’t go hungry in bad years. This part ought to be considered as unavoidable.
Another part is the types of food. Meat is, in general, a wasteful indirection between sunlight and us. Even ignoring any argument about vegetarian/vegan diets, I accept that this isn’t universally so, as some land (I don’t know about fish vs. seaweed) is unsuitable for growing human crops. However, it remains broadly true.
In principle, though perhaps not in practice, indoor farming (not just artificial lighting, also greenhouses etc.) could supply a more consistent yield. I can’t comment on the economics of that, not even a little. However, as farming as a whole represents a very small, and still diminishing, fraction of the west’s GDP, my guess is that it could become achievable even if it is not yet achievable.
Another part (not counted in the statistics if I understand right), is obesity. We over-consume to the point of illness.
Another part is deliberate over-production in good years so that we don’t go hungry in bad years. This part ought to be considered as unavoidable.
Another part is the types of food. Meat is, in general, a wasteful indirection between sunlight and us. Even ignoring any argument about vegetarian/vegan diets, I accept that this isn’t universally so, as some land (I don’t know about fish vs. seaweed) is unsuitable for growing human crops. However, it remains broadly true.
In principle, though perhaps not in practice, indoor farming (not just artificial lighting, also greenhouses etc.) could supply a more consistent yield. I can’t comment on the economics of that, not even a little. However, as farming as a whole represents a very small, and still diminishing, fraction of the west’s GDP, my guess is that it could become achievable even if it is not yet achievable.
I see a truck delivering to my neighbors called "imperfect foods." I'm hoping to see more of that approach as delivery of groceries becomes more common (as opposed to going to the grocery store and selecting the best looking produce). I'd think people would appreciate saving a few pennies if the produce isn't perfect looking, especially as it becomes seen as a "socially conscious" positive to do so.
I imagine this sort of waste is less of an issue with things like meat.
While meat is wasteful as you say, people do find it satisfying to eat meat. I am looking forward to fake meat getting better. I've tried an Impossible Whopper, it is indeed close but still not there. It should be better for the environment as well as feeling better to those of us who find it disturbing to kill animals for food.
I imagine this sort of waste is less of an issue with things like meat.
While meat is wasteful as you say, people do find it satisfying to eat meat. I am looking forward to fake meat getting better. I've tried an Impossible Whopper, it is indeed close but still not there. It should be better for the environment as well as feeling better to those of us who find it disturbing to kill animals for food.
> Part of the current waste is a desire for photogenic foods; minor blemishes don’t sell as well as pristine items.
Agreed, often to the detriment of your second point.
> Another part (not counted in the statistics if I understand right), is obesity. We over-consume to the point of illness.
Also agree, most cultivars are created not for taste, quality or nutrient density/availability but for shelf life and transport robustness. Which when looking at this from a biological metabolic satiation feedback system standpoint, specifically those damaged from processed foods and, you get that end result. Its actually really dark when you think about how poor the Human physiology and psychology has responded to excess in the modern age, and we al do it to ourselves to some degree.
> Another part is deliberate over-production in good years so that we don’t go hungry in bad years. This part ought to be considered as unavoidable.
Agree again, the key difference is if best practices are put into place: food shelters, food banks can be well supplied for those in need and value added products can be made to recapture perceived waste and sent to Market, what isn't used from that is fed to livestock or composted and returned to the soil.
> Another part is the types of food. Meat is, in general, a wasteful indirection between sunlight and us. Even ignoring any argument about vegetarian/vegan diets, I accept that this isn’t universally so, as some land (I don’t know about fish vs. seaweed) is unsuitable for growing human crops. However, it remains broadly true.
Partly agree, its way over-consumed in the North and South America in relation to the rest of the World. I took it particularly hard when I realized how accustomed I had become to it, especially after 15+ hours of exhausting farm work. My body had come to depend on it for recovery, and mood enhancement.
However, I think/know it can be done correctly with proper field grazing and rotation systems: part of my apprenticeship was tending to 45 dairy cows at the base of the Swiss alps on less than 35 acres in Spring, while keeping quality and yield of milk near or at same and within budget. Its hard, actually really hard... but it can be done. Its about putting the right incentives in place, that milk was bought for 2,5 CHF a liter from a a well-renown local Cheese artisan. When they go up the Alps in the summer-fall its closer to 5 CHF as its much higher quality and more desired by cheese makers, but are smaller yields with higher transport costs.
> In principle, though perhaps not in practice, indoor farming (not just artificial lighting, also greenhouses etc.) could supply a more consistent yield. I can’t comment on the economics of that, not even a little. However, as farming as a whole represents a very small, and still diminishing, fraction of the west’s GDP, my guess is that it could become achievable even if it is not yet achievable.
I think your post underscores how easy people can get lost in the superficial view derived from focusing on just statistics and averages, can you quantify that statistical analysis in GDP without seeing the loss in all economic activity if food shelves are empty? Agriculture/Food is actually the World biggest Industry [1] its just impossible to properly quantify.
Also, Modern Greenhouses can be very efficient at creating profits when correctly modeled: I worked in Germany on a farm that had 2 half hectare glass houses with temperature/humidity controlled sensors, self watering and auto-lifting panels. I've only ever seen this for large scale, well funded MJ operations in the US. But, the yield was amazing for things like nightshades in one, and quick growing greens in the other.
The fact that we could charge 5 euros for a healthy Eggplant, 3,5 euros for a head of salad, and 4 euros/Kg for tomatoes because of Biodynamic prices (with more demand than supply) made this a lucrative operation.
The few days I did at the Farmer's Market for that Farm were eye opening to say the least; the main issues with this model I saw were infrastructure costs and labour as they require a long pay-back period but when it does it pays well if you're a multi-generational farming family as they were.
I wrote a proposal in my, later stolen, journal and notebook about how if Ag subsidies shifted from crop insurance to solely infrastructure/equipment based models how the food supply would change. I didn't get far, as I couldn't apply any analysis or experimentation to it but you just reminded me of that idea I had.
Agreed, often to the detriment of your second point.
> Another part (not counted in the statistics if I understand right), is obesity. We over-consume to the point of illness.
Also agree, most cultivars are created not for taste, quality or nutrient density/availability but for shelf life and transport robustness. Which when looking at this from a biological metabolic satiation feedback system standpoint, specifically those damaged from processed foods and, you get that end result. Its actually really dark when you think about how poor the Human physiology and psychology has responded to excess in the modern age, and we al do it to ourselves to some degree.
> Another part is deliberate over-production in good years so that we don’t go hungry in bad years. This part ought to be considered as unavoidable.
Agree again, the key difference is if best practices are put into place: food shelters, food banks can be well supplied for those in need and value added products can be made to recapture perceived waste and sent to Market, what isn't used from that is fed to livestock or composted and returned to the soil.
> Another part is the types of food. Meat is, in general, a wasteful indirection between sunlight and us. Even ignoring any argument about vegetarian/vegan diets, I accept that this isn’t universally so, as some land (I don’t know about fish vs. seaweed) is unsuitable for growing human crops. However, it remains broadly true.
Partly agree, its way over-consumed in the North and South America in relation to the rest of the World. I took it particularly hard when I realized how accustomed I had become to it, especially after 15+ hours of exhausting farm work. My body had come to depend on it for recovery, and mood enhancement.
However, I think/know it can be done correctly with proper field grazing and rotation systems: part of my apprenticeship was tending to 45 dairy cows at the base of the Swiss alps on less than 35 acres in Spring, while keeping quality and yield of milk near or at same and within budget. Its hard, actually really hard... but it can be done. Its about putting the right incentives in place, that milk was bought for 2,5 CHF a liter from a a well-renown local Cheese artisan. When they go up the Alps in the summer-fall its closer to 5 CHF as its much higher quality and more desired by cheese makers, but are smaller yields with higher transport costs.
> In principle, though perhaps not in practice, indoor farming (not just artificial lighting, also greenhouses etc.) could supply a more consistent yield. I can’t comment on the economics of that, not even a little. However, as farming as a whole represents a very small, and still diminishing, fraction of the west’s GDP, my guess is that it could become achievable even if it is not yet achievable.
I think your post underscores how easy people can get lost in the superficial view derived from focusing on just statistics and averages, can you quantify that statistical analysis in GDP without seeing the loss in all economic activity if food shelves are empty? Agriculture/Food is actually the World biggest Industry [1] its just impossible to properly quantify.
Also, Modern Greenhouses can be very efficient at creating profits when correctly modeled: I worked in Germany on a farm that had 2 half hectare glass houses with temperature/humidity controlled sensors, self watering and auto-lifting panels. I've only ever seen this for large scale, well funded MJ operations in the US. But, the yield was amazing for things like nightshades in one, and quick growing greens in the other.
The fact that we could charge 5 euros for a healthy Eggplant, 3,5 euros for a head of salad, and 4 euros/Kg for tomatoes because of Biodynamic prices (with more demand than supply) made this a lucrative operation.
The few days I did at the Farmer's Market for that Farm were eye opening to say the least; the main issues with this model I saw were infrastructure costs and labour as they require a long pay-back period but when it does it pays well if you're a multi-generational farming family as they were.
I wrote a proposal in my, later stolen, journal and notebook about how if Ag subsidies shifted from crop insurance to solely infrastructure/equipment based models how the food supply would change. I didn't get far, as I couldn't apply any analysis or experimentation to it but you just reminded me of that idea I had.
Thanks for the information :)
Slight misunderstanding, my apologies for being unclear.
I was trying to suggest greenhouses for staple crops like rice or wheat, so that the overproduction margin for famine years could be significantly reduced rather than totally eliminated.
I didn’t make that at all clear, sorry.
Do any greenhouses grow meaningful quantities of staple crops? This is far outside my area.
Slight misunderstanding, my apologies for being unclear.
I was trying to suggest greenhouses for staple crops like rice or wheat, so that the overproduction margin for famine years could be significantly reduced rather than totally eliminated.
I didn’t make that at all clear, sorry.
Do any greenhouses grow meaningful quantities of staple crops? This is far outside my area.
> Do any greenhouses grow meaningful quantities of staple crops? This is far outside my area.
None that I know of as its unlikely to be a good idea outside of a breeding program because of the opportunity costs; I imagine staples like wheat/rice/potatoes confined to such limited scale/size would not be able to recover the costs if profit from yield is the only source for ROI in its current model.
> I was trying to suggest greenhouses for staple crops like rice or wheat, so that the overproduction margin for famine years could be significantly reduced rather than totally eliminated.
Perishability is an inherit and unavoidable factor, and famines are not uniform throughout the Earth which is why I think optimizing the Global Food Supply Chain, rather than entirely abandoning it is the goal; the Citrus Industry in Florida nearly collapsed a few years ago due to a psyllid issue that destroyed nearly 1/2 of Florida's orange groves [1], only to find out in PR (after failed studies in China and Mexico) where topology differences revealed that its preferable to grow citrus at higher elevation to avoid the disease they were seeing below that--after a certain elevation, reported at 600M, the groves weren't as susceptible to infestation from the psyllid.
Having data, metrics and analytics in place accessible in Real Time in a readily available and comprehensible system for producers to work with is critical moving forward in the 21st Century; adapting an Ag model to suit this is no longer a luxury but has become a necessity if we have any chance of surviving on this planet as Climate Change, and nearly unpredictable weather patterns/disasters are becoming ever more prevalent and even more severe.
Again, the opportunity costs in not addressing this problem is so unbelievably immense to anyone who takes the time to just look; we can see the 2 million chicken culling and its subsequent waste and be outraged--and it would be justifiable--but more importantly I hope it serves as indication of what is seen as common practices and serves as a catalyst for change as this cannot go on any longer without severe widely felt repercussions.
1: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2...
None that I know of as its unlikely to be a good idea outside of a breeding program because of the opportunity costs; I imagine staples like wheat/rice/potatoes confined to such limited scale/size would not be able to recover the costs if profit from yield is the only source for ROI in its current model.
> I was trying to suggest greenhouses for staple crops like rice or wheat, so that the overproduction margin for famine years could be significantly reduced rather than totally eliminated.
Perishability is an inherit and unavoidable factor, and famines are not uniform throughout the Earth which is why I think optimizing the Global Food Supply Chain, rather than entirely abandoning it is the goal; the Citrus Industry in Florida nearly collapsed a few years ago due to a psyllid issue that destroyed nearly 1/2 of Florida's orange groves [1], only to find out in PR (after failed studies in China and Mexico) where topology differences revealed that its preferable to grow citrus at higher elevation to avoid the disease they were seeing below that--after a certain elevation, reported at 600M, the groves weren't as susceptible to infestation from the psyllid.
Having data, metrics and analytics in place accessible in Real Time in a readily available and comprehensible system for producers to work with is critical moving forward in the 21st Century; adapting an Ag model to suit this is no longer a luxury but has become a necessity if we have any chance of surviving on this planet as Climate Change, and nearly unpredictable weather patterns/disasters are becoming ever more prevalent and even more severe.
Again, the opportunity costs in not addressing this problem is so unbelievably immense to anyone who takes the time to just look; we can see the 2 million chicken culling and its subsequent waste and be outraged--and it would be justifiable--but more importantly I hope it serves as indication of what is seen as common practices and serves as a catalyst for change as this cannot go on any longer without severe widely felt repercussions.
1: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2...
Bad example.
Empty shelves in USSR only occurred at later years and were not a (direct) result of having a planned economy. It was a bad side offect of introducing parts of self-regulation a la market economy.
It doesn't take much planning to not waste 40% food.
Empty shelves in USSR only occurred at later years and were not a (direct) result of having a planned economy. It was a bad side offect of introducing parts of self-regulation a la market economy.
It doesn't take much planning to not waste 40% food.
per the link in the parent comment, only 13% of food waste occurs in the supermarket. Supermarkets do waste a lot but there is a lot of work to do elsewhere.
If less waste occurred elsewhere perhaps less would be sold, but I do not see why that would necessitate a planned economy. In fact, 43% of the waste is in the household. This is an addressable gap that doesn't require legislation, just for just for people to be more diligent about the first two Rs in Reduce/Reuse/Recycle.
If less waste occurred elsewhere perhaps less would be sold, but I do not see why that would necessitate a planned economy. In fact, 43% of the waste is in the household. This is an addressable gap that doesn't require legislation, just for just for people to be more diligent about the first two Rs in Reduce/Reuse/Recycle.
Not waste this amount of life
If it makes you feel any better, you may regard yourself complicit every time you leave a scrap of meat on your plate.
I struggle with leaving plate on my food and I also struggle with my weight. Growing up we weren't allowed to leave food on the plate. To this day I still feel guilty for leaving food on a plate and yet I am overweight.
I know the answer is to dish out a little and get seconds if need be. Problem is I live with people who do more cooking than I do and because I am a fairly big guy they can't help but dish out massive quantities of food.
I know the answer is to dish out a little and get seconds if need be. Problem is I live with people who do more cooking than I do and because I am a fairly big guy they can't help but dish out massive quantities of food.
Stop eating sugar, watch 'sugar: the butter truth'. This isn't something that is happening -to- you, it is something you can control.
+1 for delicious typo
Think about it. "Wasting" food is identical to overproduction of food. That's slack in the system that prevents people from starving.
And yet people manage to starve anyways so I'd say the slack point isn't anywhere close to the waste point.
People don't really manage to starve in the US. Starvation as cause of death is basically an artifact in the stats, and hunger organizations have spent years conflating it with malnutrition to keep their donations flowing. Nutrition may be a real issue in America, but hunger is not.
Here's a good documentary on the topic: "Just Eat It"
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/just_eat_it_a_food_waste_st...
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/just_eat_it_a_food_waste_st...
If that other comment that says 40% of food produced is wasted is accurate, that means ~9.6M chickens are wasted every single day
No, I don’t think it means that at all. It’s a percentage of all food that gets wasted, not every food.
It is our collective karma, to outsource cruelty to industrial animal farming.
Even though I have become mostly vegetarian, it is quite tempting to buy meat for the convenience and the fact that sometimes it is much cheaper than fresh vegetables (at least in the west).
Human progress and social evolution has somehow come with greater compassion for fellow beings. Will our coming generations value compassion in itself and will that affect the way we eat/farm.
Will an advanced alien visitor be shocked by our animal farming or will will they hunt us down for meat. I guess we should expect either based on our own behaviour.
Even though I have become mostly vegetarian, it is quite tempting to buy meat for the convenience and the fact that sometimes it is much cheaper than fresh vegetables (at least in the west).
Human progress and social evolution has somehow come with greater compassion for fellow beings. Will our coming generations value compassion in itself and will that affect the way we eat/farm.
Will an advanced alien visitor be shocked by our animal farming or will will they hunt us down for meat. I guess we should expect either based on our own behaviour.
> Will an advanced alien visitor be shocked by our animal farming or will will they hunt us down for meat. I guess we should expect either based on our own behaviour.
What are your thoughts on where they will judge us for our pro-choice stance? Do you think that will shock them too?
What are your thoughts on where they will judge us for our pro-choice stance? Do you think that will shock them too?
Given that the likely average age difference between species is measured in the hundreds of millions of years, I doubt that anything we do would shock them at all.
We are likely too inconsequential to even bother with examination.
We are likely too inconsequential to even bother with examination.
> We are likely too inconsequential to even bother with examination.
I was with you until this part, there's simply no way that's true. Even if the universe was brimming with life, an advance species' scientists and would be foaming at the mouth to discover a new sentient species, just like ours do when we discover something new.
I was with you until this part, there's simply no way that's true. Even if the universe was brimming with life, an advance species' scientists and would be foaming at the mouth to discover a new sentient species, just like ours do when we discover something new.
Like our reaction to a newly-discovered virus? A billion-year-old species might take as much interest in us as we might take in a newly-discovered algae on a rock,
There are humans who foam at the mouth when they discover a new algae on a rock, in particular, people who study algae. One might imagine there will be a some aliens who study new sentient species and be very interested when they discover humans. It's a question of whether they have access to enough resources to reach us.
> the fact that sometimes it is much cheaper than fresh vegetables (at least in the west).
You need to eat vegetables anyway. You just replace meat with cheese, eggs and beans; all of them are cheaper.
You need to eat vegetables anyway. You just replace meat with cheese, eggs and beans; all of them are cheaper.
I find the assumptions embedded in this argument very strange. It brings up a huge number of questions.
Only a conscious being would feel pain, so what is consciousness? Does it come down and embed itself into creatures that are born? If so, if they weren't born, would that be necessarily better? What if consciousness, if it didn't have a body to enter into, appeared in a different universe from ours with its own, possibly worse, sufferings? Wouldn't it be better to give the animal a full, relatively pain free life than the possibility that it would suffer greater in some other universe in some other dimension?
Or does consciousness originate on the spot, somehow born along with the creature? In that case it would be better to not be born at all? Or would it be better to have more consciousness in the universe, despite the suffering an individual might experience, rather than otherwise? Is consciousness a good in itself? Would a universe devoid of all conscious beings be the perfect good, lonely, desolate, without meaning. Or one full of them, with shared misery to go around?
All in all, it's seems quite a murky topic to be throwing around judgement on people about.
Only a conscious being would feel pain, so what is consciousness? Does it come down and embed itself into creatures that are born? If so, if they weren't born, would that be necessarily better? What if consciousness, if it didn't have a body to enter into, appeared in a different universe from ours with its own, possibly worse, sufferings? Wouldn't it be better to give the animal a full, relatively pain free life than the possibility that it would suffer greater in some other universe in some other dimension?
Or does consciousness originate on the spot, somehow born along with the creature? In that case it would be better to not be born at all? Or would it be better to have more consciousness in the universe, despite the suffering an individual might experience, rather than otherwise? Is consciousness a good in itself? Would a universe devoid of all conscious beings be the perfect good, lonely, desolate, without meaning. Or one full of them, with shared misery to go around?
All in all, it's seems quite a murky topic to be throwing around judgement on people about.
Well, it's murky, but some easy thought experiments might bring clarity:
* Should we raise humans on factory farms, in order to increase the amount of conscious experience?
* if so, and assuming that humans pay more attention to aversive stimuli than positive/neutral stimuli, should we deliberately torture them?
Both propositions are obviously horrible. But why? The answer is similar to why the death of worms < chickens < pet dogs < people < great people.
Consciousness is a matter of connected/integrated complexity; as a result, millions of worms do not eventually produce the depth and richness of human consciousness. Secondly, consciousness is dependent upon other conscious beings; our consciousness isn't really our own, it is part of a shared web. So, consciousness that does not participate in that shared web is less conscious, in a real sense, than consciousness that does.
For both these reasons, if we value consciousness, the only real benefits of factory farmed chickens would come from how they help contribute to the overall conscious ecosystem. Perhaps they let us build more integrated complexity, in which case, thanks.
Both propositions are obviously horrible. But why? The answer is similar to why the death of worms < chickens < pet dogs < people < great people.
Consciousness is a matter of connected/integrated complexity; as a result, millions of worms do not eventually produce the depth and richness of human consciousness. Secondly, consciousness is dependent upon other conscious beings; our consciousness isn't really our own, it is part of a shared web. So, consciousness that does not participate in that shared web is less conscious, in a real sense, than consciousness that does.
For both these reasons, if we value consciousness, the only real benefits of factory farmed chickens would come from how they help contribute to the overall conscious ecosystem. Perhaps they let us build more integrated complexity, in which case, thanks.
> Well, it's murky, but some easy thought experiments might bring clarity: * Should we raise humans on factory farms, in order to increase the amount of conscious experience? * if so, and assuming that humans pay more attention to aversive stimuli than positive/neutral stimuli, should we deliberately torture them?
> Both propositions are obviously horrible. But why? The answer is similar to why the death of worms < chickens < pet dogs < people < great people.
>Consciousness is a matter of connected/integrated complexity
Can you prove this supposition, though? Would that make the internet conscious, for example? I would think not.
I think the propositions you mentioned seem horrible because of an offshoot of our instinct to form tribes to survive better. It feels bad to torture people and other beings that help us survive, because that's integral to our survival. A lone human being has a much rougher time than a group does, and a group that trusts each other would survive better than where everyone is at each other's throats.
My theory is that human beings need a religion to feel sane. If there isn't an organized one that they accept, they create one of their own. This is why these sort of "common sense" laws of morality (better to not raise animals in a factory) come into being. People need to believe in a higher set of laws than what man can provide, even if there isn't any real justification for them one way or the other.
> Both propositions are obviously horrible. But why? The answer is similar to why the death of worms < chickens < pet dogs < people < great people.
>Consciousness is a matter of connected/integrated complexity
Can you prove this supposition, though? Would that make the internet conscious, for example? I would think not.
I think the propositions you mentioned seem horrible because of an offshoot of our instinct to form tribes to survive better. It feels bad to torture people and other beings that help us survive, because that's integral to our survival. A lone human being has a much rougher time than a group does, and a group that trusts each other would survive better than where everyone is at each other's throats.
My theory is that human beings need a religion to feel sane. If there isn't an organized one that they accept, they create one of their own. This is why these sort of "common sense" laws of morality (better to not raise animals in a factory) come into being. People need to believe in a higher set of laws than what man can provide, even if there isn't any real justification for them one way or the other.
> Would that make the internet conscious, for example? I would think not.
The internet is governed by consciousness and consciousness emerges from it, in the same way as our neurons or brain parts are not conscious per se but are structured by consciousness and provide the mechanism for it.
The internet is governed by consciousness and consciousness emerges from it, in the same way as our neurons or brain parts are not conscious per se but are structured by consciousness and provide the mechanism for it.
"a full, relatively pain free life" is not at all an accurate description of anything related to factory farming.
Also, karma is not about judgment. It's about each individual's own state of consciousness.
Also, karma is not about judgment. It's about each individual's own state of consciousness.
> "a full, relatively pain free life" is not at all an accurate description of anything related to factory farming.
You understand that I'm not saying relative to your life, right, but to some other life in some other universe?
> Also, karma is not about judgment. It's about each individual's own state of consciousness.
It seems to be about your individual biases and judgement, actually.
You understand that I'm not saying relative to your life, right, but to some other life in some other universe?
> Also, karma is not about judgment. It's about each individual's own state of consciousness.
It seems to be about your individual biases and judgement, actually.
I don't understand how some hypothetical life in some hypothetical other universe is at all a sensible barometer to measure the quality of a life against?
It seems much more sane to benchmark against the life we have and know here.
It seems much more sane to benchmark against the life we have and know here.
You are talking about animals that otherwise would not have been born. Therefore the only life you can theorize about is one unknown to us.
so by extension everything is just great, right? What if a person perishes from torture and war crimes? it at least lived part of its life happily before that. Who knows what would happen if the person was born in the sucks-to-be-there (TM) "dimension" (!?). what is consciousness? is the person who is reading this now conscious? who knows. let's all eat each other while we ponder these great questions. could be totally worse, yeah. ;)
> so by extension everything is just great, right?
I never said this.
> let's all eat each other while we ponder these great questions.
Let's make sure no being is ever born again who might suffer. Seems totally good and just, therefore it must be true, right?
What arrogance...
I never said this.
> let's all eat each other while we ponder these great questions.
Let's make sure no being is ever born again who might suffer. Seems totally good and just, therefore it must be true, right?
What arrogance...
LaEc(1)
- Even though I have become mostly vegetarian, it is quite tempting to buy meat for the convenience and the fact that sometimes it is much cheaper than fresh vegetables (at least in the west).
That's what I hear a lot, but I'm not sure it's true. Since being 'plant-based' I've not really noticed much change in how much I spend on shopping. I tend to buy seasonal and what's on offer, plus I pretty much eat anything.
Meat substitues tend to be the most expensive, but I try and avoid these products.
That's what I hear a lot, but I'm not sure it's true. Since being 'plant-based' I've not really noticed much change in how much I spend on shopping. I tend to buy seasonal and what's on offer, plus I pretty much eat anything.
Meat substitues tend to be the most expensive, but I try and avoid these products.
For me the following is quite a convincing perspective:
Slavery has existed for most of human history. The inherent cruelty has only in recent times become something understood widely as morally wrong and unacceptable. We have abolished slavery and while it exists in some forms and niche cases, the majority of mankind looks with disdain and hate at those still practicing it, and with shame at their ancestors for accepting and tolerating it.
(Factory) farming/slaughter of animals has existed for most of human history. The inherent cruelty has only in recent times become something understood widely as morally wrong and unacceptable. We will abolish farming/slaughter of animals and while it will still exist in some forms and niche cases (eg pharmaceuticals?), the majority of mankind will look with disdain and hate at those still practicing it, and with shame at their ancestors for accepting and tolerating it.
Slavery has existed for most of human history. The inherent cruelty has only in recent times become something understood widely as morally wrong and unacceptable. We have abolished slavery and while it exists in some forms and niche cases, the majority of mankind looks with disdain and hate at those still practicing it, and with shame at their ancestors for accepting and tolerating it.
(Factory) farming/slaughter of animals has existed for most of human history. The inherent cruelty has only in recent times become something understood widely as morally wrong and unacceptable. We will abolish farming/slaughter of animals and while it will still exist in some forms and niche cases (eg pharmaceuticals?), the majority of mankind will look with disdain and hate at those still practicing it, and with shame at their ancestors for accepting and tolerating it.
I'd say set them free.
But given the breeding of commercial chickens they'd simply not survive in the wild - not stop growing and after just days be unable to move, and easy prey.
If you're fortunate enough to have land, use it, even a balcony or window sill can be put to good use. There are plenty of guides on YouTube, and for a window sill no need to spend money on herbs again. For food or for leisure (or both) - if you like flowers grow some flowers!
And don't throw away potato skins, carrot tops, strings of beans, etc. Compost them, it really enriches the soil.
But given the breeding of commercial chickens they'd simply not survive in the wild - not stop growing and after just days be unable to move, and easy prey.
If you're fortunate enough to have land, use it, even a balcony or window sill can be put to good use. There are plenty of guides on YouTube, and for a window sill no need to spend money on herbs again. For food or for leisure (or both) - if you like flowers grow some flowers!
And don't throw away potato skins, carrot tops, strings of beans, etc. Compost them, it really enriches the soil.
Releasing them would be dooming them to a horrible death. They'd end up ripped apart by wild animals or otherwise injured and live in pain until they die.
Certainly, it would. I raise chickens, but less than twenty, and mine are actual chickens that live for a while not factory ones. Decently sized coops, going for a walk once a day for a few hours (I suppose happy, they seem happy) and are quite good at seeing off the odd predator when they're out and about.
You're correct, I put them in their chicken-wire yard at night for good reason. A neighbour has geese. Geese get freaked out very easily. If a stray dog comes by at 3am the entire street knows about it.
I'm not from the farm. Interesting thing to learn is to let an egg rest a couple of days, no washing no refrigeration of course. Surprised me, wonderful variation in taste.
You're correct, I put them in their chicken-wire yard at night for good reason. A neighbour has geese. Geese get freaked out very easily. If a stray dog comes by at 3am the entire street knows about it.
I'm not from the farm. Interesting thing to learn is to let an egg rest a couple of days, no washing no refrigeration of course. Surprised me, wonderful variation in taste.
> They'd end up ripped apart by wild animals
...so exactly like the fate of literally every other wild animal on Earth.
...so exactly like the fate of literally every other wild animal on Earth.
Not really. Wild animals mostly live in the environment they are adapted to. Most birds survive just fine out in the world. Chickens are not adapted to anything, but rather selected by us, and they certainly weren’t selected for toughness.
> live in pain until they die.
The ethically important part is that those would be different flavors of pain than the ones they would have experienced in factory farming normally.
The ethically important part is that those would be different flavors of pain than the ones they would have experienced in factory farming normally.
Is it possible to buy baby chicks for delivery by mail? Serious question.
Sadly this trend will continue. There will be a lot of wastage because our society and systems were built on higher levels of consumption, for better or for worse.
There's momentum built in a system of scale and we're seeing what happens when the end consuming falls off the charts.
Once society starts back up, we'll see the opposite where we'll be angry there are shortages of things we expect even though we're "back online".
There's momentum built in a system of scale and we're seeing what happens when the end consuming falls off the charts.
Once society starts back up, we'll see the opposite where we'll be angry there are shortages of things we expect even though we're "back online".
Just today I saw the news about famine in West Africa. Sigh...
We live in a bubble, I feel so out of touch with how people live in many of the other places in the world. Last October I visited Pakistan and what I saw there really made me think about the scale of globally inequality that’s just allowed to “exist”. Not just in food, but so many other places in our lives we take for granted.
Pakistan is a lot of human created issues though. They have the most fertile land in the subcontinent along the indus river. However they have had absolutely no population control measures unlike India and Bangladesh which are almost at replacement level fertility. Throw in a backward society, mismanagement, lack of democracy and you get this.
My point simply is that the hunger is not merely because of shortage of food.
My point simply is that the hunger is not merely because of shortage of food.
There is no winning with population control measures. Hans Rosling did a great job to spell out the arguments and evidence in his book "Factfulness" which made the charts in most countries. Really recommended reading and incredible enlightening.
To give a very short version of his conclusions: the only factor reducing births is reduced child mortality. Better healthcare and generally better economic prospects and birth rates drop on their own - no need for central planning or interventions. The book lays the evidence out extremely well and if you're a person that likes to have his/her worldview challenged I warmly recommend it!
To give a very short version of his conclusions: the only factor reducing births is reduced child mortality. Better healthcare and generally better economic prospects and birth rates drop on their own - no need for central planning or interventions. The book lays the evidence out extremely well and if you're a person that likes to have his/her worldview challenged I warmly recommend it!
For some people, stating that poor countries might be remotely responsible for their own problems is a highly controversial stance.
Yes and No, being from India myself i understand it is complicated. However western views are clouded. What the journalists and observers do not understand is that you cannot apply the same logic you applied to your own country and many good intentioned policies will turn out into tragedy of commons. This has been demonstrated time and again. This is why i have this unpopular opinion that what China did was simply unimaginable. Yes, they have their issues but a proper democracy where nothing moves (e.g. Sardar Sarovar dam on river Narmada was involved in litigation for over 50 years over increasing dam height which submerged some tribal villages, other side of the coin was it increased the irrigated land substantially ) compared to China where they executed more hydrological projects in 10-15 years than probably what the world did in entirety of 20th century. Surely some people were negatively impacted, but the outcome was net positive. We can argue about corruption, few people skimming the benefits but i think the Chinese society bargain with CCP is to ensure jobs, opportunities and development in exchange for no significant revolution. The misplaced idealism and token suggestions and projects that happen in Africa and India are useless. Only strong, difficult decisions that should've been taken decades ago would've made a difference. It is not possible to make everyone happy in one go.
Why do you think these conditions exist in Pakistan? Hint, it mainly has to do with the actions of certain Pakistanis. The rest of us are not "allowing" anything, we are basically powerless and irrelevant aside from maybe our trade policies.
Powerless and irrelevant? Some keywords:
US nukes Pakistan Afghanistan India Taliban politics cold war history army
US nukes Pakistan Afghanistan India Taliban politics cold war history army
Just because you live in a more developed country, it doesn't make you responsible for well-being of people from less developed ones. We're adults who are capable of making our own decision decisions and being responsible for the consequences, and this modern leftist rebranding of white man's burden is a bit insulting, to be honest.
Then why is the white man in Iraq, Afghanistan ( bordering just Pakistan ), Somalia, Libya, Yemen, Syria - and those are just boots on the ground.
Even the "living space" that is North America, Australia didn't belong to the White Man.
Even the "living space" that is North America, Australia didn't belong to the White Man.
Greed. Although, I feel a better term would be "Westerner".
It is not so easy with Africa. They already getting a lot of chicken wings and legs for very cheap from europe, because we in europe just like the bigger chicken breast. So legs and wings are send to africa for almost free, because nobody would like to eat it in europe. The result is, chicken from europe is so cheap in africa, no african farmer can compete with that price. So there are now no almost no chicken farms in africa because of this.
And chicken wings are about to get even cheaper. Americans used to eat them deep-fried at bars and restaurants, and they’re all closed.
[deleted]
These two things have nothing to do with each other.
I feel when people do this it devalues both issues.
It just adds a fog that costs lives.
I feel when people do this it devalues both issues.
It just adds a fog that costs lives.
I think chickens are ground up with their feathers and ugly bits by falling from a treadmill.
I guess one can't sell that as food but I'm pretty sure they can do something with it.
Although, it's fine by me, meat is in its nature pretty wasteful, in addition to those 2M chickens there's probably more tons of soy protein wasted on chicken feed.
Good thing that protein rich legumes do not need much processing.
I guess one can't sell that as food but I'm pretty sure they can do something with it.
Although, it's fine by me, meat is in its nature pretty wasteful, in addition to those 2M chickens there's probably more tons of soy protein wasted on chicken feed.
Good thing that protein rich legumes do not need much processing.
My family and I are on day number 1153 of eating beans every day (and no animal products)
And how was the experince? Some blog, could learn from it?
Thanks for asking! but unfortunately I haven't written anything up about it, but informally I can share that it's really benefited our health and even finances. Eating beans and rice every day and not eating out is very cheap. I buy most of our food in bulk online or from local farms - e.g. just got 50kg of chickpeas in the mail and 20kg of string beans from a farm. We also avoid eating oil for health reasons
The minimum daily intake of carbs for a human to remain healthy is zero. The minimum daily intake of oil is in fact, not zero, as oils are required for the basic functioning of a human.
But minimum daily intake of fiber, for humans to remain healthy, is not zero.
Vegetables, especially if you eat them in amounts that sustain your weight, have enough omega essential fatty acids to last you a lifetime.
Legumes do have fat in them.
If you eat 2000kcal of red lentils, there's more than enough protein and fat content, almost meets your omega-3 essential fatty acid requirement. Nothing stops you from adding different fattier vegetables.
Vegetables, especially if you eat them in amounts that sustain your weight, have enough omega essential fatty acids to last you a lifetime.
Legumes do have fat in them.
If you eat 2000kcal of red lentils, there's more than enough protein and fat content, almost meets your omega-3 essential fatty acid requirement. Nothing stops you from adding different fattier vegetables.
Humans can be healthy without fiber. For example, see the traditional Inuit diet (at least during winter).
Traditional Inuit diet was not healthy.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00219...
Here's a study on historical data, here are some statements: "Arteriosclerosis and degeneration of the myocardium are quite common conditions among the Greenlander" -- study from 1940
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/002191...
IMO, best evidence ever is on Maasai people, where they find massive amounts of atherosclerosis in the blood vessels of young people and there are multiple cases where young people die of atherosclerosis. Only thing that makes Maasai survive is that they start with this kind of diet at early age, their blood vessels get extra wide and elastic and can withstand the hardening effects of atherosclerosis.
Fiberless diet is a death certificate for the modern western man if one's not on it from birth.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00219...
Here's a study on historical data, here are some statements: "Arteriosclerosis and degeneration of the myocardium are quite common conditions among the Greenlander" -- study from 1940
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/002191...
IMO, best evidence ever is on Maasai people, where they find massive amounts of atherosclerosis in the blood vessels of young people and there are multiple cases where young people die of atherosclerosis. Only thing that makes Maasai survive is that they start with this kind of diet at early age, their blood vessels get extra wide and elastic and can withstand the hardening effects of atherosclerosis.
Fiberless diet is a death certificate for the modern western man if one's not on it from birth.
All plants contain various amounts.of oils... That said I'd not give up a good olive or pumpin seed oil!
You're mistaking oil for fat. We eat lots of fats - nuts, seeds, avocados, durian, egg fruit, etc
My point was that there's nothing wrong with pressed plant oils (coconut, olive, etc). If you're going to focus on cutting the unnecessary, that's bulk carbs.
Haha, bulk carbs unnecessary? I'm not sure what you mean - we eat nothing processed - only whole beans, grains, fruits, nuts, seeds. Nothing unnecessary to cut out
Be careful. Avoiding oil and meat can lead to health issues over time.
Hope you’re talking to a doctor and nutritionist!
Hope you’re talking to a doctor and nutritionist!
We don't avoid fat - I mention in another comment about eating nuts, seeds, avocados, durian, egg fruit etc. And avoiding meat is no longer controversial in terms of health - with a little planning it's not difficult to be healthy.
Extra virgin olive oil is very healthy, unless you have some digestive issue with it that I haven't heard so far. Apart from frying (which you don't do), you don't need much more in your kitchen
My wife gets extreme inflammation in the blood and joints from consuming oil (even EVOO yes). It isn't /from/ the oil per se But complicates her condition.
I've had vegetarian rice and beans many times, forced to by lack of money for protein. It's just a bland mixture of sadness and despair
> It's just a bland mixture of sadness and despair
reply
That might have been from the lack of money, not the food itself. If you're eating them by choice and making the right dishes, beans are fucking delicious.
I understand that you associate beans with poverty, but when your circumstances are better (or now that they're already better, I don't know which) try them again, this time with some good recipes. And not the canned shit - gotta buy 'em dried, soak 'em, cook 'em in a slow cooker, instant pot, or pressure cooker.
That might have been from the lack of money, not the food itself. If you're eating them by choice and making the right dishes, beans are fucking delicious.
I understand that you associate beans with poverty, but when your circumstances are better (or now that they're already better, I don't know which) try them again, this time with some good recipes. And not the canned shit - gotta buy 'em dried, soak 'em, cook 'em in a slow cooker, instant pot, or pressure cooker.
I do eat beans all the time, its a staple food here. G
I just make them with meat, pork, sausage and the whole party
I just make them with meat, pork, sausage and the whole party
Many kinds of beans, many kinds of spices and ways of cooking. Really not more or less boring than meat, it's just that nowadays most people never bother to learn how to cook and those that do dont often focus on non-meat dishes.
Not to mention that there's lots of variety of ingredients, you don't need to eat beans every day ;)
Not to mention that there's lots of variety of ingredients, you don't need to eat beans every day ;)
Gotta get the spices right. Find your nearest Indian store for a free consultation.
Taking a critical look at one's own meat consumption can be enlightening, because it is something that we often take for granted. Do I eat meat because it is necessary for my health? If not, what are the reasons? How is the meat that I'm eating produced? How long do these animals live compared to their natural life span? What is the environmental cost of animal farming? Etc., Etc.
I did not find convincing answers to these questions, so I stopped buying and eating meat.
I did not find convincing answers to these questions, so I stopped buying and eating meat.
I eat hamburgers because they are delicious.
I assume that the ethical, ecological, and societal impacts of that decision is somehow internalize in the price.
I know I am wrong - but I hope that becomes true one day.
I assume that the ethical, ecological, and societal impacts of that decision is somehow internalize in the price.
I know I am wrong - but I hope that becomes true one day.
So you are aware that you are deluding yourself but don't take steps about it? :-)
All I got from that was:
Sorry, this content is not available in your region.
Sorry, this content is not available in your region.
Squint really hard with me... From an environmental point of view I think its encouraging there is so much headway we can collectively make by reducing waste than hoping new tech and infrastructure will allow the same level of consumption
https://www.nrdc.org/resources/wasted-how-america-losing-40-...
https://www.nrdc.org/resources/wasted-how-america-losing-40-...
hmm anyone else get this:
"Sorry, this content is not available in your region."
"Sorry, this content is not available in your region."
I got the same 403 message.
Luckily outline.com was able to fetch the article: https://outline.com/yecexc
Luckily outline.com was able to fetch the article: https://outline.com/yecexc
Yep. Although I'm now used to have location-restricted media content, I think that's the first time I can't read an article because of my location.
How much of deforestation their food would have resulted in?
None. Chicks eat very little and grain is already plentiful in the US.
While people in developing countries will be suffering shortly because of lack of protein and malnutrition, I'm sure many in the West will celebrate this as a great step towards veganism.
I doubt any vegans will celebrate unnecessary slaughter of 2M chickens.
And animal protein consumes a lot of plant protein to make. If you want to feed people it's much more efficient to send over the soj and grain the chickens are fed, rather than the chicken meat.
And animal protein consumes a lot of plant protein to make. If you want to feed people it's much more efficient to send over the soj and grain the chickens are fed, rather than the chicken meat.
Can we not just put them in a field for a while?
Word on the street is they would be able to kill them properly if the employees were there.
vanniv(1)
the true victims of covid-19....
I am disappointed, Does anybody can act to not waste all this food in this time?
> I am disappointed, Does anybody can act to not waste all this food in this time?
Yes: you! That's what it takes, if I'm honest.
But if you're asking about startups, yes there is on based out of Texas and Colorado called Food Maven:
https://foodmaven.com/
Check out Roy Choi's PBS series Breaking bread, its all good, there they highlight how other places have tackled this issue in regards to environmental impact, local economic commerce, and food insecurity. It's really a rad series, and makes me glad Roy has gotten the success that he has!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrV8WrqnyrM
Yes: you! That's what it takes, if I'm honest.
But if you're asking about startups, yes there is on based out of Texas and Colorado called Food Maven:
https://foodmaven.com/
Check out Roy Choi's PBS series Breaking bread, its all good, there they highlight how other places have tackled this issue in regards to environmental impact, local economic commerce, and food insecurity. It's really a rad series, and makes me glad Roy has gotten the success that he has!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrV8WrqnyrM
We need to lift this shelter in place order and hold these assholes accountable.
I don't remember who but someone (Naval?) had this quote that generations 100 years from now will think of us as utterly barbaric for eating animals. When I look around how we treat animals as if they were just sacs of meat, its amazingly heart wrenching. In Alaska I saw a casual 4th of July competitions where you throw dead fish and other person catches it. Sometime fish fall apart and all its guts spread out during these games while audience literally laugh at that scene. I wonder how people get so heartlessly cruel that not only they are killing animals for entertainment but also enjoy when their bodies fall apart? What is their internal justification system? A devout Christian explained to me that its their God given right to be superior to animals and God has instructed them to consume these animals. In a Chinese restaurant I had hard time explaining someone that fish is not really a plant. It seems minds can be programmed to shield away from any cruelty. Perhaps that's how people working in Nazi camps justified cruelty towards Jews: they aren't really living beings like rest of us, they are something else quite lower so no need to take all these to heart.
Claude Lévi-Strauss said[0]:
"A day will come when the idea that for the sake of food the people of the past raised and massacred living beings and with complete equanimity displayed their flesh in bits and pieces in shop windows, will no doubt inspire the same revulsion that the cannibalistic meals of the Americans, Oceanians, or Africans inspired in the travelers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries."
[0]: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Claude_L%C3%A9vi-Strauss
"A day will come when the idea that for the sake of food the people of the past raised and massacred living beings and with complete equanimity displayed their flesh in bits and pieces in shop windows, will no doubt inspire the same revulsion that the cannibalistic meals of the Americans, Oceanians, or Africans inspired in the travelers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries."
[0]: https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Claude_L%C3%A9vi-Strauss
> raised and massacred living beings
Plants are also living beings...
Plants are also living beings...
What an insipid observation.
It does highlight the the problem most people have isn't that the beings we consume are living but rather that we have reliable indicators of their suffering before being killed.
Most of the moral objection seems to be from the suffering and conscious death
Most of the moral objection seems to be from the suffering and conscious death
It's hard to survive in a healthy way for most of the world without eating animals unfortunately. Animals die in nature all the time, in much worse ways than the clean deaths they would get in a meat processing plant. Death is part of the cycle of life, and it seems we are forgetting that since we've become so far separated from nature these days.
>Animals die in nature all the time, in much worse ways than the clean deaths they would get in a meat processing plant.
Animals who live in nature might also live more fulfilling lives before they die than animals that live in the average meat processing plant.
Animals who live in nature might also live more fulfilling lives before they die than animals that live in the average meat processing plant.
That's a big call there buddy.
There is basically no plant based diet that can be made more healthy with the addition of animal products.
If there is let us know. You'll probably get a Nobel prize for the revelation
There is basically no plant based diet that can be made more healthy with the addition of animal products.
If there is let us know. You'll probably get a Nobel prize for the revelation
I suspect that here in "The West" with our immense choices and support, with food that comes from all over the world, with transportation networks that can get all that food into your kitchen within days of processing, any diet could be healthy.
But if you don't have all that infrastructure and support, if your region is overrun by locusts or warlords or gangs, then sticking to any "I'm only going to eat these categories" diet is impossible. You eat what you can get, and if you don't happen to have enough plant food today, eating meat (if available) is healthier than starving.
But if you don't have all that infrastructure and support, if your region is overrun by locusts or warlords or gangs, then sticking to any "I'm only going to eat these categories" diet is impossible. You eat what you can get, and if you don't happen to have enough plant food today, eating meat (if available) is healthier than starving.
I hate to break it to you, but in general our treatment of animals is way better than a 100 years ago. Animal shelters? Animal cruelty laws? Etc.
That fish throwing contest? Oh, it's almost definitely older than 100 years (as are dog fights, dolphin slaughter, goose pulling, cock throwing and other wonderful traditions from around the world).
That fish throwing contest? Oh, it's almost definitely older than 100 years (as are dog fights, dolphin slaughter, goose pulling, cock throwing and other wonderful traditions from around the world).
That is one side of the scale. The other side of the scale has the meat industry in it (which is absolutely not like 100 years ago). As someone who used to work in a slaughter house, I am not convinced that today is better. I can see our children looking back in a few generations and think of us as barbaric. I thought of it as barbaric and surreal when working there.
The scale? Yeah, the scale is much bigger. Conditions for animals? Not much different than 100 years ago [1]. And I'd argue they are better in many cases (and in many countries).
[1] https://io9.gizmodo.com/utterly-disturbing-century-old-photo...
[1] https://io9.gizmodo.com/utterly-disturbing-century-old-photo...
Those open-air stockyards in Chicago look like crap, and even then still miles better than what pigs go through today. At least they saw the sky for more than the few minutes just before their deaths.
There isn't extensive documentation on the welfare of animals in large farms in history, but if you knew what goes on today, you wouldn't even dare write that. Chicks sent to the shredder, cramped living conditions for the entirety of their lives, untreated medical conditions, anal rape-assisted insemination, halal and Kosher slaughters. Watch Dominion (2018) or just the trailer and see for yourself.
So, not that different than 100 years ago. Unless you count "seeing blue sky for a few minutes before death" as being better.
The last time farm animals had marginally better conditions was probably the Middle Ages, and even then I wouldn't be so sure. Especially not around bigger cities.
The last time farm animals had marginally better conditions was probably the Middle Ages, and even then I wouldn't be so sure. Especially not around bigger cities.
Ugh, I made the mistake of looking up “goose pulling”. WHY.
How is your value system not as arbitrary (plants ok to kill, but not animals)? Is it just because it’s impossible to survive without consuming other life given our current technology?
In 1000 years perhaps humans will look at our treatment of all life as barbaric because they will be directly powered by the energy of the sun.
In 1000 years perhaps humans will look at our treatment of all life as barbaric because they will be directly powered by the energy of the sun.
I'm surprised your comment is being downvoted. There was an article shared on HN last year and suggesting plants are more aware than what we typically give credit to them. I also don't think its completely out there to assume humanity won't be modifying how the human body consumes energy.
It's being downvoted because it doesn't really make sense. Plants lack a central nervous system, so vegans tend to draw the line somewhere there. Regardless if we did find out that plants somehow where conscious and could feel pain we need to feed animals a huge amount of plant matter in order for us to eat them. If vegans are trying to minimise harm done then it'd still make sense to eat them directly than eat animals given there is no alternative.
But what if the plants we like to eat are more conscious than the plants that animals like to eat? Or even more conscious than the animals themselves? How do we really know? What if there is a God in every peanut?
The idea that humans evolve somehow into better beings is an unjustified religion. You shouldn't let technological progress fool you, we are nearly the same as we were 1 million years ago.
Raising domesticated animals for slaughter is actually pretty humane. Before agriculture and farming, when people moved to an area it led to the extinction of all large animals and they died in agony.
For many of us human life is much more important than the slaughtering of domesticated animals. This isn't about a God.
We evolved feelings, morals, the concept of cruelty in order to care about human life. You can choose to care about whatever you want of course, but careful with your priorities.
And yes, chickens aren't human and are quite tasty.
Raising domesticated animals for slaughter is actually pretty humane. Before agriculture and farming, when people moved to an area it led to the extinction of all large animals and they died in agony.
For many of us human life is much more important than the slaughtering of domesticated animals. This isn't about a God.
We evolved feelings, morals, the concept of cruelty in order to care about human life. You can choose to care about whatever you want of course, but careful with your priorities.
And yes, chickens aren't human and are quite tasty.
> We evolved feelings, morals, the concept of cruelty in order to care about human life. You can choose to care about whatever you want of course, but careful with your priorities.
I would not be so sure about feelings and morals. Cruelty yes, has evolved a lot.
> And yes, chickens aren't human and are quite tasty.
Those grown naturally, yes. Those grown in a plant not so.
I would not be so sure about feelings and morals. Cruelty yes, has evolved a lot.
> And yes, chickens aren't human and are quite tasty.
Those grown naturally, yes. Those grown in a plant not so.
This is just wrong.
Anyone who justifies in any way this is evil.
With practices like this, and other less murderous but still extremely wasteful shit like airlines burning thousands of gallons of fuel to keep their "slots" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22511488), I for one won't even mind if something decimates our so-called civilization.
Anyone who justifies in any way this is evil.
With practices like this, and other less murderous but still extremely wasteful shit like airlines burning thousands of gallons of fuel to keep their "slots" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22511488), I for one won't even mind if something decimates our so-called civilization.
https://www.quora.com/How-many-chickens-are-killed-everyday
The U.S. consumes 9 billion chickens per year, so that’s 24 million chickens killed per day for food.
So this article (about the 2m chickens) is about 9% of one days worth of chicken death in the usa, just for reference.
(I agree with your point, industrialised meat production is nighmarish)
The U.S. consumes 9 billion chickens per year, so that’s 24 million chickens killed per day for food.
So this article (about the 2m chickens) is about 9% of one days worth of chicken death in the usa, just for reference.
(I agree with your point, industrialised meat production is nighmarish)
I think these birds were doomed. A more accurate title might be "Processors throw away 2M Pounds of chicken meat due to lack of employees."