World’s Top Beef Supplier Approves Methane-Busting Cow Feed(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
World’s Top Beef Supplier Approves Methane-Busting Cow Feed
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-09/world-s-top-beef-supplier-approves-methane-busting-cow-feed
211 comments
My family raise one steer in our back yard. It feeds two families for a year. Do you consider this animal abuse? Do you consider it a source of groundwater or air pollution?
I'm genuinely curious and somewhat open to being persuaded. It's hard for me to see it, but there could be an argument for it.
Or perhaps you feel that those things are a product of industrial scale. If so, can you not conceive any solution that would involve less than 100% reduction?
I'm genuinely curious and somewhat open to being persuaded. It's hard for me to see it, but there could be an argument for it.
Or perhaps you feel that those things are a product of industrial scale. If so, can you not conceive any solution that would involve less than 100% reduction?
Most of the ill effects come from industrial scale production, which (at least in the USA) probably covers 99% of production. Regarding your personal cow, it does produce (from quick googling) ~220 lbs of methane a year, which seems to trap ~85x as much heat as an equivalent amount of CO2 over a ~20 year timescale, or ~30x as much over a much longer timescale, so that's like releasing ~18700 lbs of CO2 each year in the short term. A gasoline powered car will produce about a pound of CO2 per mile driven, so you can think of your cow as being equivalent to having an extra car that drives 18.7k miles per year (or ~9.5k miles per family). Eating half a cow seems pretty close to driving an extra car.
Apples to oranges - a pasture raised cow doesn't produce as much methane because the "rumen flora" differs between a grain-based and a forage-based diet. The bacterial population is so different between the two foods that if you switch a cow's feed to grain too quickly, the ensuing bloating can be life threatening. The bacteria digesting the corn is what produces the most methane.
Unlike CO2, methane breaks down in the atmosphere so it's not an infinitely growing sink, it's a rolling window.
Unlike CO2, methane breaks down in the atmosphere so it's not an infinitely growing sink, it's a rolling window.
Brief research doesn't really appear to support that - grass fed cows seem to put on weight much slower, and therefore produce methane longer, and the methane of course degrades into CO2 (hence the 'effective' amount of CO2 over a given time period). But the differences between the two seem to be relatively small-ish (certainly 'different sized apples' rather than apples and oranges).
Methane is CH4. It doesn't degrade to CO2 so much as the relative ability to trap infrared radiation is given in proportion to what an equal number of CO2 molecules would absorb/trap. Similarly, other gasses like refrigerants are rated in Global Warming Potential (GWP) units based on 20 years of absorption of infrared.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential
Does this take into account the CO2/energy used to harvest the grain and move it?
So you do a thing that almost no consumers do? Interesting question for finding out philosophical underpinnings of someone’s beliefs/opinions, but at best tangential and at worst verging on sophistry when discussing practical matters. This is not an accusation, just an observation.
But to attempt an answer: for example, I have rescued pet cats. If I find some arts and crafts use for the plentiful fur I “acquire” when I groom them, no big deal. If I make a commercial enterprise out of this and seek to maximize my profits at the expense of their well-being, that’s bad. There are gradations in between that are bad as well — ones that can easily occur for backyard farm animals, where their welfare and enrichment are very low on the totem pole. Especially if you are slaughtering, which obviously places their welfare very low on the totem pole. I’m avoiding the environmental aspect because it’s inarguably increasing GHG emissions compared to what was originally suggested.
But again, irrelevant for arguments about ideal supermarket habits.
But to attempt an answer: for example, I have rescued pet cats. If I find some arts and crafts use for the plentiful fur I “acquire” when I groom them, no big deal. If I make a commercial enterprise out of this and seek to maximize my profits at the expense of their well-being, that’s bad. There are gradations in between that are bad as well — ones that can easily occur for backyard farm animals, where their welfare and enrichment are very low on the totem pole. Especially if you are slaughtering, which obviously places their welfare very low on the totem pole. I’m avoiding the environmental aspect because it’s inarguably increasing GHG emissions compared to what was originally suggested.
But again, irrelevant for arguments about ideal supermarket habits.
I was specifically contrasting the two to question whether there might be some point in the middle that avoids the downfalls but is still practical. Some balance that could be doable and acceptable.
The original proposal was to do something that almost no consumers do: eliminate beef consumption. I was not proposing to change consumer behaviour so much as producer behavior. Of course it would impact consumers significantly in the prices they pay.
The original proposal was to do something that almost no consumers do: eliminate beef consumption. I was not proposing to change consumer behaviour so much as producer behavior. Of course it would impact consumers significantly in the prices they pay.
They’re social animals though. Wouldn’t it be lonely?
I encourage people to try plant based "meat" substitutes. I have a vegan friend when encouraged me to try Impossible burger. I finally relented during the early days of the pandemic when I could not find ground beef one day at the store, and I have to say that I love it. I use it everywhere I'd have used ground beef (burgers, tacos, chili, etc). My cholesterol and blood sugar numbers have improved dramatically.
It's hit and miss. I've tried one premier producer's "vegan minced meat" in Germany (Wiesenhof) and one supermarket's "vegan minced meat".
They look okay, but they don't brown in the pan and worst of all, they smell very very foul. You open the packaging and want to immediately put in in the garbage bin.
Taste is okay-ish, if boring and bland, but the smell disqualifies it.
I understand there are brands that don't have that problem (or less of it), but after two disasters I'm currently eating real meat when I want some, but try to limit it.
Better an honest vegan/vegetarian substitute than a "it has to look like meat, no matter what" substitute.
Soy shreds can be a good substitute for some uses of minced meat, for example.
They look okay, but they don't brown in the pan and worst of all, they smell very very foul. You open the packaging and want to immediately put in in the garbage bin.
Taste is okay-ish, if boring and bland, but the smell disqualifies it.
I understand there are brands that don't have that problem (or less of it), but after two disasters I'm currently eating real meat when I want some, but try to limit it.
Better an honest vegan/vegetarian substitute than a "it has to look like meat, no matter what" substitute.
Soy shreds can be a good substitute for some uses of minced meat, for example.
The 2 beef analogs here in the us are much better. Both brown in the pan.
Of the 2 (Impossible and Beyond), the visual cooking profile is far better on Impossible. Their fake blood leads to the expected color change. Beyond starts out kind of brown, and its harder to tell when what stage of done-ness it is at.
Beyond feels more like meat, in terms of the fat. Impossible tends to stick because its not fatty enough, but Beyond feels like a "real" burger in that respect.
Of the 2, I like the taste of Impossible more. Seems much closer to real beef.
Of the 2 (Impossible and Beyond), the visual cooking profile is far better on Impossible. Their fake blood leads to the expected color change. Beyond starts out kind of brown, and its harder to tell when what stage of done-ness it is at.
Beyond feels more like meat, in terms of the fat. Impossible tends to stick because its not fatty enough, but Beyond feels like a "real" burger in that respect.
Of the 2, I like the taste of Impossible more. Seems much closer to real beef.
If you want to eat a vegetable patty, why does it have to be a fake meat burger? Why can't you enjoy a falafel?
More to the point, if you want to stop eating meat, why do you have to eat pretend-meat? If you're cutting out a major food group from your diet you're already making a huge commitment in time and effort to eat in a certain way while not missing out on nutrients (so no excuses about how it's simpler to eat fake meat). So why not spend this time and effort to learn to cook tasty, delicious foods, without meat?
Why not spend this time and effort to learn to cook the many traditional dishes of the many world cuisines that are majority vegetarian or vegan, that teem with dishes that are absolutely heavenly, without any animal products in them? Learn to cook Indian, or Mediterranean, or African, or Thai. Learn to cook with olive oil instead of butter, learn to cook succulent, decadent aubergine casseroles and succulent legume dishes. Learn to cook! And don't leave your nutrition to the same old actors in the same old food industry that is destroying the environment and abusing animals with industrial beef (and pig, and chicken) production.
Remember that the biggest investors in meat substitutes are... giant meat and dairy conglomerates. Check out this article:
https://www.just-food.com/features/eyeing-alternatives-meat-...
Recognise any names?
More to the point, if you want to stop eating meat, why do you have to eat pretend-meat? If you're cutting out a major food group from your diet you're already making a huge commitment in time and effort to eat in a certain way while not missing out on nutrients (so no excuses about how it's simpler to eat fake meat). So why not spend this time and effort to learn to cook tasty, delicious foods, without meat?
Why not spend this time and effort to learn to cook the many traditional dishes of the many world cuisines that are majority vegetarian or vegan, that teem with dishes that are absolutely heavenly, without any animal products in them? Learn to cook Indian, or Mediterranean, or African, or Thai. Learn to cook with olive oil instead of butter, learn to cook succulent, decadent aubergine casseroles and succulent legume dishes. Learn to cook! And don't leave your nutrition to the same old actors in the same old food industry that is destroying the environment and abusing animals with industrial beef (and pig, and chicken) production.
Remember that the biggest investors in meat substitutes are... giant meat and dairy conglomerates. Check out this article:
https://www.just-food.com/features/eyeing-alternatives-meat-...
Recognise any names?
> My cholesterol and blood sugar numbers have improved dramatically.
That’s a big claim. Most meat substitutes are ultra-processed food with lots of carbs and a poorer nutritional profile. Did you make other diet or lifestyle changes? Red meat should not impact blood sugars much.
That’s a big claim. Most meat substitutes are ultra-processed food with lots of carbs and a poorer nutritional profile. Did you make other diet or lifestyle changes? Red meat should not impact blood sugars much.
i tried (ed: strike impossible) beyond burgers recently. they were... ok. but i did notice that i felt extremely sluggish after eating them. (like having to lay down)
the thickness of the oil exuded onto the griddle and the difficulty i had cleaning it off was a bit frightening as well... but i don't prepare meat so maybe the real deal is worse?
the thickness of the oil exuded onto the griddle and the difficulty i had cleaning it off was a bit frightening as well... but i don't prepare meat so maybe the real deal is worse?
The only drawback I’d see is it’s ultra processed food, but it looks as though ftom your experience you experienced health improvements which outweigh Ann concern over ultra processing .
I looked up a comparison.[1] It seems that the only potential issue with an impossible burger is much more sodium. On the other hand, it actually contains fiber(3 grams).
Apparently, Impossible meat are fortified with micronutrient as well.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the problem with ultra processed food is not the processing per se, but the poor nutritional profiles.
1. https://www.cnet.com/health/nutrition/is-the-impossible-burg...
Apparently, Impossible meat are fortified with micronutrient as well.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the problem with ultra processed food is not the processing per se, but the poor nutritional profiles.
1. https://www.cnet.com/health/nutrition/is-the-impossible-burg...
I wanted to find some views on the the impossible/beyond GMO meat substitutes vs organic, grass-fed, which many contend is the gold standard for healthy meat, not regular feedlot / grain raised beef.
Found a number of different perspectives [1], [2], [3] [4] [5]
Most alarming was the presence of GMO, and soy & glyphosate connection alleged by testing from Moms Across America [6] found in both varieties (They are anti-GMO and anti-vaxx in the pre-covid term, using the original vaccine defintion). A vegan response by The Reasoned Vegan to these allegations and testing can be found at [7] which raised questions about the overblown testing hyperbole by Moms Across America. Consequently, I don't have a strong opinion on the veracity of the testing.
However, given my biases towards organic, grass-fed and away from both soy, GMO, and feedlot/grain cattle, the Chiropractor Dr. Pompa best captured a nuanced view with which I concur. [8] I say this because I've known many vegans, and the one I dated expressed concerns around the negative implications of a heavy soy diet that led to her to cut out all soy, and head more towards a raw food diet.
[1] https://blessingfalls.com/2019/08/14/plant-based-impossible-...
[2] https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/lab-produced-mea...
[3] https://www.eatthis.com/news-impossible-meat-ingredient-may-...
[4] https://www.forbes.com/sites/lanabandoim/2019/12/20/what-the...
[5] https://www.gmoscience.org/2019/06/25/rat-feeding-studies-su...
[6] https://www.momsacrossamerica.com/gmo_impossible_burger_posi...
[7] https://thereasonedvegan.com/2019/07/24/lies-about-roundup-i...
[8] https://drpompa.com/cellular-detox/meat-substitute-burgers-a...
Found a number of different perspectives [1], [2], [3] [4] [5]
Most alarming was the presence of GMO, and soy & glyphosate connection alleged by testing from Moms Across America [6] found in both varieties (They are anti-GMO and anti-vaxx in the pre-covid term, using the original vaccine defintion). A vegan response by The Reasoned Vegan to these allegations and testing can be found at [7] which raised questions about the overblown testing hyperbole by Moms Across America. Consequently, I don't have a strong opinion on the veracity of the testing.
However, given my biases towards organic, grass-fed and away from both soy, GMO, and feedlot/grain cattle, the Chiropractor Dr. Pompa best captured a nuanced view with which I concur. [8] I say this because I've known many vegans, and the one I dated expressed concerns around the negative implications of a heavy soy diet that led to her to cut out all soy, and head more towards a raw food diet.
[1] https://blessingfalls.com/2019/08/14/plant-based-impossible-...
[2] https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/lab-produced-mea...
[3] https://www.eatthis.com/news-impossible-meat-ingredient-may-...
[4] https://www.forbes.com/sites/lanabandoim/2019/12/20/what-the...
[5] https://www.gmoscience.org/2019/06/25/rat-feeding-studies-su...
[6] https://www.momsacrossamerica.com/gmo_impossible_burger_posi...
[7] https://thereasonedvegan.com/2019/07/24/lies-about-roundup-i...
[8] https://drpompa.com/cellular-detox/meat-substitute-burgers-a...
Do any of these plant based meat substitutes have the same macro and micro nutrient profiles as the real thing, or are they mainly comprised of cheap carbs?
I'd be willing to give it a go for a few things, like burgers, but only if nutritionally they are close to like for like. (there is also a medical reason behind this for me personally, as I have reactive hypoglycemia and avoid all but the smallest carb intake).
I'll also add, our family doesn't actually eat much red meat - it's more of a treat, with chicken and pork far more common at our table than beef or lamb. Partly for health reasons, partly for cost reasons.
I'd be willing to give it a go for a few things, like burgers, but only if nutritionally they are close to like for like. (there is also a medical reason behind this for me personally, as I have reactive hypoglycemia and avoid all but the smallest carb intake).
I'll also add, our family doesn't actually eat much red meat - it's more of a treat, with chicken and pork far more common at our table than beef or lamb. Partly for health reasons, partly for cost reasons.
The newer ones (Beyond, Impossible) are a lot closer nutritionally to beef than the older style of veggie burgers that were mostly bean-based in my experience. Those could still be pretty good for what they were, but not really comparable to beef.
If you have medical reasons to eat meat, IMO you shouldn’t be experimenting with new foods unless your doctor/nutritionist okays it. Ie I feel like you may not be the target audience of people who can give up meat.
Generally they are very high in protein, have a decent amount of good fats (normally have much less omega-6 than red meats) and have low carb content. Beyond Meat, for example, is my go-to substitute. I get their ground stuff in a pack and add more spices and make patties (though I'm a huge fan of it as is when eating out).
Not sure how much you eat of it. But generally processed foods are not that good for you. I know they add and additive to make it taste like it has serum from blood. I remember there being media reports and controversy over the safety of it. I tried making a meatless burger, and found adding almond flower goes a long way to make it taste great.
One of the brands uses a generically engineered yeast to create a plant heme with a gene spliced in from soy. It's GMO but seems safe (its not like a round up ready GMO). I think these engineered meat substitutes may not be as healthy as a whole food plant based diet -- but I find it hard to believe they are less healthy or have a higher environmental impact that the meat they replace.
Those are usually not "meat" substitutes but "ground meat" substitutes. I personally don't consume much ground meat, so they are a bit useless for me unfortunately.
It doesn't make sense to say that people have an "addiction to meat". We eat meat because it's a very nutritious food. We need to eat food to survive, to live, and to thrive.
If you 're looking for an addiction that harms the environment, then look no further than right in front of your eyes. Right now, you are probably looking at the screen of a smart phone that you will most likely throw away for a new one before the end of the year. You don't need a new phone every year, nor do the many millions of people who buy a new one each year, and yet so they do.
https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2018/12/11/right-to-repair-...
If you 're looking for an addiction that harms the environment, then look no further than right in front of your eyes. Right now, you are probably looking at the screen of a smart phone that you will most likely throw away for a new one before the end of the year. You don't need a new phone every year, nor do the many millions of people who buy a new one each year, and yet so they do.
https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2018/12/11/right-to-repair-...
It'll take a couple of generations. Starting raising your kids on only Soylent Green type modern foods, and no meats; then, they'll grow up to find real meat disgusting.
Or the first time they have real meat, they actually enjoy it. Similar to all of those parents that regulate their kid's sugar content by not allowing sodas/candy/etc. Once they go to a friend's house or school and get a taste, they do not spit it out in disgust.
Funny enough, this happened to me, I was raised without meat as a toddler very young child, tofu dogs, seitan, the whole nine yards. My parents from the Bay Area were militant about it...until I was about 5 at a family friends bbq, I had bacon for the first time, and as my dad tells it, that basically ended the whole family's vegetarianism it was so good. We all eat meat till this day... so maybe there is something instinctual about it.
Meat is rather different. Just about no kid in America would want to eat a dog. And there's nothing significantly different between a dog and a pig, other than our cultural attitudes towards them.
As disgusting as I've been raised to find the idea, I suspect GP's point might hold have a grain of truth to dog meat, too. Some cultures eat dog -- I suspect if I ate dog meat, especially if I didn't know it was dog meat, I'd probably find it an okay meat.
(that said, I don't believe the physiology of domestic dogs really lends itself to "good meat", certainly not as efficient as domestic pigs, so raising dogs as food doesn't really make sense)
(that said, I don't believe the physiology of domestic dogs really lends itself to "good meat", certainly not as efficient as domestic pigs, so raising dogs as food doesn't really make sense)
I wonder if there is calculations where dogs would fall on axis of chicken, pork and beef. Probably around pork, but which side and what sort of diets would be allowable.
I think that is just because we haven't served it to them. Serve it a few years and then tell what it is. Could solve that issue. Also I wonder how well decent breed of dog compares to beef, chicken and pork from ecological and economic perspective.
Only animals I'm against eating is hominids like apes, monkeys and humans. And that is only because of pathogens.
Only animals I'm against eating is hominids like apes, monkeys and humans. And that is only because of pathogens.
A dog, being carnivorous, is further up the food chain than a pig, so will have more accumulated toxins.
Pigs are omnivores.
Congratulations, you posted something that appears to rebut my post but doesn't actually contradict anything I said.
I have a friend who was raised Hindu but is himself lapsed. He has trouble eating beef, it upsets his digestive system.
Or fruit and vegetables. The alternative to meat isn't Soylent Green, but of course you're just a troll you don't want to debate facts.
Technically, Soylent Green was made of people (the plot of the movie). The premise of it though was Soylent (Blue, Yellow,...) foods were (supposed to have been) made from vegetable and seaweed protein -- which is not so much science fiction anymore w.r.t. Beyond Meat and other such products.
Yeah, I'm good. You go ahead but we're having a large steak barbecue tonight. Bought like 20 lbs of Ribeye and 10 lbs of chicken.
This is getting downvoted because it's snarky, but look, barbecue is a cultural staple. The climate/PETA/imitation beef proponents are just priming to pump on the Virtue-Signaling-Politicization-Industrial complex, which will inevitably transform the cheeseburger into a political statement.
The last thing we need is to turn cheeseburgers into a political statement.
You want to make real progress?
Don't pick fights with hourislate's barbecue--it sounds like a great time.
At least in the US, there's no chance of convincing more than a tiny minority of people to give up cheeseburgers and barbecue.
But on the other hand, if you promote non-meat dishes from around the world (falafel, shakshuka, black bean tacos, pastas, you get the idea) it's entirely possible for the average person who eats meat every day to switch for a few meals per week, whether they're motivated by climate, health, or just really liking tacos.
And take a hard look at restaurant portion sizes. In a lot of cases they've doubled since the 1980's.
It's easy to imagine this as a 25% reduction in meat usage, without picking a losing battle against backyard barbecues.
The last thing we need is to turn cheeseburgers into a political statement.
You want to make real progress?
Don't pick fights with hourislate's barbecue--it sounds like a great time.
At least in the US, there's no chance of convincing more than a tiny minority of people to give up cheeseburgers and barbecue.
But on the other hand, if you promote non-meat dishes from around the world (falafel, shakshuka, black bean tacos, pastas, you get the idea) it's entirely possible for the average person who eats meat every day to switch for a few meals per week, whether they're motivated by climate, health, or just really liking tacos.
And take a hard look at restaurant portion sizes. In a lot of cases they've doubled since the 1980's.
It's easy to imagine this as a 25% reduction in meat usage, without picking a losing battle against backyard barbecues.
I don't 100% agree on how there's no chance of convincing people to give up cheeseburgers and BBQs. Sure, they're a cultural staple, but smoking was a cultural staple in France and yet the French have basically given up on smoking, because deep down inside they're sensible people (despite being pig-headed Gauls, at the same time).
What I find hard to understand is this: if you want to eat meat, why would you choose to eat a meat substitute? If you don't want to eat meat, why would you choose to eat a meat substitute?
How many people are there that really want to eat fake meat? Or fake anything, for that matter?
What I find hard to understand is this: if you want to eat meat, why would you choose to eat a meat substitute? If you don't want to eat meat, why would you choose to eat a meat substitute?
How many people are there that really want to eat fake meat? Or fake anything, for that matter?
Even encouraging people to reduce beef consumption in favor of pork or chicken would have a pretty significant impact, and that's a lot less drastic of a lifestyle change than going fully vegan. Although from an animal welfare perspective it might not be desirable - a lot more chickens need to suffer to produce the same amount of meat as one cow for instance.
[deleted]
Everybody gangsta 'till the climate changes.
The individual punishment for anyone alive today will basically be nothing even in the worst cases, so while I agree with you, that argument doesn’t really work.
Already we have witnessed increased frequency of extreme weather events. And the thing about positive feedback loops is that they accelerate.
Heart disease is the number one killer in the US currently.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/282929#heart-disea...
Which can be reversed by eating a plant based diet. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5466936/
If not for the planet, then for your health.
Which can be reversed by eating a plant based diet. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5466936/
If not for the planet, then for your health.
Yeah, because eating meat leads to heart disease. Oh wait, I heard those people also drank water!
The world average temp has warmed .9°C since 1880.
Nice!
This is the same logic those who say we should end teen pregnancy by teaching abstinence use and we all know how that works out.
It’s also a huge coordination problem. Just casually get 300 million people to be on the same page and make a collective action against their own personal interest where there is no punishment for noncompliance, no feedback mechanism for rewards, and no guarantee it will have any effect.
When the expected outcome is “you deny yourself pleasures you want and nothing changes” it’s pretty darn rational to just not bother.
When the expected outcome is “you deny yourself pleasures you want and nothing changes” it’s pretty darn rational to just not bother.
> 300 million
Add Argentina’s population of 45 million to that. And then go ask Pakistanis how they would feel about a “don’t eat beef” law imposed on them.
Add Argentina’s population of 45 million to that. And then go ask Pakistanis how they would feel about a “don’t eat beef” law imposed on them.
I wonder, from a cows point of view, if being eliminated as a species is preferable to being eaten one at a time at some point in their life cycle.
Because this appears to be advocating for genocide. Or bovinecide (is that the right word)?
<Edit>Apparently this is being taken as an argument for meat eating. It's not, I suspect we will lay off eating animal flesh as a species fairly soon. Just a theoretical question. Something to think about. Because simple "everyone should just XXX!" often have wider implications.
Because this appears to be advocating for genocide. Or bovinecide (is that the right word)?
<Edit>Apparently this is being taken as an argument for meat eating. It's not, I suspect we will lay off eating animal flesh as a species fairly soon. Just a theoretical question. Something to think about. Because simple "everyone should just XXX!" often have wider implications.
It's so sad that even now people misunderstand the concerns of most people advocating reducing (or eliminating) meat from everyone's diet.
In the grand scheme of things, "being eaten" (that is getting killed prematurely) isn't as great a problem as the severe abuse animals undergo before they are killed. If there was a choice to make, I'd rather never exist, than to be brought into existence on a factory farm, confined, abused, rape-inseminated, have my children be taken away, be hauled by a tractor because I can no longer stand up, etc.
Please watch "Earthlings" to better understand the way humans treat animals: http://www.nationearth.com
In the grand scheme of things, "being eaten" (that is getting killed prematurely) isn't as great a problem as the severe abuse animals undergo before they are killed. If there was a choice to make, I'd rather never exist, than to be brought into existence on a factory farm, confined, abused, rape-inseminated, have my children be taken away, be hauled by a tractor because I can no longer stand up, etc.
Please watch "Earthlings" to better understand the way humans treat animals: http://www.nationearth.com
In general, I'm confused by the counter-factual ethics required to work this out. For example, if we stop eating meat and dairy, then we would have no incentive to raise cattle. And without that incentive, cattle populations would drop dramatically; they would be limited to special preserves or zoos, or very marginal land. The species might not even survive. We don't have a stellar record of keeping large nuisance animals around if they have no economic value to us. It's not even clear (to me) that domestic cows are capable of surviving in the wild. So, in its most extreme form, the question posed is it more ethical to continue eating cattle and sustaining the species, or abstaining and letting the species go extinct? I don't know.
Wouldn't be the first time, nobody remembers the great horse genocide of 1908 either.
Equicide? At least people still kept some horses around for recreational riding etc. What will happen to cows?
Wildlife now only makes up 5% of the biomass of mammals on planet earth. Where is the outcry for the thousands of species that go extinct. https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/17788/how-muc...
Why don't people give up the meat until this has all been figured out?
Why don't people give up the meat until this has all been figured out?
Changing culture in terms of food is a hard problem and one which would have a large range of benefits. Any country that has environmental issues from overpopulated or invasive species could benefit greatly if people hunted an ate that animal, but since they aren't part of the culture people don't and allow overpopulated or invasive species to continue being a problem. People are addicted to the cultural food that is popular in their local area.
We see the same issue in the cultivating of mono-culture plants. Instead of using a wide range of different plants and land usage we instead see a overuse of the same plants being force fed artificial fertilizers in order to keep production high, with much of it ending up in the water creating eutrophication. This is a primary reason why a whole ocean, the Baltic sea, is turning into an underwater desert with a lack of oxygen so great that not even many bacterials like to live there. Artificial fertilizers has destroyed more way more land than nuclear fission and nuclear bombs has together.
If we could change peoples culture in terms in what they eat we could not only have a 100% reduction in methane, but also fix the water pollution, biodiversity, usage of fossil fuels in the food chain, decrease land usage, fix overpopulation and remove invasive species, and feed even more people than we do today. It would also likely taste quite well, especially since taste is heavily influenced by culture.
We see the same issue in the cultivating of mono-culture plants. Instead of using a wide range of different plants and land usage we instead see a overuse of the same plants being force fed artificial fertilizers in order to keep production high, with much of it ending up in the water creating eutrophication. This is a primary reason why a whole ocean, the Baltic sea, is turning into an underwater desert with a lack of oxygen so great that not even many bacterials like to live there. Artificial fertilizers has destroyed more way more land than nuclear fission and nuclear bombs has together.
If we could change peoples culture in terms in what they eat we could not only have a 100% reduction in methane, but also fix the water pollution, biodiversity, usage of fossil fuels in the food chain, decrease land usage, fix overpopulation and remove invasive species, and feed even more people than we do today. It would also likely taste quite well, especially since taste is heavily influenced by culture.
Sure, in Texas a lot of us hunt and eat wild hogs as they're a nuisance. Javelina are native but can be a pest sometimes, so we eat them too (good in sausage).
Wild hogs tend to be part of the culture in most areas that I know has them. A useful sign for this is that such meat is generally more expensive to buy than beef, which illustrate the value that the culture puts on it as food.
In contrast one can look at areas which has an overpopulation of seals. People don't eat the meat and the most common use is to generate oil, which is also not very useful in modern days. As such hunters are not very interested to spend time on it and overpopulation is allowed to continue even if it has a known negative impact on bio diversity in an local area.
If one goes into the area of eutrophication, over population of non-cultural acceptable fish is very common. When government create initiatives to address the issue, the caught fish (many many tons of fish) get either turned into bio fuel or animal feed if the cost of transportation allows it. Hard to find a bigger waste of food than that, and it is purely a matter of culture.
In contrast one can look at areas which has an overpopulation of seals. People don't eat the meat and the most common use is to generate oil, which is also not very useful in modern days. As such hunters are not very interested to spend time on it and overpopulation is allowed to continue even if it has a known negative impact on bio diversity in an local area.
If one goes into the area of eutrophication, over population of non-cultural acceptable fish is very common. When government create initiatives to address the issue, the caught fish (many many tons of fish) get either turned into bio fuel or animal feed if the cost of transportation allows it. Hard to find a bigger waste of food than that, and it is purely a matter of culture.
Or, you could stop buying cheap, garbage meat that sometimes causes the problems you describe. Buy from a food coop, research the farm that supplies the meat. If you have the luxury to make informed choices, do that.
Of course, good luck getting the poor or working class to do any of those things. They simply want cheap, appetizing calories.
Of course, good luck getting the poor or working class to do any of those things. They simply want cheap, appetizing calories.
I agree, it's worth it if you have the means. But looking as to why people are resorting to the cheapest most inhumane options is the root of the problem. I'm sure if everyone could afford premium, well sourced meat then the problem would be reduced, but the issue is that the poor and working class have been put into the position they are in and will choose the cheaper route out of necessity and where there is necessity, there is a market and someone willing to capitalize on it.
It isn't just out of necessity. We don't really have much of a hunger problem in the US or most of the Western world.
We need to stop approaching problems by trying to force people to change their habits and preferences. That isn't going to happen.
Also, regardless of the arguments and hand waving from vegetarians, vegans, PETA, etc. we should accept that the vast majority of people are meant to and will always choose to eat meat as part of their diet.
If you want to get people off of conventionally produced meat you need something that normal people actually consider to be appetizing. If fact, it would be even better if they didn't realize any changes were made. The replacement for meat that has any chance of succeeding is ...meat.
Lab grown meat is the only solution with any chance of mass adoption. We can control the inputs, create something more appetizing, cheaper and maybe even healthier. It checks all the boxes vs. some unholy concoction of super processed ingredients marketed as a "meat substitute".
We need to stop approaching problems by trying to force people to change their habits and preferences. That isn't going to happen.
Also, regardless of the arguments and hand waving from vegetarians, vegans, PETA, etc. we should accept that the vast majority of people are meant to and will always choose to eat meat as part of their diet.
If you want to get people off of conventionally produced meat you need something that normal people actually consider to be appetizing. If fact, it would be even better if they didn't realize any changes were made. The replacement for meat that has any chance of succeeding is ...meat.
Lab grown meat is the only solution with any chance of mass adoption. We can control the inputs, create something more appetizing, cheaper and maybe even healthier. It checks all the boxes vs. some unholy concoction of super processed ingredients marketed as a "meat substitute".
Smoking was drastically reduced in the US after a public health push.
Nice try. Eating high quality meat is absolutely NOT a public health concern.
Man, after reading some of these comments I realize how lucky I am to live in a part of the world where we push back very hard when the shrieking, alarmist minority try to force their preferences down the throats of others.
Man, after reading some of these comments I realize how lucky I am to live in a part of the world where we push back very hard when the shrieking, alarmist minority try to force their preferences down the throats of others.
On a similar line of reasoning: 65% of Americans are obese or overweight. We can make significant progress toward reducing all sorts of environmental harm if people simple didn’t eat more food than they needed.
The obesity is most likely due to unhealthy carbs than meat. Eating grilled meat and salads will rarely get you obese.
We should stop subsidizing corn production.
Yes, but there's still a lot of pollution associated with it: https://www.nature.com/articles/ijo2011151
I do not understand this focus on methane. It is very short lived in the atmosphere, it cannot accumulate like carbon dioxide can.
With the lesser methane production of the largest cattle pen, this Kettleman City, California, the land of millions of shit, can smell a bit better and that its nearby city of Los Banos (The Toilet) will be less of a wry joke.
Would be a lot better to reduce the number of cows... I'm doing my part, I'm eating less meat.
It reminds me of people that work out to loose weight... much easier to reduce the amount of calories you take in.
It reminds me of people that work out to loose weight... much easier to reduce the amount of calories you take in.
55% reduction in methanse is good, but its still a destructive and inefficient way to produce protein. Wish people would give up on beef and look into alternatives.
What sort of alternatives? Chicken, sheep and goats?
Personally I want to stop buying meat. I'll probably start hunting once or twice a year and fill a freezer.
Personally I want to stop buying meat. I'll probably start hunting once or twice a year and fill a freezer.
Many people are already doing that. While various products are already on the consumer market and more are in the pipeline, and while I hope they collectively succeed in replacing it, this takes time and money.
There are no healthy cheap and safe alternatives to meat.
Looking at plants and beans...
... you sure about that?
What did the Okinawans get most of their calories from? Sweet potatoes.. how much animal protein in their diet? 3 percent https://www.bluezones.com/2017/05/okinawa-diet-eating-living...
If you eat enough calories per day from real plant foods - getting protein deficiency is impossible.
... you sure about that?
What did the Okinawans get most of their calories from? Sweet potatoes.. how much animal protein in their diet? 3 percent https://www.bluezones.com/2017/05/okinawa-diet-eating-living...
If you eat enough calories per day from real plant foods - getting protein deficiency is impossible.
Beans and rice, for example, are cheaper and healthier than meat. Just about any vegetable you can pick up is healthier than meat.
ehh, I don’t eat meat and it only takes slightly more effort to get enough protein. There are entire cultures that do it
The issue here is cows and their digestive system. Chicken is a perfectly reasonable substitute for beef.
> There are no healthy cheapand safe alternatives to meat.
There are over a 600 million people are living cheaply and safely on vegetarian diets. I love Meat, it’s tasty and delicious, but it’s very much a luxury.
> There are no healthy cheapand safe alternatives to meat.
There are over a 600 million people are living cheaply and safely on vegetarian diets. I love Meat, it’s tasty and delicious, but it’s very much a luxury.
Steak vs chicken breast? That's not an alternative not only from the taste stand point but also nutrionally.
Nutritionally it is more than good enough.
Please enlighten us, what’s missing nutritionally in chicken that you can find in steak?
Lots of delicious saturated fat, for one.
Eating a Chicken drumstick is more nutritious and healthier than a steak. That connective tissue is good for you.
Chicken breast has more protein, less fat, less cholesterol, less saturated fat. Beef has slightly more iron and zinc but is overall significantly worse for you.
That said their both missing vitamin C [edit: after cooking], so you need a more diverse diet anyway.
Chicken breast has more protein, less fat, less cholesterol, less saturated fat. Beef has slightly more iron and zinc but is overall significantly worse for you.
That said their both missing vitamin C [edit: after cooking], so you need a more diverse diet anyway.
What is wrong with cholesterol?
On it’s own nothing the body needs quite a lot of it. But it can be a problem if your diet includes excessive quantities.
Edit: Saying a food is healthy or not IMO really a question of how well it fits into the widest selection of current diets and lifestyles. Drinking say 1oz of sea water it generally fine and if people where frequently salt deficient then it could be considered healthy, but as insufficient salt intake is not a common problem and excessive salt intake is occasionally one I don’t think we can really consider sea water as healthy.
Similarly dietary cholesterol has minimal impact on most people, but overall excess is more generally going to be an issue simply due to the small population that is at risk. As such I think we can say lower cholesterol chicken is a net positive overall unless we know more about the specific person involved.
Edit: Saying a food is healthy or not IMO really a question of how well it fits into the widest selection of current diets and lifestyles. Drinking say 1oz of sea water it generally fine and if people where frequently salt deficient then it could be considered healthy, but as insufficient salt intake is not a common problem and excessive salt intake is occasionally one I don’t think we can really consider sea water as healthy.
Similarly dietary cholesterol has minimal impact on most people, but overall excess is more generally going to be an issue simply due to the small population that is at risk. As such I think we can say lower cholesterol chicken is a net positive overall unless we know more about the specific person involved.
Well that is true for almost anything including water.
What is the problem you are referring to?
What is the problem you are referring to?
> That said their both missing vitamin C, so you need a more diverse diet anyway.
People have been shown to live on fresh beef alone for extended period without suffering scurvy.
Paradoxically, adding other might actually introduce the need for additional vitamin C.
People have been shown to live on fresh beef alone for extended period without suffering scurvy.
Paradoxically, adding other might actually introduce the need for additional vitamin C.
Uncooked meat has vitamin C, but is harder to digest and risks food born diseases. Cooking is the issue rather than the lack of it in chicken or beef.
People don’t need much vitamin C to avoid scurvy, a healthy person can skip it for about 3 months without significant issue.
People don’t need much vitamin C to avoid scurvy, a healthy person can skip it for about 3 months without significant issue.
> Chicken breast has more protein, less fat, less cholesterol, less saturated fat. Beef has slightly more iron and zinc but is overall significantly worse for you.
If your nutritional understanding is at the level of “fat and cholesterol are bad” you should not be giving dietary advice.
You appear to be approaching this from a USDA-poster style of nutritional reasoning (please do not do this), so I’ll make two heuristic arguments:
Why do you think, everywhere in the world except where there are social taboos on beef, poor people who eat chicken will preferentially switch to beef consumption when their standard of living improves enough to permit it?
Is the peptide and vitamin distribution of human flesh closer to that of a cow, or that of a chicken?
If your nutritional understanding is at the level of “fat and cholesterol are bad” you should not be giving dietary advice.
You appear to be approaching this from a USDA-poster style of nutritional reasoning (please do not do this), so I’ll make two heuristic arguments:
Why do you think, everywhere in the world except where there are social taboos on beef, poor people who eat chicken will preferentially switch to beef consumption when their standard of living improves enough to permit it?
Is the peptide and vitamin distribution of human flesh closer to that of a cow, or that of a chicken?
The human body can produce almost everything it needs internally from most editable plants and animals.
People may for example need on the order of μg/day of Bromine, Arsenic, Nickel, Fluorine, Boron, Lithium, Strontium, Silicon and Vanadium based on organic compounds containing them, but the need is slow low their plentiful in any reasonable diet. So sure, if you where building a food synthesizer from inorganic compounds then nutrition is quite complex, but in terms of diets people generally self regulate quite well with cravings often occurring should a deficiency develop.
Start looking for what’s not either sufficiently plentiful in most foods or synthesized by the body and you end up with a rather short list. Vitamin C is mainly an issue because it’s destroyed by cooking, and even then people can literally go months without developing systems even with zero vitamin C. Thiamine is another one that became an issue when people started eating a lot of white rice, but again it’s food prep not the plant that’s the issue. Many arguments around optimal diets exist, but the original quote was safety not say Olympic athletes.
So, based on all existing research and in the context of a normal diet, no there isn’t a significant nutritional benefit to beef over chicken.
> switch to beef
Because beef is tasty. It’s the same reason people don’t need to be convinced to eat chocolate.
People may for example need on the order of μg/day of Bromine, Arsenic, Nickel, Fluorine, Boron, Lithium, Strontium, Silicon and Vanadium based on organic compounds containing them, but the need is slow low their plentiful in any reasonable diet. So sure, if you where building a food synthesizer from inorganic compounds then nutrition is quite complex, but in terms of diets people generally self regulate quite well with cravings often occurring should a deficiency develop.
Start looking for what’s not either sufficiently plentiful in most foods or synthesized by the body and you end up with a rather short list. Vitamin C is mainly an issue because it’s destroyed by cooking, and even then people can literally go months without developing systems even with zero vitamin C. Thiamine is another one that became an issue when people started eating a lot of white rice, but again it’s food prep not the plant that’s the issue. Many arguments around optimal diets exist, but the original quote was safety not say Olympic athletes.
So, based on all existing research and in the context of a normal diet, no there isn’t a significant nutritional benefit to beef over chicken.
> switch to beef
Because beef is tasty. It’s the same reason people don’t need to be convinced to eat chocolate.
> The human body can produce almost everything it needs internally from most editable plants and animals.
I note that your statement is appropriately very strongly hedged.
> So, based on all existing research and in the context of a normal diet,
Dietary “science” has one of the lowest standards of rigor of any field, in the same ballpark as psychology. Until we have accurate computer models of every metabolic pathway in the human body, I’m not going to trust papers that are like “actually you can just eat soy and seitan and be fine” (incidentally, the counterfactual study got funding approval from vegan activists and seventh-day Adventists!). Also, “in the context of a normal diet” is another pretty big hedge - “normal” diets are terrible.
In any case, when we’re talking about nutrition, since the state of research is so bad, we’re basically stuck with a priori reasoning and Bayesian observation, and after applying those two, my observation is that people who eat only ruminants and fish and stuff look really good and are strong and healthy, and the exact opposite is true for people who eat only vegetables, and this doesn’t really impose a big update on my prior derived from what I know about pre-agriculture food sources in these people’s evolutionary environments.
> Because beef is tasty.
As you point out, when your body makes something taste better than something else, it’s probably because it’s doing a better job of meeting your nutritional needs. If two foods were abundant in the evolutionary environment, I expect taste to be reasonably well-calibrated in terms of causing me to eat the nutritionally optimal distribution of foods.
Ruminants and birds were both abundant in my evolutionary environment. So what does it say that ruminants taste so much better?
I note that your statement is appropriately very strongly hedged.
> So, based on all existing research and in the context of a normal diet,
Dietary “science” has one of the lowest standards of rigor of any field, in the same ballpark as psychology. Until we have accurate computer models of every metabolic pathway in the human body, I’m not going to trust papers that are like “actually you can just eat soy and seitan and be fine” (incidentally, the counterfactual study got funding approval from vegan activists and seventh-day Adventists!). Also, “in the context of a normal diet” is another pretty big hedge - “normal” diets are terrible.
In any case, when we’re talking about nutrition, since the state of research is so bad, we’re basically stuck with a priori reasoning and Bayesian observation, and after applying those two, my observation is that people who eat only ruminants and fish and stuff look really good and are strong and healthy, and the exact opposite is true for people who eat only vegetables, and this doesn’t really impose a big update on my prior derived from what I know about pre-agriculture food sources in these people’s evolutionary environments.
> Because beef is tasty.
As you point out, when your body makes something taste better than something else, it’s probably because it’s doing a better job of meeting your nutritional needs. If two foods were abundant in the evolutionary environment, I expect taste to be reasonably well-calibrated in terms of causing me to eat the nutritionally optimal distribution of foods.
Ruminants and birds were both abundant in my evolutionary environment. So what does it say that ruminants taste so much better?
> Dietary “science” has one of the lowest standards of rigor of any field
Modern dietary science is quite different from it’s starting point. We know enough for soldiers, inmates, etc to eat exactly the food provided and be healthy. That’s the basic benchmark for success.
> it’s probably because it’s doing a better job.
Many birds are quite tasty, chicken however wasn’t part of our evolutionary environment. It also breaks down in the wider context, evolution would be adjusting things based on the overall diet and lifestyle of our ancestors which based on available evidence was quite different from our own.
Modern dietary science is quite different from it’s starting point. We know enough for soldiers, inmates, etc to eat exactly the food provided and be healthy. That’s the basic benchmark for success.
> it’s probably because it’s doing a better job.
Many birds are quite tasty, chicken however wasn’t part of our evolutionary environment. It also breaks down in the wider context, evolution would be adjusting things based on the overall diet and lifestyle of our ancestors which based on available evidence was quite different from our own.
Having suggested more tasty birds I will recommend a few. Squab/pidgin, Ruffed Grouse, Wild Turkey, Canada Goose. They have a surprisingly wide range of flavors.
Chickens are easy to farm which is why their so common, but they aren’t that representative of other bird species.
Chickens are easy to farm which is why their so common, but they aren’t that representative of other bird species.
> Chicken is a perfectly reasonable substitute for beef.
This is completely 100% incorrect. Chicken is so nutritionally deficient relative to beef that it might as well be a vegetable.
> There are over a 600 million people are living cheaply and safely on vegetarian diets
“Cheaply”, yes, “safely” not so much.
Vegetarian populations tend to be have stunted growth, have worse dentition, etc. compared to populations who eat a diet based on ruminants, fish, etc.
Additionally, dietary requirements are not fungible across the human population. People whose ancestors come from different evolutionary environments will be tuned for different food sources. Lactose tolerance is probably the most well known example. A priori, all of my pre-agricultural ancestors must have had a diet completely incompatible with vegetarianism, so it’s not surprising that people of my background who go vegetarian tend to exhibit metabolic problems.
Note that I am not comparing vegetarianism to the standard American diet, which is practically vegetarian already. Switching from SAD to a generic vegetarian diet might simply have the positive effect of reducing the amount of weird slop people consume. https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2016/december/a-look-at...
This is completely 100% incorrect. Chicken is so nutritionally deficient relative to beef that it might as well be a vegetable.
> There are over a 600 million people are living cheaply and safely on vegetarian diets
“Cheaply”, yes, “safely” not so much.
Vegetarian populations tend to be have stunted growth, have worse dentition, etc. compared to populations who eat a diet based on ruminants, fish, etc.
Additionally, dietary requirements are not fungible across the human population. People whose ancestors come from different evolutionary environments will be tuned for different food sources. Lactose tolerance is probably the most well known example. A priori, all of my pre-agricultural ancestors must have had a diet completely incompatible with vegetarianism, so it’s not surprising that people of my background who go vegetarian tend to exhibit metabolic problems.
Note that I am not comparing vegetarianism to the standard American diet, which is practically vegetarian already. Switching from SAD to a generic vegetarian diet might simply have the positive effect of reducing the amount of weird slop people consume. https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2016/december/a-look-at...
> standard American diet, which is practically vegetarian already
Not by any reasonable definition. Americans consume more meat per capita than any nation on earth. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_meat_cons...)
I'm guessing you're basing that statement on the article you shared showing that 70% of calories consumed by Americans come from plant-based sources.
1. I believe your calorie-percentage data points more to the high amount sugar and corn syrup in the standard American diet. Those two plant-based, calorie-dense ingredients skew the data. A McDonald's chicken nugget value meal with a regular Coke has a high number of plant-based calories due to the Coke, but it is pretty far from being a vegetarian meal.
2. Calling 70% vegetarian "practically vegetarian" really stretches the definitions of both words. Most Americans consume meat with > 2 meals per day.
Not by any reasonable definition. Americans consume more meat per capita than any nation on earth. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_meat_cons...)
I'm guessing you're basing that statement on the article you shared showing that 70% of calories consumed by Americans come from plant-based sources.
1. I believe your calorie-percentage data points more to the high amount sugar and corn syrup in the standard American diet. Those two plant-based, calorie-dense ingredients skew the data. A McDonald's chicken nugget value meal with a regular Coke has a high number of plant-based calories due to the Coke, but it is pretty far from being a vegetarian meal.
2. Calling 70% vegetarian "practically vegetarian" really stretches the definitions of both words. Most Americans consume meat with > 2 meals per day.
Sweeteners are about 15% of calories for Americans which sort of undercuts your idea that it’s all about corn syrup. Your example of a single hypothetical meal is irrelevant - the data is clear that Americans are practically vegetarian, in aggregate.
70% plants is absolutely “practically vegetarian” compared to, say, a diet consistent with the pre-agricultural evolutionary environment of most Americans. Personally, in excess of 90% of my caloric intake comes from animals (and I am visibly and medically healthier than 95% of Americans, even health-focused herbivores, as are people I know who eat similarly).
70% plants is absolutely “practically vegetarian” compared to, say, a diet consistent with the pre-agricultural evolutionary environment of most Americans. Personally, in excess of 90% of my caloric intake comes from animals (and I am visibly and medically healthier than 95% of Americans, even health-focused herbivores, as are people I know who eat similarly).
Preindustrial diets where mostly plant based in aggregate. Even if you look before agriculture estimates place typical hunter gatherers at about 65% plant based with extreme variation. Which is the same ratio as Americans eat when you exclude those sweeteners.
Longer term surviving examples tended to have a higher meat based ratio largely because they lived on islands or in more marginal areas. However, looking at land area and population density estimates adjusts the ratio significantly.
Some of this needs to be inferred from things like Native American tribal densities and is further confused as diseases decimated native populations throwing off those density estimates. Still the idea of our ancestors eating a primarily meat based diet seems to be a mistake.
Longer term surviving examples tended to have a higher meat based ratio largely because they lived on islands or in more marginal areas. However, looking at land area and population density estimates adjusts the ratio significantly.
Some of this needs to be inferred from things like Native American tribal densities and is further confused as diseases decimated native populations throwing off those density estimates. Still the idea of our ancestors eating a primarily meat based diet seems to be a mistake.
> Preindustrial diets where mostly plant based in aggregate.
You’re telling me my snow-bound ancestors were eating vegetables in the dead of winter, prior to the advent of agriculture?
You’re telling me my snow-bound ancestors were eating vegetables in the dead of winter, prior to the advent of agriculture?
Several issues with that statement, we largely didn’t have snow bound ancestors largely because survival was significantly more difficult in cold areas. Historic populations also tended to lose a lot of weight in winters due to lack of food.
On top of this mercator projections seriously distort people perceptions of how much land is near the equator vs the north. Africa is 11.73 million square miles with minimal snowfall outside of a few mountains, Europe is 3.9 million square miles. Combine that with warmer areas providing more food and it’s likely the majority of early modern humans never experienced significant snowfall.
This is complicated by ice ages, but people didn’t spend a lot of time on on near glaciers until very recently. Lack of food and warmth where huge issue before relatively advanced though still Stone Age technology.
Another way of thinking about this is to compare animal biomass per square mile in say Mongolia with Ghana.
On top of this mercator projections seriously distort people perceptions of how much land is near the equator vs the north. Africa is 11.73 million square miles with minimal snowfall outside of a few mountains, Europe is 3.9 million square miles. Combine that with warmer areas providing more food and it’s likely the majority of early modern humans never experienced significant snowfall.
This is complicated by ice ages, but people didn’t spend a lot of time on on near glaciers until very recently. Lack of food and warmth where huge issue before relatively advanced though still Stone Age technology.
Another way of thinking about this is to compare animal biomass per square mile in say Mongolia with Ghana.
Vegetarian populations have different deficiencies than other populations but overall they aren’t worse lifespans than other populations with similar economic backgrounds.
> they aren’t worse lifespans than other populations with similar economic backgrounds
Even if this is true, it’s tremendously misleading because (globally) vegetarian populations tend to be quite poor.
Even if this is true, it’s tremendously misleading because (globally) vegetarian populations tend to be quite poor.
To the extent that’s true, it also demonstrates the false causality in your own claim: poverty, not the absence of meat per se, is the cause of all the things you’re blaming vegetarian diets for.
Obviously the people I’m comparing against each other are in the same social-economic stratum. Even after conditioning for other factors, the costs of bad (vegetable-based) diets are significant.
And, of course, there is a bidirectional causality with poor people getting bad food, which stunts their development, which keeps them poor.
And, of course, there is a bidirectional causality with poor people getting bad food, which stunts their development, which keeps them poor.
It's not a luxury at all in some regions. In higher altitudes for example where warm weather cycles are too short to grow a lot of crops (other than some type of grass) keeping livestock (for meat, eggs, milk) is essential for survival.
It's frustrating to see arguments devolve into this kind of thing. It's almost surely the case we are discussing developed nations like the US (one of the largest consumers of meat), not some remote village in a developing nation. Sure there might be remote places with no access to the world market. Sure there might be some people whose health doesn't allow removal of meat. But on the grand-scale of the US and other developed economies, we can reduce meat consumption by 90% without any negative effects (in fact, we'll improve average health by a lot).
I mean, there are, but what's even more important than going vegan bc that's not feasible for everybody right now, is to reduce total meat consumption as much as possible, rather than these token "1 day a week without meat" it ought to be the other way around, 1 or 2 days a week with meat, other days eating tasty well cooked and seasoned food, lentils different types of beans, rice, soups, maybe add these small cubes of "chicken flavorant" in there too which are made with left overs of poultry production and don't directly contribute that much to the agro industry
Mitigating climate change is not solved by a single action. This is great news - it's something that is immediately actionable. Changing peoples diets can take years and years of campaigning, and some will never change.
Have you stopped eating meat? Or are you saying "my contribution is just a drop in the bucket, so I may as well continue eating meat?"
Of course government action is better than individual action. But why not both? Signal your discontent by removing yourself from the meat market.
Of course government action is better than individual action. But why not both? Signal your discontent by removing yourself from the meat market.
The ascetics haven't made much progress in fifty-odd years of trying. I suspect going to extremes makes you less relatable, which makes it hard to influence others, limiting your impact. A flexitarian who eats a burger at a social event once in a while might model a more approachable lifestyle change for others...
> Have you stopped eating meat?
No.
> Or are you saying "my contribution is just a drop in the bucket, so I may as well continue eating meat?"
Compared to, say, global shipping, meat itself is a drop in the bucket.
> Of course government action is better than individual action.
I wish this were sarcasm.
> But why not both?
Because the promoted alternative (soy) makes people docile and easier to control. No, thank you.
No.
> Or are you saying "my contribution is just a drop in the bucket, so I may as well continue eating meat?"
Compared to, say, global shipping, meat itself is a drop in the bucket.
> Of course government action is better than individual action.
I wish this were sarcasm.
> But why not both?
Because the promoted alternative (soy) makes people docile and easier to control. No, thank you.
> Compared to, say, global shipping, meat itself is a drop in the bucket.
According to this, livestock & manure are 5.8% of the total, while shipping is 1.7% of the total: https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector
IIRC the actual level of change we need to achieve long-term stability is something like 99%-99.9% reduction (depending on the gas, CH4 != CO2). If so, we’d have to eliminate about half of shipping emissions even if we eliminated 100% of the emissions in every other sector, but that’s even worse for your argument as it also means we have to eliminate 5/6ths of all livestock & manure emissions if we eliminated 100% of everything else.
According to this, livestock & manure are 5.8% of the total, while shipping is 1.7% of the total: https://ourworldindata.org/emissions-by-sector
IIRC the actual level of change we need to achieve long-term stability is something like 99%-99.9% reduction (depending on the gas, CH4 != CO2). If so, we’d have to eliminate about half of shipping emissions even if we eliminated 100% of the emissions in every other sector, but that’s even worse for your argument as it also means we have to eliminate 5/6ths of all livestock & manure emissions if we eliminated 100% of everything else.
> IIRC the actual level of change we need to achieve long-term stability is something like 99%-99.9% reduction
This is impossible to attain though.
This is impossible to attain though.
Perhaps, perhaps not. I’m optimistic.
Also: while I wasn’t thinking of this when I wrote the previous post, if carbon capture powered by non-fossil sources turned out to be useful (but not so useful to give us the exact opposite problem), that’s still a success.
Also: while I wasn’t thinking of this when I wrote the previous post, if carbon capture powered by non-fossil sources turned out to be useful (but not so useful to give us the exact opposite problem), that’s still a success.
not impossible at all. we just have to wait for the oncoming economic collapse, famine and mass migration. the great part of this whole thing is that the more we double down on the systems that brought us here, the more they will be undermined.
I wish people would stop pretending we have a choice to do nothing because the whole thing is just going to be too inconvenient.
I wish people would stop pretending we have a choice to do nothing because the whole thing is just going to be too inconvenient.
> I wish people would stop pretending we have a choice to do nothing because the whole thing is just going to be too inconvenient.
But we do? There's no pretension here, no action is always a choice. That doesn't mean that we will be free from the consequences of course. I think many people are betting, consciously or not, on the fact that we can keep going like this until the day they die and then they won't have to care about the consequences.
But we do? There's no pretension here, no action is always a choice. That doesn't mean that we will be free from the consequences of course. I think many people are betting, consciously or not, on the fact that we can keep going like this until the day they die and then they won't have to care about the consequences.
> we just have to wait for the oncoming economic collapse, famine and mass migration. the great part of this whole thing is that the more we double down on the systems that brought us here, the more they will be undermined
Uhuh, we just need to wait until you stop reading dystopian books and will leave your basement.
Uhuh, we just need to wait until you stop reading dystopian books and will leave your basement.
We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines. Not cool.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
> Because the promoted alternative (soy) makes people docile and easier to control.
This is a bold empirical claim. Do you have any credible reasons to believe this that you could share?
This is a bold empirical claim. Do you have any credible reasons to believe this that you could share?
[deleted]
See, thus is what's wrong with you people. Some of us want to enjoy food, not to treat it like some necessary evil and stuff whatever amount of crap we need.
I don't eat any animal products and still enjoy food immensely. Enjoyment of food is based on circumstance and is relative: I lived in Nepal for a few years and saw farmers enjoy plates of rice and lentils more than most Westerners would enjoy a steak. It is entirely possible to enjoy food without destructive livestock such as cows.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-Nitrooxypropanol
Wish the article had included this info about what exactly it is, but it seems like most articles these days are written for someone with a kindergarten level understanding of science.
Interestingly if you do this to a young calf it seems to change the microflora that develop in the digestive system, perhaps permanently even.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-82084-9
Wish the article had included this info about what exactly it is, but it seems like most articles these days are written for someone with a kindergarten level understanding of science.
Interestingly if you do this to a young calf it seems to change the microflora that develop in the digestive system, perhaps permanently even.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-82084-9
> it seems like most articles these days are written for someone with a kindergarten level understanding of science.
The Gell-Mann Amnesia effect may have only been coined 19 years ago, but this type of problem has been with us basically forever.
The Gell-Mann Amnesia effect may have only been coined 19 years ago, but this type of problem has been with us basically forever.
Can someone explain to me how our planet managed global warming when billions of bisons, deers, cows, sheep and other animals roamed our planet before? How much methane did flocks of pigeons generate if they were so large that they were able to darken the sky?
Wild ruminants eat grass. Domesticated ruminants mostly eat grain. That accounts for the bulk of the difference AFAIK.
In America maybe? In France grain is ~25% of what cows eat: https://idele.fr/?eID=cmis_download&oID=workspace://SpacesSt...
25% of the mass might be 90% of the calories.
Or it could be 5% of the calories, and unless you have some source on cattle nutrition this is just baseless speculation.
I spent twenty years of my life feeding cattle.
I'll retract the "baseless speculation" part then. Sorry, that was needlessly aggressive.
Pastured cattle have a NET NEGATIVE effect on carbon. They’re not carbon emitters. Pasturing them sequesters carbon in the ground and their manure improves the local soil biome.
Feed lot cattle are another story.
Feed lot cattle are another story.
I can believe that for carbon specifically, but what about their general GHG impact?
One serious answer is the work of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Savory
There are claims it's all bullshit (ahem); I wouldn't automatically trust either side.
There are claims it's all bullshit (ahem); I wouldn't automatically trust either side.
While there's an underlying point that could be gleaned from your inane post, you could make it without sounding like a blubbering idiot.
Do cows/cattle/livestock produce methane? Yes. So do humans.
How did the planet manage? For one, there was a helluva lot less other greenhouse warming gases in total larely due to human's industrial revolution. Once humans found out about using coal/oil/etc, it quickly dwarfed anything ever seen other than volanic eruptions.
The livestock methane argument has always sounded like a BigOil tactic rather than a scientific one to deflect blame, and then championed by someone like PETA to help further their agenda. How significant would livestock methane emmisions be to the climate if ICE pollution was elminitated?
Do cows/cattle/livestock produce methane? Yes. So do humans.
How did the planet manage? For one, there was a helluva lot less other greenhouse warming gases in total larely due to human's industrial revolution. Once humans found out about using coal/oil/etc, it quickly dwarfed anything ever seen other than volanic eruptions.
The livestock methane argument has always sounded like a BigOil tactic rather than a scientific one to deflect blame, and then championed by someone like PETA to help further their agenda. How significant would livestock methane emmisions be to the climate if ICE pollution was elminitated?
> How much methane did flocks of pigeons generate if they were so large that they were able to darken the sky.
Sorry, what?
Sorry, what?
Pigeons poop. If there is a lot of them there is a lot of poop. Lota of pigeons-> lots of poop-> lots of methane
Cows have bacteria in their rumen which produce methane. As a curiosity, I ddg’d “do pigeons fart”, and according to pigeonpedia they do not because they have short digestive tracts lacking gas producing bacteria.
https://pigeonpedia.com/do-pigeons-fart/
https://pigeonpedia.com/do-pigeons-fart/
Bird poop tends to be dispersed (with some exceptions), and so will tend to decompose aerobically, which does not produce methane.
There are actually far more domestic livestock now than there were bison back in the day. Just a lot less roaming.
Pigeons don’t produce methane the way ruminants do AFAIK.
And, methane from livestock is only part of humanity’s climate altering activity.
Pigeons don’t produce methane the way ruminants do AFAIK.
And, methane from livestock is only part of humanity’s climate altering activity.
I wanted to check, I don't know if the following sources are reliable:
http://www.ozarkbisons.com/aboutbison.php "Table : before 1800 60 million bisons in North America"
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2021/01-29-2021.php "There were 93.6 million head of cattle and calves on U.S. farms as of Jan. 1, 2021, according to the Cattle report published today by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)."
I didn't find number for ruminant megafauna in prehistoric times.
http://www.ozarkbisons.com/aboutbison.php "Table : before 1800 60 million bisons in North America"
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/2021/01-29-2021.php "There were 93.6 million head of cattle and calves on U.S. farms as of Jan. 1, 2021, according to the Cattle report published today by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)."
I didn't find number for ruminant megafauna in prehistoric times.
I think this xkcd sums it up nicely: https://xkcd.com/1338/
Humans are good at cultivating farting animals.
Humans are good at cultivating farting animals.
Well, exaggerations aside such as blocking the sun, cows and pigs represent 60% of all mammal biomass on earth right now
... > Humans account for about 36 percent of the biomass of all mammals. Domesticated livestock, mostly cows and pigs, account for 60 percent, and wild mammals for only 4 percent.
> The same holds true for birds. The biomass of poultry is about three times higher than that of wild birds.
> "It is definitely striking, our disproportionate place on Earth," Milo told The Guardian. "When I do a puzzle with my daughters, there is usually an elephant next to a giraffe next to a rhino. But if I was trying to give them a more realistic sense of the world, it would be a cow next to a cow next to a cow and then a chicken ... [0]
I would love to see how that compares to the great bison herds, or the great African savanna migrations
Maybe as an idea, just the food and the fact that bison etc used to have a more active life and varied foods than modern cows meant that they released less methane?
Lastly, ought be noted that methane releases from industrial agriculture are very much under counted and that might need to be accounted into the comparison [1]
[0] https://www-ecowatch-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.ecowatch...
[1] https://www-technologynetworks-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/ww...
... > Humans account for about 36 percent of the biomass of all mammals. Domesticated livestock, mostly cows and pigs, account for 60 percent, and wild mammals for only 4 percent.
> The same holds true for birds. The biomass of poultry is about three times higher than that of wild birds.
> "It is definitely striking, our disproportionate place on Earth," Milo told The Guardian. "When I do a puzzle with my daughters, there is usually an elephant next to a giraffe next to a rhino. But if I was trying to give them a more realistic sense of the world, it would be a cow next to a cow next to a cow and then a chicken ... [0]
I would love to see how that compares to the great bison herds, or the great African savanna migrations
Maybe as an idea, just the food and the fact that bison etc used to have a more active life and varied foods than modern cows meant that they released less methane?
Lastly, ought be noted that methane releases from industrial agriculture are very much under counted and that might need to be accounted into the comparison [1]
[0] https://www-ecowatch-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.ecowatch...
[1] https://www-technologynetworks-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/ww...
It wasn't an exaggeration- https://blog.history.in.gov/flocks-that-darken-the-heavens-t...
Pre-Columbian animal density in the Americas was insane, from cod in the east, to buffalo in the middle, to salmon and sardines in the west. People thought it was limitless until it very abruptly wasn't.
Pre-Columbian animal density in the Americas was insane, from cod in the east, to buffalo in the middle, to salmon and sardines in the west. People thought it was limitless until it very abruptly wasn't.
> Pre-Columbian animal density in the Americas was insane, from cod in the east, to buffalo in the middle, to salmon and sardines in the west. People thought it was limitless until it very abruptly wasn't.
I'm unsure about the fisheries, but the other numbers are debated now.
Until very recent times, the reports of European explorers pushing into the interior of North America were taken as a good proxy for the pre-Columbian state of those areas. We now know that those areas were far more densely populated before 1500 than they were more than 200 years later when European settlers started moving in. European diseases preceded European settlers and completely wiped out much of the continent's population.
AFIK, it's still being debated, but it seems reasonable that: - Predators like wolves kept large herd animal numbers relatively low - Large populations of Native Americans killed those predators but continued to keep the numbers of herd animals low via hunting - Native American population collapse coupled with low numbers of predator species allowed bison herd numbers to explode - European settlers arrived in the 1700s and 1800s and made the mistaken assumption that both the Native American and bison populations they encountered represented the way things had always been.
I'm unsure about the fisheries, but the other numbers are debated now.
Until very recent times, the reports of European explorers pushing into the interior of North America were taken as a good proxy for the pre-Columbian state of those areas. We now know that those areas were far more densely populated before 1500 than they were more than 200 years later when European settlers started moving in. European diseases preceded European settlers and completely wiped out much of the continent's population.
AFIK, it's still being debated, but it seems reasonable that: - Predators like wolves kept large herd animal numbers relatively low - Large populations of Native Americans killed those predators but continued to keep the numbers of herd animals low via hunting - Native American population collapse coupled with low numbers of predator species allowed bison herd numbers to explode - European settlers arrived in the 1700s and 1800s and made the mistaken assumption that both the Native American and bison populations they encountered represented the way things had always been.
There were an estimated 3-5 billion passenger pigeons in the Americas before Europeans arrived.
There are currently about 1.5 billion cattle worldwide, and each one weighs a lot more than 3 pigeons.
Worldwide livestock biomass significantly exceeds worldwide wild animal biomass: https://xkcd.com/1338/
The current livestock population can only be supported by industrialised agriculture.
Livestock biomass is also artificially increased both by many generations of selective breeding and by a known effect of certain hormones and antibiotics.
The actual methane emissions are a lot more complex than just count or biomass, as demonstrated even by the headline of the link (you wouldn’t see 55%, let alone 80%, if it wasn’t): https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
Finally, this planet does not actively manage global warming. It goes though glacial and interglacial periods precisely because of the absence of active management. The natural causes of this lead to the pre-industrial cycles, and are why the average temperature of this planet is so much higher than the average temperature of the moon: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=average%20temperature%2...
There are currently about 1.5 billion cattle worldwide, and each one weighs a lot more than 3 pigeons.
Worldwide livestock biomass significantly exceeds worldwide wild animal biomass: https://xkcd.com/1338/
The current livestock population can only be supported by industrialised agriculture.
Livestock biomass is also artificially increased both by many generations of selective breeding and by a known effect of certain hormones and antibiotics.
The actual methane emissions are a lot more complex than just count or biomass, as demonstrated even by the headline of the link (you wouldn’t see 55%, let alone 80%, if it wasn’t): https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
Finally, this planet does not actively manage global warming. It goes though glacial and interglacial periods precisely because of the absence of active management. The natural causes of this lead to the pre-industrial cycles, and are why the average temperature of this planet is so much higher than the average temperature of the moon: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=average%20temperature%2...
And maybe these cycles are how the planet self regulates?
The point is it doesn't self-regulate, which as the poster pointed out is why it veers precariously into and out of ice ages and thermal maxima.
If these fluctuations aren't part of a roughly stable pattern of self-regulation, why hasn't Earth gone into such an extreme ice age or thermal runaway that it it's unrecoverable and can't support life? Would you say it's externally regulated as opposed to self-regulating, maybe? Sheer luck?
Well, Earth’s orbit is roughly stable, solar output is roughly stable but both have long term oscillations but within somewhat stable parameters. That’s just luck.
There are some effects that cause unstable feedback loops though. Rising temperatures trigger several effects that lead to even more temperature rise. Reflective ice caps melt, tundra thaws releasing methane. Frozen methane in ocean sediments melts. Similarly our planet has been through several deep freeze events, far more severe than ice ages. If temperatures drop too much the ice reflects too much solar radiation leading to more freezing.
There are some effects that cause unstable feedback loops though. Rising temperatures trigger several effects that lead to even more temperature rise. Reflective ice caps melt, tundra thaws releasing methane. Frozen methane in ocean sediments melts. Similarly our planet has been through several deep freeze events, far more severe than ice ages. If temperatures drop too much the ice reflects too much solar radiation leading to more freezing.
“We are lucky” is certainly a viable solution to the Fermi paradox.
Venus had thermal runaway and the precipitation there is lead rather than water.
Martian winters cause ~25% of the atmosphere to condense into the polar (dry)ice caps.
Venus had thermal runaway and the precipitation there is lead rather than water.
Martian winters cause ~25% of the atmosphere to condense into the polar (dry)ice caps.
They were not fed unnatural diets which caused them to produce a shitload of methane.
Approved for use, but will farmers use it?
What incentive do they have? Perhaps they should get 'methane credits', or 'methane fines'.
What incentive do they have? Perhaps they should get 'methane credits', or 'methane fines'.
Probably the same incentives as a farmer doing organic farming. If you can make a brand that is significantly more eco friendly that may be a selling point in itself. Then if it is significant in the amount of carbon it reduces some governments may start insisting it be used as part of their greenhouse gas reduction plan.
They and their progeny might get a livable planet. It’s really time to stop treating climate as something to profit from and start treating it as bare survival.
Sorry but this is an argument from a lofty position.
Much of the planet lives hand to mouth, and while they of course care about the state of planet in the relatively distant future, they care more that they or their progeny will actually get there at all.
Much of the planet lives hand to mouth, and while they of course care about the state of planet in the relatively distant future, they care more that they or their progeny will actually get there at all.
> It’s really time to stop treating climate as something to profit from and start treating it as bare survival.
While this is true, the scale and duration of the problem means we need the “right” choices to make short-economic sense at every level from individual farmers up to economic superpowers, and for that to be maintained. If the Nash equilibrium is bad, we get a tragedy of the commons.
While this is true, the scale and duration of the problem means we need the “right” choices to make short-economic sense at every level from individual farmers up to economic superpowers, and for that to be maintained. If the Nash equilibrium is bad, we get a tragedy of the commons.
Have you heard about the tragedy of commons? If there is no superior authority to enforce this, some people will want to get an advantage on other people by using more these resources.
"as much as 55%" seems low since recent studies with seaweed have shown "over 80%" reduction in vivo.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
1.Sorry for the cynicism, but this approval is by Jair Bolsonaro's government, perhaps the most relevant Global Warming denier today. If it were meaningful it wouldn't be approved.
2. The overwhelming majority of beef production in Brazil is done by small producers that just don't care and are Bolsonaro's main supporters. The main problem with them is not even methane cow flatulence, is deforestation of the rain forest for making pastures.
3. The beef importers that could put some pressure on Brazil (e.g.: European Union) already gave up on importing Brazilian beef (since Bolsonaro began insulting Angela Merkel an Macron's wife).
4. JBS, the main beef processing company in the world, might use this as window dressing and to present a polished image overseas. But they're powerless to inspect how ranchers handle their cattle.
2. The overwhelming majority of beef production in Brazil is done by small producers that just don't care and are Bolsonaro's main supporters. The main problem with them is not even methane cow flatulence, is deforestation of the rain forest for making pastures.
3. The beef importers that could put some pressure on Brazil (e.g.: European Union) already gave up on importing Brazilian beef (since Bolsonaro began insulting Angela Merkel an Macron's wife).
4. JBS, the main beef processing company in the world, might use this as window dressing and to present a polished image overseas. But they're powerless to inspect how ranchers handle their cattle.
Is on this kind of measures where jevons paradox or the rebound effect kicks in. We will inclined to eat more meat because is more sustainable, and with that we neutralize the gains.
Also meat from Brazil is many times dependent on Amazon deforestation, so although I love picanha, I will not eat it anymore.
For those in Europe please press your government not to ratify the EU-Mercosul agreement that will increase the trade of soy meat and ethanol in exchange for Europe export more cars to America Latina. We should avoid meat and individual transports and try to invest in the local economy so this agreement doesn't make any sense
I doubt this will cause people to eat more meat. I’m just guessing, but it has to be a very small group of people that limit the amount of meat they eat out of purely environmental reasons.
The group that’s limited by either cost or because they’re saturated has to be orders of magnitude larger. So I see this as an awesome bit of progress.
Please do correct me of my assumptions are wrong, though.
The group that’s limited by either cost or because they’re saturated has to be orders of magnitude larger. So I see this as an awesome bit of progress.
Please do correct me of my assumptions are wrong, though.
I don't have any numbers or sources, but I'll chime in as someone who limits beef intake solely because of environmental reasons. I don't cut it out completely, I just stay mindful and only eat beef when it's meaningful. So trying something new and interesting, special occasions, or when I otherwise will really savor it. If I'm getting fast food or just eating to eat, I steer towards chicken, eggs, or vegetarian options.
Yet, but you are also probably the sort of person who would browse this article and conversation. No offense intended, but not representative of the general population.
Picanha is just a particular cut. You can get it from any cow, regardless of region.
I get that most picanha-branded meat is advertised as originating from Brazil, but if you really want to contribute to protecting the Amazon forest, why not boycott the real source of the problem, Brazilian originating meat?
You can also go to your local butcher, and ask for a picanha cut of any local cow. That way you can still enjoy picanha, without worrying about the Amazon.
Maybe search for other names as well, in US it's apparently unknown: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picanha
"In the United States, the cut is little known and often named top sirloin cap, rump cover, rump cap, or culotte. Instead, North American butchers generally divide this cut into other cuts like the rump, the round, and the loin."
I get that most picanha-branded meat is advertised as originating from Brazil, but if you really want to contribute to protecting the Amazon forest, why not boycott the real source of the problem, Brazilian originating meat?
You can also go to your local butcher, and ask for a picanha cut of any local cow. That way you can still enjoy picanha, without worrying about the Amazon.
Maybe search for other names as well, in US it's apparently unknown: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picanha
"In the United States, the cut is little known and often named top sirloin cap, rump cover, rump cap, or culotte. Instead, North American butchers generally divide this cut into other cuts like the rump, the round, and the loin."
Highly doubt it: vegans won't change their behavior and unrestricted meat eaters won't start eating even more meat. There's hardly anybody in between. Yes, theoretically less people might turn vegan afterwards, but how many vegans have become vegan because of methane?
a quick search shows that about ten percent of Europe are vegetarian, and about 375 million people world wide. Please note that "vegan" has a narrow, specific meaning; there are fewer vegans.
The definition of advertising is to change behavior, it is done daily for lots of reasons. Why not let people choose? Let's not prescribe outcomes, but instead enable evolution.
The definition of advertising is to change behavior, it is done daily for lots of reasons. Why not let people choose? Let's not prescribe outcomes, but instead enable evolution.
375 million people world wide, and I'd expect not one of them to start eating meat because of some reduction of methane impact.
Decreasing methane emissions is great but it doesn't solve the land and water use problems. This will blunt the damage but cattle will likely remain a top contributor to climate change.
Long-term changes in habits and culture take a long time — if they happen at all. The effect of this decision is that we can decrease the beef-related methane production by spending mere years changing mere hundreds of supply chains instead of spending spending fruitless decades trying decades to enforce new dietary habits on millions of defiant Texans or Pakistanis.
On the topic of rebound effect, it seems to me that for energy efficiency to work you need a carrot and stick are necessary. Help your country to become more energy efficient but as they do, tax externalities more severely.
This isn’t making beef cheaper in financial costs. There are a minuscule number of people limiting their beef consumption due to the carbon emissions.
This is more about getting ahead of carbon taxes than it is about changing people's eating behavior today.
Jevon's paradox almost never applies to a subject matter. We have to stop using it to prevent making the world better.
> not to ratify the EU-Mercosul agreement
I.e., let's keep poor people poor.
I.e., let's keep poor people poor.
Mass murder of non-humans is not environmentally friendly. Nor is it healthful.
In that case beef is probably the best choice compared to most other mammals. You can feed way more people on one cow than on one chicken.
Which is some fine news for World's Top Beef Supplier on Bloomberg.
What share of world wide greenhouse gas emissions by cow burbs is it again?
Around four percent?
So Brazil maybe two percent?
And they reduce them by what? Let's say, by half?
That is one percent.
Well Okay...
It's a start.
What share of world wide greenhouse gas emissions by cow burbs is it again?
Around four percent?
So Brazil maybe two percent?
And they reduce them by what? Let's say, by half?
That is one percent.
Well Okay...
It's a start.
On the plus side beef is an original superfood not only a complete protein with a full set of amino acids but also a highly compact dense efficiently transportable protein. Plus a byproduct is ice cream! Moderation required certainly. But for the good of my health and food transport carbon emissions I for one am prepared to fall on the occasional steak...
Probably because cows are mammals and are very similar to humans. For example they have families and feelings and think and play. How would you feel if a more advanced species decided to treat humans how many humans treat cows?
It's entirely possible this is happening, just in a way that we're not aware of, a la The Matrix. So I guess I feel ambivalent about it. Ignorance is bliss.
The same way a captive vegetable feels, I imagine. Intermittently amputated. Never fully allowed to heal. You grow as much you could, only to be cut down again at the next harvest.
I think beef and dairy cows are different, right? I wonder what percentage are dairy versus beef?
Depends. Cheap meat (think: McDonalds) is made from dairy cows that are too old to keep producing milk.
They don't end up grading good enough for a high end steak, but when they're done with their milk producing days, they all go to the same place.
How does it affect taste? Cattle feed has a big effect on how meat tastes and, to a lesser extent, milk.
We have an ongoing tragedy of animal abuse, groundwater and air pollution, and various health problems -- all because of people's addiction to meat.