4 ms·

Seems a certainty to me, assuming that eventually the cost of the carbon footprint gets passed down to consumers.

arcticbull 10y ago
Carbon footprint for meat is significantly higher because you have to grow the plans and feed it to the animals, and moving up a trophic level is usually ~10% efficient. It's much more efficient to consume the plants directly.
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  > It's much more efficient to consume the plants directly. We can't consume most plants directly, and the ones that we do, we consume only a tiny minority of the plant (most of the time).
  - arcticbull 10y ago
    So do many of the animals ^_^ at least it's my understanding that corn stalks are fairly useless as animal feed, and due to subsidies, corn is the primary feedstock for animals and humans alike in the US.
  - sanswork 10y ago
    Right so we replace the production of the plants we can't consume directly with ones we can. It's not like we're forced to produce non-consumable plants. We do it because we need to feed the consumable animals.
    - jimmywanger 10y ago
      > we replace the production of the plants You make that sound like swapping out a machine on a production line. For some places, you simply can't grow plants that we can consume directly. A lot of land doesn't receive enough water/sun, has poor soil, or is on such a steep slop that cultivating it is not worth the effort. The most efficient use of that land would be grazing land. As for being "forced to produce non-consumable plants", we are. We can't eat the entire bell pepper plant. We're producing stems, leaves, and roots as byproducts, things that animals actually can eat.
      - sanswork 10y ago
        Right so that land becomes unproductive land and can return to its natural state or be used for other needs. And that is fine since we don't need as much farm land to sustain a non-meat society. You're intentionally confusing waste material with primary purpose. That's dishonest. If we could feed all the livestock we need with waste material we would since it would be a lot cheaper for the producers.
        jimmywanger 10y ago
        > Right so that land becomes unproductive land Why? It's perfectly productive once you let some goats on that land and then eat the goats. > And that is fine since we don't need as much farm land to sustain a non-meat society. Should we switch to a completely potato agriculture then? If your argument against meat is waste, then we should go towards whatever crop has the highest yield per acre. Why waste all that acreage, water, and fertilizer on kale and broccoli? > You're intentionally confusing waste material with primary purpose. That's dishonest. You're missing the point, which is that we're by necessity creating all this other material that can be used to feed animals as a necessary byproduct of creating the grains to feed the animals. The proportions don't work out as neatly as you think. > If we could feed all the livestock we need with waste material we would since it would be a lot cheaper for the producers. Incorrect. On a grain diet, livestock fatten more quickly and are ready for the market sooner. Pasture raised livestock is a thing, and requires less capital and investment. It just takes longer for the livestock to be ready for market and the meat is tougher and gamier.
        sanswork 10y ago
        >Why? It's perfectly productive once you let some goats on that land and then eat the goats. Because it isn't needed for food production anymore. >If your argument against meat is waste My argument against meat isn't waste. Less waste is a benefit but not a primary reason. >You're missing the point, which is that we're by necessity creating all this other material that can be used to feed animals as a necessary byproduct of creating the grains to feed the animals. I've read this a few times and I keep reading it the same way "We produce waste that can be used to feed animals as a bitproduct of producing feed for animals?" >Pasture raised livestock is a thing, and requires less capital and investment. And tons more cleared grassland. Like an unsustainable amount.
  - xexers 10y ago
    > and the ones that we do, we consume only a tiny minority of the plant (most of the time) So do the animals. The soy and wheat we feed the animals is a tiny portion of the plant... so what? If we have 1000 calories of wheat, it's better to feed that to a human, than a cow; The cow will only produce 100 calories of meat for the same grains that we would have eaten.
    - jimmywanger 10y ago
      > So do the animals. Not really. Cows, goats, sheep raised somewhat naturally eat grass and leaves and twigs, things we cannot digest. They can also eat the parts of the tomato that we don't eat, such as the stalks and leaves. If you're talking about feeling animals with grains, the way we grow grains is even more problematic, with huge amounts of petroleum and water inputs.
      - xexers 10y ago
        > Cows, goats, sheep raised somewhat naturally eat grass and leaves and twigs, things we cannot digest That's correct. The problem is, 99% of our animals in america are not raised that way [1]. They are raised eating soy, wheat, and corn. Grass is more expensive, so it's not used. [1]: https://farmforward.com/ending-factory-farming/ https://farmforward.com/ending-factory-farming/
        jimmywanger 10y ago
        > Grass is more expensive, so it's not used. Nit: grass is less profitable. The expense of grass is nothing, but it takes longer to raise the livestock to pasture weight and the meat is less marbled and gamier in texture, which drives the price down.
- maerF0x0 10y ago
  Certain lands cannot support human edible plants, but can be used for grazing. Suddenly non-productive land can be producing meat.
  - arcticbull 10y ago
    Fair enough, I don't think it has to be all or nothing, and I think that the percentage of meat consumed can and should drop dramatically.
  - agitator 10y ago
    Genetically Engineer the plants to grow in those conditions, boom.
    - maerF0x0 10y ago
      "Genetically engineer plants to grow in unideal conditions, and then formulate those into recipes that taste like cows" sounds more difficult than "Grow cows, eat cows"

Carbon footprint for meat is significantly higher because you have to grow the plans and feed it to the animals, and moving up a trophic level is usually ~10% efficient. It's much more efficient to consume the plants directly.

jimmywanger 10y ago
> It's much more efficient to consume the plants directly. We can't consume most plants directly, and the ones that we do, we consume only a tiny minority of the plant (most of the time).
- arcticbull 10y ago
  So do many of the animals ^_^ at least it's my understanding that corn stalks are fairly useless as animal feed, and due to subsidies, corn is the primary feedstock for animals and humans alike in the US.
- sanswork 10y ago
  Right so we replace the production of the plants we can't consume directly with ones we can. It's not like we're forced to produce non-consumable plants. We do it because we need to feed the consumable animals.
  - jimmywanger 10y ago
    > we replace the production of the plants You make that sound like swapping out a machine on a production line. For some places, you simply can't grow plants that we can consume directly. A lot of land doesn't receive enough water/sun, has poor soil, or is on such a steep slop that cultivating it is not worth the effort. The most efficient use of that land would be grazing land. As for being "forced to produce non-consumable plants", we are. We can't eat the entire bell pepper plant. We're producing stems, leaves, and roots as byproducts, things that animals actually can eat.
    - sanswork 10y ago
      Right so that land becomes unproductive land and can return to its natural state or be used for other needs. And that is fine since we don't need as much farm land to sustain a non-meat society. You're intentionally confusing waste material with primary purpose. That's dishonest. If we could feed all the livestock we need with waste material we would since it would be a lot cheaper for the producers.
      - jimmywanger 10y ago
        > Right so that land becomes unproductive land Why? It's perfectly productive once you let some goats on that land and then eat the goats. > And that is fine since we don't need as much farm land to sustain a non-meat society. Should we switch to a completely potato agriculture then? If your argument against meat is waste, then we should go towards whatever crop has the highest yield per acre. Why waste all that acreage, water, and fertilizer on kale and broccoli? > You're intentionally confusing waste material with primary purpose. That's dishonest. You're missing the point, which is that we're by necessity creating all this other material that can be used to feed animals as a necessary byproduct of creating the grains to feed the animals. The proportions don't work out as neatly as you think. > If we could feed all the livestock we need with waste material we would since it would be a lot cheaper for the producers. Incorrect. On a grain diet, livestock fatten more quickly and are ready for the market sooner. Pasture raised livestock is a thing, and requires less capital and investment. It just takes longer for the livestock to be ready for market and the meat is tougher and gamier.
        sanswork 10y ago
        >Why? It's perfectly productive once you let some goats on that land and then eat the goats. Because it isn't needed for food production anymore. >If your argument against meat is waste My argument against meat isn't waste. Less waste is a benefit but not a primary reason. >You're missing the point, which is that we're by necessity creating all this other material that can be used to feed animals as a necessary byproduct of creating the grains to feed the animals. I've read this a few times and I keep reading it the same way "We produce waste that can be used to feed animals as a bitproduct of producing feed for animals?" >Pasture raised livestock is a thing, and requires less capital and investment. And tons more cleared grassland. Like an unsustainable amount.
- xexers 10y ago
  > and the ones that we do, we consume only a tiny minority of the plant (most of the time) So do the animals. The soy and wheat we feed the animals is a tiny portion of the plant... so what? If we have 1000 calories of wheat, it's better to feed that to a human, than a cow; The cow will only produce 100 calories of meat for the same grains that we would have eaten.
  - jimmywanger 10y ago
    > So do the animals. Not really. Cows, goats, sheep raised somewhat naturally eat grass and leaves and twigs, things we cannot digest. They can also eat the parts of the tomato that we don't eat, such as the stalks and leaves. If you're talking about feeling animals with grains, the way we grow grains is even more problematic, with huge amounts of petroleum and water inputs.
    - xexers 10y ago
      > Cows, goats, sheep raised somewhat naturally eat grass and leaves and twigs, things we cannot digest That's correct. The problem is, 99% of our animals in america are not raised that way [1]. They are raised eating soy, wheat, and corn. Grass is more expensive, so it's not used. [1]: https://farmforward.com/ending-factory-farming/ https://farmforward.com/ending-factory-farming/
      - jimmywanger 10y ago
        > Grass is more expensive, so it's not used. Nit: grass is less profitable. The expense of grass is nothing, but it takes longer to raise the livestock to pasture weight and the meat is less marbled and gamier in texture, which drives the price down.
maerF0x0 10y ago
Certain lands cannot support human edible plants, but can be used for grazing. Suddenly non-productive land can be producing meat.
- arcticbull 10y ago
  Fair enough, I don't think it has to be all or nothing, and I think that the percentage of meat consumed can and should drop dramatically.
- agitator 10y ago
  Genetically Engineer the plants to grow in those conditions, boom.
  - maerF0x0 10y ago
    "Genetically engineer plants to grow in unideal conditions, and then formulate those into recipes that taste like cows" sounds more difficult than "Grow cows, eat cows"