4 ms·

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 d

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.
      - jimmywanger 10y ago
        > 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? My point is that we don't need to produce feed for animals, they do fine just on pastureland. The way we currently raise grains is problematic enough as it is, requiring huge fertilizer inputs[1] which require petrochemicals. Eating grains is not a sustainable alternative - if we raised grains for human food, might as well feed animals and get some steaks out of it. >And tons more cleared grassland. The great plains did not need to be cleared. They were perfect pastures for grazing animals, not the modern monoculture of grains. [1] (we're running out of phosphorous http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2013/04/01/phosphorus-essential-to-life-are-we-running-out/ http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2013/04/01/phosphorus-essential...)

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.
    - jimmywanger 10y ago
      > 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? My point is that we don't need to produce feed for animals, they do fine just on pastureland. The way we currently raise grains is problematic enough as it is, requiring huge fertilizer inputs[1] which require petrochemicals. Eating grains is not a sustainable alternative - if we raised grains for human food, might as well feed animals and get some steaks out of it. >And tons more cleared grassland. The great plains did not need to be cleared. They were perfect pastures for grazing animals, not the modern monoculture of grains. [1] (we're running out of phosphorous http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2013/04/01/phosphorus-essential-to-life-are-we-running-out/ http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2013/04/01/phosphorus-essential...)