9 ms·

I'm not a vegan, or interested in becoming one, but this "study" is just stupid. Just look at some of the basic assumptions: "researcher Mary Beth Hall began b

I'm not a vegan, or interested in becoming one, but this "study" is just stupid. Just look at some of the basic assumptions: "researcher Mary Beth Hall began by estimating the impact of converting all land now used by the livestock industry to cropland for human food" Why on earth would you do that? Livestock are much less efficient at using land than crops, in terms of how much land you need to produce a calorie. Furthermore, a HUGE percentage of our current crops are used to feed livestock. Without even Googleing it, the assumption should be that we would not use all pasture land for crop land. The total amount of land under crops might even go down under the vegan scenario, since eating the food directly would be more efficient. Also: "Burning the excess waste would add some 2 million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, they estimate." First off, is burning the most likely way this would be disposed of? Why not compost. Second, crops are carbon neutral. They take CO2 from the atmosphere when growing, so how can they add CO2 to the atmosphere when burnt? "Fertilizer demands would also go up while the supply of animal manure dwindled." Again, only true if the amount of crops increased. I'm doubtful. The points about nutrition are better made though. Animal products are rich in some minerals and vitamins that are sparse in a vegan diet. Not entirely missing, but sparse. But then that's why I'm not a vegan.

JetSetWilly 9y ago
Also, not all pasture land is suitable for growing crops. Certainly in my country there's lots of marginal land and hills that sheep are left to wander over that are in no way suitable for growing any crops on. In this way humans can extract calories and protein from land that would otherwise be useless.
- nikbackm 9y ago
  Not so sure, if the animals can find something to eat on the land, then it should be possible to grow something humans can eat as well. Maybe not wheat and such, but other, more hardy plants.
  - mikestew 9y ago
    Not so sure, if the animals can find something to eat on the land, then it should be possible to grow something humans can eat as well. You can try to grow it, but good luck hauling the tractor, plow, and combine up that steep hill that only a sheep can traverse. It's not a matter of "can I grow corn in that soil?", as you can grow corn on a rock if you throw enough fertilizer at it. It's a matter of "can I grow corn at any kind of scale that doesn't involve tilling and harvesting by hand?" And for context, keep in mind that people are killed in tractor rollover events all the time as a result of trying to traverse an incline.
    - elif 9y ago
      except in the US that's not really the case: https://factoryfarmmap.org/#animal:cattle;location:US;year:2012 https://factoryfarmmap.org/#animal:cattle;location:US;year:2...
  - colechristensen 9y ago
    A lot of cattle is raised on semi-arid land which is essentially left in it's natural state. The land can support sparse grasses and shrubs, but no agriculture without significant irrigation. Because there is so little vegetation development the area needed per head is huge, but it's fine because the land can't and won't be used for anything else. More to the point, humans don't need this extra land for food with our without eating meat. There might be something to be said about limiting confined animal production fed with our most fertile crop land, but the same arguments aren't relevant for all cattle production. From an ecological perspective, you're not losing wild nature for agriculture, cattle are just displacing grazing animals which would have been there otherwise.
    - njarboe 9y ago
      Landscapes grazed by human protected food animals are not much more "natural" than farmed landscapes. The grazing density of cattle, sheep, and goats is much higher than natural grazers and alters the ecosystems dramatically. This is mostly due to the lack of predators, which would cause the herds to move more often and have lower density. Wilderness landscapes can also have this problem when apex predators are removed and grazers eat and breed in peace. See Yellowstone and the reintroduction of the wolf.
qume 9y ago
If that is really why youre not vegan I recommend the book 'How not to die' by Michael Gregor. The health benefits of a whole food plant based diet are astonishing, and the whole missing vitamin mineral thing is trivially taken care of. Becoming vegan will lead to immediate and long term health benefits. And from personal experience its much easier and more fun than you could dare to expect.
- Glyptodon 9y ago
  ...and I'm sure eating an egg here and there from your back-yard hen (AKA living garbage disposal) will absolutely ruin all of it... /s I don't disagree that theres a lot of room and a some benefits to reducing meat consumption. But I don't think that's the same as it being sensible for everyone to be vegan.
  - superb_herb 9y ago
    As you clearly know, life is about balance. I'd say the ideal diet is mostly vegan, with exceptions made for very well-made cheese (in France), the occasional egg from a pastured hen, a steak once every few months from a cow who got to run around and eat grass, and wild fish once a week or so.
  - Overtonwindow 9y ago
    Vegans will always say their way is better. There's a commitment there with zero room for compromise, and I think IMO for many it's a fad.
    - eighthnate 9y ago
      It's not a fad. Veganism is like a cult. Vegans are starving their infants to death for their "religion". https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/wjqbem/judge-convicts-parents-after-baby-dies-from-vegan-diet https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/wjqbem/judge-convicts... Plant-only diet is terrible for humans just like a meat-only diet. The best diet for humans is a balanced diet.
icc97 9y ago
The study clearly takes an extreme view point. I agree with your criticisms, and mostly it seems fairly poor science. I can see some benefit of looking for the extreme though, it's looking for a theoretical optimum. I'd have thought they could do studies of land use in India for the most extreme possible switch.

JetSetWilly 9y ago

Also, not all pasture land is suitable for growing crops. Certainly in my country there's lots of marginal land and hills that sheep are left to wander over that are in no way suitable for growing any crops on. In this way humans can extract calories and protein from land that would otherwise be useless.

nikbackm 9y ago
Not so sure, if the animals can find something to eat on the land, then it should be possible to grow something humans can eat as well. Maybe not wheat and such, but other, more hardy plants.
- mikestew 9y ago
  Not so sure, if the animals can find something to eat on the land, then it should be possible to grow something humans can eat as well. You can try to grow it, but good luck hauling the tractor, plow, and combine up that steep hill that only a sheep can traverse. It's not a matter of "can I grow corn in that soil?", as you can grow corn on a rock if you throw enough fertilizer at it. It's a matter of "can I grow corn at any kind of scale that doesn't involve tilling and harvesting by hand?" And for context, keep in mind that people are killed in tractor rollover events all the time as a result of trying to traverse an incline.
  - elif 9y ago
    except in the US that's not really the case: https://factoryfarmmap.org/#animal:cattle;location:US;year:2012 https://factoryfarmmap.org/#animal:cattle;location:US;year:2...
- colechristensen 9y ago
  A lot of cattle is raised on semi-arid land which is essentially left in it's natural state. The land can support sparse grasses and shrubs, but no agriculture without significant irrigation. Because there is so little vegetation development the area needed per head is huge, but it's fine because the land can't and won't be used for anything else. More to the point, humans don't need this extra land for food with our without eating meat. There might be something to be said about limiting confined animal production fed with our most fertile crop land, but the same arguments aren't relevant for all cattle production. From an ecological perspective, you're not losing wild nature for agriculture, cattle are just displacing grazing animals which would have been there otherwise.
  - njarboe 9y ago
    Landscapes grazed by human protected food animals are not much more "natural" than farmed landscapes. The grazing density of cattle, sheep, and goats is much higher than natural grazers and alters the ecosystems dramatically. This is mostly due to the lack of predators, which would cause the herds to move more often and have lower density. Wilderness landscapes can also have this problem when apex predators are removed and grazers eat and breed in peace. See Yellowstone and the reintroduction of the wolf.

qume 9y ago

If that is really why youre not vegan I recommend the book 'How not to die' by Michael Gregor. The health benefits of a whole food plant based diet are astonishing, and the whole missing vitamin mineral thing is trivially taken care of. Becoming vegan will lead to immediate and long term health benefits. And from personal experience its much easier and more fun than you could dare to expect.

Glyptodon 9y ago
...and I'm sure eating an egg here and there from your back-yard hen (AKA living garbage disposal) will absolutely ruin all of it... /s I don't disagree that theres a lot of room and a some benefits to reducing meat consumption. But I don't think that's the same as it being sensible for everyone to be vegan.
- superb_herb 9y ago
  As you clearly know, life is about balance. I'd say the ideal diet is mostly vegan, with exceptions made for very well-made cheese (in France), the occasional egg from a pastured hen, a steak once every few months from a cow who got to run around and eat grass, and wild fish once a week or so.
- Overtonwindow 9y ago
  Vegans will always say their way is better. There's a commitment there with zero room for compromise, and I think IMO for many it's a fad.
  - eighthnate 9y ago
    It's not a fad. Veganism is like a cult. Vegans are starving their infants to death for their "religion". https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/wjqbem/judge-convicts-parents-after-baby-dies-from-vegan-diet https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/wjqbem/judge-convicts... Plant-only diet is terrible for humans just like a meat-only diet. The best diet for humans is a balanced diet.

icc97 9y ago

The study clearly takes an extreme view point. I agree with your criticisms, and mostly it seems fairly poor science. I can see some benefit of looking for the extreme though, it's looking for a theoretical optimum. I'd have thought they could do studies of land use in India for the most extreme possible switch.