6 ms·

Veganism is not a health choice for most vegans, it’s an ethical one. Plant-based foods use fewer resources per calorie and do not require cruel treatment of a

Veganism is not a health choice for most vegans, it’s an ethical one. Plant-based foods use fewer resources per calorie and do not require cruel treatment of animals.

fao_ 7y ago
> Plant-based foods use fewer resources per calorie and do not require cruel treatment of animals. They kind of have to at some point, otherwise you're using artificial nitrogen to top up the soil and that's not just bad for the soil but is also depleting a limited resource (The nitrogen comes from what IIRC is, a single mine). I remember reading about some farmers that managed to buck the usual statistics by getting around half a thousand chickens to an acre of farmland -- the chickens acted as a natural form of pest-control for the farmland, and their shit and corpses (when they died) provided a natural source for the NPK needed to feed the soil. The thing is, vegans forget that plants, etc. have all evolved with death as part of the equation. Animal death is required in some form, to supply the micro-organisms in the soil with the proper nutrients. Anyone who has studied farming and agriculture knows that the ideal isn't to eliminate animal death (something that is pretty much impossible unless you want to destabilize the ecosystem and starve your plants), but try to minimize it and ensure that the death is not wasted. I think this mistake in understanding goes back to school, where children are taught that if you give plants soil, water and sunlight, they will grow. They could take that opportunity to talk about the NPK cycle, the billions of micro-organisms in the soil that need to be fed to provide the plants with nutrients, the fact that dead animals help feed the plants and the micro-organisms, etc. Not teaching children about this when children are capable of understanding it is a disservice given that for many people that is the only schooling that they will ever have on farming and agriculture.
- xgulfie 7y ago
  You realize most of the atmosphere is Nitrogen, right? I would not call it a limited resource. Clovers and other cover crops also fix hydrogen.
  - mykowebhn 7y ago
    Atmospheric nitrogen is very common. Nitrogen that is in a form that's usable by plants is not so common. Many plants in the Fabaceae family, of which clover is a member, fix nitrogen, not hydrogen. I think that's what you probably meant.
    - xgulfie 7y ago
      Yeah I meant to say nitrogen but said hydrogen
  - captainredbeard 7y ago
    Are you implying that nitrogen depletion in the soil is a non-issue?
    - xgulfie 7y ago
      Is fertilizer runoff a non-issue? I guess if I'm putting my point together I'm trying to say "we can figure out how to grow crops without this much cow waste". If in 30 years meat consumption goes down dramatically, I'm very skeptical that we'll be growing feed corn to feed cows we dont eat, then use their waste to grow other plants.
      - captainredbeard 7y ago
        I’m not sure that replacing corn fields with pea and canola fields is going to make a difference wrt farming practices.
- CarVac 7y ago
  You don't mine nitrogen, you mine phosphorus.
- lprubin 7y ago
  I had never heard that animal corpses were used in a large scale industrial farming fertilizer so I just looked through the most common soil fertilizers, at least in the U.S. I don't believe a single one of them uses animal corpses. It seems that the common types of fertilizer[1] are: - anhydrous ammonia (Nitrogen pulled from the air[2]) - urea ammonium nitrate (Nitrogen pulled from natural gas and plants[3]) - granular urea (Nitrogen pulled from natural gas and plants[3]) - ammonium nitrate (Nitrogen from mixing ammonia [5] and and synthesized nitric acid [4]) - diammonium phosphate (Nitrogen from ammonia and phosphoric acid [6]) You may be correct that small farmers use animal corpses, and you may be correct that using artificial nitrogen is bad for the soil, but 97-99% of the plant foods grown in the U.S. appear to use non-animal based fertilizers. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong about the science of this. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-explosion-ammonia/factbox-types-of-fertilizer-their-uses-and-hazards-idUSBRE93H11S20130418 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-explosion-ammonia/fac... [2] http://www.greenvalleychemical.com/Green_Valley_Chemical/Anhydrous_Ammonia.html http://www.greenvalleychemical.com/Green_Valley_Chemical/Anh... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urea#Production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urea#Production [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonium_nitrate#Production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonium_nitrate#Production [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia_production [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diammonium_phosphate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diammonium_phosphate
  - fao_ 7y ago
    > you may be correct that using artificial nitrogen is bad for the soil > but 97-99% of the plant foods grown in the U.S. appear to use non-animal based fertilizers. Congratulations. You managed to ignore the entire point of my argument by hyper-focusing on one small part of it and posting something that literally means nothing (The fact that the majority of the US agricultural industry does something does not inherently prove that that is beneficial to the consumer, to the soil, or to the planet). it is true that fruits and vegetables grown decades ago were much richer in vitamins and minerals than the varieties most of us get today. The main culprit in this disturbing nutritional trend is soil depletion: Modern intensive agricultural methods have stripped increasing amounts of nutrients from the soil in which the food we eat grows. Sadly, each successive generation of fast-growing, pest-resistant carrot is truly less good for you than the one before [...] What can be done? The key to healthier produce is healthier soil. Alternating fields between growing seasons to give land time to restore would be one important step. Also, foregoing pesticides and fertilizers in favor of organic growing methods is good for the soil, the produce and its consumers. Those who want to get the most nutritious fruits and vegetables should buy regularly from local organic farmers. (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-and-nutrition-loss/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-an...) See also: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fertilizers-harm-earth/?redirect=1 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fertilizers-h... https://www.environment.co.za/environmental-issues/how-do-fertilizers-affect-the-environment.html https://www.environment.co.za/environmental-issues/how-do-fe...
- CJefferson 7y ago
  Vegans aren't stupid -- but the difference in animal suffering from a meat heavy diet and a meat free diet is massive. Just because something can't be done 100% today, doesn't mean it isn't worth achieving 95% success.
  - Consultant32452 7y ago
    Published figures suggest that, in Australia, producing wheat and other grains results in: at least 25 times more sentient animals being killed per kilogram of useable protein more environmental damage, and a great deal more animal cruelty than does farming red meat. http://theconversation.com/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-theres-more-animal-blood-on-your-hands-4659 http://theconversation.com/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-ther...
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - davidy123 7y ago
      But you can mitigate that over time, for example with "smart" farming systems and managed use of land as usage stabilizes. You can't mitigate it in the meat industry.
    - CJefferson 7y ago
      Wheat is not a sensible method of getting protein. Comparing against wheat on a protein basis is a worst case comparison. Also lots of cheap meat protein is created by feeding things like wheat and soy to animals, rather than grass fed (although maybe most meat in Australia is meat fed, I don't know about it).
      - Consultant32452 7y ago
        The point is that people act as if eating meat is categorically more harmful to animals than eating a vegetarian or even vegan diet. That's demonstrably false.
- captainredbeard 7y ago
  Joel Salatin, perhaps? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Salatin https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Salatin
- selectodude 7y ago
  It used to be mined, now essentially 100 percent of the ammonium nitrate used in fertilizer and explosives is synthetic. It's made by reacting ammonia with nitric acid.
captainredbeard 7y ago
If you let ruminant livestock graze in a carefully managed pattern instead of feeding them grain (grown and transported from miles away), it improves the land and reduces the amount of pollution: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI Cattle are not very efficient at converting grain to protein. It’s about 7:1. Pork is 2:1, in comparison. Poultry is close to 1:1.
- lozenge 7y ago
  If all livestock were raised in this way there would be nowhere near enough of them to feed current demand for meat (not saying that's a bad thing). Allan Savory holds a very fringe view not supported by scientists in this field, which you wouldn't know from his TED talk.
- bjoli 7y ago
  Don't forget that not all lands are good carbon sinks. The Swedish department of agriculture claimed in a report (nr 25:2010 iirc. In Swedish ) that the vast majority of Swedish grazeland would not meaningfully decrease carbon emissions regardless of grazing systems
- niklasolai 7y ago
  You forget the part where the animal is brutally killed at the end. Organic, grass feed, factory farming, they all end the same for the animal.

Veganism is not a health choice for most vegans, it’s an ethical one. Plant-based foods use fewer resources per calorie and do not require cruel treatment of animals.

fao_ 7y ago

> Plant-based foods use fewer resources per calorie and do not require cruel treatment of animals. They kind of have to at some point, otherwise you're using artificial nitrogen to top up the soil and that's not just bad for the soil but is also depleting a limited resource (The nitrogen comes from what IIRC is, a single mine). I remember reading about some farmers that managed to buck the usual statistics by getting around half a thousand chickens to an acre of farmland -- the chickens acted as a natural form of pest-control for the farmland, and their shit and corpses (when they died) provided a natural source for the NPK needed to feed the soil. The thing is, vegans forget that plants, etc. have all evolved with death as part of the equation. Animal death is required in some form, to supply the micro-organisms in the soil with the proper nutrients. Anyone who has studied farming and agriculture knows that the ideal isn't to eliminate animal death (something that is pretty much impossible unless you want to destabilize the ecosystem and starve your plants), but try to minimize it and ensure that the death is not wasted. I think this mistake in understanding goes back to school, where children are taught that if you give plants soil, water and sunlight, they will grow. They could take that opportunity to talk about the NPK cycle, the billions of micro-organisms in the soil that need to be fed to provide the plants with nutrients, the fact that dead animals help feed the plants and the micro-organisms, etc. Not teaching children about this when children are capable of understanding it is a disservice given that for many people that is the only schooling that they will ever have on farming and agriculture.

xgulfie 7y ago
You realize most of the atmosphere is Nitrogen, right? I would not call it a limited resource. Clovers and other cover crops also fix hydrogen.
- mykowebhn 7y ago
  Atmospheric nitrogen is very common. Nitrogen that is in a form that's usable by plants is not so common. Many plants in the Fabaceae family, of which clover is a member, fix nitrogen, not hydrogen. I think that's what you probably meant.
  - xgulfie 7y ago
    Yeah I meant to say nitrogen but said hydrogen
- captainredbeard 7y ago
  Are you implying that nitrogen depletion in the soil is a non-issue?
  - xgulfie 7y ago
    Is fertilizer runoff a non-issue? I guess if I'm putting my point together I'm trying to say "we can figure out how to grow crops without this much cow waste". If in 30 years meat consumption goes down dramatically, I'm very skeptical that we'll be growing feed corn to feed cows we dont eat, then use their waste to grow other plants.
    - captainredbeard 7y ago
      I’m not sure that replacing corn fields with pea and canola fields is going to make a difference wrt farming practices.
CarVac 7y ago
You don't mine nitrogen, you mine phosphorus.
lprubin 7y ago
I had never heard that animal corpses were used in a large scale industrial farming fertilizer so I just looked through the most common soil fertilizers, at least in the U.S. I don't believe a single one of them uses animal corpses. It seems that the common types of fertilizer[1] are: - anhydrous ammonia (Nitrogen pulled from the air[2]) - urea ammonium nitrate (Nitrogen pulled from natural gas and plants[3]) - granular urea (Nitrogen pulled from natural gas and plants[3]) - ammonium nitrate (Nitrogen from mixing ammonia [5] and and synthesized nitric acid [4]) - diammonium phosphate (Nitrogen from ammonia and phosphoric acid [6]) You may be correct that small farmers use animal corpses, and you may be correct that using artificial nitrogen is bad for the soil, but 97-99% of the plant foods grown in the U.S. appear to use non-animal based fertilizers. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong about the science of this. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-explosion-ammonia/factbox-types-of-fertilizer-their-uses-and-hazards-idUSBRE93H11S20130418 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-explosion-ammonia/fac... [2] http://www.greenvalleychemical.com/Green_Valley_Chemical/Anhydrous_Ammonia.html http://www.greenvalleychemical.com/Green_Valley_Chemical/Anh... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urea#Production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urea#Production [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonium_nitrate#Production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonium_nitrate#Production [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia_production https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia_production [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diammonium_phosphate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diammonium_phosphate
- fao_ 7y ago
  > you may be correct that using artificial nitrogen is bad for the soil > but 97-99% of the plant foods grown in the U.S. appear to use non-animal based fertilizers. Congratulations. You managed to ignore the entire point of my argument by hyper-focusing on one small part of it and posting something that literally means nothing (The fact that the majority of the US agricultural industry does something does not inherently prove that that is beneficial to the consumer, to the soil, or to the planet). it is true that fruits and vegetables grown decades ago were much richer in vitamins and minerals than the varieties most of us get today. The main culprit in this disturbing nutritional trend is soil depletion: Modern intensive agricultural methods have stripped increasing amounts of nutrients from the soil in which the food we eat grows. Sadly, each successive generation of fast-growing, pest-resistant carrot is truly less good for you than the one before [...] What can be done? The key to healthier produce is healthier soil. Alternating fields between growing seasons to give land time to restore would be one important step. Also, foregoing pesticides and fertilizers in favor of organic growing methods is good for the soil, the produce and its consumers. Those who want to get the most nutritious fruits and vegetables should buy regularly from local organic farmers. (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-and-nutrition-loss/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soil-depletion-an...) See also: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fertilizers-harm-earth/?redirect=1 https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fertilizers-h... https://www.environment.co.za/environmental-issues/how-do-fertilizers-affect-the-environment.html https://www.environment.co.za/environmental-issues/how-do-fe...
CJefferson 7y ago
Vegans aren't stupid -- but the difference in animal suffering from a meat heavy diet and a meat free diet is massive. Just because something can't be done 100% today, doesn't mean it isn't worth achieving 95% success.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  Published figures suggest that, in Australia, producing wheat and other grains results in: at least 25 times more sentient animals being killed per kilogram of useable protein more environmental damage, and a great deal more animal cruelty than does farming red meat. http://theconversation.com/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-theres-more-animal-blood-on-your-hands-4659 http://theconversation.com/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-ther...
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - davidy123 7y ago
    But you can mitigate that over time, for example with "smart" farming systems and managed use of land as usage stabilizes. You can't mitigate it in the meat industry.
  - CJefferson 7y ago
    Wheat is not a sensible method of getting protein. Comparing against wheat on a protein basis is a worst case comparison. Also lots of cheap meat protein is created by feeding things like wheat and soy to animals, rather than grass fed (although maybe most meat in Australia is meat fed, I don't know about it).
    - Consultant32452 7y ago
      The point is that people act as if eating meat is categorically more harmful to animals than eating a vegetarian or even vegan diet. That's demonstrably false.
captainredbeard 7y ago
Joel Salatin, perhaps? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Salatin https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Salatin
selectodude 7y ago
It used to be mined, now essentially 100 percent of the ammonium nitrate used in fertilizer and explosives is synthetic. It's made by reacting ammonia with nitric acid.

captainredbeard 7y ago

If you let ruminant livestock graze in a carefully managed pattern instead of feeding them grain (grown and transported from miles away), it improves the land and reduces the amount of pollution: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI Cattle are not very efficient at converting grain to protein. It’s about 7:1. Pork is 2:1, in comparison. Poultry is close to 1:1.

lozenge 7y ago
If all livestock were raised in this way there would be nowhere near enough of them to feed current demand for meat (not saying that's a bad thing). Allan Savory holds a very fringe view not supported by scientists in this field, which you wouldn't know from his TED talk.
bjoli 7y ago
Don't forget that not all lands are good carbon sinks. The Swedish department of agriculture claimed in a report (nr 25:2010 iirc. In Swedish ) that the vast majority of Swedish grazeland would not meaningfully decrease carbon emissions regardless of grazing systems
niklasolai 7y ago
You forget the part where the animal is brutally killed at the end. Organic, grass feed, factory farming, they all end the same for the animal.