4 ms·

This "argument" gets repeated over and over... Every plant based product is better than their equivalent animal (warm-blooded mamals) product. Animals radiate

This "argument" gets repeated over and over... Every plant based product is better than their equivalent animal (warm-blooded mamals) product. Animals radiate away about 3/4 of the energy they consume. This means generally speaking land use for every x amount of animal produce, you'd only need 1/4 of the land to feed humans on plant produce. Of course some plant are worse than others nutritionally, but I think the overall idea of energy waste by warm-bodied animals is pretty self-evident. Soy is a pretty high quality protein mix and overall, it's questionable if overfeeding on easy proteins is a good idea health wise, e.g. see methionine, IGF-1 and cancer risk. Fun fact: Almost all soy for human consumption in Europe is actually grown in Europe. The rainforest killing soy is grown to feed cows. See above...

488643689 6y ago
Oh look it's even worse: only about 10% of intake energy is fixated (plant matter -> meat) in the next trophic level. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_efficiency https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_efficiency Wikipedia says ATP generation alone loses 60% of energy regardless if ecto- or endothermal organism. ATP is the energy curency of life. So 60% of energy lost, before any synthesis, signaling, membrane transport, ... even happened.
fyfy18 6y ago
I don't disagree that eating plants is more efficient than eating animal products, but what I'd like to know is how much it costs to transport these products. Is coconut oil grown and processed in Thailand, then flown to Europe and transported by truck another few thousand miles, still better than butter made from cows milk that are raised 20km away?
- 488643689 6y ago
  I doubt the transportation has a huge impact, but either way it's an issue of its own. You don't have to eat vegan products grown across the globe. Bringing this up is as relevant as talking about the footprint of the clothes you wear while eating. Btw. the soy grown in the Amazonian ex-rainforest to feed cows, isn't magically appearing on American farms either.

488643689 6y ago

Oh look it's even worse: only about 10% of intake energy is fixated (plant matter -> meat) in the next trophic level. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_efficiency https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_efficiency Wikipedia says ATP generation alone loses 60% of energy regardless if ecto- or endothermal organism. ATP is the energy curency of life. So 60% of energy lost, before any synthesis, signaling, membrane transport, ... even happened.

fyfy18 6y ago

I don't disagree that eating plants is more efficient than eating animal products, but what I'd like to know is how much it costs to transport these products. Is coconut oil grown and processed in Thailand, then flown to Europe and transported by truck another few thousand miles, still better than butter made from cows milk that are raised 20km away?

488643689 6y ago
I doubt the transportation has a huge impact, but either way it's an issue of its own. You don't have to eat vegan products grown across the globe. Bringing this up is as relevant as talking about the footprint of the clothes you wear while eating. Btw. the soy grown in the Amazonian ex-rainforest to feed cows, isn't magically appearing on American farms either.