5 ms·

You are aware that tofu/tempeh/s. milk are made out of soy, right? I'm seriously concerned that one mass production (meat) will turn to another. The mass produc

You are aware that tofu/tempeh/s. milk are made out of soy, right? I'm seriously concerned that one mass production (meat) will turn to another. The mass producers need to sell. I hope my comment does not start a carnivore vs vegan war (as just like you, I'm neither).

andi999 6y ago
But it is more efficient. Less soy needed for soy product then for the same meat calories.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  Why not grass fed meat then there’s no soy at all!
  - refactor_master 6y ago
    It’s a massive waste of land though.
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      How is it wasting land to feed cattle on it? It’s often not doing anything else.
      - bjoli 6y ago
        Not all land is a good pasture. In many parts of the world, good pasture are also efficient carbon sinks. In my part of the world those carbon sinks are rare (only about 10% of pastures are carbon sinks), and the few that are good are even better as farmland. That overlap is not 100%. Some good pasture is bad farmland, but the claim that good pasture is good farmland is a good rule of thumb
      - distances 6y ago
        Any land reclaimed from livestock feeding could be returned to nature, be it rainforests in Brazil or woodlands in Europe. Livestock uses a massive amount of agricultural land in comparison to plant production meant for direct human consumption. It's just a very very simple math based on the amount of crops it takes to grow animals for meat -- and soy is much more efficient than grass in that sense, so your suggestion would make things decidedly worse for environment.
        chrisseaton 6y ago
        I don't know what you know about European agriculture, but woodlands in Europe aren't 'nature' in any primitive sense. If the grass pasture is already there in cycle, it's not being used for anything else. Might as well put cattle on it.
        distances 6y ago
        > but woodlands in Europe aren't 'nature' in any primitive sense. Europe is varied, not sure where you live but the forests in Northern/North-Central Europe that I'm familiar with absolutely do support wildlife. I think it shouldn't be controversial that returning agricultural land to nature, whatever "nature" means in different areas, is good for environment. Anyway, this is wildly beside the point, which is that pasture feeding cattle can't satisfy the current demand for meat, not even close. Converting soy fields to grazing fields would be an ecological disaster without a serious decrease in worldwide meat consumption, as the yields would be far lower.
        chrisseaton 6y ago
        > Converting soy fields to grazing fields But why would you do that? Don't cut down forests for soy, and don't cut it down for pasture either. Use existing green grass fields to feed cattle. This can be done in between crop rotations. > without a serious decrease in worldwide meat consumption Maybe that's the point? Eat less (if you want to eat at all) and eat grass-fed. Do cattle even choose to eat soy when they have green grass available?
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - telesilla 6y ago
        Cattle is also disastrous for the water supply. Unfortunately, mass production of meat is just very expensive for the health of the planet.
  - cerebellum42 6y ago
    Because that does not work on scale. This discussion is about how producing meat requires tons and tons of land in the form of soy bean fields that feed the animals, which indirectly and directly contributes to deforestation. Now you come along and say, just eat meat produced using this other method which takes a lot MORE land for the same amount of meat production?
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      But our fields are already grass - we don’t need to deforest to grow any soy at all.
      - cerebellum42 6y ago
        No they're not, at least they're not pasture. They're either already farmed fields or they're wild meadows. Putting meadows to intense use would destroy whole ecosystems that may look like "just grass" from afar, and farmed fields are obviously already in use.
        chrisseaton 6y ago
        > No they're not, at least they're not pasture. Thanks for telling me what the fields around me are!
        cerebellum42 6y ago
        I don't think anyone in this whole thread was talking about your local fields here.
      - bayesian_horse 6y ago
        There's not enough grass-land in the world for everyone to eat grass-fed beef. That's the whole point of not feeding them grass in the first place.
kuschku 6y ago
Meat production requires a magnitude more soy (in raw materials) to produce the same output as e.g. tofu/tempeh/soy milk production.
- bkovacev 6y ago
  you're absolutely right - preparing a high quality beef meal takes a lot more than just processing soy, but what I was aiming at was that we will replace one mass consumption with the other, just like we always do and that may mask the problem but I believe it won't solve it. I could be wrong though.
  - MayeulC 6y ago
    The issue is not judt the extra procesding cost. I haven't ran the numbers, but parent hinted at a cow needing to eat, say, 10 Kg of soy per Kg of meat produced, while you could have just eaten the soy directly. Meat production uses a lot of land to produce food for your food, that's why it's so inneficient. Instead you could just use a tiny fraction of that land, and grow enough food for everyone.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - croon 6y ago
    > but what I was aiming at was that we will replace one mass consumption with the other, just like we always do and that may mask the problem but I believe it won't solve it You're comparing two cases of "mass production" without any quantifier. Beef has an over 15 times larger carbon footprint compared to tofu. https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food So sure, if everyone switches we would substitute one mass production for another, but we could feed 15 times as many people (all else equal).
- spiderfarmer 6y ago
  A large part of cattle feed soy is based on leftovers from the food industry.
bjoli 6y ago
I agree with your point, but: Eating it directly would be a lot mor efficient use of that soy and would decrease the demand for soy anyway.
fragile_frogs 6y ago
That would still be a good thing. If everybody would switch from cow's milk to soy milk we would cut green house gase emissions by two thirds. The affects on land and water usage are even greater. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46654042 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46654042

andi999 6y ago

But it is more efficient. Less soy needed for soy product then for the same meat calories.

chrisseaton 6y ago
Why not grass fed meat then there’s no soy at all!
- refactor_master 6y ago
  It’s a massive waste of land though.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    How is it wasting land to feed cattle on it? It’s often not doing anything else.
    - bjoli 6y ago
      Not all land is a good pasture. In many parts of the world, good pasture are also efficient carbon sinks. In my part of the world those carbon sinks are rare (only about 10% of pastures are carbon sinks), and the few that are good are even better as farmland. That overlap is not 100%. Some good pasture is bad farmland, but the claim that good pasture is good farmland is a good rule of thumb
    - distances 6y ago
      Any land reclaimed from livestock feeding could be returned to nature, be it rainforests in Brazil or woodlands in Europe. Livestock uses a massive amount of agricultural land in comparison to plant production meant for direct human consumption. It's just a very very simple math based on the amount of crops it takes to grow animals for meat -- and soy is much more efficient than grass in that sense, so your suggestion would make things decidedly worse for environment.
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        I don't know what you know about European agriculture, but woodlands in Europe aren't 'nature' in any primitive sense. If the grass pasture is already there in cycle, it's not being used for anything else. Might as well put cattle on it.
        distances 6y ago
        > but woodlands in Europe aren't 'nature' in any primitive sense. Europe is varied, not sure where you live but the forests in Northern/North-Central Europe that I'm familiar with absolutely do support wildlife. I think it shouldn't be controversial that returning agricultural land to nature, whatever "nature" means in different areas, is good for environment. Anyway, this is wildly beside the point, which is that pasture feeding cattle can't satisfy the current demand for meat, not even close. Converting soy fields to grazing fields would be an ecological disaster without a serious decrease in worldwide meat consumption, as the yields would be far lower.
        chrisseaton 6y ago
        > Converting soy fields to grazing fields But why would you do that? Don't cut down forests for soy, and don't cut it down for pasture either. Use existing green grass fields to feed cattle. This can be done in between crop rotations. > without a serious decrease in worldwide meat consumption Maybe that's the point? Eat less (if you want to eat at all) and eat grass-fed. Do cattle even choose to eat soy when they have green grass available?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - telesilla 6y ago
      Cattle is also disastrous for the water supply. Unfortunately, mass production of meat is just very expensive for the health of the planet.
- cerebellum42 6y ago
  Because that does not work on scale. This discussion is about how producing meat requires tons and tons of land in the form of soy bean fields that feed the animals, which indirectly and directly contributes to deforestation. Now you come along and say, just eat meat produced using this other method which takes a lot MORE land for the same amount of meat production?
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    But our fields are already grass - we don’t need to deforest to grow any soy at all.
    - cerebellum42 6y ago
      No they're not, at least they're not pasture. They're either already farmed fields or they're wild meadows. Putting meadows to intense use would destroy whole ecosystems that may look like "just grass" from afar, and farmed fields are obviously already in use.
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        > No they're not, at least they're not pasture. Thanks for telling me what the fields around me are!
        cerebellum42 6y ago
        I don't think anyone in this whole thread was talking about your local fields here.
    - bayesian_horse 6y ago
      There's not enough grass-land in the world for everyone to eat grass-fed beef. That's the whole point of not feeding them grass in the first place.

kuschku 6y ago

Meat production requires a magnitude more soy (in raw materials) to produce the same output as e.g. tofu/tempeh/soy milk production.

bkovacev 6y ago
you're absolutely right - preparing a high quality beef meal takes a lot more than just processing soy, but what I was aiming at was that we will replace one mass consumption with the other, just like we always do and that may mask the problem but I believe it won't solve it. I could be wrong though.
- MayeulC 6y ago
  The issue is not judt the extra procesding cost. I haven't ran the numbers, but parent hinted at a cow needing to eat, say, 10 Kg of soy per Kg of meat produced, while you could have just eaten the soy directly. Meat production uses a lot of land to produce food for your food, that's why it's so inneficient. Instead you could just use a tiny fraction of that land, and grow enough food for everyone.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- croon 6y ago
  > but what I was aiming at was that we will replace one mass consumption with the other, just like we always do and that may mask the problem but I believe it won't solve it You're comparing two cases of "mass production" without any quantifier. Beef has an over 15 times larger carbon footprint compared to tofu. https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food So sure, if everyone switches we would substitute one mass production for another, but we could feed 15 times as many people (all else equal).
spiderfarmer 6y ago
A large part of cattle feed soy is based on leftovers from the food industry.

bjoli 6y ago

I agree with your point, but: Eating it directly would be a lot mor efficient use of that soy and would decrease the demand for soy anyway.

fragile_frogs 6y ago

That would still be a good thing. If everybody would switch from cow's milk to soy milk we would cut green house gase emissions by two thirds. The affects on land and water usage are even greater. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46654042 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46654042