4 ms·

I completely agree, crop farming as it currently exists trades a lot of long term sustainability and ecological responsibility in exchange for high output. How

I completely agree, crop farming as it currently exists trades a lot of long term sustainability and ecological responsibility in exchange for high output. However the problem is that the large majority of these monoculture crops go to animals. Reducing animal agriculture not only means less direct GHG emissions from animals, it also means a huge reduction in the amount of crops required to feed the same number of people. In the US, 41% of land is used for animal agriculture, while only 19.8% is used for food humans eat. (Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-us-land-use/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-us-land-use/) "The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire American population." + "For every kilogram of high-quality animal protein produced, livestock are fed nearly 6 kg of plant protein." (Source: https://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat https://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-m...) If you're worried about greenhouse gas emissions, stop paying into animal agriculture. If you're interested in reducing the need for monocrops, reducing land use, and creating more sustainable plant farming, your best choice is still to go vegan.

CuriouslyC 5y ago
You're obviously arguing from a point of bias, with an agenda that ignores facts. Animals form an integral part of the optimal, zero input agricultural system (as demonstrated by natural environments). The problem isn't eating animals, the problem is a system of agriculture that is self destructive and stupid. You can't have a balanced ecosystem without animals, and eating them is the best method for population control. You can rail all you want on factory farmed meats, and I'm with you on there, but to go from "factory farmed meats are bad" to "people shouldn't eat meat" is fallacious as hell. That would be like going from "drinking too much water will kill you" to "people shouldn't drink water".
- TollingSteady 5y ago
  I grew up eating 3 eggs every morning and drinking chocolate milk daily. My very favorite food (and the first thing I'd order at any restaurant) was steak. I apologize if I've made it seem like I have some personal stake in plants; I only stopped supporting animal agriculture because as an adult I realized that it seemed unethical and unsustainable. If you are able to provide sources showing that sustainable, ecologically-sound animal agriculture exists, please do link me, as I'd be very personally interested. And just to clarify: I am under the impression that all forms of animal agriculture that currently exist are environmentally and morally negative, in their current forms. My opinion would more be that the fact is "burning coal is bad", so my opinion is "let's switch to renewables." I am only trying to act in alignment with my conscience, even though it can be inconvenient. It seems we do have a lot of common ground, though; if you're already boycotting factory farmed meat, eggs, and dairy, we'll have way more in common than different.
  - CuriouslyC 5y ago
    Integrating animals into a food system correctly results in a net increase in carbon retention, even if they themselves produce greenhouse gasses. This is because they help provide soil fertility while controlling the growth of weeds so that trees and other larger, longer lived food plants aren't competing for resources. If the animals didn't do it, you'd need to use pesticides, or a mower, or something else that has more downsides and isn't edible. There are a lot of permaculture farms integrating animals, fruit/nut trees and crops, but the most famous one is polyface farm (https://www.polyfacefarms.com/ https://www.polyfacefarms.com/). Ultimately, until agriculture is supplanted by ecosystem creation, and it becomes something that most of the population has some minor role in (if only to save compost for, and help harvest from your local food forest), we're going to be destroying the environment to feed people. Not eating factory farmed meat will slow it down a little bit, but the problem will still be there festering away, until we change our ways or population levels drop an order of magnitude.
    - rhesa 5y ago
      Another excellent example is Mark Shepard on his New Forest Farm. He successfully replicated the oak savannah that covered a lot of the US before the Europeans tore it up, but using species that are useful for humans. Like you're saying, the animals are an integral part of that system: reducing pests, mowing and pruning, cleaning up waste etc.
      - TollingSteady 5y ago
        I definitely think his use of renewable energy is a great step forward. The trouble is that he seems to keep a lot of ruminants for the amount of land he has. Ruminants produce very potent greenhouse gases that are not offset by sequestration (cited a few times in other sources), so with that plus all of his other animals kept I'd be very interested in independently gathered data (i.e. not marketing materials he wrote himself ) about the GHG production / absorption by his land. Sadly, I'm struggling to find the number of animals he keeps or anything I could use to run any sort of calculation. Therefore, this definitely looks like the closest I've seen to sustainable animal agriculture, but its claims are currently unsubstantiated.

CuriouslyC 5y ago

You're obviously arguing from a point of bias, with an agenda that ignores facts. Animals form an integral part of the optimal, zero input agricultural system (as demonstrated by natural environments). The problem isn't eating animals, the problem is a system of agriculture that is self destructive and stupid. You can't have a balanced ecosystem without animals, and eating them is the best method for population control. You can rail all you want on factory farmed meats, and I'm with you on there, but to go from "factory farmed meats are bad" to "people shouldn't eat meat" is fallacious as hell. That would be like going from "drinking too much water will kill you" to "people shouldn't drink water".

TollingSteady 5y ago
I grew up eating 3 eggs every morning and drinking chocolate milk daily. My very favorite food (and the first thing I'd order at any restaurant) was steak. I apologize if I've made it seem like I have some personal stake in plants; I only stopped supporting animal agriculture because as an adult I realized that it seemed unethical and unsustainable. If you are able to provide sources showing that sustainable, ecologically-sound animal agriculture exists, please do link me, as I'd be very personally interested. And just to clarify: I am under the impression that all forms of animal agriculture that currently exist are environmentally and morally negative, in their current forms. My opinion would more be that the fact is "burning coal is bad", so my opinion is "let's switch to renewables." I am only trying to act in alignment with my conscience, even though it can be inconvenient. It seems we do have a lot of common ground, though; if you're already boycotting factory farmed meat, eggs, and dairy, we'll have way more in common than different.
- CuriouslyC 5y ago
  Integrating animals into a food system correctly results in a net increase in carbon retention, even if they themselves produce greenhouse gasses. This is because they help provide soil fertility while controlling the growth of weeds so that trees and other larger, longer lived food plants aren't competing for resources. If the animals didn't do it, you'd need to use pesticides, or a mower, or something else that has more downsides and isn't edible. There are a lot of permaculture farms integrating animals, fruit/nut trees and crops, but the most famous one is polyface farm (https://www.polyfacefarms.com/ https://www.polyfacefarms.com/). Ultimately, until agriculture is supplanted by ecosystem creation, and it becomes something that most of the population has some minor role in (if only to save compost for, and help harvest from your local food forest), we're going to be destroying the environment to feed people. Not eating factory farmed meat will slow it down a little bit, but the problem will still be there festering away, until we change our ways or population levels drop an order of magnitude.
  - rhesa 5y ago
    Another excellent example is Mark Shepard on his New Forest Farm. He successfully replicated the oak savannah that covered a lot of the US before the Europeans tore it up, but using species that are useful for humans. Like you're saying, the animals are an integral part of that system: reducing pests, mowing and pruning, cleaning up waste etc.
    - TollingSteady 5y ago
      I definitely think his use of renewable energy is a great step forward. The trouble is that he seems to keep a lot of ruminants for the amount of land he has. Ruminants produce very potent greenhouse gases that are not offset by sequestration (cited a few times in other sources), so with that plus all of his other animals kept I'd be very interested in independently gathered data (i.e. not marketing materials he wrote himself ) about the GHG production / absorption by his land. Sadly, I'm struggling to find the number of animals he keeps or anything I could use to run any sort of calculation. Therefore, this definitely looks like the closest I've seen to sustainable animal agriculture, but its claims are currently unsubstantiated.