4 ms·

Yeah, but maybe this is an argument for treating the food animals, rather than ridiculousness of standards for science animals.

eigenket 5y ago
Of course, I agree. I hope my comment didn't imply otherwise. Actually I would argue for the wholesale reduction of the category "food animal". Its largely unnecessary, there are very few people (e.g. with unusual medical needs or living in unusual situations) for whom eating other animals is necessary.
- ummonk 5y ago
  Imagine the two following hypothetical societies (we clearly live in neither society): A) humane open pastures where animals grow to middle age before being killed for food, resulting in expensive meat B) pure agriculture where land is cleared and irrigated for agricultural produce, completely devoid of animal life I would argue that society A would be better for animals than society B.
  - eigenket 5y ago
    The two situations aren't really comparable without more information. Clearly the people in A are still eating a craptonne of plants, and also have access to much more land per person than B, since they can afford to have a lot dedicated to very unproductive pasture.
    - ummonk 5y ago
      Yeah, it's hard to compare and the greater yields of crops certainly bodes well for A. Though the productivity differences aren't as large as one would think - protein conversion ratios for smaller animals tend to be 2-3. It's worse for beef (~10) but you have to consider that half the cows are creating milk which has a high protein conversion ratio. And it's potentially even better for animals when you consider the quality of protein - e.g. see https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jsfa.8362 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jsfa.8362
      - thaumasiotes 5y ago
        > It's worse for beef (~10) but you have to consider that half the cows are creating milk which has a high protein conversion ratio. Half?
        skak 5y ago
        Only female cows produce milk.
        aflag 5y ago
        All cows are female.
        ummonk 5y ago
        In common parlance (rather than technical terminology), "cows" means "cattle".
        thaumasiotes 5y ago
        Almost all cattle are female. aflag doesn't get less accurate if you interpret "cows" as the species term that it is.
        thaumasiotes 5y ago
        Where do you get "half" from that? Female cows are economically productive and males are not. The ratio is not even close to half-and-half. Go look at a herd of cows sometime.
    - xkcd-sucks 5y ago
      Pastoral societies usually inhabit ecosystems that don't support human-edible crops
  - JosephK 5y ago
    False dichotomy. Animal farming takes up nearly 80% of global agricultural land. Switching away from livestock would reduce the need for land clearing, not increase it.
- whiddershins 5y ago
  We don’t know this. Our understanding of nutrition is closer to none than to complete. The more deeply you research this, the more true my statement will seem.

eigenket 5y ago

Of course, I agree. I hope my comment didn't imply otherwise. Actually I would argue for the wholesale reduction of the category "food animal". Its largely unnecessary, there are very few people (e.g. with unusual medical needs or living in unusual situations) for whom eating other animals is necessary.

ummonk 5y ago
Imagine the two following hypothetical societies (we clearly live in neither society): A) humane open pastures where animals grow to middle age before being killed for food, resulting in expensive meat B) pure agriculture where land is cleared and irrigated for agricultural produce, completely devoid of animal life I would argue that society A would be better for animals than society B.
- eigenket 5y ago
  The two situations aren't really comparable without more information. Clearly the people in A are still eating a craptonne of plants, and also have access to much more land per person than B, since they can afford to have a lot dedicated to very unproductive pasture.
  - ummonk 5y ago
    Yeah, it's hard to compare and the greater yields of crops certainly bodes well for A. Though the productivity differences aren't as large as one would think - protein conversion ratios for smaller animals tend to be 2-3. It's worse for beef (~10) but you have to consider that half the cows are creating milk which has a high protein conversion ratio. And it's potentially even better for animals when you consider the quality of protein - e.g. see https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jsfa.8362 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jsfa.8362
    - thaumasiotes 5y ago
      > It's worse for beef (~10) but you have to consider that half the cows are creating milk which has a high protein conversion ratio. Half?
      - skak 5y ago
        Only female cows produce milk.
        aflag 5y ago
        All cows are female.
        ummonk 5y ago
        In common parlance (rather than technical terminology), "cows" means "cattle".
        thaumasiotes 5y ago
        Almost all cattle are female. aflag doesn't get less accurate if you interpret "cows" as the species term that it is.
        thaumasiotes 5y ago
        Where do you get "half" from that? Female cows are economically productive and males are not. The ratio is not even close to half-and-half. Go look at a herd of cows sometime.
  - xkcd-sucks 5y ago
    Pastoral societies usually inhabit ecosystems that don't support human-edible crops
- JosephK 5y ago
  False dichotomy. Animal farming takes up nearly 80% of global agricultural land. Switching away from livestock would reduce the need for land clearing, not increase it.
whiddershins 5y ago
We don’t know this. Our understanding of nutrition is closer to none than to complete. The more deeply you research this, the more true my statement will seem.