6 ms·

If you know much about agriculture, this question has an almost certain answer. The contrast of energy and resource expense between plants and animals is stagge

If you know much about agriculture, this question has an almost certain answer. The contrast of energy and resource expense between plants and animals is staggering, even if you’re comparing a less demanding animal like chicken. You can refrigerate, process, and ship many plants by sea, truck, and plane and they won’t catch up to animal foods. We’re also not seeing a clear economic picture in Canada and the USA because subsidies/tax breaks/etc can significantly transform the final costs of something like milk or beef in a grocery store. My kids like the fake meats, but I’m pretty content with whole grains and legumes covering most of my protein requirements. Once you get over meat, you almost never think about it and the substitutes seem unnecessarily unhealthy (they’re kind of like savoury junk food with a ton of salt and saturated fat). I think it’s also important to acknowledge how filthy, torturous, destructive, and unethical the vast majority of animal agriculture activities are.

KronisLV 4y ago
> My kids like the fake meats, but I’m pretty content with whole grains and legumes covering most of my protein requirements. Once you get over meat, you almost never think about it and the substitutes seem unnecessarily unhealthy (they’re kind of like savoury junk food with a ton of salt and saturated fat). Personally I often have vegetarian dishes in eateries or when ordering take-out, when available - it is probably just me, but none of those really feel "worse" than meat, nor do I find myself feeling like I'm missing out on it. Even when having fast food, a pea/bean based burger patty feels good enough to me and is a similarly enjoyable experience to a meat based one. That said, I still sometimes have meat (and other animal products) as well, given that I'm not educated enough or don't feel competent enough to nail down what exactly my dietary requirements might be, though talking with a GP and getting blood work done every now and then can be at least a bit helpful in that regard. Still, there is a certain comfort in having fried eggs or something like that once a week, although some suggest that many of the oils used in cooking might also be worse than olive oil. For the majority of people, the quote by Michael Pollan is probably decent advice: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. Of course, some people's strong enjoyment of meat aside, it's hard to even know exactly what you're eating on a daily basis, given the many additives used for a variety of reasons in food products nowadays. And recognizing that sometimes going to sleep a bit hungry is okay might also take work, as would training yourself to recognize the difference between hunger, thirst and stress/boredom as well. (note: adjacently to this topic, carnivorous pets also still enjoy a diet with lots of meat in it, currently no good "compromise" there, their dietary requirements have to be taken into account as well and messing about with those feels unwise) > I think it’s also important to acknowledge how filthy, torturous, destructive, and unethical the vast majority of animal agriculture activities are. I've heard that Dominion from 2018 can be rather eye opening, though viewer discretion is advised: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_(2018_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_(2018_film) Personally, I've also gone hunting with my father and have helped dispose of the guts, carry game back home, skin the carcass, cut/snap the bones and so on. I'm not saying that everyone needs to do that, but partaking in the process of preparing meat (even in a farm setting) is a humbling experience. Maybe not enough to "scare" one away from eating meat, but definitely enough to make one reconsider how much meat they consume.
mattpallissard 4y ago
I wouldn't say the `vast majority` are `filthy, torturous, destructive, and unethical`. While that is undoubtedly out there, is sizeable, and should be addressed; it's far from the vast majority. You have to remember that these are still people raising these animals and that most people aren't monsters. They feel compassion and often aren't given a fair shake. Even the calloused, hard-ass, old-timers get teary eyed in certain situations. Hell, a lot of them don't like going to the zoo for ethical reasons. Source; grew up in a hog-raising family in big-ag country.
an1sotropy 4y ago
It is so frustrating how much well-entrenched subsidies and tax breaks have distorted our (consumer's) notion of what is "regular" vs "expensive".
- dylan604 4y ago
  Same thing can be said about VC funded tech companies too. Does anyone really know the cost of an Uber? What about the true cost of that Door Dash delivery?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- asciimov 4y ago
  Frustrating, no. Half the people in the US couldn't afford food if the costs weren't low. Paying subsidies is a way to keep labor costs low while keeping people fed.
  - enraged_camel 4y ago
    That itself is frustrating too though, right? Why do we need subsidies to be able to afford life’s most basic staples?
  - reaperducer 4y ago
    Most people have long since forgotten about all the ways the American food system has been engineered over the years. In a way that's a success because things like famine are unthinkable to the average American. It's something that happens in "some other country." It's part of the disconnect that industrialization and urbanization has brought. People don't really understand agriculture or agriculture policy anymore. Things like adding iodine to salt; iron, thiamin, and niacin to bread; extra vitamin D to milk. Federal stockpiles of various types of food from grain to cheese. All done to improve the general health and wellbeing, and as a measure of insurance in the event of war or disaster. The only thing most people on the internet seem to know about today is the old politician's cry of "We're paying farmers not to grow food!" Yeah, well, there's a reason for that. When the farmers go out of business, you have no food. It's not ideal. It's not perfect. But it's worked, and has kept America fat and happy for almost a century. Try to understand more than what's right in front of you.
phillipcarter 4y ago
The alternative we do is: * Order vegetarian when eating out. Non-western cuisines do incredible food that doesn't have any meat in it. * Only buy meat + eggs from a local farm that effectively does things "small batch". Their farm is open for visitors and you can see pigs and chickens that actually look happy. The pigs even run over to you when they smell you and you can see their cute little tails wigglin'. * Try to eat less in general. I don't know if I'll ever personally break from eating meat. But I do think that paying prices that are actually related to the cost of raising the animals, and doing so from a place that actually lets them live a pleasant life before slaughter feels better.
- datpiff 4y ago
  >* Only buy meat + eggs from a local farm that effectively does things "small batch". Their farm is open for visitors and you can see pigs and chickens that actually look happy. The pigs even run over to you when they smell you and you can see their cute little tails wigglin'. I understand this as an ethical argument, but are you assuming any "small batch" operation is more sustainable?
  - phillipcarter 4y ago
    I can't imagine it not being sustainable, no. Farms that grow all kinds of crops and raise many different kinds animals are sophisticated systems, and humans have learned over centuries how to best utilize them in ways that don't pollute rivers or emit incredible amounts of methane. The reason why they don't work in much of the modern world is because they don't optimize their output for maximum pounds of beef that gets ultimately sold to McDonald's, for example.
- steve_adams_86 4y ago
  I was doing something like this last year when it hit me how bizarre it was that I wanted to see happy animals at farms when the intent was to kill them for the sole purpose of eating them. Like, what do I care if they’re happy if I’m content to take that all away from them? Why is it logical to prefer they’re happy up until the moment they’re killed – do I think their experience matters? If so, why would I kill them? If not, why does it matter if they’re happy? If I care about their experience it seems really bizarre to kill them unless I absolutely need to. So far I’ve found no evidence that I do need to, and I’ve actually come to enjoy not eating them. I’ve become far better at cooking and it’s way easier to afford high quality ingredients. I genuinely believe it’s great that you prefer to source food from places that at least make an effort to provide better experiences to the animals. That alone is a huge step forward for animals as well as people. I hope more and more people make the same effort.
dr_orpheus 4y ago
> We’re also not seeing a clear economic picture in Canada and the USA because subsidies/tax breaks/etc can significantly transform the final costs of something like milk or beef in a grocery store. Thanks, this was the question I came to ask about the why is my fake meat more expensive than ground beef at the grocery store.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  A big part of the price is just that fake meat is currently a duopoloy of luxury brands. When Tyson has a full rollout of their fake meat products you'll see the prices go down.
Swizec 4y ago
> the substitutes seem unnecessarily unhealthy As a meat eater, this has been my philosophy. If you’re gonna go vegetarian, just go for it. Vegeterian food is delicious and there’s so much choice! Entire cultures of amazing natively vegetarian foods with no need for weird meat substitutes. Personally, legumes don’t have the right macros. Neither do fake meats. Cottage cheese and greek yogurt make better meat substitutes imo.
- steve_adams_86 4y ago
  Do you mean they have the wrong macros for you personally or you personally believe the macros are bad in general? Macros are an interesting thing. I’m far more interested in micros though, and various plants have them more than any animal foods. The balance of macros I get is reliably sufficient to stay healthy, I almost never need to think about it. I suppose if you’re a body builder it might be appealing to eat animal products, but you can still swing it with plants.
- feet 4y ago
  Usually you need to combine multiple different beans and legumes with rice to get the right macros
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- coldpie 4y ago
  Eh, sometimes I want a burger and fries. Cottage cheese/yogurt burger doesn't sound so great to me.
  - erikpukinskis 4y ago
    FWIW the vegetarian “whole food” version of a burger and fries is probably a falafel sandwich and fries.
  - Swizec 4y ago
    Yeah so eat a burger and fries when it feels right :) No need to go full vegetarian. No need to eat cows every day. Balance
runnerup 4y ago
Indeed you are correct about the > contrast of energy and resource expense between plants and animals is staggering, even if you’re comparing a less demanding animal like chicken. I would like to see this study[0][1] repeated for various types of beans and legumes: > Pork, chicken, eggs, and dairy were all pretty similar, but beef was a different story. Compared to the average of the other four, beef required 28 times the area of land per calorie, 11 times the water for irrigation, six times the nitrogen fertilizer, and it resulted in five times the greenhouse gas emissions For reference, they calculated similar impacts for potatoes, wheat, and rice. Compared to the average of those, beef’s footprint ballooned to 160 times the land, eight times the water, 19 times the nitrogen fertilizer, and 11 times the greenhouse gas emissions. Per gram of protein, the story is largely the same except that potatoes, wheat, and rice have less of an advantage due to their lower protein content. The math listed in the article doesn't completely check out, e.g. they imply that [pork, chicken, eggs, dairy] require 160x (beef:plants) / 28x (beef:chicken) = 5.3x times (chicken:plants) as much land as [potatoes, wheat, rice], which makes sense, but also imply that [pork, chicken, eggs, dairy] 8x (beef:plants) / 11x (beef:chicken) = 0.72x times (chicken:plants) as much water as [potatoes, wheat, rice]. It's not thermodynamically possible for chickens to use less water per calorie than their feedstock. I never opened the actual study[1] though, I'm assuming they have reasonable results inside the study. I also think that analysis vs. protein is more relevant than vs. calories -- which is why I think they should be compared against high-protein plants like beans and legumes. 0: https://arstechnica.com/science/2014/07/among-meats-beef-has-a-beefy-environmental-footprint/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2014/07/among-meats-beef-has... 1: https://sci-hub.ru/10.1073/pnas.1402183111 https://sci-hub.ru/10.1073/pnas.1402183111
slothtrop 4y ago
It's important to acknowledge that, and also that the question of sustainability arises only because of population growth. Growing demand encroaches on land (for a variety of reasons) at either a higher or lower rate, but still encroaches. A stagnant global growth rate would render the problem moot, which is going to happen in 100 or so years. In the meantime we're dealing with environmental problems that require immediate rectifying, and varying consumer habits would be wholly insufficient to do that, though still welcome. Waste in particular could be disrupted with better policy, and frankly, so could agriculture. Meat is subsidized. It's practically a matter of policy to encourage consumption as it stands. To say nothing of regulation, the potential for less land-intensive feed, etc.
silicon2401 4y ago
> whole grains and legumes covering most of my protein requirements. What are your protein/calorie goals, and how are you meeting them with grains and legumes? I have to take pea protein and on top of that eat a lot of eggs because otherwise I can't imagine getting enough protein just from beans and oats. If you avoid oxalates, it becomes even more difficult.

KronisLV 4y ago

> My kids like the fake meats, but I’m pretty content with whole grains and legumes covering most of my protein requirements. Once you get over meat, you almost never think about it and the substitutes seem unnecessarily unhealthy (they’re kind of like savoury junk food with a ton of salt and saturated fat). Personally I often have vegetarian dishes in eateries or when ordering take-out, when available - it is probably just me, but none of those really feel "worse" than meat, nor do I find myself feeling like I'm missing out on it. Even when having fast food, a pea/bean based burger patty feels good enough to me and is a similarly enjoyable experience to a meat based one. That said, I still sometimes have meat (and other animal products) as well, given that I'm not educated enough or don't feel competent enough to nail down what exactly my dietary requirements might be, though talking with a GP and getting blood work done every now and then can be at least a bit helpful in that regard. Still, there is a certain comfort in having fried eggs or something like that once a week, although some suggest that many of the oils used in cooking might also be worse than olive oil. For the majority of people, the quote by Michael Pollan is probably decent advice: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. Of course, some people's strong enjoyment of meat aside, it's hard to even know exactly what you're eating on a daily basis, given the many additives used for a variety of reasons in food products nowadays. And recognizing that sometimes going to sleep a bit hungry is okay might also take work, as would training yourself to recognize the difference between hunger, thirst and stress/boredom as well. (note: adjacently to this topic, carnivorous pets also still enjoy a diet with lots of meat in it, currently no good "compromise" there, their dietary requirements have to be taken into account as well and messing about with those feels unwise) > I think it’s also important to acknowledge how filthy, torturous, destructive, and unethical the vast majority of animal agriculture activities are. I've heard that Dominion from 2018 can be rather eye opening, though viewer discretion is advised: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_(2018_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_(2018_film) Personally, I've also gone hunting with my father and have helped dispose of the guts, carry game back home, skin the carcass, cut/snap the bones and so on. I'm not saying that everyone needs to do that, but partaking in the process of preparing meat (even in a farm setting) is a humbling experience. Maybe not enough to "scare" one away from eating meat, but definitely enough to make one reconsider how much meat they consume.

mattpallissard 4y ago

I wouldn't say the `vast majority` are `filthy, torturous, destructive, and unethical`. While that is undoubtedly out there, is sizeable, and should be addressed; it's far from the vast majority. You have to remember that these are still people raising these animals and that most people aren't monsters. They feel compassion and often aren't given a fair shake. Even the calloused, hard-ass, old-timers get teary eyed in certain situations. Hell, a lot of them don't like going to the zoo for ethical reasons. Source; grew up in a hog-raising family in big-ag country.

an1sotropy 4y ago

It is so frustrating how much well-entrenched subsidies and tax breaks have distorted our (consumer's) notion of what is "regular" vs "expensive".

dylan604 4y ago
Same thing can be said about VC funded tech companies too. Does anyone really know the cost of an Uber? What about the true cost of that Door Dash delivery?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
asciimov 4y ago
Frustrating, no. Half the people in the US couldn't afford food if the costs weren't low. Paying subsidies is a way to keep labor costs low while keeping people fed.
- enraged_camel 4y ago
  That itself is frustrating too though, right? Why do we need subsidies to be able to afford life’s most basic staples?
- reaperducer 4y ago
  Most people have long since forgotten about all the ways the American food system has been engineered over the years. In a way that's a success because things like famine are unthinkable to the average American. It's something that happens in "some other country." It's part of the disconnect that industrialization and urbanization has brought. People don't really understand agriculture or agriculture policy anymore. Things like adding iodine to salt; iron, thiamin, and niacin to bread; extra vitamin D to milk. Federal stockpiles of various types of food from grain to cheese. All done to improve the general health and wellbeing, and as a measure of insurance in the event of war or disaster. The only thing most people on the internet seem to know about today is the old politician's cry of "We're paying farmers not to grow food!" Yeah, well, there's a reason for that. When the farmers go out of business, you have no food. It's not ideal. It's not perfect. But it's worked, and has kept America fat and happy for almost a century. Try to understand more than what's right in front of you.

phillipcarter 4y ago

The alternative we do is: * Order vegetarian when eating out. Non-western cuisines do incredible food that doesn't have any meat in it. * Only buy meat + eggs from a local farm that effectively does things "small batch". Their farm is open for visitors and you can see pigs and chickens that actually look happy. The pigs even run over to you when they smell you and you can see their cute little tails wigglin'. * Try to eat less in general. I don't know if I'll ever personally break from eating meat. But I do think that paying prices that are actually related to the cost of raising the animals, and doing so from a place that actually lets them live a pleasant life before slaughter feels better.

datpiff 4y ago
>* Only buy meat + eggs from a local farm that effectively does things "small batch". Their farm is open for visitors and you can see pigs and chickens that actually look happy. The pigs even run over to you when they smell you and you can see their cute little tails wigglin'. I understand this as an ethical argument, but are you assuming any "small batch" operation is more sustainable?
- phillipcarter 4y ago
  I can't imagine it not being sustainable, no. Farms that grow all kinds of crops and raise many different kinds animals are sophisticated systems, and humans have learned over centuries how to best utilize them in ways that don't pollute rivers or emit incredible amounts of methane. The reason why they don't work in much of the modern world is because they don't optimize their output for maximum pounds of beef that gets ultimately sold to McDonald's, for example.
steve_adams_86 4y ago
I was doing something like this last year when it hit me how bizarre it was that I wanted to see happy animals at farms when the intent was to kill them for the sole purpose of eating them. Like, what do I care if they’re happy if I’m content to take that all away from them? Why is it logical to prefer they’re happy up until the moment they’re killed – do I think their experience matters? If so, why would I kill them? If not, why does it matter if they’re happy? If I care about their experience it seems really bizarre to kill them unless I absolutely need to. So far I’ve found no evidence that I do need to, and I’ve actually come to enjoy not eating them. I’ve become far better at cooking and it’s way easier to afford high quality ingredients. I genuinely believe it’s great that you prefer to source food from places that at least make an effort to provide better experiences to the animals. That alone is a huge step forward for animals as well as people. I hope more and more people make the same effort.

dr_orpheus 4y ago

> We’re also not seeing a clear economic picture in Canada and the USA because subsidies/tax breaks/etc can significantly transform the final costs of something like milk or beef in a grocery store. Thanks, this was the question I came to ask about the why is my fake meat more expensive than ground beef at the grocery store.

colinmhayes 4y ago
A big part of the price is just that fake meat is currently a duopoloy of luxury brands. When Tyson has a full rollout of their fake meat products you'll see the prices go down.

Swizec 4y ago

> the substitutes seem unnecessarily unhealthy As a meat eater, this has been my philosophy. If you’re gonna go vegetarian, just go for it. Vegeterian food is delicious and there’s so much choice! Entire cultures of amazing natively vegetarian foods with no need for weird meat substitutes. Personally, legumes don’t have the right macros. Neither do fake meats. Cottage cheese and greek yogurt make better meat substitutes imo.

steve_adams_86 4y ago
Do you mean they have the wrong macros for you personally or you personally believe the macros are bad in general? Macros are an interesting thing. I’m far more interested in micros though, and various plants have them more than any animal foods. The balance of macros I get is reliably sufficient to stay healthy, I almost never need to think about it. I suppose if you’re a body builder it might be appealing to eat animal products, but you can still swing it with plants.
feet 4y ago
Usually you need to combine multiple different beans and legumes with rice to get the right macros
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
coldpie 4y ago
Eh, sometimes I want a burger and fries. Cottage cheese/yogurt burger doesn't sound so great to me.
- erikpukinskis 4y ago
  FWIW the vegetarian “whole food” version of a burger and fries is probably a falafel sandwich and fries.
- Swizec 4y ago
  Yeah so eat a burger and fries when it feels right :) No need to go full vegetarian. No need to eat cows every day. Balance

runnerup 4y ago

Indeed you are correct about the > contrast of energy and resource expense between plants and animals is staggering, even if you’re comparing a less demanding animal like chicken. I would like to see this study[0][1] repeated for various types of beans and legumes: > Pork, chicken, eggs, and dairy were all pretty similar, but beef was a different story. Compared to the average of the other four, beef required 28 times the area of land per calorie, 11 times the water for irrigation, six times the nitrogen fertilizer, and it resulted in five times the greenhouse gas emissions For reference, they calculated similar impacts for potatoes, wheat, and rice. Compared to the average of those, beef’s footprint ballooned to 160 times the land, eight times the water, 19 times the nitrogen fertilizer, and 11 times the greenhouse gas emissions. Per gram of protein, the story is largely the same except that potatoes, wheat, and rice have less of an advantage due to their lower protein content. The math listed in the article doesn't completely check out, e.g. they imply that [pork, chicken, eggs, dairy] require 160x (beef:plants) / 28x (beef:chicken) = 5.3x times (chicken:plants) as much land as [potatoes, wheat, rice], which makes sense, but also imply that [pork, chicken, eggs, dairy] 8x (beef:plants) / 11x (beef:chicken) = 0.72x times (chicken:plants) as much water as [potatoes, wheat, rice]. It's not thermodynamically possible for chickens to use less water per calorie than their feedstock. I never opened the actual study[1] though, I'm assuming they have reasonable results inside the study. I also think that analysis vs. protein is more relevant than vs. calories -- which is why I think they should be compared against high-protein plants like beans and legumes. 0: https://arstechnica.com/science/2014/07/among-meats-beef-has-a-beefy-environmental-footprint/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2014/07/among-meats-beef-has... 1: https://sci-hub.ru/10.1073/pnas.1402183111 https://sci-hub.ru/10.1073/pnas.1402183111

slothtrop 4y ago

It's important to acknowledge that, and also that the question of sustainability arises only because of population growth. Growing demand encroaches on land (for a variety of reasons) at either a higher or lower rate, but still encroaches. A stagnant global growth rate would render the problem moot, which is going to happen in 100 or so years. In the meantime we're dealing with environmental problems that require immediate rectifying, and varying consumer habits would be wholly insufficient to do that, though still welcome. Waste in particular could be disrupted with better policy, and frankly, so could agriculture. Meat is subsidized. It's practically a matter of policy to encourage consumption as it stands. To say nothing of regulation, the potential for less land-intensive feed, etc.

silicon2401 4y ago

> whole grains and legumes covering most of my protein requirements. What are your protein/calorie goals, and how are you meeting them with grains and legumes? I have to take pea protein and on top of that eat a lot of eggs because otherwise I can't imagine getting enough protein just from beans and oats. If you avoid oxalates, it becomes even more difficult.