7 ms·

Interesting lack of discussion around animal agriculture in these comments. Closest convo we get is about alfalfa for horse food. Hmm, wouldn’t want to address

Interesting lack of discussion around animal agriculture in these comments. Closest convo we get is about alfalfa for horse food. Hmm, wouldn’t want to address the elephant in the room though.

8note 3y ago
The animals are a range. So.ething like ranching may be assigned a ton of water, but it's not like the rain will stop falling on forest because there's no cows there, and the only water being taken out at the end is the weight of the cows. If you're missing river and aquifer water, you want to tackle the users of river and aquifer water
- fredrikholm 3y ago
  > the only water being taken out at the end is the weight of the cows And the water needed to produce all of their food, which is way more calories than they end up giving back. And their daily water need, which comes out as urine, which pollutes the nearby environment. > If you're missing river and aquifer water, you want to tackle the users of river and aquifer water Exactly. If that is farmers growing crops to feed livestock, tackle that.
jarebear6expepj 3y ago
Luckily horses do not _need_ alfalfa. Farmers love growing alfalfa because if you give it sun and water in the right setting you can get damn near 14 cuts off a field of it in one year. This by comparison puts a grass hay field or even a nice neutral horse feed, Timothy grass, to shame. Alfalfa is a nutrient dense power bar that is given to horses kept in boxes. I would argue a happy horse would have a range of grassland to graze on, vs compressed cubes or squares of dense, sugary alfalfa that is replacing a normal ration. tldr: alfalfa is an unnatural food for unnaturally kept horses source: have horses on range land.
- dreamcompiler 3y ago
  Agreed. We have several packs of wild horses near where I live in the mountains of New Mexico--so many that some people find them a nuisance. They thrive quite nicely on whatever they can find, and they certainly don't find alfalfa. (Aside: Anybody who wants free horses to break (not to turn into dog food), let me know.)
hosh 3y ago
First, feed lots are a blight. Feed lots are not the only way to raise livestock. Second, there is very much a way to manage water while ranching — the main thing is to have the herds help you maintain healthy soil (which retains and regulates surface water), rather than destroying it like in feed lots. You make sure you can move them to a different section of the land. Third, livestock and crops can co-exist onsite, and there are mutually beneficial processes between the two. Most farmers and ranchers do one or the other. Combined with notill and letting limited grazing on fallow land, what would be toxic runoffs from manure turns into adding fertilizer back into fallow lands. Fourth, price of meat should reflect the added cost. People keep using feedlots because they want meat factories and cheap meat. Solutions already exist.
- slt2021 3y ago
  this solution is not scalable for "high density" animal farms. Which makes it economically infeasible.
  - hosh 3y ago
    The "high density" animal farms are the feed lots I was talking about, the very ones I'm calling a blight. I also address this in my fourth point -- price of meat would need to reflect not using feed lots. It's only not a solution because people want cheap meat. And just to be clear, I'm not advocating for all plant-based, vegan diet or using vat-grown meat. I think a clearer assessment of what we actually need to thrive, nutritionally speaking, would be of benefit.
    - slt2021 3y ago
      You are referring to Grass-fed premium meat? This is already available only to rich people at gourmet grocery shops for $13/lb for ground beef, and $30 for 12 oz for a steak If you are advocating to remove the cheaper options of meat, and leaving only grass-fed and premium meats available on the market - I am not sure this is a good approach. This is very elitist approach that could come from coastal elite only
foobiekr 3y ago
Let's say we eliminated all agricultural use of animals tomorrow. All that would accomplish is one-time shift the point on the continuum that the earth and society can support. The real problem, and the real elephant that no one wants to address, is the human population size.
- depr 3y ago
  People have been addressing it for a long time, it's called family planning, look it up.
- munificent 3y ago
  We are addressing that. Human population is predicted to plateau in 2080 and begin to decline after that: https://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth https://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth
- fkyoureadthedoc 3y ago
  > The real problem, and the real elephant that no one wants to address, is the human population size. Usually nobody engages this because it's a boring conservative talking point. Do I consume too much? No, it's the world that's overpopulated. And they usually have drastic authoritarian solutions that have no chance of being enacted. But go ahead, you have the floor, what are your proposals?
- vixen99 3y ago
  As a special case it's worth noting that some 20 European countries are experiencing depopulation at a rate of around 10-20%. Countries with a significant welfare & national pension system cannot survive long term depopulation if there are not enough taxes coming in to pay for it.
  - aerio 3y ago
    Almost every single one of those countries are in eastern europe, definitely not countries with "significant welfare & national pension system". The depopulation is also mainly due to migration, not fertility.
s1artibartfast 3y ago
And no one would ever question the precious Californian wine industry

Interesting lack of discussion around animal agriculture in these comments. Closest convo we get is about alfalfa for horse food. Hmm, wouldn’t want to address the elephant in the room though.

8note 3y ago

The animals are a range. So.ething like ranching may be assigned a ton of water, but it's not like the rain will stop falling on forest because there's no cows there, and the only water being taken out at the end is the weight of the cows. If you're missing river and aquifer water, you want to tackle the users of river and aquifer water

fredrikholm 3y ago
> the only water being taken out at the end is the weight of the cows And the water needed to produce all of their food, which is way more calories than they end up giving back. And their daily water need, which comes out as urine, which pollutes the nearby environment. > If you're missing river and aquifer water, you want to tackle the users of river and aquifer water Exactly. If that is farmers growing crops to feed livestock, tackle that.

jarebear6expepj 3y ago

Luckily horses do not _need_ alfalfa. Farmers love growing alfalfa because if you give it sun and water in the right setting you can get damn near 14 cuts off a field of it in one year. This by comparison puts a grass hay field or even a nice neutral horse feed, Timothy grass, to shame. Alfalfa is a nutrient dense power bar that is given to horses kept in boxes. I would argue a happy horse would have a range of grassland to graze on, vs compressed cubes or squares of dense, sugary alfalfa that is replacing a normal ration. tldr: alfalfa is an unnatural food for unnaturally kept horses source: have horses on range land.

dreamcompiler 3y ago
Agreed. We have several packs of wild horses near where I live in the mountains of New Mexico--so many that some people find them a nuisance. They thrive quite nicely on whatever they can find, and they certainly don't find alfalfa. (Aside: Anybody who wants free horses to break (not to turn into dog food), let me know.)

hosh 3y ago

First, feed lots are a blight. Feed lots are not the only way to raise livestock. Second, there is very much a way to manage water while ranching — the main thing is to have the herds help you maintain healthy soil (which retains and regulates surface water), rather than destroying it like in feed lots. You make sure you can move them to a different section of the land. Third, livestock and crops can co-exist onsite, and there are mutually beneficial processes between the two. Most farmers and ranchers do one or the other. Combined with notill and letting limited grazing on fallow land, what would be toxic runoffs from manure turns into adding fertilizer back into fallow lands. Fourth, price of meat should reflect the added cost. People keep using feedlots because they want meat factories and cheap meat. Solutions already exist.

slt2021 3y ago
this solution is not scalable for "high density" animal farms. Which makes it economically infeasible.
- hosh 3y ago
  The "high density" animal farms are the feed lots I was talking about, the very ones I'm calling a blight. I also address this in my fourth point -- price of meat would need to reflect not using feed lots. It's only not a solution because people want cheap meat. And just to be clear, I'm not advocating for all plant-based, vegan diet or using vat-grown meat. I think a clearer assessment of what we actually need to thrive, nutritionally speaking, would be of benefit.
  - slt2021 3y ago
    You are referring to Grass-fed premium meat? This is already available only to rich people at gourmet grocery shops for $13/lb for ground beef, and $30 for 12 oz for a steak If you are advocating to remove the cheaper options of meat, and leaving only grass-fed and premium meats available on the market - I am not sure this is a good approach. This is very elitist approach that could come from coastal elite only

foobiekr 3y ago

Let's say we eliminated all agricultural use of animals tomorrow. All that would accomplish is one-time shift the point on the continuum that the earth and society can support. The real problem, and the real elephant that no one wants to address, is the human population size.

depr 3y ago
People have been addressing it for a long time, it's called family planning, look it up.
munificent 3y ago
We are addressing that. Human population is predicted to plateau in 2080 and begin to decline after that: https://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth https://ourworldindata.org/future-population-growth
fkyoureadthedoc 3y ago
> The real problem, and the real elephant that no one wants to address, is the human population size. Usually nobody engages this because it's a boring conservative talking point. Do I consume too much? No, it's the world that's overpopulated. And they usually have drastic authoritarian solutions that have no chance of being enacted. But go ahead, you have the floor, what are your proposals?
vixen99 3y ago
As a special case it's worth noting that some 20 European countries are experiencing depopulation at a rate of around 10-20%. Countries with a significant welfare & national pension system cannot survive long term depopulation if there are not enough taxes coming in to pay for it.
- aerio 3y ago
  Almost every single one of those countries are in eastern europe, definitely not countries with "significant welfare & national pension system". The depopulation is also mainly due to migration, not fertility.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

And no one would ever question the precious Californian wine industry