3 ms·

> massive percentage of the land that cannot grow much other than grasses and shrubs. Animals can convert that to calories we can consume 80% of all agricultur

by myshpa 3y ago

> massive percentage of the land that cannot grow much other than grasses and shrubs. Animals can convert that to calories we can consume 80% of all agricultural land for 18% of calories. It's an area the size of both Americas. https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/10/World-Map-by-Land-Use-01.png https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/10/World-Map-by-Land... If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets Given that we're in the sixth mass extinction, and animal species have seen 70% decline in last 50 years, we have to reverse the trend. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/13/almost-70-of-animal-populations-wiped-out-since-1970-report-reveals-aoe https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/13/almost-7... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction That "marginal land" should be reforested instead and nature restored. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4 The carbon opportunity cost of animal-sourced food production on land https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01448-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01448-4 Humans are driving one million species to extinction - with agriculture https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/ Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption > My business is only sustainable because of people who care for quality of cheaper quantity Your business might be. Animal agriculture isn't. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/917471 https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/917471 Feeding 10 billion people by 2050 within planetary limits may be achievable A global shift towards healthy and more plant-based diets, halving food loss and waste, and improving farming practices and technologies are required to feed 10 billion people sustainably by 2050, a new study finds.

pard68 3y ago
My point was simple that you can do that while still raising animals for food. They taste great, have a wealth of nutrients, and they can improve the ground they are on at the same time.
- myshpa 3y ago
  > They taste great Sure, if you're ok with ignoring everything else. > have a wealth of nutrients But nothing that we couldn't get from plants. > and they can improve the ground they are on at the same time They can. But forest would do it too, and better. Climate-wise it's not a win. https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/publications/grazed-and-confused/ https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/publications/grazed-and-co... Grass-fed beef isn't necessarily better for the environment than beef from CAFOs. While grass-fed systems offer benefits like soil health, they often require more land, potentially leading to deforestation. They can also be less efficient in terms of resource use and have variable effects on carbon sequestration. A comprehensive assessment considering land use efficiency, resource consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions is essential to fully understand the environmental impact of different beef production methods. https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-10-03-grass-fed-beef-good-or-bad-climate https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-10-03-grass-fed-beef-good-or-... "This report concludes that grass-fed livestock are not a climate solution. Grazing livestock are net contributors to the climate problem, as are all livestock. Rising animal production and consumption, whatever the farming system and animal type, is causing damaging greenhouse gas release and contributing to changes in land use. 'Ultimately, if high consuming individuals and countries want to do something positive for the climate, maintaining their current consumption levels but simply switching to grass-fed beef is not a solution. Eating less meat, of all types, is.’"
riku_iki 3y ago
> 80% of all agricultural land for 18% of calories. It's an area the size of both Americas. > https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/10/World-Map-by-Land https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/10/World-Map-by-Land... how did you get 80% and 18% numbers from that link?.. also, calories is not the only metric of nutrition load..
- myshpa 3y ago
  > how did you get 80% and 18% numbers from that link? https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2020/01/Global-land-use-graphic-1536x980.png https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2020/01/Global-land-use-g... from https://ourworldindata.org/land-use https://ourworldindata.org/land-use > also, calories is not the only metric of nutrition load True. Nutrition is more than just calories. Plant-based diets offer diverse nutrients, antioxidants, and fiber that promote better health.
  - riku_iki 3y ago
    > https://ourworldindata.org/land-use https://ourworldindata.org/land-use Ok, but still that pic lacks sources Actual UN FAO says it is 33% of croplands used for crops production for animals, and other land is not necessary can be used for other type of aggrecalture: https://www.fao.org/3/ar591e/ar591e.pdf https://www.fao.org/3/ar591e/ar591e.pdf UC Davis estimates that cattle farming consumes only 40% of arable land: https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/cattle-and-land-use-differences-between-arable-land-and-marginal-land-and-how-cattle-use https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/cattle-and-land-use-dif... > Nutrition is more than just calories. Plant-based diets offer diverse nutrients, antioxidants, and fiber that promote better health. I am more wondering about protein intake
    - hombre_fatal 3y ago
      > other land is not necessary can be used for other type of aggrecalture Why does the land have to be used at all? > I am more wondering about protein intake Seitan, tofu, TVP are the obvious high-protein plant foods. People without a taste for those things or uninterested in leaving their comfort zone can seek mock meats. Either way, it's trivial to hit protein goals.

by myshpa 3y ago

pard68 3y ago

My point was simple that you can do that while still raising animals for food. They taste great, have a wealth of nutrients, and they can improve the ground they are on at the same time.

myshpa 3y ago
> They taste great Sure, if you're ok with ignoring everything else. > have a wealth of nutrients But nothing that we couldn't get from plants. > and they can improve the ground they are on at the same time They can. But forest would do it too, and better. Climate-wise it's not a win. https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/publications/grazed-and-confused/ https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/publications/grazed-and-co... Grass-fed beef isn't necessarily better for the environment than beef from CAFOs. While grass-fed systems offer benefits like soil health, they often require more land, potentially leading to deforestation. They can also be less efficient in terms of resource use and have variable effects on carbon sequestration. A comprehensive assessment considering land use efficiency, resource consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions is essential to fully understand the environmental impact of different beef production methods. https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-10-03-grass-fed-beef-good-or-bad-climate https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-10-03-grass-fed-beef-good-or-... "This report concludes that grass-fed livestock are not a climate solution. Grazing livestock are net contributors to the climate problem, as are all livestock. Rising animal production and consumption, whatever the farming system and animal type, is causing damaging greenhouse gas release and contributing to changes in land use. 'Ultimately, if high consuming individuals and countries want to do something positive for the climate, maintaining their current consumption levels but simply switching to grass-fed beef is not a solution. Eating less meat, of all types, is.’"

riku_iki 3y ago

> 80% of all agricultural land for 18% of calories. It's an area the size of both Americas. > https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/10/World-Map-by-Land https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2013/10/World-Map-by-Land... how did you get 80% and 18% numbers from that link?.. also, calories is not the only metric of nutrition load..

myshpa 3y ago
> how did you get 80% and 18% numbers from that link? https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2020/01/Global-land-use-graphic-1536x980.png https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2020/01/Global-land-use-g... from https://ourworldindata.org/land-use https://ourworldindata.org/land-use > also, calories is not the only metric of nutrition load True. Nutrition is more than just calories. Plant-based diets offer diverse nutrients, antioxidants, and fiber that promote better health.
- riku_iki 3y ago
  > https://ourworldindata.org/land-use https://ourworldindata.org/land-use Ok, but still that pic lacks sources Actual UN FAO says it is 33% of croplands used for crops production for animals, and other land is not necessary can be used for other type of aggrecalture: https://www.fao.org/3/ar591e/ar591e.pdf https://www.fao.org/3/ar591e/ar591e.pdf UC Davis estimates that cattle farming consumes only 40% of arable land: https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/cattle-and-land-use-differences-between-arable-land-and-marginal-land-and-how-cattle-use https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/cattle-and-land-use-dif... > Nutrition is more than just calories. Plant-based diets offer diverse nutrients, antioxidants, and fiber that promote better health. I am more wondering about protein intake
  - hombre_fatal 3y ago
    > other land is not necessary can be used for other type of aggrecalture Why does the land have to be used at all? > I am more wondering about protein intake Seitan, tofu, TVP are the obvious high-protein plant foods. People without a taste for those things or uninterested in leaving their comfort zone can seek mock meats. Either way, it's trivial to hit protein goals.