6 ms·

So, on top of the GHG generated by the livestock themselves, which are large, as well as the GHG to generate fertilizer and grow the feedstock for livestock, th

So, on top of the GHG generated by the livestock themselves, which are large, as well as the GHG to generate fertilizer and grow the feedstock for livestock, the food we store for them also significantly generates GHG emissions? It seems more and more like we might want to collectively reduce the amount of meat we're eating. I'm no vegan, but like, maybe eating meat only sometimes is a good idea. (Also, probably leads to less CAFOs and other questionably ethical practices if we, say, halve the amount of livestock we need.)

rrix2 2y ago
I try to just buy one or two really nice porkchops or chicken legs quarters from the farmer's market now and then and cook veg most other nights at home. It's nice to eat meat rarely enough that it's a splurge and a treat when we do, and the animals do live significantly better.
PlattypusRex 2y ago
Sadly, I predict that even when faced with these facts, people will continue to increase their meat consumption over the coming years, as the current trend shows no signs of stopping. It's also unlikely the government would touch this issue with a ten-foot pole; Imagine the nonstop, angry calls a congressperson's office would be flooded with for even suggesting the most mild of regulations for beef consumption.
- immibis 2y ago
  The trend will continue until 100% of Earth's arable land is used for growing food for humans and their cattle (I heard it's currently around 70%) and then the poorest people will be culled so the richer people can have even more meat.
  - analyte123 2y ago
    This is a tempting story to believe, but the actual trend is that global agricultural land use is almost flat over the past 30 years and land under cultivation per capita is decreasing almost everywhere due to improved yields [1]. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/land-use https://ourworldindata.org/land-use
    - bnegreve 2y ago
      It is probably good news, but to be fair land use and GHG emissions are not the same thing, especially given that fertilizers are involved.
    - pocketarc 2y ago
      That's actually incredible - and it has just barely grown since the 60s, when we had just 3 billion people. That means we can now feed nearly 3x the humans on virtually the same amount of land. That's fantastic, I had no idea the efficiencies had been that significant.
      - hedora 2y ago
        Back in the 1800’s people linearly extrapolated farmland usage, and concluded we’d run out in the early 1900’s. It was about as ridiculous as the degrowth movement is today. Improving efficiency and decreasing environmental impact is almost always a better bet than embracing artificial scarcity.
        whaaaaat 2y ago
        Improving efficiency sometimes comes with other externalities. See, for instance, massive CAFOs where cows basically live on mountains of their own shit. Or gestation crates, where pigs cannot even turn around. These things are more efficient, but many people consider them inhumane. Efficiency is always a tradeoff, it's not always better. It needs to be considered, and done with intention, not with mindless drive towards efficiency for efficiency's sake. I like to remind people that the Lord of the Rings is about a villain named Sauron, who was a wizard/angel/god whose domain was crafting. He was originally a beautiful person, who just wanted to build more and more. But he wasn't satisfied with the efficiency of the humans, elves, and dwarves. Convincing them was much slower than just telling them to do what he wanted. So he made some rings to control them. And he started breeding orcs who would do what he wanted without question. Sauron became highly efficient, but he lost his beauty. I'm not anti-efficiency, but I am "think about the tradeoff you are making first. Understand what you are giving up."
soulofmischief 2y ago
The fact that you have to preface with "I'm no vegan" really sums up the entire issue of centuries-long commercial propaganda on behalf of the meat and dairy industry. Americans eat way, way too much meat and anyone who tells them to cut back is a dirty vegan. These companies don't just sell meat, but an ideology and lifestyle to boot. As an example, I was in Florida a few months ago and my girlfriend and I casually mention that we were making a salad for dinner after someone asked about our dinner plans. Their immediate response was defensive, saying, "Are you one of them vegans? Well, we only eat meat around these parts" and proceeded to tell us all about these great deals on meat at a local store, thinking that we'd hear those prices and be unable to resist and start eating meat. Just because we mentioned a salad, his manufactured, mass-produced opinion was that we must be vegan. We're not. She's vegetarian, I'm pescatarion, but the difference is immaterial to a meat addict who's been sold a crusade. It's the same story with our country's cult-like addiction to alcohol. Every time I go out and don't drink, I have to explain to people that I'm not a teetotaler, and have to explain the foreign concept of moderation. They get defensive and try to get me to drink anyway, because if I don't, they're forced to reckon with their own lifestyle choices of excess. Exact same issue with our meat consumption.
- taurath 2y ago
  > Americans eat way, way too much meat and anyone who tells them to cut back is a dirty vegan Its not like "greed for meat", its also cultural preference (meat was a "whenever you can, if you can afford it" food for centuries), and also the cheapness and readiness of meat as a ready-to-eat food relative to vegetables. Burgers and hot dogs require a lot fewer steps to cook them than almost anything with vegetables, and they're usually about as expensive. Whens the last time you saw a vegetable other than lettuce at a fast food place? There's not a lot of ready veggies, and they don't keep very well. Meat honestly sucks as a thing for the world though - way more land, have to grow massive amounts of grain. I reduced most of my meat consumption to eat better, but it does require more effort, or more money for restaurants and takeout for convenience.
  - soulofmischief 2y ago
    > Burgers and hot dogs require a lot fewer steps to cook them than almost anything with vegetables You can take just about any vegetable, add salt and pepper and oil, and shove it in the oven, cook it on the stove, boil it, etc... and many vegetables can be eaten raw. Unless you're referring to nuking hot dogs in the microwave, meat and vegetables require the same amount of effort, whatever you're willing to put in. When I ate steak, my vegetables would cook in the same exact pan, with the same seasonings, for the same amount of time (if you like medium-rare, though personally I ate my steaks blue) In many cases, probably most, a vegetarian meal is easier to prepare than a burger. And from a health perspective, burgers and hotdogs should not be a daily diet anyway. > There's not a lot of ready veggies, and they don't keep very well. Plenty vegetables keep just as long as meat, if you keep them in the same conditions, whether refrigerated or frozen. I've been employed as a cook, waiter, organic farmer, ready-made meal prepper, you name it, I have enough experience in the industry at all verticals that I can definitively tell you that many staple vegetables keep just fine in the period of time between food deliveries. In the case of ready-made meals, on average, our vegetarian dishes were easier and quicker to prepare, afforded us more versatility in meal designing while keeping prep simple, and they lasted just as long if not longer than meat-oriented meals in our stores. What I'm really seeing here, and please take no offense, is projection on your part onto the culinary economics of today's world. In fact, many cultures eat primarily vegetarian dishes, and will be the first to tell you how economic and efficient their meals are. I urge you to reconsider your views as my industry experience, and the experiences of many non-American cultures, simply does not match up with what you're saying. It's good to reduce your meat intake, but spreading this kinds of misinformation about vegetables, even if unintentional, is harmful to the overall goal of reducing our national meat consumption.
analyte123 2y ago
Why should this be the takeaway from the paper, as opposed to the fact that an additive to the silage can reduce N2O emissions by up to 99%?
- rgmerk 2y ago
  Good luck with trying to persuade farmers to apply that additive. Unkess there’s something in it for them that they can’t get by just claiming they’re applying the additive, farmers won’t do it. There is no industry in the world more allergic to regulation than farming, despite the fact that most of themp farmers in the developed world (and much of the developing world) are heavily subsidised by the city dwellers they complain about.
  - analyte123 2y ago
    If the additive actually reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and there is a working emissions trading system anywhere in the world, and the additive costs less to use than the reduction times the current carbon price, they could get paid for applying the additive.
    - pjc50 2y ago
      They could also get paid to apply the additive and not bother.
      - rgmerk 2y ago
        Precisely, and a substantial fraction of farmers wouldn’t bother.
        cassianoleal 2y ago
        Next step, make it legally required to apply the additive. Like filters in chimneys, catalytic converters in cars, etc. and have fines attached to not using it. If that doesn’t work, increase fines and/or add criminal charges and prison.
thetopher 2y ago
Is not just the meat industry. Dairy cows eat silage too. Everything I know about silage I learned from watching 10th Generation Dairyman on YouTube. As somebody who loves learning about the tedious details of other people’s professions, I highly recommend this channel. https://youtube.com/@10thgenerationdairyman61 https://youtube.com/@10thgenerationdairyman61
- teslabox 2y ago
  Ruminants can eat things that humans cannot eat or should not eat. Bacteria in the ruminant stomach can bio-hydrogenate the unsaturated oils in their feed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38437204 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38437204 Dairy cows are an efficient means of converting calories into a form that humans can use. Thanks for the youtube channel link.
  - dmbche 2y ago
    It is still less efficient that growing food humans can use directly
    - jfim 2y ago
      It depends. Cattle grazing allows for use of land that would be otherwise unsuitable for agriculture. On the other hand, for land that would be suitable for agriculture, you're right that you'll get more output calories per area without having cows involved.
      - smallerfish 2y ago
        Well maybe - but what percentage of a typical "grass fed" cow's calories are from the feedlot they spend the last N months of their lives in (where they are fattened up)? If humans eating plant derived food is 5x more efficient that using it to raise meat is (from memory this is low), then for your argument to carry weight, we'd want > 80%. How common is that?
        2y ago
jackstraw14 2y ago
it certainly isn't an exercise for every meal. meat should be a delicacy, but we've turned it into a product and commodity.
userbinator 2y ago
I will not live in the pod. I will not eat the bugs.
- whaaaaat 2y ago
  Ok. You can live where you currently live and eat some more plants. I recommend pulse crops like peas, beans, lentils, soybeans, and chickpeas! Those things are regenerative and quite healthy, while still packing a decent dose of protein.

rrix2 2y ago

I try to just buy one or two really nice porkchops or chicken legs quarters from the farmer's market now and then and cook veg most other nights at home. It's nice to eat meat rarely enough that it's a splurge and a treat when we do, and the animals do live significantly better.

PlattypusRex 2y ago

Sadly, I predict that even when faced with these facts, people will continue to increase their meat consumption over the coming years, as the current trend shows no signs of stopping. It's also unlikely the government would touch this issue with a ten-foot pole; Imagine the nonstop, angry calls a congressperson's office would be flooded with for even suggesting the most mild of regulations for beef consumption.

immibis 2y ago
The trend will continue until 100% of Earth's arable land is used for growing food for humans and their cattle (I heard it's currently around 70%) and then the poorest people will be culled so the richer people can have even more meat.
- analyte123 2y ago
  This is a tempting story to believe, but the actual trend is that global agricultural land use is almost flat over the past 30 years and land under cultivation per capita is decreasing almost everywhere due to improved yields [1]. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/land-use https://ourworldindata.org/land-use
  - bnegreve 2y ago
    It is probably good news, but to be fair land use and GHG emissions are not the same thing, especially given that fertilizers are involved.
  - pocketarc 2y ago
    That's actually incredible - and it has just barely grown since the 60s, when we had just 3 billion people. That means we can now feed nearly 3x the humans on virtually the same amount of land. That's fantastic, I had no idea the efficiencies had been that significant.
    - hedora 2y ago
      Back in the 1800’s people linearly extrapolated farmland usage, and concluded we’d run out in the early 1900’s. It was about as ridiculous as the degrowth movement is today. Improving efficiency and decreasing environmental impact is almost always a better bet than embracing artificial scarcity.
      - whaaaaat 2y ago
        Improving efficiency sometimes comes with other externalities. See, for instance, massive CAFOs where cows basically live on mountains of their own shit. Or gestation crates, where pigs cannot even turn around. These things are more efficient, but many people consider them inhumane. Efficiency is always a tradeoff, it's not always better. It needs to be considered, and done with intention, not with mindless drive towards efficiency for efficiency's sake. I like to remind people that the Lord of the Rings is about a villain named Sauron, who was a wizard/angel/god whose domain was crafting. He was originally a beautiful person, who just wanted to build more and more. But he wasn't satisfied with the efficiency of the humans, elves, and dwarves. Convincing them was much slower than just telling them to do what he wanted. So he made some rings to control them. And he started breeding orcs who would do what he wanted without question. Sauron became highly efficient, but he lost his beauty. I'm not anti-efficiency, but I am "think about the tradeoff you are making first. Understand what you are giving up."

soulofmischief 2y ago

The fact that you have to preface with "I'm no vegan" really sums up the entire issue of centuries-long commercial propaganda on behalf of the meat and dairy industry. Americans eat way, way too much meat and anyone who tells them to cut back is a dirty vegan. These companies don't just sell meat, but an ideology and lifestyle to boot. As an example, I was in Florida a few months ago and my girlfriend and I casually mention that we were making a salad for dinner after someone asked about our dinner plans. Their immediate response was defensive, saying, "Are you one of them vegans? Well, we only eat meat around these parts" and proceeded to tell us all about these great deals on meat at a local store, thinking that we'd hear those prices and be unable to resist and start eating meat. Just because we mentioned a salad, his manufactured, mass-produced opinion was that we must be vegan. We're not. She's vegetarian, I'm pescatarion, but the difference is immaterial to a meat addict who's been sold a crusade. It's the same story with our country's cult-like addiction to alcohol. Every time I go out and don't drink, I have to explain to people that I'm not a teetotaler, and have to explain the foreign concept of moderation. They get defensive and try to get me to drink anyway, because if I don't, they're forced to reckon with their own lifestyle choices of excess. Exact same issue with our meat consumption.

taurath 2y ago
> Americans eat way, way too much meat and anyone who tells them to cut back is a dirty vegan Its not like "greed for meat", its also cultural preference (meat was a "whenever you can, if you can afford it" food for centuries), and also the cheapness and readiness of meat as a ready-to-eat food relative to vegetables. Burgers and hot dogs require a lot fewer steps to cook them than almost anything with vegetables, and they're usually about as expensive. Whens the last time you saw a vegetable other than lettuce at a fast food place? There's not a lot of ready veggies, and they don't keep very well. Meat honestly sucks as a thing for the world though - way more land, have to grow massive amounts of grain. I reduced most of my meat consumption to eat better, but it does require more effort, or more money for restaurants and takeout for convenience.
- soulofmischief 2y ago
  > Burgers and hot dogs require a lot fewer steps to cook them than almost anything with vegetables You can take just about any vegetable, add salt and pepper and oil, and shove it in the oven, cook it on the stove, boil it, etc... and many vegetables can be eaten raw. Unless you're referring to nuking hot dogs in the microwave, meat and vegetables require the same amount of effort, whatever you're willing to put in. When I ate steak, my vegetables would cook in the same exact pan, with the same seasonings, for the same amount of time (if you like medium-rare, though personally I ate my steaks blue) In many cases, probably most, a vegetarian meal is easier to prepare than a burger. And from a health perspective, burgers and hotdogs should not be a daily diet anyway. > There's not a lot of ready veggies, and they don't keep very well. Plenty vegetables keep just as long as meat, if you keep them in the same conditions, whether refrigerated or frozen. I've been employed as a cook, waiter, organic farmer, ready-made meal prepper, you name it, I have enough experience in the industry at all verticals that I can definitively tell you that many staple vegetables keep just fine in the period of time between food deliveries. In the case of ready-made meals, on average, our vegetarian dishes were easier and quicker to prepare, afforded us more versatility in meal designing while keeping prep simple, and they lasted just as long if not longer than meat-oriented meals in our stores. What I'm really seeing here, and please take no offense, is projection on your part onto the culinary economics of today's world. In fact, many cultures eat primarily vegetarian dishes, and will be the first to tell you how economic and efficient their meals are. I urge you to reconsider your views as my industry experience, and the experiences of many non-American cultures, simply does not match up with what you're saying. It's good to reduce your meat intake, but spreading this kinds of misinformation about vegetables, even if unintentional, is harmful to the overall goal of reducing our national meat consumption.

analyte123 2y ago

Why should this be the takeaway from the paper, as opposed to the fact that an additive to the silage can reduce N2O emissions by up to 99%?

rgmerk 2y ago
Good luck with trying to persuade farmers to apply that additive. Unkess there’s something in it for them that they can’t get by just claiming they’re applying the additive, farmers won’t do it. There is no industry in the world more allergic to regulation than farming, despite the fact that most of themp farmers in the developed world (and much of the developing world) are heavily subsidised by the city dwellers they complain about.
- analyte123 2y ago
  If the additive actually reduces greenhouse gas emissions, and there is a working emissions trading system anywhere in the world, and the additive costs less to use than the reduction times the current carbon price, they could get paid for applying the additive.
  - pjc50 2y ago
    They could also get paid to apply the additive and not bother.
    - rgmerk 2y ago
      Precisely, and a substantial fraction of farmers wouldn’t bother.
      - cassianoleal 2y ago
        Next step, make it legally required to apply the additive. Like filters in chimneys, catalytic converters in cars, etc. and have fines attached to not using it. If that doesn’t work, increase fines and/or add criminal charges and prison.

thetopher 2y ago

Is not just the meat industry. Dairy cows eat silage too. Everything I know about silage I learned from watching 10th Generation Dairyman on YouTube. As somebody who loves learning about the tedious details of other people’s professions, I highly recommend this channel. https://youtube.com/@10thgenerationdairyman61 https://youtube.com/@10thgenerationdairyman61

teslabox 2y ago
Ruminants can eat things that humans cannot eat or should not eat. Bacteria in the ruminant stomach can bio-hydrogenate the unsaturated oils in their feed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38437204 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38437204 Dairy cows are an efficient means of converting calories into a form that humans can use. Thanks for the youtube channel link.
- dmbche 2y ago
  It is still less efficient that growing food humans can use directly
  - jfim 2y ago
    It depends. Cattle grazing allows for use of land that would be otherwise unsuitable for agriculture. On the other hand, for land that would be suitable for agriculture, you're right that you'll get more output calories per area without having cows involved.
    - smallerfish 2y ago
      Well maybe - but what percentage of a typical "grass fed" cow's calories are from the feedlot they spend the last N months of their lives in (where they are fattened up)? If humans eating plant derived food is 5x more efficient that using it to raise meat is (from memory this is low), then for your argument to carry weight, we'd want > 80%. How common is that?
      - 2y ago

jackstraw14 2y ago

it certainly isn't an exercise for every meal. meat should be a delicacy, but we've turned it into a product and commodity.

userbinator 2y ago

I will not live in the pod. I will not eat the bugs.

whaaaaat 2y ago
Ok. You can live where you currently live and eat some more plants. I recommend pulse crops like peas, beans, lentils, soybeans, and chickpeas! Those things are regenerative and quite healthy, while still packing a decent dose of protein.