Why is the consumption of Meat considered bad

⁨235⁩ ⁨likes⁩

Submitted ⁨⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨Skyraptor7@lemmy.world⁩ to ⁨[deleted]⁩

I heard something to do with Nitrogen and …cow farts(?) I am really unsure of this and would like to learn more.

source

Comments

Sort:hotnew top

pfannkuchen_gesicht@lemmy.one ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Because you need considerably more resources to grow meat than you need to to grow a nutritionally equivalent amount of vegetables.

source
- TwoFace211@feddit.ch ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  [deleted]
  source
  - Wilzax@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    That field could be used to grow a different crop than grass, which would use less water per calorie of human food produced
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - Cynicivity@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Unless you are a small hobby farm, you’re not putting your cows out on pasture alone to raise them for meat. Most grasses are deficient in one or more vital nutrients that the cows need to grow. Most cows today are fed TMR (Total Mixed Rations). These are diets carefully mixed with different grasses, grains, hays, and mineral supplements. There are different metabolic diseases that cows can get when eating diets deficient in different nutrients. Cows that are sick don’t want to eat, and cows that don’t eat don’t grow. To a farmer, that’s like burning money.
    
    source
  - jeffw@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Most deforestation today is to grow animal feed.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - tetraodon@feddit.it ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    You forget that most land was forested (even in Europe) before humans decided that grass was more useful than trees.
    
    source
BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
The basic problem is that to get 1000 calories of beef, you need to feed the cow something like 10,000 calories. So growing a cow is actually growing an entire field of wheat/corn/etc., then feeding it to the cow, then eating the cow.

Farming all of those crops for the animals takes up a lot of land, consumes fresh water, produces wastes, and uses oil/gas (for farm equipment directly, or to produce things like fertilizers) which produces co2. Cows also produce methane (that’s the fart thing) which is a bad greenhouse gas.

You could just eat the wheat/corn/etc. directly (most of the time) and skip the meat step therefore saving a massive amount of environmental impact.

Meat sure is tasty though.

source
- goforliftoff@lemm.ee ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  I remember driving through Iowa and seeing vast fields of corn and learning that the majority of that corn was not even destined for human consumption. That kinda blew my mind.
  
  source
  - rog@lemmy.one ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Luckily there is still enough left over to poison the population with high fructose corn syrup
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - RIP_Cheems@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    You wanna know another fact? Not all corn can be consumed by humans. There is actually corn that can only be eaten by animals like cows.
    
    source
- YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  But growing a cow that eats the grasses makes it for I get the meat and the vegetables all at once and it tastes great /s
  
  source
- RIP_Cheems@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Plus is the fact that not all plants have the right amount of vitamins and minerals necessary to maintain the human body like meat does. Although it is possible, it does require research and monitoring to ensure that your getting all the nutrients you need. And yes, meat just tastes good.
  
  source
  - BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    What kind of bullshit are you peddling?
    
    If you’re discussing complete proteins then all it takes is rice and beans. Not particularly difficult given that about half the world population survives on that without much meat.
    
    source
beto@lemmy.studio ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Ethical reasons: hundreds of billions of animals are killed every year (not counting fish), after living a miserable and short life.

Environmental: greenhouse emissions (CO2 and methane), deforestation for pastures, water pollution, are all caused by animal agriculture. If everyone went vegan we’d need only 25% of the land we currently use for agriculture.

Health: there is some evidence that meat causes cancer, and convincing evidence that processed meat causes cancer. Also, the use of antibiotics for animals can lead to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Cow farts are methane, which are a more aggressive form of greenhouse gas, though with shorter lifespan.
source
- Neato@kbin.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  For the cancer risk, this is the pertinent info:
  
  An analysis of data from 10 studies estimated that every 50 gram portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer by about 18%.
  
  That's about half a hot dog. Seeing as the news isn't exploding, this means that this is relative risk. Meaning your current chances of getting colorectal cancer is X. Eating a hot dog every other day continuously multiples your chance by 1.18. American Cancer Society states that over their lifetime, 1 in 23 men (4.35%) of men will develop colorectal cancer. This means if you ate 1 hot dog every other day continuously, a man's odds of contracting colorectal cancer changes from 4.35% to 5.13% over their lifetime.
  
  source
  - beto@lemmy.studio ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    That’s just for colorectal cancer. It also affects other types of cancer (like breast cancer) and increases the chance of dying from heart disease considerably.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
Smoogs@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
A lot more water to make the food for cows than what humans consume.

A lot more food to feed a cow than what it would take to feed the human the same type of food.

And the growth of that food to keep feeding these animals in large batch is pretty much creating dead areas of land that gets ruined if it’s not carefully monitored. And the run off into the water supply is a problem. This is why industrial level of farming is really really bad for the environment.

You’re supposed to move cattle around in pastures for regrowth and not entirely decimate it. The capitalists do not care about that until a court summons tells them to care about that.

Currently there’s some better methods however the consumption stays high.

Health wise : all meat diets (meat at every meal) can produce issues in your body.

Cured meat or heavy salted meat can lead to heart issues and kidney stones.

You should mix in some fruit and vegetables and maybe even substitute some entire meals so that meat is consumed only a few times a week if only for your body’s sake. Your taste buds aren’t the same organ as your heart. They aren’t the organs that make your body stay alive.

source
- Nuklia@lemdro.id ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  [deleted]
  source
  - Firemyth@lemm.ee ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    The point is that you can grow a plant based diet for a human for much less resource cost than you could for a cow.
    
    Multiplied by the amount our current meat industry runs at and you get decimation of large swaths of lands, much higher emission of greenhouse games, etc…
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - fkn@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    This is simply false. Cooked are often fed all our nearly all corn diets.
    
    source
- commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  animals are fed parts of plants that people can’t or won’t eat. all of the studies about the ecological impacts ignore this fact and then attribute the water used to produce, say, cotton to beef.
  
  source
  - fkn@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    This is false. Cows in the US are primarily fed corn. Not the can’t/won’t eat stuff.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - Smoogs@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    
    won’t eat
    
    Is not the point of the argument when we’re taking about what humans shouldn’t eat. We can’t cater to wants anymore when growing percentage are starving.
    
    can’t eat
    
    Which is bullshit. We didn’t invent their diet. we substituted it. They might eat grass but we eat plenty of other green substitutes. The amount we consume of it doesn’t come close to their needs though.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
BrerChicken@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Your edit is actually missing the biggest reason–all the energy and water it takes to raise the meat. It’s just not sustainable.

source
erasebegin@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
The core issue is soil quality. Without sufficient organic content in the soil, all our food, whether it be plant or meat, has drastically reduced nutritional content meaning we need to consume more for the same effect. We’re heading for a global food shortage because of the one key issue. Healthy soil also sequesters an enormous amount of carbon from the atmosphere. So instead of fighting the beef vs tofu wars, we should be focusing on encouraging agricultural practices that enrich soil rather than destroy it. We have about 50 years of crop cycles left before the majority of arable earth turns to sand.

Shifting your diet to be more plant-based is a good idea, but it’s not the crux of the issue.

source
- bastion@feddit.nl ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Bam!
  
  source
bunkyprewster@startrek.website ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Ask the cow what she thinks?

source
- smigao@lemm.ee ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  She said moo
  
  source
  - EhList@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Try asking the pig in the slaughterhouse. They are smarter than cows and absolutely know someone is dying at the end of the line they are on
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
NeuralNerd@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Because it’s speciesism. If we started giving birth to humans to eat them, that would be absolutely outrageous, but to do that to animals seems perfectly fine to most people. Animals have the same desire as we do not to be killed or abused, and to live a happy life.

source
- ragusa@feddit.dk ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  This argument also implies that “dominionism” is wrong, i.e. all life has a right to not be killed or abused. Yet human life is impossible without killing and consuming, other living organisms, be it plants, animals og fungi. Thus it is unethical to continue living.
  
  This argument is bad, because for human life to be possible, you must draw the line between life that you consider ethical to kill and life that you consider unethical to kill.
  
  source
  - NeuralNerd@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    It’s not about “all life” but about “all sentient life”. Only beings that are able have pleasant and unpleasant experience should be considered. If something (living or not) cannot experience suffering then you can’t harm it, by definition.
    
    Sentience is studied scientifically. It cannot be stated with absolute certainty but scientists have good sets of criteria and experiences that helps identify it. With the current knowledge it’s almost certain that all mammals are sentient, like us. Fishes and birds are also very likely to be sentient. Some species of insects are probably sentient while others may not be. And plants are likely not sentient.
    
    But even if all living things are sentient, it doesn’t change very much. Speciesism means treating beings differently only because they belong to some specific species. There are good reasons to treat different beings differently but they should be based on the beings’ interests, not their species (and studying sentience helps identifying these interests). It’s very likely that we do less harm by growing plants than by breeding animals. And even if it was the same amount of suffering we would still do less harm by avoiding eating animals because breeding them to eat them actually requires more plants than just eating plants. We should seek to minimise suffering and avoiding eating animal is a good way to do that.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - Synthead@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    This is kind of a straw man argument. I don’t feel guilty at all eating a carrot I pulled out of the ground.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - RobbieGM@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    The line you mention is sentience, for many
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- EhList@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  That contains an element of religious/moralistic thinking that doesn’t address the core question. If you believe you are designed intentionally to eat meat, as the Abrahamic faiths directly state, then you will not agree with the notion of speciesism.
  
  Factually it is that factory farming and the industrialization of meat production has both enabled humans to consume vastly more animal protein than their body “needs”. The resulting overproduction as well as the concentration of the waste streams causes significant environmental harms
  
  source
  - NeuralNerd@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    It is indeed about morality. Morality is about what is “good” and “bad”, so it’s perfectly in line with OP’s question “why is the consumption of meat considered bad”.
    
    Religions have arbitrary morality so it doesn’t seem very interesting to discuss why these religions allow or forbid to eat their specific set of animals, unless you’re studying these religions.
    
    Moral philosophy on the contrary tries to study morality with real arguments. In almost all cases they agree it’s bad to harm others while it’s not necessary. Even with our intuitive morality most people would agree with that. And in most cases eating animals products contributes to harming them and is not necessary. It was not necessarily the case in the past, but today it is. So eating animal products nowadays is immoral.
    
    The environmental problems only adds additional harms on top of that by causing harms to even more animals, including humans.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
BearJCC@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Most tree and forest loss is from making land for grazing.

source
- Tywele@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Not for grazing but for crops that are fed to animals in animal agriculture.
  
  source
  - commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    over 80% of sounds are pressed for oil for human uses.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
tofu@geddit.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
To learn more about the environmental impact of meat consumption, I recommend this Our World in Data article: ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food

I would highlight this chart: ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food#…

For example, getting 100 g of protein from beef emits ~ 50 kg of CO2. Getting 100 g of protein from tofu only emits ~ 2 kg of CO2.

source
- commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  animals are fed parts of plants that people can’t or won’t eat. all of the studies about the ecological impacts ignore this fact and then attribute the water used to produce, say, cotton to beef.
  
  source
  - tofu@geddit.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    This is simply not true. Globally, 77% of the land area that’s used for agriculture is used either by livestock or to grow food to feed to livestock (such as corn and soy). Only 23% is used for crops for direct human consumption (1): This makes sense intuitively: If I feed a cow 1 kcal of energy, it will create way less than 1kcal of energy to be consumed. In fact, beef has an energy efficiency of 1.9%. This means, for every 100 kcal the cow eats, you only get out 1.9 kcal (2). Otherwise, cows would defy the laws of physics. Do you really think that the 74 billion chicken, 620 million sheep and 330 million cattle that we slaughter each year for meat just are fed human-food leftovers? (3)
    
    1: ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture 2: ourworldindata.org/meat-production#energy-convers… 3: ourworldindata.org/meat-production#livestock-coun…
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
Izzy@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Because the amount of resources required to raise the livestock required to support the free market of meat is unsustainable. Also the impact of all that livestock is a huge contributor to climate change. So besides the moral argument of it being wrong to eat another living beings there is a very real danger to ourselves in the future.

source
6mementomori@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
I think we shouldn’t go vegan altogether, instead limit our meat consumption more, for health purposes too. that being said the evidence for cancer ties is not convincing at all and the WHO is freaking trippin balls for putting it together with plutonium.

source
- seitanic@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  I went vegan. It was the best decision I’ve ever made. I’m healthier, happier, and I’m helping animals and the environment. I also eat better, because it forces me to be aware of what’s in my food and make more creative meal choices.
  
  I don’t understand what you wrote about the WHO and plutonium.
  
  source
  - commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    being vegan doesn’t help animals or the environment
    
    source
  - 6mementomori@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    basically iirc the who cathegorized meat as bad as plutonium in terms of cancer risk but like last time I ate plutonium my skin was liquefying before my eyes and that never happened with meat. that being said, the choice of going vegan is not for everyone. for some it will be dire on their mind and dire on their health. physiology changes from person to person.
    
    source
- PeachMan@lemmy.one ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  This is a very important point. Eating some meat isn’t inherently bad for the environment. Eating TOO MUCH meat is TERRIBLE for the environment, and not very good for you.
  
  Meat used to be a fancy treat for most families, an expensive meal for special occasions. Eating a heaping portion of meat for every meal is fucking ridiculous, but that’s exactly what many people do.
  
  source
jeffw@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
I think everything has been addressed. I just wanted to clarify that the methane is from cow burps, not farts.

source
- thrawn@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  One other thing I think is worth mentioning: meat is good, but it’s not even that good. As a child I was a very picky eater and largely carnivorous, having to purposefully supplement the occasional vegetable. Now I’m essentially pescatarian because honestly, most meat isn’t really good. It can be low quality, bland, and boring. Innovative chefs seem to be realizing that, and I personally agree that Eleven Madison’s food is better now that it’s fully plant based.
  
  Meat can be such a crutch, and when it’s not, it requires quality cuts and good preparation. And yet many people would rather eat a tough, poorly seasoned mediocre steak than a vegan dish, even if it’s genuinely a bad experience, but I’m pretty sure it’s a misplaced pride thing.
  
  Finally, working with meat can be a lot harder than vegetables, especially chicken. Dominique Crenn has a wonderful cookbook featuring incredible plant based dishes, and of course Atelier Crenn is one of the most convincing arguments of plant superiority.
  
  I find that, for those who simply don’t care about the world around them, an appeal to taste and ease is far more effective than trying to introduce humanity. It also prevents the knee jerk reaction to plant based diets— “sure, I like my meats too, but it’s just too boring/doesn’t taste good enough” shifts the discussion from tribalistic hatred of vegans to something that directly impacts them, largely the only way to actually get some people to listen.
  
  source
theywilleatthestars@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Feeding cows takes up a lot of land, which often requires deforestation.

source
- Athena5898@kbin.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  I'm going to piggyback off of this too since i havn't seen it mentioned as much, cows need a LOT of water. They are literally walking bathtubs (the average cow stomach is the size of a tub, i have a bachelor's in animal science and actually have seen in one ><) and this is why it baffles me when someone talks about the water need for plants or things like almond milk. It's not even comparable as far as efficiency is concerned, and honestly, plant producers have actually worked to be better at water conservation since it's important to them, but most cow production doesn't even consider it into the equation.
  
  source
  - RecursiveParadox@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I did not know this; thank you for enlightening me. I should go back to being a vegetarian…
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
AlmightySnoo@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
IMO what’s bad is not meat consumption itself, which we were able to do sustainably for millennia and it was never really a problem. The problem is that now you’re getting too much of it way too easily. Eating too much meat is a problem because it perpetuates demand for unethical mass-production of meat and livestock are made to suffer as a direct result.

source
- 4z01235@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Take a look at the global human population chart over the last few millenia. Things can seem sustainable when there are a million people on the planet. When there are 8 billion things are a bit different.
  
  source
_number8_@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
because you have to kill a living thing for it

source
- Skyraptor7@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  I swear there was another reason why the practice was considered bad. Something about nitrogen and sustainability. I never really understood that part, hence the question.
  
  source
  - planish@sh.itjust.works ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I think that one was the cows burp methane, which is a greenhouse gas. So if you apportion the greenhouse gas emissions over the delicious hamburgers, you make more climate change by making a cow burger than a veggie burger. So we should cease the production of cows as part of our attempt to not make our planet terrible. And buying cow burgers to eat is contrary to the goal of ceasing cow production.
    
    source
sndrtj@feddit.nl ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
You’re not getting many answers yet regarding nitrogen.

As a preface: When it comes to climate and environmental concerns with respect to agriculture, the word “nitrogen” does usually not refer to the completely harmless atmospheric nitrogen (N2). Instead, it refers to various compounds that contain nitrogen.

Nitrogenous pollution from cattle comes in two shapes:

The first is methane (NH3). A single cow burps and farts out about 100kg of methane each year. Methane is a greenhouse gas that’s 28 times as potent as CO2. This means a single cow is responsible for as much as 2800kg equivalent in CO2 each year due to burps and farts alone. For reference, the CO2 per capita emissions globally are about 4 tons (4000kg) per year, for all sources combined. Cows, relatively speaking, therefore produce a huge amount of CO2 equivalent.

The second is all the nitrogenous compounds in their excrements. This acts as a fertilizer on soil and in the water. While that sounds good, it leads to various unwanted effects. One is that agricultural runoff causes algal blooms in water that then ends up killing a significant amount of marine life. Another is that nutrient-rich soils tend to seriously decrease plant species diversity. Many native and wild plants actually need nutrient-poor soils to thrive. Those plants will get outcompeted by a small group of fast-growing plants that do well in all the cow-poop-infested soil. These compounds also tend to travel far, via agricultural runoff or even via the air, so ecosystems far away from farms are also impacted.

source
- Skyraptor7@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Is there a way to absorb methane from the atmosphere? Ie like a plant absorbing CO2 is there a substance which does something similar for methane?
  
  Also for runoff, I assume there are no ways to contain this issue. Or is there perhaps a more sinister answers that it is possible but farms have not invested into such structures due to economical reasons.
  
  source
  - matlag@sh.itjust.works ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    There is no solution to capture methane in the air. Its lifespan in air is 12years, so if we stop emitting, it will go away by itself. Until then, it’s quite bad. Capturing it at the source is also challenging (can you hemetically seal a cow’s ass without impacting its health?!).
    
    The best solution is… less farms, less cows but that means less meat!
    
    source
Coreidan@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
There is a lot of waste from the agricultural process that needs to be considered as well, like fertilizer run off into rivers, etc.

source
- 4lan@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Which applies even more to meat production. You have to grow massive amounts to feed livestock, more than if we just grew and ate the food directly.
  
  source
  - Coreidan@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Exactly my point. We can’t just look at the meat. We have to look at the entire process.
    
    Even if we stopped eating meat agriculture in its own right is a big problem.
    
    If we stopped eating meat we’d have to grow a lot more crops to make up for it which will only cause other problems instead of fixing the root cause.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    animals are fed parts of plants that people can’t or won’t eat. all of the studies about the ecological impacts ignore this fact and then attribute the water used to produce, say, cotton to beef.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
matlag@sh.itjust.works ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
The main issue is probably less meat itself than the ginormous quantities we consume.

Most livestock farming is intensive, meaning they can’t rely on grazing alone and need extra food sources, typically corn. They emit methane, a greenhousing gas on steroids.

That grain is produced through very intensive agricultural methods because we can’t get enough of it. It consumes ridiculously large amount of water and slowly degrades the soils. Nitrates eventually end up in the sea, causing algea to proliferate while other lifeforms are suffocated. See the dead zone in Mexico’s gulf.

71% of agriculture land in Europe is dedicated to livestock feeding.

The percentage must be similar or higher in America, and don’t count North America alone: without grains from Brazil, we’re dead. Period. So next time you hear the world blaming Brazil for deforestation, keep in mind that a large share of it is to sustain livestocks…

Cattle farming in the USA is heavily subsidized, by allowing farmers to use federal land for grazing for free (I believe something similar is in place in Canada?). The claim they “take care of the land” is absurd: nature has been doing that for millenias without needing any help. First nations have been living in these lands also without supersized cows herds and it was going alright. Farms actually prevent wildlife to take back its place.

But I wouldn’t blame them. People in North America (among others, and I live in Canada, definitely me too) eat indecent and unhealthy quantities of meat, and that has to come from somewhere.

Now, simple math will tell you: if everyone in the world was consuming meat in the same quantities as us, there would’nt be enough suitable land on Earth to grow the corn that needs to go with it.

Another thing is not all meats are equal in terms of pollution. From the worst to the least bad, in equivalent kgCO2 per kg of meat you can actually eat: -Veal: 37 -Chicken (intensive, in cage): 18 -Beef: 34 -Pork: 5–7 -Duck, rabbit, pork: 4–5 -Chicken ("traditonal, free range): 3–4 -Egg (for comparison): <2

You can appreciate the orders of magnitude!

There are only 2 ways out of this:

reduce meat consumption, and pick it right

grown meat (meat made without the animal around it, in machines)

One can be done today, starting with your next meal. We don’t need meat every meal, we don’t even need meat every day, but it is true that going full vegetarian force a certain gymnastic to get all the nutriments one need.

The other solution is barely getting there, so there are still unknown (food quality, resources consumption, etc.) and the economics may not help it taking off.

The third (and let’s face it: current approach at national level everywhere on this issue) option is to do nothing and keep going as if the problems didn’t exist. This is guaranteeing a famine in the coming decades. When we’ll fail to feed our livestock, and it will start dying, it will be too late to turn around and get the whole agriculture sector to transition. These things take many years.

We’re trying to reduce our meat consumption at home, or to favor the least impacting ones. We still eat too much meat, but I hope we can gradually improve.
source
hark@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
For the methane issue. Apparently adding seaweed to their feed reduces than by up to 82%: caes.ucdavis.edu/…/feeding-cattle-seaweed-reduces…

source
- krakenx@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  It would be such a small but significant thing to pass a law requiring adding seaweed to their feed. Even if they passed the cost on, it would raise the price of meat insignificantly. It’s crazy that we haven’t done it yet. Same with making new roofs white to reflect light instead of absorbing it.
  
  source
- brasilian_zizi@lemmynsfw.com ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Trials in Tasmania this year sadly did not reach anywhere near the original methane reduction goals.
  
  source
  - brasilian_zizi@lemmynsfw.com ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I mean, it’s better than nothing but seriously dairy is fucked long term. It will always be an inefficient system compared to consuming plant-based proteins directly, and lab grown milk protein is gonna be huge. And that is good news, because dairy farming sucks in terms of land use, fertilizer run off, animal welfare, and, here in NZ at least, the destruction of native tree based ecosystems to make way for grass monocultures.
    
    source
  - hark@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    I looked it up and it says a 28% reduction was achieved. That’s still a huge reduction and perhaps, with other feed formulations, an even bigger reduction can be made.
    
    source
- Zuberi@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  EVEN at 18% it’s way too fucking high
  
  source
Spliffman1@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
I think humans are the fucking biggest problem on this planet, not cows

source
- Spellbind0127@mstdn.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  @Spliffman1 @Skyraptor7 if only we could flip over specific living organisms that aren’t cows.
  source
Spliffman1@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Sorry for the spam… Here’s my take… If we killed all the cows and forced everybody to eat plant-based, the human race would still be fucked… We are hell bent on self destruction… With that… FOCKER OUT!

source
- Zuberi@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Yeah man. Why even try at this point /s
  
  source
Spliffman1@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Is beef the only meat? I haven’t eaten red meat for like over 30 years and my reasons were not based on cow farts or any of this. There is also pork, lamb, veal, mutton, venison… Why are we just hating on the poor cows?

source
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
animals are fed parts of plants that people can’t or won’t eat. all of the studies about the ecological impacts ignore this fact and then attribute the water used to produce, say, cotton to beef.

source
- fkn@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  No… No… The studies account for that. Most cattle in the US are fed human quality base ingredient feed… It’s much cheaper to feed them corn meal than anything else. (I say base ingredient because the standard on cattle feed as a whole is not human grade, but the bulk of the food, the corn, could be human grade if it had been processed for humans instead of cattle.)
  
  The water numbers are pretty well understood.
  
  source
  - commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    show me one study that accounts for that.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
collegefurtrader@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Its not bad in my world

source
- Licensed_to_ill@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Same world as everyone else tho
  
  source
Skyraptor7@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
I guess my only follow up would be that if we reduce our meat consumption to a more sustainable level, that would mean that we would have to replace our protein source with something more sustainable.

Seafood maybe out of the question as I hear concerns about overfishing as it is.

I would assume that would leave plant protein, like Peanuts or something similar. Are there other sources of protein that are in development (Also major assumption that Beyond and those other meats are also based on the plant protein)

source
- captainlezbian@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Beans dude. They’re good and good for you. Also lentils are great
  
  source
  - TheLobotomist@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    *We do not mention beans lightly here… *
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- AngrilyEatingMuffins@kbin.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Meat is actually not a good source of protein compared to plant proteins. Meat was a good way of turning stuff we couldn’t eat into stuff we can, but now they just feed livestock grains anyways.
  
  Lentils have waaaayyyyyy more protein to weight.
  
  source
  - vrojak@kbin.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    
    Lentils have waaaayyyyyy more protein to weight.
    
    I'm not sure I understand your correctly, but lentils have ~20g protein per 100g while chicken has ~50g. Do you mean considered to grains?
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- Athena5898@kbin.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  well lab grown meat has just recently been approved for sell. So that's a major thing. But there are a lot of plant protein resources. I'm vegetarian so I eat eggs and some milk. (I actually prefer almond milk, most of my milk consumption probably comes from why protein powder cause I can't afford the plant protein powders for weight lifting). Now as someone who actually studied nutrition in college, the confusion comes from the fact that people don't factor amino acids. As my teacher said "You don't have a protein requirement, you have an amino acid requirement" once you look at it in this way, there are ways around this that we can do, but there are shortcomings as of right now (especially socio-economic) if you cut out eggs. However, it would be pretty easy to add the missing nutrients in other foods the issue comes from good ol classic capitalism issues of "efficiency and money" shit.
  
  Honestly, some of the biggest problems we face is just a matter of focus and funding in research. There are a lot of solutions and it's honestly amazing how far we've come despite special interest groups (oil, farming trusts, etc) have worked to stunt the growth of things, so you just have to imagine what ecological, vegan, etc tech could do if it hand the same funding and backing as these other sectors. I honestly can't wait.
  
  source
Skyraptor7@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Thanks everyone for the answers, I will update the post to add in the answer.

source
s_s@lemm.ee ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Meat is less bad if it’s crickets.

source
Athena5898@kbin.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
My changing climate has a very good video on this just last week actually that goes over everything including the shortcomings of veganism and the actual nuance in it. ( I say this as a vegetarian, but let me tell you, growing up in cow country SE Oklahoma, an hour from a walmart with groceries, I know it's not as simple as some people claim it is. but i'm getting off-topic)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwYoe-0ncVk&t=1s

source

-> View More Comments