United States | News & Politics

7196 readers

1218 users here now

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

pangyuehung@lemmy.ml

yogthos@lemmy.ml

197

Inside the Republican effort to force millions of farm animals back into cages (www.vox.com)

submitted 1 year ago by usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml to c/usa@lemmy.ml

72 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] TheButtonJustSpins@infosec.pub 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Ideally, pasture-raised and kosher or halal meats would be more (at all) prevalent. That's what ethical meat consumption looks like.

Alternately, lab grown.

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Grass-fed production doesn't really scale, so there's not much way around consumption changes here. It also comes with a side effect of raising methane emissions

We model a nationwide transition [in the US] from grain- to grass-finishing systems using demographics of present-day beef cattle. In order to produce the same quantity of beef as the present-day system, we find that a nationwide shift to exclusively grass-fed beef would require increasing the national cattle herd from 77 to 100 million cattle, an increase of 30%. We also find that the current pastureland grass resource can support only 27% of the current beef supply (27 million cattle), an amount 30% smaller than prior estimates

[…]

If beef consumption is not reduced and is instead satisfied by greater imports of grass-fed beef, a switch to purely grass-fed systems would likely result in higher environmental costs, including higher overall methane emissions. Thus, only reductions in beef consumption can guarantee reductions in the environmental impact of US food systems.

Taken together, an exclusively grass-fed beef cattle herd would raise the United States’ total methane emissions by approximately 8%.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401/pdf

[–] abraxas@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You say that, but it's not really just about grass-feeding. Cows are already fed almost 90% inedible crop materials that would be getting disposed of anyway. We could be doing better, but cattle's food source is sorta the wrong focus.

And as much methane is in manure, it's better for the environment (including GHG) than synthetic fertilizers.

The real answer is changing our meat/vegetable balance AND improve the process AND continue to improve humane regulations (and those 3 goals often synergize with each other).

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The % that's edible is not as relevant as the fact that it still takes much more human-edible feed

1 kg of meat requires 2.8 kg of human-edible feed for ruminants and 3.2 for monogastrics

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211912416300013

Synthetic fertilizer usage is greatly reduced by eating plants directly even compared to the best-case use of animal manure

Thus, shifting from animal to plant sources of protein can substantially reduce fertilizer requirements, even with maximal use of animal manure

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921344922006528

[–] abraxas@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The % that’s edible is not as relevant as the fact that it still takes much more human-edible feed

Not really. Definitely not if you consider the nutritional quality of the meat. And that's beef, the worst example. (Feed to meat conversion from 6x to 25x, the higher number generally for free-range). Chickens are only x2 in ideal situations (closer to 5x when free-range since their calorie intake is not as well-managed). And from a health viewpoint, 100kcal of chicken is a better-balanced calorie than 200kcal of feed

But that is before accounting for the fact that about 165 of those feed kcals are inedible, meaning you're trading around 35 edible kcals of corn for 100 edible kcals of chicken. Would you agree from a purely health and efficiency point of view (leaving out ethics), that 35 edible calories of a "non-nutritional grain" for 100 edible calories of a protein superfood is a pretty fair trade?

Synthetic fertilizer usage is greatly reduced by eating plants directly even compared to the best-case use of animal manure

Missed this one, so jumping back. It's hard for me to respond because I don't have access to the whole paper. There seem to be fairly significant issues with it, however. For one, I can't find any corroboration that isn't merely citing this paper. For another, I can't find any critical responses either (the lack of them is worse than a half-decent one IMO). Nonetheless, there's a few things I find interesting from the summary the seem to make it hard to just accept an argument using it

The killer, to me. This paper actively presumes that all crop farms that produce crops that have inedible components that cows will eat (like corn) will pivot to 100% vegetable. But a vast majority of that crop's output is in explicit demand and corn farms are not just going to fold up. They will start destroying their excess waste instead of reselling it as feed. That ruins his math. But he also failed to take into account what a world horticulture setup would look like that actually sustains humanity, and merely counting IFE is just not enough.
This paper seems to claim a 65% reduction in fertilizer usage, but doesn't account for the fact it would HAVE to primarily be synthetic fertilizer if we stopped eating cows. This is a huge problem for me because I'm an outspoken advocate of collaborative farming, to reduce the disgusting use of synthetic fertilizer by regulating and enforcing better use of manure and localization of animal farms. There's far more than 3x as many cows in the world than can be maintained if they aren't being consumed. He does not cite or comment on how much worse synthetic fertilizer is than manure fertilizer. And if I'm reading right, that's his high end. It might only be more like 30%. I would rather 100 units of manure used than 70 units of synthetic fertilizer without a second thought.

And your second link... I'm not sure why you cited it. It appears to be arguing for my side, defending the figures I used. Thank you?

[–] TheButtonJustSpins@infosec.pub 1 points 1 year ago

To be fair, pasture raised is more expensive, so people would eat less beef. I don't think it's fair to talk about scaling current consumption.

[–] Vegoon@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why is it ideal or even ethical to kill others "kosher or halal" when we don't have to kill in any way? How does this relate to them living in cages before?

[–] TheButtonJustSpins@infosec.pub 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Both kosher and halal require you to kill the animal quickly and painlessly. I'd say the pasture raised is more important, since that's every other day of the animal's life, but I'd like the last day to also not suck.

[–] Vegoon@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is the act of killing someone who does not want to die and does not need to die ethical if painless?

Have you seen non human animals that want to die for humans to be consumed by them? https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmIqdlomtuSsJEoFi_L_pfEAPIxDRo4DB

[–] TheButtonJustSpins@infosec.pub 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, if you're coming at it from the point of "there is no ethical meat consumption," then you're right, none of this means anything. It's a simple "don't ever eat meat."

In which case, kosher and halal are irrelevant. Pasture raised is still relevant because we need to discuss what ethical production of things like eggs and milk looks like.

[–] Vegoon@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

I come from the point that if we don't have to kill or abuse others we should not. That is the case for most of us. You can't ethical impregnate a cow, steal the baby and drink their milk. Raising chicken breeds which can't stand on their own feet or get infections and tumors and just live to be exploited is not justifiable with taste.