this post was submitted on 23 May 2024

103 points (91.9% liked)

Antiwork

8189 readers

302 users here now

We're trying to improving working conditions and pay.
We're trying to reduce the numbers of hours a person has to work.
We talk about the end of paid work being mandatory for survival.

Partnerships:

Matrix/Element chatroom
Discord (channel: #antiwork)
IRC: #antiwork on IRCNow.org (i.e., connect to ircs://irc.ircnow.org and /join #antiwork)
Your facebook group link here
Your x link here
lemmy.ca/c/antiwork

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

103

Animals suffer for meat production – and abattoir workers do too (theconversation.com)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[+] [email protected] -8 points 3 months ago (3 children)

You want to stop subsidizing one of the best ways to provide food to people?....yeah that'll work out really well.

You know why governments subsidize farms? So we all don't starve.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Plant agriculture still exists?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago

Good luck planting plants in areas that cannot sustain them, where a large portion of animals grazy and are raised on.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Most farms don't grow food for humans to eat. You know this right? Like there is literally no way to sustain plant only eating for the whole country right now. It just isn't there.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

We instead grow large amounts of crops that go to animal feed. It takes a lot less cropland for plant-based diets because we don't have to grow feed to another creature (who then will use up a large amount of that energy)

The research suggests that it’s possible to feed everyone in the world a nutritious diet on existing croplands, but only if we saw a widespread shift towards plant-based diets.

If we would shift towards a more plant-based diet we don’t only need less agricultural land overall, we also need less cropland.

In the hypothetical scenario in which the entire world adopted a vegan diet the researchers estimate that our total agricultural land use would shrink from 4.1 billion hectares to 1 billion hectares. A reduction of 75%. That’s equal to an area the size of North America and Brazil combined.

https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

No we do not, I cannot stand this stupid regurgitated lie. You cannot eat the food they do. You cannot eat spoiled food, you cannot eat grass, you cannot eat roots and stalks, 85% of what they eat is from foraging...and you cannot grow crops on the mass majority of the land that they live on.

The water is even funnier, you cannot drink the water they do.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It still takes more human-edible crops in than it produces out

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

Per unit crop land you can produce a lot more with plant-based production

we show that plant-based replacements for each of the major animal categories in the United States (beef, pork, dairy, poultry, and eggs) can produce twofold to 20-fold more nutritionally similar food per unit cropland. Replacing all animal-based items with plant-based replacement diets can add enough food to feed 350 million additional people, more than the expected benefits of eliminating all supply chain food loss.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1713820115

For another study

We find that, given the current mix of crop uses, growing food exclusively for direct human consumption could, in principle, increase available food calories by as much as 70%, which could feed an additional 4 billion people (more than the projected 2–3 billion people arriving through population growth)

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034015/pdf

For water usage, it's also draining from places like the drying up Colorado river. We really don't want to use more water from that area at all

Correspondingly, our hydrologic modelling reveals that cattle-feed irrigation is the leading driver of flow depletion in one-third of all western US sub-watersheds; cattle-feed irrigation accounts for an average of 75% of all consumptive use in these 369 sub-watersheds. During drought years (that is, the driest 10% of years), more than one-quarter of all rivers in the western US are depleted by more than 75% during summer months (Fig. 2 and Supplementary Fig. 2) and cattle-feed irrigation is the largest water use in more than half of these heavily depleted rivers

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1064&context=wffdocs

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Let me say this again...we are not growing in any substantial way human edible food for just meat production. This is so wrong. I'll say it again...you cannot eat nor drink what livestock eat and drink. All of these "studies" love to leave that out. No one is going to stop eating meat, veganism is not something the majority of people can magically swap over to.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

The first study's I cited in the previous comment whole goal was to directly measure what amount of their feed was human-edible. It still found it takes more kg of human-edible feed than it produces in kg of meat. These studies aren't leaving things out, they are just finding the opposite result

Repeating the claim without any evidence does not make it more true

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

https://lemmy.world/comment/9023734

Tired of repeating everything...read the thread. You're studies are biased crap, it's always some vegans that run the studies and it's always got a biased lean to make the studies sound like we can magically feed 7+ billion people on plants with no issues.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The very study that you cite found it uses more human-edible feed than it produces. That is the more relevant figure

Contrary to commonly cited figures, 1 kg of meat requires 2.8 kg of human-edible feed for ruminants and 3.2 for monogastrics

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago

That doesn't magically make it less nutritional than what it requires to feed them. 1lb of meat is not going to be replaced with 1lb of any veggies. You have to eat way more vegetables to get the same amount of nutritional value. Meat is packed with a higher concentration of most of the nutrients we need.

Do note I'm in no way saying it can replace vegetables, I like my greens, but I'm also not someone who thinks that we can magically feed the entire world on a plant diet.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That's what was assumed decades ago when those subsidies began. We know better now.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 months ago

No, no it's not. All govs do this now so we don't end up with another famine. One bad year and farmers basically will go bankrupt and have to sell.

Hell go watch Clarkson farm if you want to actually learn something in a funny way.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'm not starving and I don't eat meat. I just pay more for my food even though it costs less to produce. We should be incentivising more sustainable choices, because unless we scale down animal ag we all actually will starve.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's not cheaper to grow crops, the amount of work that goes into growing crops is a reason we have a shortage of labor to harvest them. It's back breaking work and requires a ton of time. It's also not a for sure thing. One bad season and you can lose entire tons of harvest.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

I think you may be underestimating the heavy level of subsidies here

Research from 2015 shows this subsidization reduces the price of Big Macs from $13 to $5 and the price of a pound of hamburger meat from $30 to the $5 we see today.

https://www.aier.org/article/the-true-cost-of-a-hamburger/

Even despite that, overall in most countries it actually ends up being cheaper to do a healthy plant-based diet assuming you have more whole-foods and less say plant-based meats

It found that in high-income countries:

• Vegan diets were the most affordable and reduced food costs by up to one third.

• Vegetarian diets were a close second.

• Flexitarian diets with low amounts of meat and dairy reduced costs by 14%.

• By contrast, pescatarian diets increased costs by up to 2%.

https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-11-11-sustainable-eating-cheaper-and-healthier-oxford-study

And real world data backs this up

Compared to meat eaters, results show that “true” vegetarians do indeed report lower food expenditures

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800915301488?via%3Dihub ---(looking at the US)

Based on primary data (n = 1040) collected through an online survey, representative of the Portuguese population, through logistic regressions, it was possible to conclude that plant-based consumers, particularly vegan, are associated with lower food expenditures compared to omnivorous consumers. In fact, plant-based consumers are shown to spend less than all other consumers assessed

https://agrifoodecon.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40100-022-00224-9

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago

First, it is always unclear whether the omitted-variable bias exists because the “true” model is unknown. Thus, future research may include more covariates other than the ones considered here to minimize the bias. Moreover, studies like the present study rely on consumers’ capacity to honestly report information on the food consumed. Future research may consider other methodologies that can actually observe and report all foods consumed and the cost associated with them. This way, it will also be possible to capture other personal, cultural, socio-economic, and behavioural characteristics of the consumers which are difficult to assess using the present methodology. However, data of this nature would be expensive to collect.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago

Some vegetarians spend less money on food, others don't

why didn't you include the name of the study?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

the oxford study doesn't account for people who don't pay money for food, grow their own, hunt, fish, raise livestock, or even have it subsidized. basically, it doesn't account for poor people anywhere in the developed world. you are jumping to conclusions to say that it is cheaper for anyone but the wealthiest people.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I cited more than one study. The other ones looked at average real world spending data

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago

i refuted the one i had already seen. i'll deal with the others later.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

so why include the misleading one?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I disagree with your premise that it is misleading at all. Including things that the majority of the population does not do nor can scale to the overall population would not work for a modeling study. Most people are not hunters, including that in a cost estimation study would just be giving people a false sense of true cost. Real world data would be more reliable way for that if you wanted to try to include that in a more realistic way

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago

most people get at least some of their food for free, subsidized, or through farming, gardening, or hunting. this study only accounted for foods taht people buy. it's misleading to claim this represents accurately how much people spend on food.