52
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 20 points 1 month ago

this is based on poore-nemecek 2018, a paper so fraught with methodological faux pas as to be a warning to anyone trying to do a metastudy.

[-] bradbeattie@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 month ago

Following the trail of your comment: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets does indeed cite https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaq0216, but I'd love it if you could provide more details on your criticisms of methodology.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

this paper is over half a decade old, and i've been whining about it pretty much that whole time, but i don't recall the last time i actually dug into the methodology. to my recollection, they call it a metastudy and they compare LCAs from disparate studies, but LCAs themselves are not transferable between studies. that's just one point.

if i recall correctly, they also used some california water study as the basis of their water use claims, but the water use included things like cottonseed, which is not grown for cattle feed, and using it in cattle feed is actually a conservation of resources. cotton is a notoriously light and water-demanding crop, so using the heavy byproduct to add to the water use of california dairies is, to me, dishonest.

i have no doubt that if i were to slice up this paper citation-by-citation, every one of them would have some misrepresented facts or methodology being repackaged as, i don't say this lightly, vegan propaganda.

[-] bradbeattie@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 month ago

Dug up the paper in question for anyone curious: https://sci-hub.se/https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaq0216. At a cursory glance, I'm not seeing any of the referenced concerns. But, y'know, down vote away I guess.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago

I encourage you to read the citations and learn about LCAs

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] CanadaPlus 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

So what's a better study or metastudy? The actual results, aside from poultry being weirdly low-resource, seem about right when you consider the way energy usually moves through food webs.

That's "Life Cycle Assessment", for anyone else that's wondering.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago

The actual results

are meaningless, because they misuse the source data.

load more comments (20 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[-] recklessengagement@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

Looks like we could change to just eating poultry and have roughly the same effect

[-] GreatTitEnthusiast@mander.xyz 8 points 1 month ago

Poultry is definitely the more climate friendly of the meats but it doesn't come without problems

There's still increased risks of pandemic with factory farmed chickens and most chickens are raised in inhumane conditions

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Blackout@fedia.io 13 points 1 month ago

Think of all the parking lots we could build with that land!

[-] ganksy@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

I suppose this doesn't take into account more humane animal farming? Like not keeping a million chickens and three long barns? Or pigs with a livable space?

[-] minibyte@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The thing with pigs is: they eat a metric fuck-ton, so a lot of that land usage is to grow grain for feed.

That’s the vegans’ main point – we grow food to feed it to our food.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 month ago

pigs are mostly fed crop seconds or other waste product. it's just not true that we are growing food exclusively for pigs.

[-] CanadaPlus 5 points 1 month ago
[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 month ago

the soybean meal is literally the byproduct of pressing soybeans for oil.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago

you don't feed pigs corn that you could sell to humans. there is a reason it ended up in the barnyard instead of the grocery store.

[-] CanadaPlus 4 points 1 month ago

Yeah, you specifically plant feed corn, instead of grocery-type corn. Also why stealing corn cobs off the roadside can backfire.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago

field corn is also used in ethanol production, and the stalks and cobs become fodder, which, yes, is also feed, but it's a highly efficient use of the plant and land, given the outputs.

[-] CanadaPlus 2 points 1 month ago

Sure, but you could also grow food corn, so it's not really a flaw in this graph.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] CanadaPlus 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yeah, that would make it even worse. I'm not sure by how much though, because like the other person said this is representative of cropland.

[-] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago

They still haven't figured out a way to humanely slaughter animals let alone keep them in fulfilling environments that would be impossible to tell from their wild counterparts.

We can't afford to let animals live full lives. Pigs are butchered at 6 months but can live decades naturally.

We haven't even begun to approach the conversation of maybe possibly being able to in the maybe distant future being able to consider a humane way to keep animals and then also harvest meat from them when they pass.

[-] match@pawb.social 7 points 1 month ago

I've been avoiding poultry for fucking nothing? I'm gonna go eat a thousand chicken nuggies

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 month ago

I like how poultry-inclusive diets get us 95% of the way there.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] paysrenttobirds@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago

What's new to me in this data is that the increase in cropland for humans for a vegan diet is still less that what we currently feed to animals in spite of the enormous amount of pasture they also require.

[-] CanadaPlus 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yep. As a rule of thumb, 1/10th of the energy makes it to the next trophic level in any food chain. We might be doing better than that, but you're still going to to be wasting a lot of land at 30% end-to-end efficiency.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago

except that the food that is fed to livestock is largely crop seconds or parts of crops that people can't or won't eat. so we need to find a whole other use for those parts of the plants or accept it as waste.

[-] CanadaPlus 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I know a lot of people who grow feed on prime agricultural land. Like, can you eat alfalfa? Have you ever tried feed varieties of maize?

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago

people definitely eat alfalfa sprouts. to be clear, i didn't say no land is used explicitly for feed, but much of the land that is used for growing feed is actually growing some crop that will produce multiple products, with feed being only one of them.

[-] CanadaPlus 5 points 1 month ago

Yeah, I like alfalfa sprouts too. That's not what the fields here are full of though.

It's not my lived experience that it's all or even mostly byproducts. Unless you have hard numbers, that seems like the meat industry equivalent of "the climate has always changed".

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Firebirdie713@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 month ago

Or we can use it as compost, which we should be moving towards producing and using instead of manure as fertilizer for a lot of our agriculture. That way it doesn't go to waste even if it does get 'thrown out'.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] minibyte@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago

So my diet is better than a vegan family of four? Glad I got that vasectomy.

[-] paysrenttobirds@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago

There's more than one way to save the earth :)

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2024
52 points (85.1% liked)

Data is Beautiful

852 readers
6 users here now

Be respectful

founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS