Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Going Vegan Won’t Save the Planet

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 119 posts

Re: Going Vegan Won’t Save the Planet

#101

Post by cmrdporcupine »

natethegreatt wrote: post #56
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Farms grow crops that you can't eat, to feed to animals that you can. Name the protein and fat sources that will replace meat. Tofu? We already grow soy for animal feed as a cash crop and it's pesticide and fertilizer intensive, and if people eat it directly instead of as an animal feed additive its production will grow at the expense of forests and soil health. Nuts? I'm all for perennial woody agriculture, but the…

The only nutrient deficiency that is rather difficult to circumvent with a vegan diet is Vitamin B. Meat is one of the only places humans can obtain it. Everything else is trivial to obtain via plants.

The nutrient deficiency I'm referring to is soil health, not human. Classic pre-industrial agriculture makes heavy use of animal manure as a soil amendment, as well as the use of grazing and rooting animals for soil modification. It's a very effective way of returning NPK to the soil and maintaining long term viability. It just doesn't scale out to large industrial operations.

Re: Going Vegan Won’t Save the Planet

#102

Post by cmrdporcupine »

telchar wrote: post #63
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Farms grow crops that you can't eat, to feed to animals that you can. Name the protein and fat sources that will replace meat. Tofu? We already grow soy for animal feed as a cash crop and it's pesticide and fertilizer intensive, and if people eat it directly instead of as an animal feed additive its production will grow at the expense of forests and soil health. Nuts? I'm all for perennial woody agriculture, but the…

It's like you didn't read the parent post you're replying to. If you can't address the quantity argument, the rest of your post is moot.

I absolutely read it. The point is that the land and crops used for animals are disjoint from the land and crops that humans need, and the entire reason why pastoral economies developed in the first place was to take advantage of the fact that we can raise animals as food in conditions that humans couldn't.

The key question is quantity of _what_. It's not a one for one trade.

Re: Going Vegan Won’t Save the Planet

#103

Post by sprflyprgrmrguy »

davidivadavid wrote: post #98
sprflyprgrmrguy wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems to be 4g of protein per 85g (1/2cup) of peas. I weight ~72 kg (~160lb); recommendation is 1.5-2g of protein per kg, so I'd need 142g of protein per day on the high end, which equates to roughly 3017.5g, 71 cups, of peas daily. Frozen walmart sweet peas are .84c per bag, each bag contain 4 servings, roughly $7.45 in peas per day. For comparison, chicken breast @ 100g (3.5oz or .45 lb) is 31g of protein. I'd need…

I'm not sure how realistic eating 3kg of peas per day is. People would just get bored real fast, if they even manage to ingest that volume of food.

it would be awful. carbs are 11g per serving, I can't imagine how crappy you'd feel eating 71 cups of peas in a day.

Re: Going Vegan Won’t Save the Planet

#104

Post by e12e »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #28
vfc1 wrote: post #3

> farms growing crops have been just as destructive as those raising animals This comparison does not make sense. What this reporter and the public, in general, fail to realize still in 2019, is that most of the farms producing crops are doing so to produce cattle feed. The majority of agricultural fields are planted to feed livestock, not humans. Only a relatively small amount of crops goes directly to humans. This…

Farms grow crops that you can't eat, to feed to animals that you can. Name the protein and fat sources that will replace meat. Tofu? We already grow soy for animal feed as a cash crop and it's pesticide and fertilizer intensive, and if people eat it directly instead of as an animal feed additive its production will grow at the expense of forests and soil health. Nuts? I'm all for perennial woody agriculture, but the…

> Name the protein and fat sources that will replace meat.

Insects?

Re: Going Vegan Won’t Save the Planet

#105

Post by tfehring »

jakewins wrote: post #58
vfc1 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean come on, a diet of 100% tomatoes does not make any sense, right? The bulk of human calories on a whole food plant based diet comes typically from beans, legumes chickpeas, soy, root vegetables like potatoes and sweet potatoes, starches in general, grains like whole rice, quinoa, etc. Then another good portion of the calories typically comes from fruit, and another good portion comes from vegetables and salads.…

You're right, it's a poor example. I guess I was thinking of tomato pastas and tomato soups, for instance. A better one, like you mention, is rice - again a crop with substantially worse carbon impact than chicken. Fruits are even more complex - if you get them in season, locally and actually eat them, they are fantastic. If you buy them out of season, due to their short shelf-life you'll find they are often air ship…

> A better one, like you mention, is rice - again a crop with substantially worse carbon impact than chicken.

Do you have a source for that? The data at [0] indicates that chicken is about 50% worse than rice in terms of CO2e per Calorie. In fact, chicken is worse than every vegan food listed there except for broccoli, which has very few Calories to begin with.

[0] https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/5883/why-...

Re: Going Vegan Won’t Save the Planet

#106

Post by mantoto »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #100
mantoto wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a vegan or vegetarian but your statement is utterly wrong. We do not need meat. Eating meat is less efficient in production then plant based. Inform your self properly. And yes we have many countries with people who do not eat meat every day.

"Inform your self properly" is a pretty presumptive and arrogant statement. My wife was vegan for several years. A very educated and committed one. She had chronic health problems that went completely away once she started eating modest amounts of meat and fish. Please recognize the diversity of human biology and cultural experience. A few hundred thousand years of omnivorous lifestyle can't be waved away with stride…

It can. Enough people do it.

Nonetheless here in Germay when you are vegetarian or vegan a doctor will recommend regular blood test.

And yes you have to be careful or more aware when you live a vegan lifestyle.

Also the educate statement was a remark to the comment of efficiency of plants vs. meat.

I'm not even advocating a meatless diat. Low meat on the other hand I do.

Re: Going Vegan Won’t Save the Planet

#107

Post by wtmt »

jetpackjoe wrote: post #45
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Farms grow crops that you can't eat, to feed to animals that you can. Name the protein and fat sources that will replace meat. Tofu? We already grow soy for animal feed as a cash crop and it's pesticide and fertilizer intensive, and if people eat it directly instead of as an animal feed additive its production will grow at the expense of forests and soil health. Nuts? I'm all for perennial woody agriculture, but the…

As long as you are eating a variety of plants and getting enough calories it is practically impossible to be protein deficient.

Technically, it is possible to be low or deficient in certain amino acids, but having legumes (including foods such as soy and chickpeas) and lentils regularly will cover that.

Re: Going Vegan Won’t Save the Planet

#108

Post by wtmt »

jakemoshenko wrote: post #12
vfc1 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Soy crops are a good example, the majority of them are to feed livestock but they are a great crop to feed humans instead, and without all the waste involved in having to feed a cow first and then eat parts of it. You can make plant milk with soy too, its a very versatile crop. With it, you can feed the same amount of people with a fraction of the land, water, and pollution.

You didn't address, and I don't know: what is the relative environmental impact of growing human-grade soy vs. livestock-grade soy? Is there even necessarily a distinction?

AFAIK there is no human-grade soy vs. livestock-grade soy. But the soy grown for livestock can usually be fed in the ratio of : (this ratio varies based on which animal and farming practice you consider).

Re: Going Vegan Won’t Save the Planet

#109

Post by wtmt »

kmnns wrote: post #5

> Undoing this damage [...] includes less meat, less intensive and more intelligent farming, and the application of new technologies, including ways to produce high volumes of food for cities. So “going vegan won’t save the planet” by itself, but it plays a major role in doing so. Makes sense, especially if one considers that the production of meat presupposes the production of plant-based fodder worth about 10 times…

> The title is misleading, or simply clickbait. Then again, it helps tricking your meat-loving friends into clicking on it...

I’d rephrase the latter part as “it helps tricking your meat-loving friends into sharing it without reading or analyzing what’s true”. Most other places on the web don’t get into value or fact based arguments.

Re: Going Vegan Won’t Save the Planet

#110

Post by passiveincomelg »

tfehring wrote: post #105
jakewins wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, it's a poor example. I guess I was thinking of tomato pastas and tomato soups, for instance. A better one, like you mention, is rice - again a crop with substantially worse carbon impact than chicken. Fruits are even more complex - if you get them in season, locally and actually eat them, they are fantastic. If you buy them out of season, due to their short shelf-life you'll find they are often air ship…

> A better one, like you mention, is rice - again a crop with substantially worse carbon impact than chicken. Do you have a source for that? The data at [0] indicates that chicken is about 50% worse than rice in terms of CO2e per Calorie. In fact, chicken is worse than every vegan food listed there except for broccoli, which has very few Calories to begin with. [0] https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/questions/5…

AFAIK, the problem with rice is methane not CO2.
Post reply on HN