61–70 of 322 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about the space station? Shipping is expensive, but the real estate for farming is even more expensive.
(Growing some CO2 removers in the space station would be a interesting idea. The 'Space nab' project. Sounds great ;-))
How much could this reduce the total environmental food print of cattle? I.e. including all the energy used to grow the crops they eat, the deforestation to make room for the crops + cattle, the waste the cows produce. Animal farming creates vast damage because of how inefficient it is and seaweed won't address how much feed cows need or that the world is eating more and more meat as countries get richer: > The energ…
Without excrement from animals you need synthetic fertilizer, whose production causes massive production causes massive environmental damage eg emissions and algae bloom.
However, these types of impacts are trivial in comparison to the 1.9% energy efficiency for beef. Regardless of the fertilizer used, we would use just under 1/50th of it if we consumed the plants directly, along with the same savings in land and water.
[1] https://thebreakthrough.org/articles/to-cut-nitrogen-polluti...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I would argue that the most effective way to reduce cattle emissions is to get rid of cattle. I agree, but as a former vegan I'm aware that there's an approximately 0% chance of getting a majority of the world's population to give up beef and dairy. The future has to be with lab-grown meat. I know the technology is still nascent, but if we ever get it right then it has the potential to be one of the most transforma…
The great thing about adopting a more plant-based diet is that you don’t have to go 100% plant-based to still make a difference. 90% plant-based gives you 90% of the benefit. As long as people are on a path to reducing animal product consumption, we might just be OK.
That's great and all, but it's fighting symptoms , not the underlying problem. The underlying problem isn't cows emitting methane, the problem is too many people indoctrinated with the idea of eating all the animals, all the time. The amount of land, energy and ressources in general spent on producing way too many animals for eating is unreasonable.
> people indoctrinated Marketing (and industry/capitalism behind it) created the demand which is now used as an excuse for producers to use more and more animals (which as we know creates more pollution and land/ecosystem destruction). Even if they fix the gas emissions, there's still the manure problem. For example, in this tiny country of the Netherlands, in 2019 "the Dutch dairy farming sector produced 280.6 milli…
The global change in food consumption and managing the pollution are not incompatible with each other. We can do one whole working on the other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the process to come up with the number for the right amount of animal eating?
You can perfectly live on eating meat once or twice a week. Especially if your job isn’t that physically demanding. You reduce meat consumption to 1/7 if you do so. If most of us did that a lot of problems would be moot.
You have multiple subsets of population that may find it more difficult to quit meat than the others.
For women (especially pregnant), meat is a source of Iron.
For people with adhd, there is a correlation with meat eating (and we can assume causation as well, since adhd is genetic). Meat is a source of vitamins that have been proven to help with adhd symptoms, and of course protein which helps with brain functioning in those cases.
Personally, I don’t do much sport, but I get occasional cravings so high that I could kill anyone who would want to prevent me from eating meat. Trying to figure out what is responsible, and which supplements can help, but still haven’t figured out.
With all the sympathy for animal suffering (my gf is a vegan fighter), just because you and some other people have it easy to quit meat doesn’t mean that it’s easy for all the rest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the end of the day this is signalling. We all know that the best thing we can do is eat a local, veg-friendly (vegetarian/vegan) diet. That also doesn't mean that people are going to do it, or can. But at least it's one form of a step in the right direction. War doesn't have to be waged and won in a single battle. Every little step helps if it truly reduces emissions.
> At the end of the day this is signalling. We all know that the best thing we can do is eat a local, veg-friendly (vegetarian/vegan) diet. Local doesn’t belong in there. As a reductio ad absurdum would it be better to eat a diet of nothing but imported NZ lamb or to grow all food locally at McMurdo Base in Antarctica? Grass is next to free. Ocean shipping is the most efficient means of transport for bulk freight the…
I still think that there is a simple explanation for the 'reduction in methane' effect, and that the plan has some severe loopholes Raising cattle in a regular diet of seaweed for its entire life and expecting it to grow correctly is still uncharted territory. Are we pushing cow metabolism to the brink of famine? Wild seaweeds are harvested and sold for several purposes: 1) To make agar-agar. A substance that is used…
It would only take 18 months to find out. Hardly insurmountable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> At the end of the day this is signalling. We all know that the best thing we can do is eat a local, veg-friendly (vegetarian/vegan) diet. Local doesn’t belong in there. As a reductio ad absurdum would it be better to eat a diet of nothing but imported NZ lamb or to grow all food locally at McMurdo Base in Antarctica? Grass is next to free. Ocean shipping is the most efficient means of transport for bulk freight the…
"What about Antarctica" is the most straw man argument possible when talking about food sourcing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> people indoctrinated Marketing (and industry/capitalism behind it) created the demand which is now used as an excuse for producers to use more and more animals (which as we know creates more pollution and land/ecosystem destruction). Even if they fix the gas emissions, there's still the manure problem. For example, in this tiny country of the Netherlands, in 2019 "the Dutch dairy farming sector produced 280.6 milli…
Unless someone's got an amazing idea how to change the mind of majority of population, deal with market changes of whole industry disappearing, deal with changes in the international markets, etc. ... I'm cool with spending some time managing the symptoms. The global change in food consumption and managing the pollution are not incompatible with each other. We can do one whole working on the other.
Edit: grammar ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I still think that there is a simple explanation for the 'reduction in methane' effect, and that the plan has some severe loopholes Raising cattle in a regular diet of seaweed for its entire life and expecting it to grow correctly is still uncharted territory. Are we pushing cow metabolism to the brink of famine? Wild seaweeds are harvested and sold for several purposes: 1) To make agar-agar. A substance that is used…
The North Ronaldsay sheep[0] survive on a wholly seaweed diet and they are ruminants, so it is definitely possible (albeit with copper metabolism enzyme issues) for a ruminant to live on just seaweed. Also, CSIRO have been doing ag research since it's inception (over 100 years ago), so I'm sure they have tested this particular seaweed's impact on bovine digestion. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Ronaldsay_she…
I see that is smaller than the other races, is more vulnerable to predators, have health issues if moved to pastures, and produces less wool (being smaller) and meat with a high iodine content.
This supports my former idea that there are serious obstacles to scale this solution to continental areas with the purpose of feeding people.
> I'm sure they have tested it
Would be interesting to see their results and publications about that, then.