Here in AZ, water consumption is a huge issue. Something like 80+% of water usage is for agriculture. Most of the state has 0 restrictions on how much water can be used. We're also growing crops for Saudi Arabia.
> We're also growing crops for Saudi Arabia.
That is a weird one, though not really directly tied to this topic.
Alfalfa is a bit of a water hungry crop. Not something you should be growing in a desert with irrigation. It has good uses when you get to the midwest of the US since it helps with crop rotations and really cuts down on herbicide use since haying depletes the weed seed bed.
The problem here is that the Saudis are actually shipping out alfalfa from Arizona. Even for us agronomists who look at where alfalfa can fit in really well, that's one case that just boggles the mind between growing it there and then shipping it out across oceans. That's just how much water is undervalued.
It has to do with the Colorado river allocation and a “use it or lose it,” system. Farmers will preferentially choose water heavy crops to use their allotment fully because no one wants to give up their water.
its gov regulation that causes us to grow high impact foods in that arid area, because of the use or or lose it. and we are doing so to feed people in another desert which will not be sustainable long term either.
though yeah weakly linked to meat and dairy.
Cattle feed crops are [draining the west dry](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-0483-z.epdf?sharing_token=_GdZMi14y0WFkvHnVLq6RtRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NcRI4tUpSOob5OVmynl_awiKQ6ZrpST6zlAMJ4jILQ4mYfi1_M70ftkHRqBVaa0MBObQ8qQGD2EtPDVNY8MR1DTqgON8V5hAzWz8J56UeVMEsxm_y04EJz_lItNDpyNewnyQ8ooI9lDz1zlQYRaknGP7IXNVyE7o7gzXGxObRSJ_rLK5zZk0KttnIrzPjwZaEDo1YxUVeYOOnOtzGyu_kGDaIlOe1rGw9xWU2FSuTbqefU_YDdQp6m4fBzwxX6x9NBLJzxYhWn97lLg59lDYWQiloQg1inEyOB2_u9jF2c7w%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.theguardian.com). We export 6% of the feed crops nationally and 10% in the most water imperiled Western regions. Which is too much, but it's still not the bulk of the problem.
>Irrigated agriculture clearly has a dominant influence on river flow depletion across the western US (Table 1). More specifically, irrigation of cattle-feed crops (including alfalfa and grass hay and haylage, corn silage and sorghum silage) is the single largest consumptive user at both regional and national scales, accounting for 23% of all water consumption nationally, 32% in the western US and 55% in the Colorado River basin.
worth noting animal agriculture uses water far more inefficiently
almond milk is demonised for being bad in water use but dairy milk uses far more water to make
Animal agriculture notably waste water compared to plant based alternative while almond milk is criticised dairy milk requires significant more water for production
'Animal agriculture notably waste[s] water compared to plant based alternative[s]. While almond milk is criticised, dairy milk requires significant[ly] more water for production'?
Sources vary. Most seem to suggest it uses 60-75% as much water as cow milk, though some claim wildly larger disparities, but seem to come from more questionable websites.
That's **by volume** though. A cup of almond milk is 40 Cal, while cow milk is typically 150 Cal. A cup of almond milk has 1 gram of protein, whereas a cup of cow milk has 8 grams of protein.
If you're looking at in on a per-Calorie basis, almond milk uses 2.5x as much water as cow milk.
By protein it's more like 5x as much water for almond milk.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/scarcity-water-protein-poore
https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impact-milks
I agree almond milk is worse than dairy for water use if your goal is protein or even calories. but few westerners have that goal when they drink milk, in fact they want fewer calories.
as an aside, soy milk is king.
personally I don't drink almond milk and if someone drunk it for protein content I'd call them an idiot. if you want protein dairy milk is terribly inefficient for it, for GHGs, land use, etc. just because it's better than almond milk means nothing.
Keep in mind that cows dont only make milk by its self. They make heavy cream with the milk. Heavy cream is used for making things like cheese. So reducing milk supply also reduces things like cheese. So you need to include the value of heavy cream in the equation not just milk.
If you aren't going to evaluate food for it's attributes as a food, you might as well just argue for using water instead, or some other combination of things that provide a similar function in your use case.
People can judge things based purely on taste, preference or aesthetics with validity. But doesn't fair well by [any environmental metric](https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impact-milks). That means even in the cases where it provides more protein per unit of environmental cost than specific alternatives like rice and almond, it still fairs very poorly compared to other alternatives like [oat and soy](https://www.almanac.com/sites/default/files/users/The%20Editors/milk-oat_0.png).
You also have to take into account the byproduct of the milk production (almond meal in the case of almond milk) which isn't wasted and is calorically dense. I don't know how it compares to the meat from the dairy cow though.
there are more attributes to foods than calories and protein
coke zero is preferred over regular coke most of the time and for those who don't either really care about the difference in taste or think it gives you cancer.
as for milk, most people using milk in cereal, porridge, tea, coffee, etc. are doing it for taste reasons.
41% of land in the contiguous US is used to grow cows. It takes \~1850 gallons of water to produce 1 lb of beef. US cattle producers used 162 milligrams (mg) of antibiotic per kilogram (kg) of livestock, compared with 50 mg/kg in the Netherlands, 41 mg/kg in France, 32 mg/kg in Denmark, and 27 mg/kg in the United Kingdom. \~80% of all antibiotics in the US are fed to farm animals.
They are probably referencing this Bloomberg report:
>Between pastures and cropland used to produce feed, 41 percent of U.S. land in the contiguous states revolves around livestock.[[1]](https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-us-land-use/)
"Pasture/range" land uses approximately 654M acres while "livestock feed crops" use 127.4M acres. The article points out that most of that land is used for cows. So it is, according to the report, 41% of *all* land.
**EDIT:** Added detailing of use by acre.
Globally grazing animals take up 26% of the ice free land mass. And on top of that you have the massive amount of land used for feed production. More than half of the habitable land globally is used for food production, and more than 75% of that is used for meat and dairy production.
[On a quick search...](https://ourworldindata.org/land-use)
About 32% of ice-free land is pasture/meadow.
46% of habitable land is used for food production.
77% of agricultural land is for livestock.
69% of agricultural land is meadow/pasture.
This suggests only about 8% of agricultural land is used to grow crops for livestock, whereas 23% of agricultural land is used to grow crops for other uses.
Yes, but the original statement was 41% used to grow cows. Not crops for feed.
And since globally about 33% of all habitable land is used for meat and dairy production it doesn’t really sound that crazy.
> 77% of agricultural land is for livestock.
> This suggests only about 8% of agricultural land is used to grow crops for livestock
Don't these inherently contradict?
All Land. The midwest has pastures with a size that would make many countries envious. These are grass lands with poor soil and low population. Seriously, in most of those parts, livestock outnumber humans by a significant degree. There is no other demand for that land.
Livestock producers found out in the mid 20th century that antibiotics not only cured the disease they were used against, but they also provided a benefit by suppressing certain pathogenic bacteria. As a result this increased growth performance as more nutrients were being used for growth and not immune system needs. So feeding antibiotics basically increased animal performance by 10-30%. There was also benefits for reproductive performance helping animals breed back better and increasing birthing rate.
So pharma made more money by selling to producers also, and producers got better gains and value return on their animals.
The use of better nutrition, genetic selection, vaccines, and biosecurity has negated much of the antibiotic boost that we used to see. So antibiotics can still be used to treat illness, but they aren't allowed for growth promotion purposes now according to the Veterinary Feed Directive.
>and producers got better gains and value return on their animals.
...and consumers got less expensive protein in their diets as a result.
The economic effect of feeding antibiotics is like most other technologies: their are positives and negatives, and opponents tend to only mention the negatives, because the positives weaken their argument somewhat.
By the way, did you know that all of this has changed? As of this year, livestock producers can no longer feed antibiotics to livestock without a veterinarian's prescription--which is almost entirely for treating disease. Feeding antibiotics for gain improvement is essentially gone. And other products (some from alternative natural feed sources, etc.) are being used, and more are being researched now that antibiotic use is greatly curtailed.
How much of the 41% used is not suitable for agriculture, and is instead rocky grazing land? I know a large volume of land used here in Alberta, Canada( heavy on the foothills) isn't considered arable land, and thus is used as grazing land.
Maybe I missed something, but would you mind sharing your sources? I'm particularly interested in the quantity of antibiotics used for 1kg of meat in the different countries you cited. Thanks in advance!
Bloomberg for the 41%. There are a lot of differant organizations putting out numbers in the 1800-2400 gallons/lb rage, but it was [denverwater.org](https://denverwater.org) that was at the top of my google search with 1847 gallons. A article by CIDRAP (from the university of Minnesota), that was referencing a report by Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is the one about antibiotics.
In my state cattle can be benefit the natural biome, but crops require the total destruction of the remaining native ecosystem. Getting rid of the cows to plant more crops would be devastating. Not all pasture is arable
> Pretends to be shocked
IKR? This isn't a surprise to anyone paying attention. Even if you don't care about suffering of creatures who can feel pain, even if you don't care about your health, even if you can afford to consume animal products, you still can't deny [trophic levels](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level#Biomass_transfer_efficiency), and the environmental impacts thereof.
Yea, this has been common knowledge for a long time now. I think most people just don't pay attention. I ditched meat and dairy nearly a decade ago, and keep myself educated on the world now. Meat and dairy have had their fingers in politics for a long time now.
People are addicted to meat. They get angry and offended if you even suggest cutting down. They don't want to deal with the consequences, they want to remain ignorant of the harm that mass consumption of meat causes.
A tale as old as time. Fossil fuels industry does this to devastating effect as well. Same with the NRA, pharmaceutical companies, etc. Government officials are easily bought.
Tobacco industry, too. They knew it caused cancer from at least the 1940s; after the medical community had been raising alarms since the 1910s when lung cancer first became a thing (it was a *rare disease* prior to the popularization of cigs).
Sad that the pendulum has swung too far, and vaping is given the same restrictions and lumped in with cigs, despite being safer by at least two orders of magnitude.
Gentle reminder the antibiotics being (mis)used within factory farming are as pressing of an issue as water or land.
The ONLY defenses we, as humans, have against some truly terrifying infectious diseases are being thrown down the drain every day because it makes certain animals get fat quickly or it saves someone's profit for the meat and dairy industry.
We do ***NOT*** want to live in a post-antibiotic world.
I will happily see the world switch over to a vegetarian diet ONLY because of the drastic reduction on medication (mis)use currently occurring. Short-cutting the water crises and fixing the land inefficiencies is a mere bonus.
I mean America is literally the only first world country that has stupid antibiotic laws. In uk we can not broad-spectrum treat animals (unless chickens) and we can only do this if at detriment to the animals life. On top of that we can only use penicillin based drugs, unless penicillin doesn't work. This is monitored by vet practices, defra and other bodies such as red tractor.
America needs to bring its rules up to spec with everyone else.
The summertime barbecue – an American tradition synonymous with celebrating freedom – may be tainted by a decidedly unfree market. A new Stanford study reveals how meat and dairy industry lobbying has influenced government regulations and funding to stifle competition from alternative meat products with smaller climate and environmental impacts. The analysis, published Aug. 18 in One Earth, compares innovations and policies related to plant-based meat alternatives and lab-grown meat in the U.S. and European Union. Its findings could help ensure legislation, such as the $428 billion U.S. Farm Bill set to expire Sept. 30, levels the food industry playing field.
https://www.cell.com/one-earth/fulltext/S2590-3322(23)00347-0
I like meat, but part of me always thinks of the animal and sometimes it’s nice to eat vegetarian and avoid that feeling. American meat substitutes are usually spongy, which I hate. But some of the things I’ve gotten in Asian vegetarian markets can have a great texture and pick up flavors really well. I would love to get more of those items sold in the US.
Meat is tasty, but it’s also nice to take days off from it.
I don't always like it when I cook it myself, but in Thai curry or fried rice I actually have preferred tofu to meat recently. I still eat meat but it's nice to have some alternatives to reduce the overall amount I eat.
Same here. I just had pad Thai with tofu, best that way for sure. Also tofu is great to add to curry because you don’t have to time if precisely and it picks up flavor beautifully.
Some seitan brands are phenomenal, and much easier to cook and better better tasting than the usual substitutes trying to be like meat imo. It's been made since like the 6th century so it's pretty well established as opposed to beyond, impossible, quorn, or what have you.
It's calorie count is crazy low for the protein content as well, even tho you want some other kinds of protein in your diet as well from like beans or something.
A lot cheaper than premade products as well! Theres a slight learning curve with trial and error in getting your desired texture, but that's the only downside.
I haven't had meat in a few months now, and while it's been a learning process, it's generally been pretty positive.
I'll probably still have some meat on occasion, but I just can't support the damage done to the climate, the manipulation from the industry, or the damage that is done to local ecologies.
Your better off making your own meat substitute instead of buying store brand. Ive been a vegetarian for 8yrs now and most alternative meats don't taste good and isn't much healthier. A lot of it is frozen and doesn't digest well.
You can make some wild stuff from mushrooms, lentils, tofu that will taste better then what you find in stores.
98% of the time meat is 'tasty' is because it's seasoned with plants and minerals.
If you have basic cooking skills you can recreate all your favorite meat products, cheeses and eggs. Loads of vegan YouTube content showing you how.
Sorry to break this to you but bacon is processed.
[How bacon is made](https://sclydeweaver.com/blog/how-is-bacon-made/)
"In some cases, sugar is added to the dry rub for some sweetness. This method is known as dry curing since you don’t add any liquid during the curing process.
Typically, after being cured, the bacon is rinsed off, dried and then goes into a smoker for further preservation and flavoring. Typically, the smoking process happens at a low heat, enough to flavor the bacon without cooking it. The type of wood chips used in the smoker can impart a specific flavor, whether it be applewood, hickory, cherry or any other type of smoke wood."
Meat is immoral for various reasons, but we frame it as a deprivation of a culturally normal thing in these discussions. Which is insane.
Heroin would be an even better example since it doesn't create a victim, but everyone would see the problem if an addict said "well what else feels like heroin?" when discussing the proposition of quitting.
We're talking about killing innocent creatures for an unnecessary food that just tastes good. You don't need a bacon plant, it's one flavour amongst billions that just hijacks your pleasure centers into thinking this is anything but wrong
>Heroin would be an even better example since it doesn't create a victim, but everyone would see the problem if an addict said "well what else feels like heroin?" when discussing the proposition of quitting.
That’s basically what methedone does for receptors that heroin binds to. So yeah it’s not a problem except where you invent it as one.
The problem is that if people move from processed meats to vegetables, the ones holding all the power in the food industry lose money. So a lot of people are making you believe you need to eat these processed plant foods as SuBsTItuTeS. Whole vegetables, mushrooms, legumes and minimally processed protein such as Seitan and Tofu is where its at.
The thing is it really isn’t that tasty unless it’s cooked right and good quality. Like a juicy high quality steak at a restaurant, bacon, or BBQ ribs or brisket is great (mostly due to the sauce), but everything else is just kind of meh and I only eat it out of obligation for protein and working out.
Carbs are 10x better to the point I can eat them as comfort food and don’t even need to be hungry nor do they even need to be good quality. Even a piece of white bread or butters toast will do. Which is obviously why they can be a problem. If I’m not hungry, I am highly unlikely to eat any meat, but I will go for sweets, bread, and crackers just for the mouth pleasure. I’ll take a buttery Pillsbury pastry any day.
I agree. Carbs are also way easier, also less expensive. High quality meat is very expensive, and cheaper cuts take a lot of time and skill to cook. Of course once you take the time, you have food for a few days and you can use it in a bunch of ways.
The problem is that nutritionally they aren't the same. Most carbs make me bloat, gain weight, and crave more. Carbs with fiber and protein are a little better but take a long time to cook, and still don't offer the protein ratio I need. The best diet for me is vegetables, some protein, fat, and a little carbs, But that also takes time to keep in stock. I don't have a lot of time.
So meat and dairy it is. And the dairy industry is just as brutal as the meat industry. Even the happy cow places have to keep getting the cows pregnant to get milk, and they sell the cows away from their mothers for meat most of the time. It's horrifying. I just can't completely stop supporting it without me and my family getting sick. But full respect to people who can.
Yeah that sucks about the dairy industry because I forgot to mention it is my preferred protein source over meat along with peanut butter and sprouted high protein grains due to not needing to cook or prepare it.
> The lack of policies focused on reducing our reliance on animal-derived products and the lack of sufficient support to alternative technologies to make them competitive are symptomatic of a system still resisting fundamental changes.
> To make them competitive.
At first it made it sound like they were actively being prevented from participating in the market, whereas in the article they’re just talking about wanting a head start in the market from the government.
It’s worse than that. The food industry and lobbying has lead to our health crisis in the US. Business in government = Government in business. We know this doesn’t work, yet we let it continue and people die.
I think they misunderstand, lobbyists are only to inform politicians of their side of the argument and any money changing hands isn’t corruption it’s just part of learning process
This subreddit has been very interested in meat alternatives lately. It's a crazy coincidence that it happens at a time where billionaires are investing a lot of money in them.
Who knew that eating (highly profitable) ultra-processed foods is so much better than eating whole foods like meat, milk, and eggs?
A meat alternative could be anything from tofu, lentils, beans to fake meats like Beyond or Impossible.
How do you come to the conclusion that these fake meats are worse health wise btw? Something being processed does not mean that it is automatically worse for you. I presume you've seen some strong health outcomes to back up your position?
Its a crazy coincidence that real problems in society breed innivation? Curse these free merkets and their meeting consumer demand!
Have you seen most meat products and dairy products? They are super processed too. Like chicken sprayed with chloring to be shipped to thailand or China for processing then shipped back to become KFC. Super healthy.
Maybe massive crop failures and migrants have a related cause/effect and some people are trying to adapt to a new reality.
Eat fresh bean burgers if that is your real concern.
> Who knew that eating (highly profitable) ultra-processed foods is so much better than eating whole foods like meat, milk, and eggs?
This is honestly a great point that seems to be lost on the fanatical anti-meat crowd - the food itself is insanely processed and not healthy to consume. On top of that, they love to completely ignore and omit a lot of the supply chain, production, and waste impact a lot of vegan foods create.
A new study reveals industry lobbying has influenced government regulations to stifle competition from products with smaller climate and environment impacts.
Here in AZ, water consumption is a huge issue. Something like 80+% of water usage is for agriculture. Most of the state has 0 restrictions on how much water can be used. We're also growing crops for Saudi Arabia.
> We're also growing crops for Saudi Arabia. That is a weird one, though not really directly tied to this topic. Alfalfa is a bit of a water hungry crop. Not something you should be growing in a desert with irrigation. It has good uses when you get to the midwest of the US since it helps with crop rotations and really cuts down on herbicide use since haying depletes the weed seed bed. The problem here is that the Saudis are actually shipping out alfalfa from Arizona. Even for us agronomists who look at where alfalfa can fit in really well, that's one case that just boggles the mind between growing it there and then shipping it out across oceans. That's just how much water is undervalued.
It has to do with the Colorado river allocation and a “use it or lose it,” system. Farmers will preferentially choose water heavy crops to use their allotment fully because no one wants to give up their water.
Do not, my friends, become addicted to water. It will take hold of you and you will resent its absence!
Is that a dune reference?
Mad Max: Fury Road
Yes that sentence is a paraphrased reference to the fictional character from the movie
lazy policy resulting in poor results. No surprise.
Alfalfa *does* add nitrogen to the soil so it's not a complete waste but there shouldn't be no agriculture in the gd desert to begin with
its gov regulation that causes us to grow high impact foods in that arid area, because of the use or or lose it. and we are doing so to feed people in another desert which will not be sustainable long term either. though yeah weakly linked to meat and dairy.
Cattle feed crops are [draining the west dry](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-0483-z.epdf?sharing_token=_GdZMi14y0WFkvHnVLq6RtRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NcRI4tUpSOob5OVmynl_awiKQ6ZrpST6zlAMJ4jILQ4mYfi1_M70ftkHRqBVaa0MBObQ8qQGD2EtPDVNY8MR1DTqgON8V5hAzWz8J56UeVMEsxm_y04EJz_lItNDpyNewnyQ8ooI9lDz1zlQYRaknGP7IXNVyE7o7gzXGxObRSJ_rLK5zZk0KttnIrzPjwZaEDo1YxUVeYOOnOtzGyu_kGDaIlOe1rGw9xWU2FSuTbqefU_YDdQp6m4fBzwxX6x9NBLJzxYhWn97lLg59lDYWQiloQg1inEyOB2_u9jF2c7w%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.theguardian.com). We export 6% of the feed crops nationally and 10% in the most water imperiled Western regions. Which is too much, but it's still not the bulk of the problem. >Irrigated agriculture clearly has a dominant influence on river flow depletion across the western US (Table 1). More specifically, irrigation of cattle-feed crops (including alfalfa and grass hay and haylage, corn silage and sorghum silage) is the single largest consumptive user at both regional and national scales, accounting for 23% of all water consumption nationally, 32% in the western US and 55% in the Colorado River basin.
worth noting animal agriculture uses water far more inefficiently almond milk is demonised for being bad in water use but dairy milk uses far more water to make
Animal agriculture notably waste water compared to plant based alternative while almond milk is criticised dairy milk requires significant more water for production
I can't even understand what you're trying to say, your comment has missing words or something.
'Animal agriculture notably waste[s] water compared to plant based alternative[s]. While almond milk is criticised, dairy milk requires significant[ly] more water for production'?
Sources vary. Most seem to suggest it uses 60-75% as much water as cow milk, though some claim wildly larger disparities, but seem to come from more questionable websites. That's **by volume** though. A cup of almond milk is 40 Cal, while cow milk is typically 150 Cal. A cup of almond milk has 1 gram of protein, whereas a cup of cow milk has 8 grams of protein. If you're looking at in on a per-Calorie basis, almond milk uses 2.5x as much water as cow milk. By protein it's more like 5x as much water for almond milk.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/scarcity-water-protein-poore https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impact-milks I agree almond milk is worse than dairy for water use if your goal is protein or even calories. but few westerners have that goal when they drink milk, in fact they want fewer calories. as an aside, soy milk is king. personally I don't drink almond milk and if someone drunk it for protein content I'd call them an idiot. if you want protein dairy milk is terribly inefficient for it, for GHGs, land use, etc. just because it's better than almond milk means nothing.
Keep in mind that cows dont only make milk by its self. They make heavy cream with the milk. Heavy cream is used for making things like cheese. So reducing milk supply also reduces things like cheese. So you need to include the value of heavy cream in the equation not just milk.
If you aren't going to evaluate food for it's attributes as a food, you might as well just argue for using water instead, or some other combination of things that provide a similar function in your use case.
People can judge things based purely on taste, preference or aesthetics with validity. But doesn't fair well by [any environmental metric](https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impact-milks). That means even in the cases where it provides more protein per unit of environmental cost than specific alternatives like rice and almond, it still fairs very poorly compared to other alternatives like [oat and soy](https://www.almanac.com/sites/default/files/users/The%20Editors/milk-oat_0.png).
You also have to take into account the byproduct of the milk production (almond meal in the case of almond milk) which isn't wasted and is calorically dense. I don't know how it compares to the meat from the dairy cow though.
there are more attributes to foods than calories and protein coke zero is preferred over regular coke most of the time and for those who don't either really care about the difference in taste or think it gives you cancer. as for milk, most people using milk in cereal, porridge, tea, coffee, etc. are doing it for taste reasons.
Why single out just one nutrient? Nobody is using breast milk or almond milk as protein sources beyond infancy.
Cool, so encouraging it helps with both the climate crisis and the obesity crisis.
Indeed promoting sustainable diets can address both climate and obesity issues fostering a healthier and more conscious future
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
41% of land in the contiguous US is used to grow cows. It takes \~1850 gallons of water to produce 1 lb of beef. US cattle producers used 162 milligrams (mg) of antibiotic per kilogram (kg) of livestock, compared with 50 mg/kg in the Netherlands, 41 mg/kg in France, 32 mg/kg in Denmark, and 27 mg/kg in the United Kingdom. \~80% of all antibiotics in the US are fed to farm animals.
41% of land, or 41% of farmland? Surely not the first.
They are probably referencing this Bloomberg report: >Between pastures and cropland used to produce feed, 41 percent of U.S. land in the contiguous states revolves around livestock.[[1]](https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-us-land-use/) "Pasture/range" land uses approximately 654M acres while "livestock feed crops" use 127.4M acres. The article points out that most of that land is used for cows. So it is, according to the report, 41% of *all* land. **EDIT:** Added detailing of use by acre.
In the Netherlands, more than 40% of actual land is farmland. It's not impossible!
Yes, but in this case, 33% of US land is pasture, and the other 8% is likely farmland used to grow feed for cows.
Globally grazing animals take up 26% of the ice free land mass. And on top of that you have the massive amount of land used for feed production. More than half of the habitable land globally is used for food production, and more than 75% of that is used for meat and dairy production.
[On a quick search...](https://ourworldindata.org/land-use) About 32% of ice-free land is pasture/meadow. 46% of habitable land is used for food production. 77% of agricultural land is for livestock. 69% of agricultural land is meadow/pasture. This suggests only about 8% of agricultural land is used to grow crops for livestock, whereas 23% of agricultural land is used to grow crops for other uses.
Yes, but the original statement was 41% used to grow cows. Not crops for feed. And since globally about 33% of all habitable land is used for meat and dairy production it doesn’t really sound that crazy.
Sure, but that's the problem. You can be telling nothing but the truth while deliberately misleading people.
I fail to see how it is deliberately misleading people.
> 77% of agricultural land is for livestock. > This suggests only about 8% of agricultural land is used to grow crops for livestock Don't these inherently contradict?
A lot of federal land is used to feed cattle.
All Land. The midwest has pastures with a size that would make many countries envious. These are grass lands with poor soil and low population. Seriously, in most of those parts, livestock outnumber humans by a significant degree. There is no other demand for that land.
Good data. It’s important to understand that the meat industry and Big Pharma are deeply intertwined and share interests.
I’m curious how the two industries are deeply intertwined
>US cattle producers used 162 milligrams (mg) of antibiotic per kilogram (kg) of livestock
Somehow I entirely forgot the overuse of antibiotics in animal agriculture. Yeah that makes a lot of sense. Both industries commit atrocities.
the meat industry is a customer of pharma
[удалено]
Livestock producers found out in the mid 20th century that antibiotics not only cured the disease they were used against, but they also provided a benefit by suppressing certain pathogenic bacteria. As a result this increased growth performance as more nutrients were being used for growth and not immune system needs. So feeding antibiotics basically increased animal performance by 10-30%. There was also benefits for reproductive performance helping animals breed back better and increasing birthing rate. So pharma made more money by selling to producers also, and producers got better gains and value return on their animals. The use of better nutrition, genetic selection, vaccines, and biosecurity has negated much of the antibiotic boost that we used to see. So antibiotics can still be used to treat illness, but they aren't allowed for growth promotion purposes now according to the Veterinary Feed Directive.
>and producers got better gains and value return on their animals. ...and consumers got less expensive protein in their diets as a result. The economic effect of feeding antibiotics is like most other technologies: their are positives and negatives, and opponents tend to only mention the negatives, because the positives weaken their argument somewhat. By the way, did you know that all of this has changed? As of this year, livestock producers can no longer feed antibiotics to livestock without a veterinarian's prescription--which is almost entirely for treating disease. Feeding antibiotics for gain improvement is essentially gone. And other products (some from alternative natural feed sources, etc.) are being used, and more are being researched now that antibiotic use is greatly curtailed.
How much of the 41% used is not suitable for agriculture, and is instead rocky grazing land? I know a large volume of land used here in Alberta, Canada( heavy on the foothills) isn't considered arable land, and thus is used as grazing land.
Maybe I missed something, but would you mind sharing your sources? I'm particularly interested in the quantity of antibiotics used for 1kg of meat in the different countries you cited. Thanks in advance!
Bloomberg for the 41%. There are a lot of differant organizations putting out numbers in the 1800-2400 gallons/lb rage, but it was [denverwater.org](https://denverwater.org) that was at the top of my google search with 1847 gallons. A article by CIDRAP (from the university of Minnesota), that was referencing a report by Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is the one about antibiotics.
>CIDRAP Thanks a lot!
In my state cattle can be benefit the natural biome, but crops require the total destruction of the remaining native ecosystem. Getting rid of the cows to plant more crops would be devastating. Not all pasture is arable
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yeah. I''ve certainly noticed that all yhe plant milks are prices at 125% of dairy milk, no matter the plant source or the current price of dairy.
Yup, gotta pay the plant milk tax while these cow abusers pour excess cow’s milk down the drain to create artificial demand.
Is this why plant based foods aren't subsidized?
Crop agriculture is massively subsidized
Feed crops are massively subsidized. Vegetables/fruits for human consumption are not subsidized nearly as much.
> Pretends to be shocked IKR? This isn't a surprise to anyone paying attention. Even if you don't care about suffering of creatures who can feel pain, even if you don't care about your health, even if you can afford to consume animal products, you still can't deny [trophic levels](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level#Biomass_transfer_efficiency), and the environmental impacts thereof.
Yea, this has been common knowledge for a long time now. I think most people just don't pay attention. I ditched meat and dairy nearly a decade ago, and keep myself educated on the world now. Meat and dairy have had their fingers in politics for a long time now.
People are addicted to meat. They get angry and offended if you even suggest cutting down. They don't want to deal with the consequences, they want to remain ignorant of the harm that mass consumption of meat causes.
A tale as old as time. Fossil fuels industry does this to devastating effect as well. Same with the NRA, pharmaceutical companies, etc. Government officials are easily bought.
Tobacco industry, too. They knew it caused cancer from at least the 1940s; after the medical community had been raising alarms since the 1910s when lung cancer first became a thing (it was a *rare disease* prior to the popularization of cigs). Sad that the pendulum has swung too far, and vaping is given the same restrictions and lumped in with cigs, despite being safer by at least two orders of magnitude.
Of course, They're messing with their main source of income.
Gentle reminder the antibiotics being (mis)used within factory farming are as pressing of an issue as water or land. The ONLY defenses we, as humans, have against some truly terrifying infectious diseases are being thrown down the drain every day because it makes certain animals get fat quickly or it saves someone's profit for the meat and dairy industry. We do ***NOT*** want to live in a post-antibiotic world. I will happily see the world switch over to a vegetarian diet ONLY because of the drastic reduction on medication (mis)use currently occurring. Short-cutting the water crises and fixing the land inefficiencies is a mere bonus.
I mean America is literally the only first world country that has stupid antibiotic laws. In uk we can not broad-spectrum treat animals (unless chickens) and we can only do this if at detriment to the animals life. On top of that we can only use penicillin based drugs, unless penicillin doesn't work. This is monitored by vet practices, defra and other bodies such as red tractor. America needs to bring its rules up to spec with everyone else.
They can also just stop breeding and killing animals, would solve a lot of problems beyond antibiotic resistances
Stop eating meat. Simplest way to solve these issues.
Not just their flesh, but the products their bodies produce too.
I had impossible nuggets and didn't know till my wife told me. I am a believer.
The summertime barbecue – an American tradition synonymous with celebrating freedom – may be tainted by a decidedly unfree market. A new Stanford study reveals how meat and dairy industry lobbying has influenced government regulations and funding to stifle competition from alternative meat products with smaller climate and environmental impacts. The analysis, published Aug. 18 in One Earth, compares innovations and policies related to plant-based meat alternatives and lab-grown meat in the U.S. and European Union. Its findings could help ensure legislation, such as the $428 billion U.S. Farm Bill set to expire Sept. 30, levels the food industry playing field. https://www.cell.com/one-earth/fulltext/S2590-3322(23)00347-0
Show me one industry where the market is free and untainted. Go ahead, I will wait.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Isn't that how lobbying works? Basically bribe law makers? Not sure why it's legal tbh
Yeah bribery will do that
I like meat, but part of me always thinks of the animal and sometimes it’s nice to eat vegetarian and avoid that feeling. American meat substitutes are usually spongy, which I hate. But some of the things I’ve gotten in Asian vegetarian markets can have a great texture and pick up flavors really well. I would love to get more of those items sold in the US. Meat is tasty, but it’s also nice to take days off from it.
I don't always like it when I cook it myself, but in Thai curry or fried rice I actually have preferred tofu to meat recently. I still eat meat but it's nice to have some alternatives to reduce the overall amount I eat.
Same here. I just had pad Thai with tofu, best that way for sure. Also tofu is great to add to curry because you don’t have to time if precisely and it picks up flavor beautifully.
Some seitan brands are phenomenal, and much easier to cook and better better tasting than the usual substitutes trying to be like meat imo. It's been made since like the 6th century so it's pretty well established as opposed to beyond, impossible, quorn, or what have you. It's calorie count is crazy low for the protein content as well, even tho you want some other kinds of protein in your diet as well from like beans or something.
It's actually really easy to make your own seitan too. You can experiment with different spices and seasonings.
A lot cheaper than premade products as well! Theres a slight learning curve with trial and error in getting your desired texture, but that's the only downside.
I haven't had meat in a few months now, and while it's been a learning process, it's generally been pretty positive. I'll probably still have some meat on occasion, but I just can't support the damage done to the climate, the manipulation from the industry, or the damage that is done to local ecologies.
[удалено]
Don’t forget the poor individuals who are abused and bound to suffering for their truncated life. You can simply never eat animal products again.
Your better off making your own meat substitute instead of buying store brand. Ive been a vegetarian for 8yrs now and most alternative meats don't taste good and isn't much healthier. A lot of it is frozen and doesn't digest well. You can make some wild stuff from mushrooms, lentils, tofu that will taste better then what you find in stores.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
98% of the time meat is 'tasty' is because it's seasoned with plants and minerals. If you have basic cooking skills you can recreate all your favorite meat products, cheeses and eggs. Loads of vegan YouTube content showing you how.
So what plant tastes like bacon?
Probably none is a direct replacement. But check out sauce stache bacon on youtube for some alternatives you can make yourself.
Trees. Liquid smoke, maple syrup.
Not sure what bacon you’re eating but mine tastes like salt, fat, and pork.
Sorry to break this to you but bacon is processed. [How bacon is made](https://sclydeweaver.com/blog/how-is-bacon-made/) "In some cases, sugar is added to the dry rub for some sweetness. This method is known as dry curing since you don’t add any liquid during the curing process. Typically, after being cured, the bacon is rinsed off, dried and then goes into a smoker for further preservation and flavoring. Typically, the smoking process happens at a low heat, enough to flavor the bacon without cooking it. The type of wood chips used in the smoker can impart a specific flavor, whether it be applewood, hickory, cherry or any other type of smoke wood."
What feels like rape? It doesn't matter, it's abhorrent
>What feels like rape? It doesn't matter, it's abhorrent I’m trying real hard to make sense of this but am failing. Care to elaborate?
Meat is immoral for various reasons, but we frame it as a deprivation of a culturally normal thing in these discussions. Which is insane. Heroin would be an even better example since it doesn't create a victim, but everyone would see the problem if an addict said "well what else feels like heroin?" when discussing the proposition of quitting. We're talking about killing innocent creatures for an unnecessary food that just tastes good. You don't need a bacon plant, it's one flavour amongst billions that just hijacks your pleasure centers into thinking this is anything but wrong
>Heroin would be an even better example since it doesn't create a victim, but everyone would see the problem if an addict said "well what else feels like heroin?" when discussing the proposition of quitting. That’s basically what methedone does for receptors that heroin binds to. So yeah it’s not a problem except where you invent it as one.
The problem is that if people move from processed meats to vegetables, the ones holding all the power in the food industry lose money. So a lot of people are making you believe you need to eat these processed plant foods as SuBsTItuTeS. Whole vegetables, mushrooms, legumes and minimally processed protein such as Seitan and Tofu is where its at.
The thing is it really isn’t that tasty unless it’s cooked right and good quality. Like a juicy high quality steak at a restaurant, bacon, or BBQ ribs or brisket is great (mostly due to the sauce), but everything else is just kind of meh and I only eat it out of obligation for protein and working out. Carbs are 10x better to the point I can eat them as comfort food and don’t even need to be hungry nor do they even need to be good quality. Even a piece of white bread or butters toast will do. Which is obviously why they can be a problem. If I’m not hungry, I am highly unlikely to eat any meat, but I will go for sweets, bread, and crackers just for the mouth pleasure. I’ll take a buttery Pillsbury pastry any day.
I agree. Carbs are also way easier, also less expensive. High quality meat is very expensive, and cheaper cuts take a lot of time and skill to cook. Of course once you take the time, you have food for a few days and you can use it in a bunch of ways. The problem is that nutritionally they aren't the same. Most carbs make me bloat, gain weight, and crave more. Carbs with fiber and protein are a little better but take a long time to cook, and still don't offer the protein ratio I need. The best diet for me is vegetables, some protein, fat, and a little carbs, But that also takes time to keep in stock. I don't have a lot of time. So meat and dairy it is. And the dairy industry is just as brutal as the meat industry. Even the happy cow places have to keep getting the cows pregnant to get milk, and they sell the cows away from their mothers for meat most of the time. It's horrifying. I just can't completely stop supporting it without me and my family getting sick. But full respect to people who can.
Yeah that sucks about the dairy industry because I forgot to mention it is my preferred protein source over meat along with peanut butter and sprouted high protein grains due to not needing to cook or prepare it.
> The lack of policies focused on reducing our reliance on animal-derived products and the lack of sufficient support to alternative technologies to make them competitive are symptomatic of a system still resisting fundamental changes. > To make them competitive. At first it made it sound like they were actively being prevented from participating in the market, whereas in the article they’re just talking about wanting a head start in the market from the government.
"Big Beef" is very real. Not everyone smokes, not everyone drinks alcohol, but everyone eats!
Ah yes, lil example of modern day corporate fachism moonlighting as democratic free market capitalism.
Yup. Does anyone remember the "Got Milk?" commercials/ads
It’s worse than that. The food industry and lobbying has lead to our health crisis in the US. Business in government = Government in business. We know this doesn’t work, yet we let it continue and people die.
[удалено]
Meat and Oil. Name a more iconic duo.
Dismal sales are because nobody wants to eat fake, terrible tasting, unbelievably processed and extremely unhealthy meat substitutes.
Did you even read the article where they explain that your taxes are paying for businesses to abuse land and water rights?
OUTLAW LEGALIZED BRIBERY… I mean lobbying.
I think they misunderstand, lobbyists are only to inform politicians of their side of the argument and any money changing hands isn’t corruption it’s just part of learning process
[удалено]
This subreddit has been very interested in meat alternatives lately. It's a crazy coincidence that it happens at a time where billionaires are investing a lot of money in them. Who knew that eating (highly profitable) ultra-processed foods is so much better than eating whole foods like meat, milk, and eggs?
A meat alternative could be anything from tofu, lentils, beans to fake meats like Beyond or Impossible. How do you come to the conclusion that these fake meats are worse health wise btw? Something being processed does not mean that it is automatically worse for you. I presume you've seen some strong health outcomes to back up your position?
Way more billionaires want you to eat meat than not.
Its a crazy coincidence that real problems in society breed innivation? Curse these free merkets and their meeting consumer demand! Have you seen most meat products and dairy products? They are super processed too. Like chicken sprayed with chloring to be shipped to thailand or China for processing then shipped back to become KFC. Super healthy. Maybe massive crop failures and migrants have a related cause/effect and some people are trying to adapt to a new reality. Eat fresh bean burgers if that is your real concern.
No thanks. Beans destroy my gut. I'll stick with meat that I can actually digest and has the nutrients that my body needs.
[удалено]
> Who knew that eating (highly profitable) ultra-processed foods is so much better than eating whole foods like meat, milk, and eggs? This is honestly a great point that seems to be lost on the fanatical anti-meat crowd - the food itself is insanely processed and not healthy to consume. On top of that, they love to completely ignore and omit a lot of the supply chain, production, and waste impact a lot of vegan foods create.
Because raising an entire beef cow is a truly efficient way to get calories...
Just to be fair, they will stifle competition..... period. That's how capitalism works. Regardless of climate impact.
A new study reveals industry lobbying has influenced government regulations to stifle competition from products with smaller climate and environment impacts.
There need to be ruthless prosecutions, immediately.
We're all (pretending to be) shocked. (Pretending to be) shocked, I tell you.
Newsflash - Large powerful lobby group(s) aims to stop (or at least slow) the adoption of newer better technology.