Environmentalism and Wildlife Conservation Discussion

A Guardian article on "the other side of The Cove", ie an interview of a member of the Taiji community, the one that was featured in the aforementioned documentary The Cove - quite the gut-twisting experience from what I recall.

An interesting read, even though you don't have to agree about everything that is said of course. It's yet another clash of "modernity" vs "tradition", as seen in many different locations and fields (American politics...).

I am bumping this thread, because the US culture thread was going a bit off topic about veganism and the environment.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=14379374560A55090900&page=80#1994

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Webcomic/VeganArtbook

Issues brought up in the infamous webcomic series, Vegan Artbook, often suggest that going vegan would solve our hunger and environmental problems. However, it neglects the fact that the industrial agriculture system for crops can be just as environmentally destructive as the meat industry.

To be fair, you can feed more people with crops than with meat, since animals also consume crops and a lot of energy and nutritive value is wasted in the process.

That's a very poor counterargument. Vegetable crops can feed the same amount of people with ten to a hundred times less surface and less water, depending on type of meat and farming methods. And cows in particular contribute as much as transportation to global warming, by farting and belching.

So even if human-meant crops were as destructive as meat-meant ones, people choosing to skip the middleman frees up a lot of land and resources.

You don't need to go vegan, though. The Mediterranean diet is almost as good.

edited 30th Dec '17 11:56:34 AM by TheHandle

In said thread, I was discussing the cultural aspect of veganism (specifically the ethical veganism movement), but I also said this:

To elaborate on this and the points mentioned, the first thing you need to know is that serious farmers don't let animals eat just random grass or seeds or whatever any more. Feed is carefully measured and regulated to maximize specific nutritional benefits so that the animals in question produce the most and the best of whatever product they are there for - be it meat, milk, eggs, or whatever. As a result, most animal feed must be grown separately, on its own farmland.

Because they actually have this down to a science, they have a statistic called the FCR, or Feed Conversion Ratio. This measures how many pounds of feed are needed to generate a single pound of the given product. The lower the FCR is, the more efficient in terms of feed it is. Or to put it another way, a lower FCR means you can get the same amount of product without needed as much feed...which translates to less land needed to grow said feed.

So let's see...going by the Wikipedia page I just linked to, the average FCR for beef cattle is 6 (with milk cattle averaging a hefty 10) The average FCR for broiler (meat) chickens is about 1.6 (and egg-laying hens have an FCR of 2). So in terms of farm space needed to sustain the same meat output, chickens are currently nearly four times as efficient in terms of needed farm space as cows. So pretty clear that chickens are way more environmentally friendly based on that metric alone.

Fish are even more efficient, because 1) they eat the remains of dead fish and such, and thus don't require farmland at all, and 2) they have a FCR well under 1, meaning 1 pound of fish feed generates several pounds of fish meat.

Oh, and that's not getting into that beef cow manure produces nearly twice as much methane gas as poultry manure, or the benefits of white meat over red meat...yeah, I think you all get the picture. It isn't perfect, no, but it's a hell of an improvement, and I'd gladly take it.

@The Handle

I would like to add that rich nations do produce lots of crops to feed the world, but poorer ones don't have access to them. Also a lot of crops- depending on what they are-actually need a lot of water to nourish them. And ironically some of them require killing pests in order to keep them away. Some common vegan stables have had detrimental effects on the native populations, due to the high demand for them.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/16/vegans-stomach-unpalatable-truth-quinoa

http://theconversation.com/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-theres-more-animal-blood-on-your-hands-4659

I am actually aware of the feed efficiency factors, but it's worth reiterating so that we can all bear that mind in mind when discussing the environmental impacts of farming, however, especially when considering earlier posts (such as The Handle's, I think), where the environmental impact of crop farming can involve a range of different issues to the environmental impact of livestock farming. For example, the physical space taken up by a farm is just one consideration among many when looking at the environmental impact of farming. Type of farming practice is also a big issue (as it's the intensive, industrial farming - livestock and crop, both - that tends to have the greatest environmental impacts).

It would also help us to remember that a lot of livestock farming, especially smaller or more traditional farming, does actually occur on ground that would not be suitable to crop farming (certainly not on a commercial, as opposed to subsistence, level of farming). So, it's also not as simple to say converting livestock farms to crop farms to increase the yield required for a fully vegetarian/vegan population is the way to go. There are very real problems with the practicality of that idea.

On the subject of fish farming and space/location issues, there are issues such as fish farms replacing traditional spawning grounds, which can contribute to diminishing stocks as a result of lack of spawning grounds. So, there are environmental impacts of fish farms in terms of size, location and type as well.

edited 30th Dec '17 12:34:45 PM by Wyldchyld

Shame we haven't figured out how to clone meat on a large scale.

That actually would be a good idea, and save all that money. However, I've seen ethical vegans object to the idea, because it's still eating meat which would mean killing animals.

https://pupaveg.deviantart.com/art/301-My-choice-3-722815502

Vegan Artbook or Pupa Vegan has another comic up, which is about how ethical vegans are against viewing eating meat as a person's choice. From an ethical vegan's perspective, they see all animals who are killed for meat as inherently victims even if farmers practice humane slaughter. They are against seeing farm animals as commodities, and this plays into their views as seeing them as an oppressed group.

I want to be blunt animals will always be commodities, but they are a different kind of commodity from an inanimate one.

edited 30th Dec '17 1:10:08 PM by firewriter

I am thoroughly uninterested in what ethical vegans have to say.

edited 30th Dec '17 1:31:46 PM by TheHandle

How is cloning animal body parts killing animals?

Would you eat cloned human meat?

I would, if only for the novelty.

The problem with cloned meat is getting people used to the idea of eating what is basically a giant tumor.

Maybe start by using a different opening line...

No i'm questioning why people would think cloning animal meat is killing animals, it was never really alive to begin with.

Some people are so stubborn about not eating meat, that they refuse the idea of cloning if it possibly mean an animal lost its life.

The idea of something made in a vat being called meat just sounds absolutely gross to me, but my understanding of it is that it's just growing meat on some kind of a lattice, therefor it never is anything that lives as we currently understand life in animals.

So yeah, vegans are going to have to sharpen up their arguments about that. I don't think they will, though.

I saw a conference a few years back which mentioned environmental issues with meat consumption not from a land surface (or methane gas, or food production efficiency) point of view, but because it uses a huge amount of water to produce a given quantity of food.

Insect meat is far less costly in that regard - and by far less, I mean a factor of about one thousand. But the problem is that many eat meat not for protein issues but because they just like that, which is something hard to advertise when you are selling worm biscuits.

I would abandon my veganism and buy worm biscuits without a second thought, if they were tasty.

...Have you ever eaten a slimy worm?

Imagine that...only as a dry biscuit.

It would be like hardtack except with the weevils still in it.

If you do not know what a weevil is, do not look it up. If you do know what a weevil is, do not imagine what it must be like to have to check your hardtack for them as a matter of routine.

edited 31st Dec '17 5:41:24 AM by M84

Cooked insects are by all accounts quite tasty. Grasshoppers taste of nuts, for instance.

...Worms are not insects.

My bad, I mixed them up with Larvae, Caterpillars, Maggots, and the like.

Maggots: the base form of the military man.

edited 31st Dec '17 11:29:49 AM by TheHandle

I've eaten ant biscuits in the past. They were really nice.

Conversely, I once as a child ate a live ant (sucked it up a drinking straw) by mistake and it was extraordinarly bitter.