Comments by "antonyjh1234" (@antonyjh1234) on "Four Fascinating Ways to Turn Trash Into Fuel | World Wide Waste | Insider Business" video.
-
5
-
@Simon-dm8zv Two things, one grass is the majority of what is eaten, this is by far from non arable land for beef cows, pork is of course different so that means not all meat is the same, nothing is cleaner than self fertilised, weather irrigated, non arable land produce and this is the majority of their lives. sheep, goats etc the same. 2nd, veganism needs to replace the whole cow, the fat that goes into products vegans use everyday, the sinew etc that goes into pet food, then of course bones and leather needs to be replaced. So if we don't do anything to the land, mainly because we can't because as I say, non arable, if we don't fertilise it and we don't irrigate it then how can you say it is more efficient?
Efficiency doesn't mean ignoring all we get, taking roughly 50% of the animal and then comparing the rest on a weight basis ie" a kilo of meat versus a kilo of wheat. A kilo of meat is going to by far have better nutrition. Lumping all it takes to grow the animal onto the meat portion, ignoring all we get and then not realising what it takes to grow other food has its issues. Synthetic fertilisers, insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, many more vehicles needed in the field, veganism being cleaner or more efficient is a myth, if 3% of the population are vegans it would mean a 3500% increase in numbers to get everybody vegan, the worlds insects can barely handle the insecticides we use now.
What has become more efficient is chicken/pig/fish farming because of the waste from plant foods.
Ex vegan here, any arguments you are going to use, I've probably used them myself but sorry veganism is not what it is cracked up to be as it is based on half truths.
2
-
1
-
@Simon-dm8zv I can absolutely guarantee the majority is grass, straw, etc.
Massive amounts of land, yes non arable, that we have very little inputs into, but get a lot back.
50% of people alive today are from synthetic fertilisers, creating massive barren areas of the soil biome and that's a shit load of biomass that has emitted to the atmosphere along with everything that depends on that. The emissions from this which are 300 times worse than CO2, while methane is at worst 80 but most would say 28, has risen 30% over the last couple of decades.
Yes, less arable land would be needed, the 14% of ALL animals diet that is human edible is all you would get back. This 14% might not be good land, or an ideal crop for human consumption. In the country I am in it is wheat that is the grain fed, some farmers might not have a good crop due to weather, insects, diseases, they might not have a good protein level so they go to the feed market or they go to waste because it's too expensive to give them away, which brings me full circle. 86% of what animals eat is inedible to us, most is grass, 14% is human edible grain, but more than the human edible portion is the waste we get by producing food. This waste that goes to animals makes animal rearing like chickens and pigs/fish more sustainable, beef is different and even though they can spend time on feedlots/holding yards, they do spend the majority of their lives outside of them.
Remember, this has to replace all milk, all chesses, all egg's, all fish, wild and farmed which are around even in tonnage, all leather, all pet food, all fats, that are in things from asphalt to car tyres to plastics that are probably in the device you are using right now, all meat, all wool, all the manure that does make soil better....this land that is growing poor wheat has to somehow do this, with less inputs?
No, it can't happen, sorry.
1
-
1
-
1