Yup. Anyone else ?
Yup, pigs, sheep, goats, chicken and other poultry.
Humans too, but the overwhelming majority goes to livestock
Probably a lot of things @P7. Beer, bread, Whiskey amongst other things.
WTF has a question to do with crops got to do with cattle
WTF has your deflection have to do with this, which you posted a short while ago
Maybe cut down more of the amazon to make space
Your mate Billy bovine actually
Yup. Anyone else ?
*edit*. Updated
20 Feb 2020 Author(s) Walter Fraanje:
The poultry industry remains the biggest user of soya, with more than two-thirds of soya imported last year into the UK used by the sector, mostly to feed birds reared to produce chicken meat, according to the AIC data…
… The UK’s consumption of soy is an important sustainability concern, but too little data are currently available to get a precise overview of the different uses of soy in the UK. What is clear from estimations though, is that the vast majority of the UK’s soy imports (at least 90%) is fed to animals; much less (at most 10%) is being used for direct human consumption. Most soy, furthermore, is used in poultry and pig production. That said, other sectors – including beef and dairy farming as well as aquaculture – are still responsible for a considerable part of soy consumption in the UK.
https://www.tabledebates.org/blog/soy-uk-what-are-its-uses
Thats a great question and answer P7, and unlike other posters you didnt expect a change of subject and go on about animal feeds.
Isn't it amazing when people stick to the topic at hand.
You seeing this piemonster ?. Stick to the topic and question asked and not go off on a tangent looking for a counter argument.
No I didnt miss it at all. 36% was the figure I got from google too. Didnt know the human percentage on grain or that of bio fuels, but on the human aspect i was going to answer things like Bread, Whiskey and Beer.
A great study by National Geographic. But have you something a little more current. That ones now 7 years old, and more is understood about how the changing weather might affect it.
Now, back to the question at hand. Soya production for Vegan and vegetarian diets. I take it those who follow such take note of the supply chain and dont just pop down to the supermarket to buy it there. I'd be so so disappointed to find those highly moral souls were contributing to the destruction of the rainforests.
You seeing this piemonster ?. Stick to the topic and question asked and not go off on a tangent looking for a counter argument.
Not only am I seeing it, but I've bookmarked it for the next time you revert to not understanding. Which you've done on at least 3 occasions, so next time you'll need a different strategy.
Beyond it being described as “disastrous” I’m not sure what the real life impact of this case is expected to be, anyone seen a good summary of the predictions ??
Which you’ve done on at least 3 occasions, so next time you’ll need a different strategy.
Excellent then. Glad we've got you on the case, I do get confused when people switcheroo.
Anyway, tootle pip for now. Need to get dinner on. Pasta I think, I'm completely out of grain fed South American beef.
WTF has a question to do with crops got to do with cattle
Crop production requires land. Out Current penchants for meat protein means that much of this land that could produce Crops for human consumption is being used to produce crops..specifically for animal feed.. and also a place those same animals "live"
Production of meat protein is a hugely inefficient process.
So, this cattle diversion is 100% relevant to your question about how we grow enough crops for 7 billion people.. stop using land for meat production.
Stick cowspiricy on your Netflix Play list
Crop production requires land
I know that yes. my original question wasnt about feeding cows, rather about the logistics of what is needed in order to feed a planets worth of people on crops alone.
So I said ie how many tractors ?- and got the answer Cows.
I asked how much land ? - and got the answer Cows.
No matter how I worded it , the answer that came back was always meat and cattle related.
I thought this all seemed a bit deja vu
Maybe that ^ (more recent) climate change thread could instead serve as the one for dyna-ti to continue smacking those cyclists veggies/vegans around the chops (given their irresponsible choice of transport diet re climate change)?
Now, back to the question at hand. Soya production for Vegan and vegetarian diets
Really?
As far as vegans count* then it really is statistically irrelevant and a non-issue at this point given that meat-eaters and bio-diesel currently drive and consume the overwhelming majority of (deforesting) soy. Vegetarian diets are more problematic (assuming said veggie consumes intensively-produced dairy and eggs)
*Worldwide there is estimated to be 7.9 million vegans vs a population of 7.9 billion. If you drew a pie chart to show this then it would resemble (draws pie chart) this:
Don’t forget (did you forget?) more than three-quarters (77%) of global soy is fed to livestock for meat and dairy production. Most of the rest is used for biofuels, industry or vegetable oils. Just 7% of soy is used directly for human food products such as tofu, soy milk, edamame beans, and tempeh. The idea that foods often promoted as substitutes for meat and dairy – such as tofu and soy milk – are driving deforestation is a common misconception.
Overwhelmingly seeking beefs (SWIDT?) with vegan food-choices at this point in world history?
Where do we really want to focus on change? Or should we let our personal hatreds go Full Clarkson on minorities as perma-handy scapegoats? Because cyclists are the real problem. Or are they?
https://ecf.com/news-and-events/news/how-much-co2-does-cycling-really-save
The question is, just how much exactly? And how much is it compared to cars and buses?
And here comes the good news. The production of a bicycle sets you back only 5g per kilometer driven. That’s about one tenth compared to the production of a car. Add to that the CO2 emissions from the average European diet, which is another 16g per kilometer cycled. In total, riding your bike accounts for about 21g of CO2 emissions per kilometer – again, more than ten times less than a car!
And there is room for improvement as well. Europeans still eat quite a lot of meat, which needs up to 1500g of CO2 emissions per 100 calories produced. Climate-friendly, vegetarian and local food produces much less CO2 (11 g for corn, 23 g for potatoes, for example).
Alternatively, here’s someone who’s also just about had enough of those smug halo-wearing veggies cyclists. So much so that he’s decided to lift the lid on their hypocritical BS. Yes, cyclists are causing the global warming crisis because wait for it: Avocados.
Ignore it some more:
In 2018, scientists behind the most comprehensive analysis to date of the damage of farming to the planet found avoiding meat and dairy products was the single biggest way to reduce your environmental impact on the planet. The research showed that without meat and dairy consumption, global farmland use could be reduced by more than 75% – an area equivalent to the US, China, European Union and Australia combined – and still feed the world…
… 86% of all land mammals are now livestock or humans. The scientists also found that even the very lowest impact meat and dairy products still cause much more environmental harm than the least sustainable vegetable and cereal growing.
But you posted your question *incl the logistics of freeing up arable land* off the back of a quote about eating meat......
The answer is still Cows.
But you posted your question *incl the logistics of freeing up arable land* off the back of a quote about eating meat……
Correct. But wouldnt it be normal to answer that question ?, which was not about eating meat but about how to go about not eating meat. How would that be achieved.
Apparently not. Why answer the posed question when you can answer a completely different question and not the one being asked. Again thats totally evading it.
So what is necessary to enable that to happen ? a simple question, and I even said it would end in instead of any sort of logical answer, just a dogs load of abuse.
P7 has as usual obliged.
" Really? " No not really, just a retort of the type you engage in, and I knew you would get triggered by it and ignore the initial aspect of how and launch on more abusive text based solely on that. You are more than happy to show how much soya is used for animal feed, but ignore tthe part others play in its use. The actual amount adds up to some 190,000 tons for human use. Thats a lot of quorn nuggets, but because its only 6%, you can step back and deny its part of the problem. I'm sure theres a place for you in the Daily Mail readership comments section, thats exactly how they engage when posed with opposition.
A brave new world . Oh how wonderful, how ideal and what everyone wants, but too many like yourself is incapable of accepting anything you view as a critical question and prefer to abuse rather than answer.
How do we achieve these ideals. Can you answer, would you even. Apparently not. You answered a question with another question, but not a related logical one.
Call me the old cynic, but I demand that in order to initiate an ideal, you need to show the working and not just the solution.
Maybe just maybe we should allow those poor Brazilians to keep their economy from clearing their forestry for animal grazing and export foodstuffs,and insist the Canadians stop cutting down theirs, given the timber industry in Canada is three times the size of that of Brazil. Or Sweden, or Finland, both with timber industries twice the size of Brazil's. Then it wouldnt matter how much beef or soya they produced, the world would have its important forestry and Brazil might manage to improve its economy.
A win win situation wouldn't you agree ?.
Correct. But wouldnt it be normal to answer that question ?
My bad, let me have another crack.
Q. How do we logistically free up the arable land for feeding 7 billion people through crops?
A. We displace the cows (and other livestock) off the land. We remove the need to grow crops to feed these live stock and use all this available land to feed those 7 billion people with a less intensive and higher nutrition per resource food stuff.
Is that better? Oh wait.. its still about cows.
Brazil has always had a hardwood industry. The issue is that through mass deforestation (illegal in many cases but currently supported by a climate denying leadership) and their rapid slash and burn approach that saw staggeringly poor air quality through much of the south Americas, with no intention to manage this current evolution of forestation and replacing the incredible carbon sink that is the amazon with land for cattle and cattle feed then there is an ever increasing argument against farming livestock for food.
Canadian and I assume European forests are managed and forest stock is rotated through. Oil sands aside, Canada isn't loosing massive amounts of forest and in 2018 Canada lost 1500 hectares through deforestation to forestry. Across all industries, Canada lost 35000 hectares of forest. I 2020, Brazil deforested a reported 1.1milion hectares..
There's a big push in Canada to protect the last remaining old growth forests...which is what most of the amazon represents essentially. Fast growing northern hemisphere wood is ideal for building materials. Brazilian hardwood is great for Bentley dashboards and fancy furniture.
I mean with the power that the amazon has to protect our climate. thise poor brazillions Brazil could sell carbon credits and reforest those massive swaths that have been removed. Whilst we have an appetite for consuming cattle, soy and beef are probably the easiest solution rather than thinking outside the box and figuring out a new way of monetizing the living trees themselves.
They could be Brazillionaires!
I guess you can keep asking the same question until you get the answer that you want, though as I guess none of the information above satiates your need to be right, you'll tell us were answering the wrong question..
Q. How do we logistically free up the arable land for feeding 7 billion people through crops?
A. We displace the cows (and other livestock) off the land. We remove the need to grow crops to feed these live stock and use all this available land to feed those 7 billion people with a less intensive and higher nutrition per resource food stuff.
Perfectly answered. Or even simpler, we would actually have more land so the question how to free up enough land is a bit silly.
Just to make it worse for those that can't imagine not eating meat, you will also need to eat food that is more locally available and not shipped around the world so you dinner maybe a bit less 'exotic' than it currently is.
I mean with the power that the amazon has to protect our climate. thise poor brazillions Brazil could sell carbon credits and reforest those massive swaths that have been removed
Now that's the sort of approach that could actually work. Unless we radically change the whole capitalist system then doing 'the right thing' needs to either be mandated by law, or be economically attractive.
You are (sic) more than happy to show how much soya is used for animal feed, but (sic) ignore tthe part others play in its use. The actual amount adds up to some 190,000 tons for human use.
I can repeat myself if you missed it the first time. Again,
as far as vegans count then it really is statistically irrelevant and a non-issue at this point given that meat/dairy and bio-diesel currently drive and consume the overwhelming majority of (deforesting) soy. Vegetarian diets are more problematic (assuming said veggie consumes intensively-produced dairy and eggs).
Quorn is made from mycoprotein btw, not so much soy-protein.
incapable of accepting anything you view as a critical question
Which ‘critical question’?
my original question wasnt about feeding cows, rather about the logistics of what is needed in order to feed a planets worth of people on crops alone.
Which page was it on, please? Or are you talking about the other thread? I was (attempting) to answer your question about vegetarians and soy. Your beef with cows and deforestation was with some other poster maybe?
Nonetheless, is that (feeding a planet on crops alone) an idealistic argument or a strawman argument? It’s not my argument whichever.
As far as it is a strawman argument, I’m not sure who here is proposing that we require to feed the global population on crops alone.
As an idealist argument, even if (hypothetically) it was desirable it’s not going to happen in the next 50 (or even 100) years. Probably never. So…?
At this moment I’d equate such a question (somewhat) to asking
‘How is cycling going to provide all of the global transport that we require’? Cyclists never answer that question fo they? They just jump on their bike, cycle away, smugly in denial about their own emissions’
‘Almost’ meaningless, to the point of being meaningless. See the pie chart? Did you see it? I took time. I didn’t ignore the question.
What we need to do (globally) is slash emissions now and slash them most where they count the most.
If that means insulating, using less power/less fossil-fuels, buying less luxury/obsolescing shit, eating (much) less meat and dairy, working from home more often, walking/cycling/busing to the shops, car-shares, getting the train, then let’s crack on.
But as to your (obsession? overwhelming concern?) with non-meat foodstuffs - there are loads of alternatives on offer for the days/diets where meat and dairy could be given a miss. And more to come.
As for your ‘190000 tons of soy for human use’ being a ‘problem’. I am not ‘ignoring’ it, rather I’m fairly certain that you misunderstand it, and I thought I made it plain how statistically insignificant I believe it currently is to the (climate/extinction) problems at hand. That is not ‘ignoring’. It is assessing. If I’m wrong in my assessment then I’m always pleased to be corrected.
So if you’d provide me the source I’d be happy to go and examine it. (Or if you have already done the work then please tell) ie:
1. What percentages are used to produce which kinds of foodstuffs and in which countries?
2. % of which are sourced from sustainable soy crop?
3. % of which are sourced from deforesting soy crop
No worries, I found it:
kerley: Could most of the world stop eating meat tomorrow – yes very easily. Will they, not a chance.
dyna-ti: Perhaps someone should show how we would be able to grow enough for 7 billion people first
It’s no great surprise that we already grow enough crops to feed 7 billion people. Theoretically more than enough:
The current production of crops is sufficient to provide enough food for the projected global population of 9.7 billion in 2050, although very significant changes to the socio-economic conditions of many (ensuring access to the global food supply) and radical changes to the dietary choices of most (replacing most meat and dairy with plant-based alternatives, and greater acceptance of human-edible crops currently fed to animals, especially maize, as directly-consumed human food) would be required.
Here’s some reading
The irony is that if we continue along our current track of instead diverting edible crops to uses other* than (direct) human nutrition then by 2050 we’d actually instead have to increase crop production by almost 120% to provide enough nutrients for all the people on earth.
* Livestock consumes an estimated 34% of global crop production, 1,329 kcal/p/d disappear through waste and loss, and almost 1,000 kcal/p/d is repurposed for other uses eg biofuel, cosmetics and pharmaceuticals.
A good doc if you want to get into granular details about the emissions of food stuffs. UK specific, graphs start from about p36 onwards.
thread about Ivor Nasty Chestycough fast approaching 40k posts, thread about climate change only just broke 400 and nothing to add for 7mths...
actually it was this
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61961821
petrol rationing in sri lanka that made me think of various signs of the end of the world and how it was odd that STW wasnt in full rant - meh
spoiler alert - petrol rationing in sri lanka has little to do with Climate Change.
Ivor Nasty Chestycough
Really?
I thought that was a bit to quick to nail your intentions flag to the mast, could at elast have put in a few reasonable posts first. They just cant bothered with the ground work sometimes.
I'm all for changing the way we we eat - but this seems weird:
greater acceptance of human-edible crops currently fed to animals, especially maize
Cows can eat kg after kg of maize, but I'm not sure I can? I often get the feeling that these analyses have an intrinsic bias, in that the authors gloss over things because they want to show how great veganism is. And I'm not anti-vegan, I'd love us to all be able to eat sustainably.
Millet is cous cous - admittedly vile but edible