Beef and dairy drive 41% of biodiversity damage linked to global farmland
95 points - today at 9:30 AM
SourcePlenty of people (including me) are vegan, healthy, and happy. As omnivores above the poverty line, we can all make conscious and conscientious choices about what we eat. Going vegan is one of the most effective ways to combat global warming (if you're not in a position to donate large sums of money toward climate change research or mitigation).
softwaredoug
today at 11:21 AM
I would say it’s important to emphasize people don’t need to go complete vegan. Reducing consumption of animal products can be more realistic for most people.
DarkNova6
today at 10:50 AM
This is bullshit. The vast majority of CO2 is created by energy production.
The problem is systemic and blaming other people for their lifestyle choices is neither effective nor helpful and just leads to further division. It's exactly this sort of division that helps fossil companies to destroy the planet and keep making money.
Give it a couple decades. Most 'vegans' stop being vegan well before that. I'll let you Google why they do.
I am not vegan, will never be, but I have known vegans for more than two decades and they are doing fine. We need to make it easy to make the right choice about food, and one way to do that is to stop making meat meat meat the ONLY cool thing. I am fine with vegans serving me tasty food, they make alternatives easier. If you do not want to be a full time vegan just switch to 3 out 7 days of the week or something like that.
I gather this is a vague snarky comment loosely implying that vegans don't get enough B12. If so, it's a profoundly ignorant point that shows you don't have any knowledge of a typical vegan diet nowadays.
softwaredoug
today at 11:27 AM
A couple of decades of not eating meat is a pretty significant improvement on you your carbon impact :)
Vegans have never and will never appreciably reduced global emissions.
Global meat production is only increasing.
You're delusional with main character syndrome?
Take a look to a soybean plantation for example, biodiversity totally destroyed. Also, are you doing a physical main work?
The point is that you need multiple plantations like this to make enough feed for the cows to make equivalent calories/proteins.
Kichererbsen
today at 10:59 AM
Disclaimer: Not a vegan myself.
You do realize those soybean plantations are not for human consumption, right? And that that's what is factored into the quoted loss of biodiversity?
hackernud3s
today at 10:48 AM
But someone still has to eat up all those cows before their methane mucks up the environment.
And if you're not willing to do your part, that just means the rest of us have to pull double duty.
Not to mention that beef/dairy production is a primary source of methane which is 80x more potent than Co2, but constantly under reported due to its shorter half life. Yes in the long run that matters, but its all the more reason that we should reduce animal agriculture right away as the payback is much faster than limiting Co2.
DarkNova6
today at 10:48 AM
I never understood this argument. With Oil & Gas you release green house gases that have been sealed away back into the air.
For methane produced by farming all components remain in a cycle. Everything released by animals eventually finds its way back to plants, which get eaten, which become exhaust of animals, etc.
This sounds to me more like a spin by big oil to finger point at another industry.
Flashtoo
today at 11:08 AM
The methane will eventually break down and be part of new plants, but in the meantime it will heat the planet much more than if it hadn't been there. Think of it this way: industrial scale cattle farming essentially makes and feeds biochemical reactors that turn hydrocarbons into a gaseous form that maximizes their global heating effect. Consider the counterfactual where we don't stuff billions of fart machines full of corn.
pizzaiolo
today at 11:11 AM
It's not exactly a closed loop, though. A lot of crops are grown using fossil fuel-derived fertilizer.
This is literally backwards - plants absorb CO2, not methane!
The obsession with CO2, specifically emitted by fossil fuel use, for me indicates geopolitical motivations (for both standpoints).
modo_mario
today at 10:32 AM
>Yes in the long run that matters, but its all the more reason that we should reduce animal agriculture right away as the payback is much faster than limiting Co2.
The long run is the thing that really matters.
A faster payback only serves to cover the impact of those that want to keep pumping up oil and gas in the meantime(also to make synthetic fertiliser) for a few decades.
It shifts focus from that on cow farts. As if the rotting plant matter and wild animal life that could replace it didn't emit any methane.
enquirewithin
today at 10:15 AM
What percentage of anthropogenic methane emissions can be attributed to cow farts?
I would hazard a guess that the incidental methane emissions from one gas extraction field would astronomically dwarf the emissions from cow farts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_emissions
fossil fuels contribute 33%
farm animals contribute 30%
Not astronomically; marginally. Anyone who's been around herbivore farm animals will tell you they fart. A lot.
Then again, farm plants are a further 18%.
modo_mario
today at 10:33 AM
Those fossil fuels emit what otherwise wouldn't be available in the carbon cycle.
A cow that's fed on gras and farts emits nothing that that gras didn't pick up and contributes virtually nothing to climate change in the long term.
lotsofpulp
today at 10:43 AM
I imagine the fertilizers used for the grass to support the quantity and quality of the cows’ output require quite a bit of fossil fuels.
Otherwise, I wonder if non fertilizer supported grass could support sufficient cows to satiate demand (which has not even peaked yet).
modo_mario
today at 11:25 AM
Oh true and we consequently need to eat less cow meat, more different meat and/or have less people.
but focusing on that is shifting blame in an innefectual way of course. Pointing at cow farts puts the pressure on the individual and seeks to dampen effects in the short term.
Pump up less or no fossil fuels with actual long term thinking and those fertilisers will automatically become more expensive. At that point tho our oversized animal herd becomes harder to support and beef becomes automatically a lot more expensive whilst at the same time the manure becomes more important.
enquirewithin
today at 10:57 AM
I didn’t say animal agriculture, I said “cow farts”. The animal agriculture figure listed on that Wikipedia page includes all ruminant livestock (mainly cattle, sheep, and goats).
Also, from that Wikipedia article:
There is accumulating research and data showing that oil and gas industry methane emissions – or from fossil fuel extraction, distribution and use – are much larger than thought.[35][36][37][38][39]
Still, my “astronomically dwarfs” looks to be overstating it by a wide margin.
Llamamoe
today at 10:29 AM
> Then again, farm plants are a further 18%.
Yeah, but they also provide 80% of the world's calories to animals' 20%
tempfile
today at 10:23 AM
> farm plants are a further 18%
Apparently mainly rice growing. I knew paddy fields were bad, but I didn't know they were that bad. Per calorie I am sure it is more like a tenth that of ruminants, perhaps less, but still worth replacing with other carbohydrates.
Llamamoe
today at 10:30 AM
All the more so since rice is relatively poor in nutrients.
enquirewithin
today at 11:01 AM
Isn’t it the case that much of the land used to grow rice is good for little else?
dev_l1x_be
today at 10:29 AM
With corn based feeding.
It isn't the "cow farts" that produce most methane, but rather the anaerobic processing of cow dung emanating from feed lots, dairy operations, etc.
Grass-fed beef cattle whose dung is "recycled" in a more natural way in the fields produce the same emissions as would wild ruminants such as antelope, bison, etc.
The biodiversity problem in the above refers mostly to new land clearances intended for farming, including for feedstock. This is minor in N. America and Europe, mostly as the clearances were done decades or over a century ago.
enquirewithin
today at 11:06 AM
This Wikipedia article linked to elsewhere in this discussion gives the impression that the agricultural methane emissions are primarily a result of enteric fermentation by ruminant livestock.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_emissions
That's the source of emission by the cow or steer. Industrial processing of the dung produces vastly more.
Table 3 in this source [0] shows enteric vs manure methane emissions are 158 vs 137 kg CH4/yr for dairy cows, who are mostly fed in feedlots, and 58 vs 2.4 for meat and other cattle, in the US and Canada. So the CH4 emissions range 65-fold from 2.4 to 158 depending on how the cattle are farmed.
[0] Revised methane emissions factors and spatially distributed annual carbon fluxes for global livestock. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/pmid/28959823/
throwawayffffas
today at 10:35 AM
I would argue animal emissions do not matter at all, methane survives about a decade in the atmosphere. Eventually breaking down to co2, co2 that was already in the atmosphere to begin with. Fossil fuel emissions are the ones that matter.
Not following your logic. A decade is a long time for such a powerful greenhouse gas.
throwawayffffas
today at 11:00 AM
There were cows a decade ago as well. The herd size dictates a level in the atmosphere it does not constantly increase the amount of methane in the atmosphere, there is an equilibrium.
Increasing herd sizes increases that equilibrium level and that is partially responsible for the overall increase.
But there are mitigations that can be applied there are feed additives that reduce the cow related methane emissions to 1%.
Overall point is cow farts can be a drop in the bucket in the overall scheme of things, all we have to do is modify their diet slightly. Should we do it yes. Is it a huge issue no.
Industrial methane leaks are a bigger problem, that methane when it breaks down will turn into co2 that was not there to begin with contributing to global warming permanently.
Look up the methane cycle. Methane is a flow gas. CO2 is a millennial gas that can stick around for millennia.
shiandow
today at 10:20 AM
You would be wrong, they are about equal in size, both accounting for about a third of the anthropogenic emissions.
It's mainly burps. They chew their cud.
Cows produce around 50 kg CH4 per head per year. There's around 1.5 billion cattle. That's around 75 teragrams (million metric tons).
Humans release about 410 teragrams altogether. About 40 percent is agricultural. And another 40 percent is from fossils, namely natural gas.
The top 100 natural gas leaks release over 20 teragrams of methane a year. That's just the leaks. That's 400,000,000 cattle worth of methane just pissed into the wind.
Do you have a reference for the leaks? I read leaks were underestimated but I didn't find recent studies about it.
Thanks!
mklarmann
today at 10:22 AM
[flagged]
dnautics
today at 11:04 AM
methane has less ir absorption than co2 and (as you said) a shorter half life.
christophilus
today at 10:59 AM
We have around 27 million cattle (in the US) today. There were something like 30-50 million bison in the US before we almost eradicated them. Were the bison equally bad? Or is the problem that we’re feeding these ruminants unnatural diets?
Incidentally, I’d love to see the Great Plains return to huge roaming ruminant populations, and find a way to build our meat industry around that.
I think the problem is how we keep the cattle.
In natural environment, they cohabitant with other animals. They migrates.
When we farm them, we remove anything not our primary product.
There's more nuance here than reducing consumption of beef and dairy. Moving over to regenerative farming practices instead of factory farming will also improve the situation.
There is quite a bit in between too. Grass vs grain fed cattle, for example.
soupspaces
today at 10:45 AM
How about regenerative economics? I hate it.
dev_l1x_be
today at 10:28 AM
Beef & dairy the industrial way drive this. Several studies and decade long experiments show the positive impact of the non-industrial alternatives.
And which do the vast majority consume because that is the only one satisfying industrial scale consumption needs?
Even on a site like HN, where rational and logical thinking is held in high esteem, and where few could be suspected of climate change denialism, a factual statement such as this one from the article:
"On average, animal-sourced foods are associated with eight times more carbon loss and 14 times more biodiversity loss per calorie than plant-sourced foods."
is very likely to be countered by listing personal preferences, anecdata, concern for vegans' health or mockery of that lifestyle choice, and generally nitpicking.
Honest admissions like 'I am part of the problem and will maybe try doing something about it' are very rare.
Food needs to provide more than calories. Do the same comparison per gram of protein.
> Even on a site like HN, where rational and logical thinking is held in high esteem
That is until people are faced with stuff like this :D. Then emotions take over.
The rational and logical is mostly an aesthetic preference, not lived value.
HN leans strongly reactionary and just likes to dress it up a bit so as to appear more respectable.
Indeed, that's the same answer when topics like public surveillance or dependency-inducing media are debated. It's difficult to criticize a problem, when you're a part of the problem, respectively paid to be the problem.
Ok but like, where do you get your protein? I'm sorry but bacon is tasty and I want to eat it.
/s
znnajdla
today at 11:02 AM
If I can’t eat meat and milk, what is the point of living? What is the point of doing anything if we humans cannot live the way humans have always lived (our “nature”)? What’s more important, the climate or human nature?
You know what’s the best way to combat climate change? Kill yourself.
I understand wanting to restrict private jets and personal cars since these are wasteful polluters not essential to life or human nature, but criticizing meat and milk is just misanthropy.
sertraline
today at 11:29 AM
>criticizing meat and milk is just misanthropy
I'm more triggered by how they count and compare plant and animal-based calories. They ignore one critical detail: human body is not a calorie meter. They don't take into account protein digestibility, phytic acid, phototoxins, non-digestible oligosaccharides that cause bloating. 200kcal of boiled eggs versus 200kcal of peas? Some people just really enjoy their peas and beans, I guess.
The key is "maybe try doing something", does not mean to destroy our culture. My child choose to be vegetarian but I just can not be bothered. I am too lazy. That does not mean I do not try to adapt. You can find the things that are wonderful with other ways of life.
You think there's no point in living if you can't eat meat and milk?
Is there really nothing else going on in your life?
I'm sorry.
znnajdla
today at 11:21 AM
Is there nothing else going on in your life except to criticize other people's wanting to eat meat and milk, as humans have always done? That I'm sorry for.
You're moving the goalposts.
I'm not criticizing people wanting to eat meat or milk.
I'm criticizing making it ones entire point of living.
Is there really nothing else going on for you? Meat and milk all you have to live for? Surely you must see how that's not good for you?
znnajdla
today at 11:26 AM
I did not claim that eating meat and milk is one's entire point of living. I claimed that the entire point of living is to live according to human nature. Wanting to eat meat and a milk is a part of human nature for pretty much all of humanity's history.
You seem incapable of understanding rhetorical exaggeration.
Please reread the first sentence of your post above.
znnajdla
today at 11:31 AM
whoosh totally incapable of understanding a rhetorical exaggeration
jkahrs595
today at 11:20 AM
Ironic you advocate people kill themselves after claiming life isn’t worth living if you can’t have meat or milk.
As the kids say: no u.
testemailfordg2
today at 10:27 AM
Unfortunately, the priority is increasing efficiency and ROI, rather than sustainability. This leads to centralization and operations at a scale which are not sustainable, without external input or causing damage to existing nature. De-centralization and sustainable practices are the only way forward, as it has been for centuries before us on this earth. Maybe space is the place for these kinds of centralised and intensive practices, like being planned for data centers.
concinds
today at 10:47 AM
"Efficiency and ROI" can be applied to financial but also to environmental impact. Producing more with less [land use/fertilizer/water use] is also a form of efficiency, and it's good, but it requires vast capital that mom & pop farms don't have + strong government incentives. De-scaling is only an agrarian nostalgia fantasy, it's incompatible with reaching climate goals.
chickenbig
today at 10:19 AM
Does this mean we should be advocating for more intensive cattle rearing? Stockyards and special breeds may not be the worst way to meet demand and reduce environmental impact (measured by CO2/methane emissions as well as biodiversity loss, for instance).
Managed grazing along with other regenerative techniques can sequester carbon in the soil. Factory farms have the problem of concentrated dung disposal which usually leads to letting it sit in methane producing conditions and also feed for intensive operations usually comes from non-regenerative crop farming which uses more fossil-fuel fertilizer and depletes the soil.
It's far easier do avoid producing so much meat.
A vegetarian diet is perfectly healthy.
Stockyards are the worst offenders. This is due to how the dung is processed, which releases a lot of methane. Grass-fed cattle have much lower net emissions of greenhouse gasses.
tempfile
today at 10:20 AM
I despair. Is it that hard for us to imagine eating less meat?
throwthrowuknow
today at 10:30 AM
We need a new caveat cliche for these headlines like how people love to reply “in mice” to health research. For environmental research it’s almost always “in the 3rd world”
Thing is, will be anything left after we destroy the planet with war, data centers, rare earth minerals mines, nuclear and battery waste?
sudo_cowsay
today at 10:01 AM
But it's also not like we can just stop eating steak and milk.
lentil_soup
today at 10:29 AM
you can, but you can also just reduce it, you can eat say half the meat/milk. Eat more vegetables and grains. Not only massively reduces the impact but pretty good for your body too
Yes we can ... but most of us (including me) don't want to. (At least not completely)
DarkNova6
today at 10:51 AM
"Most of us" is a pretty bold claim.
Well, those are the numbers I found, that matched my intuition:
"Beef: roughly 70–80% of people eat it at least occasionally
Milk and dairy: roughly 85–90%"
enquirewithin
today at 10:23 AM
With the ever growing popularity and success of the ketogenic diet, it becomes progressively more evident that a plant based diet is massively suboptimal for a not insignificant fraction of people.
williamdclt
today at 10:26 AM
Our ecosystem dying is also pretty suboptimal.
Llamamoe
today at 10:34 AM
This has nothing to do with plant and everything to do with rampant prevalence of gut dysbiosis and harmful gut bacteria feeding on otherwise healthy fibers and carbs, as well as processed carbohydrate and sugar overconsumption plus insulin resistance driven by sedentary lifestyles, inflammation, etc.
Ketogenic diet is a band aid to both, not a solution, and plants are not the cause of either problem, either.
You can do a keto diet without meat.
tonyhart7
today at 10:14 AM
we literally cant, human body its not designed to not eat meat
hutattedonmyarm
today at 11:29 AM
Oh, I didn’t realize that I dropped dead years ago when I stopped eating meat
Not all meat is steak. Reducing and/or exchanging beef for other meat sources can at scale already make a massive difference.
Chicken, for example, produces 10% of CO2 per kg of meat compared to beef.
tonyhart7
today at 10:33 AM
if we going for efficiency, rabbit meat is no 1 choice
JoeyJoJoJr
today at 10:20 AM
But the human hand was designed to hold a banana.
Not quite true, but cooking becomes quite a bigger challenge.
But mainly, beef and meat is not the same, cattle needs way more ressources than chicken for example, or well, insects.
shiandow
today at 10:23 AM
There are other sources of meat.
Also dairy is not a meat.
tempfile
today at 10:27 AM
Ridiculous comment. The human body is not designed at all, and is very much capable of surviving without milk and meat. It's not even very hard!
Surviving and prospering aren't the same things, though. And you do need to mind a lot of substitutes you now need, if you just let go of meat.
It's not *that* hard to prosper with even a vegan diet in the modern world, I know several who do fine.
Hardest part is knowing implicit animal ingredients you might not otherwise guess, which almost tripped me up when I visited the US and (as a vegetarian*) almost bought some yogurt before reading the ingredients list and finding to my surprise that it contained gelatine.
* it's mainly the cheese; I've substituted out other uses of milk. Also, vegan yogurt is a thing now, not sure when that happened, before or after that visit.
There is no health reason to eat meat.
You can get your B12 elsewhere.
hackernud3s
today at 10:31 AM
You can get it from supplements. That's about it though.
Supplements if you're vegan, there are vegetarian sources.
Just looked up the Wikipedia page to check on vegan, and… looks like all the animal and plant "sources" actually ingest the stuff from elsewhere?
Since only bacteria and some archea possess the genes and enzymes necessary to synthesize vitamin B12, plant and algae sources all obtain the vitamin secondarily from symbiosis with various species of bacteria,[5] or in the case of fermented plant foods, from bacterial fermentation.[86]
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12TBH fortified yeast flakes are a pretty good spice.
It literally is designed to survive without meat, meat used to be a luxury that was only eaten on special occasions for most people in history, we only eat so much nowadays because it became so cheap
lotsofpulp
today at 10:16 AM
And yet the most populous country in the world has an enormous contingent of people who do not eat meat (on the order of hundreds of millions).
Sure and like half of them have anemia.
tonyhart7
today at 10:23 AM
who ?? if you talking about indian, they still eat meat (around 6 - 12 pound every year)
Mean != distribution.
The mean human has approximately one ovary, one testicle. A few hundred million Indians refusing all meat is compatible with the others not doing that.
not-kinsale-joe
today at 10:26 AM
Genuine question, can you explain why we can't?
techterrier
today at 10:03 AM
Theres a billion or so Indians that might suggest otherwise
India is among the largest beef exporter in the world.
Does this make the vegetarians not exist?
lotsofpulp
today at 10:08 AM
Milk products are very prominent in many Indians’ diets. I wouldn’t be surprised if India’s milk consumption per capita is the highest in the world, given a large proportion of Indians avoid meat, so they might source more protein/fat from milk products.
If it’s not, it’s probably just poverty holding back consumption.
Edit: upon second reading, I realize techterrier was probably refuting only the steak part of sudo_cowsay’s comment
It's also poverty holding back millionaire consumption.
There was a research, which I can't be arsed to google with mobile, that compared western vegan diet and Indian omnivore and, yup you guessed it, the western version was less costly in terms of future proof.
But as with the zillionaires the human predicament depends on weather we muster the courage to limit ourselves or die to the extinction that's already manifesting itself in forms like forest fires, droughts and crop losses.
tempfile
today at 10:25 AM
I am not vegan, but I found dropping beef and lamb to be literally the easiest modification to my life possible. Dropping dairy is much harder, but as I am now discovering still incredibly easy to reduce.
hackernud3s
today at 10:37 AM
Dropping lamb? Something tells me that won't be a problem for most of the people in this thread lol.
karakarakarakar
today at 10:05 AM
You can eat bugs
Sadly, this being Hacker News, it won't catch much attention and will be quickly flagged by people who have too much karma.
But I think we are making progress, slowly, sadly too slowly, with the current summer we are having in Europe, of the impact of our past actions in the weather. And make no mistake, eating so much meat and drinking so much milk, is a huge impact we are inflicting on our planet.
Please do not comment with "I do X" or "In our house, we avoid doing Y" - it is not about you and me, it is about society. I am convinced, you are convinced, we need everyone to be convinced.
hdgvhicv
today at 10:20 AM
Everyone apart from a few stragglers agree the climate is changing. Most people agree the world won’t change its behaviour on its own to stop that.
So we can thus incentivise change (things like renewables being far cheaper than fossil fuel) globally, and adapt to reality.
There are a vocal minority whining about how we need to stop eating beef or milk annd stop using energy and there are those who make beef and milk more sustainable and make generating energy sustainable. I have time for the latter. The former can go hand out with the coal rollers.
It is not just a few stragglers, 30% of americans believe climate change isnt real, the us president is one of them.
Fighting climate change is not going to be successful without sacrifice, we tried that for the last decades and fossil fuel consumption has only risen.
Of course people dont want to do that and so instead deny it happening or that it will be magically fixed in the future.
How do you make beef and milk more sustainable? I'm honestly wondering. To me it seems similar to saying: we can make coal power plants more efficient. Equivalent to more "efficient" (however you want to define that) forms of animal husbandry.
It doesn't change the fact that you're still burning coal, while you could be putting up solar.
throwawayffffas
today at 10:44 AM
Okay lets get this straight, animals do not contribute to global warming. The co2 they emit has been taken from the atmosphere from plants.
Methane breaks down to Co2 in the atmosphere on average in 9.6 years.
Animal rearing does not permanently affect the climate.
Increasing stock sizes does increase the methane level equilibrium but there are mitigations to this, there are additives to feed that can reduce methane emissions to 1%. Last I checked a few years ago, there were pilot programs to determine effects on animal welfare and product quality.
The problem we should be focusing on is fossil fuels.
> Methane breaks down to Co2 in the atmosphere on average in 9.6 years.
Despite which, over a 100 year period it has 25 times the warming impact as the CO2 it turns into.
> The problem we should be focusing on is fossil fuels.
Everyone should focus on whatever they know how to make a dent with, the "sustainable" emissions rate is 0.1% of the current rate which is essentially "we need to fix everything everywhere except for pick one of grassland or North Korea".
https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector
Animal-emitted CO2 isn't the problem, but methane.
The CO2 captured by plants and eaten by livestock gets converted in part to methane, a more more potent greenhouse gas. This does eventually degrade back to the original CO2, but on a scale of decades, it's currently too slow to prevent accumulation of methane.
paweladamczuk
today at 10:48 AM
FWIW, no matter the issue, this kind of tone makes me close up for any rational arguments. I wish I could look past it, but I just can't.
It's probably not the tone. You only choose to hear that tone and close up. (From my experience)
I hold some fringe ideas, e.g. helmets are bad. So I have lots of experience with handling discussion where people close up for any rational argument. Because I am just wrong by definition. That really lets you explore how people react to ideas they do not support.
paweladamczuk
today at 11:08 AM
Yeah, straight out denial of somebody's experience is another debate killer.
hackernud3s
today at 10:25 AM
Beef specifically. If everybody switched to pork, chicken and fish that would mitigate most of this and it's a much more realistic ask.
simianwords
today at 10:41 AM
I would much rather have Europe install ACs instead. Stopping meat, not installing ACs, degrowth all look like masochistic ways to show that we are repenting.
ACs are not going to stop storms, floods, droughts and the rising sea level. Fighting climate change requires sacrifice of current comforts for an easier life of future generations.
So of course we are not going to do anything about it, when it is much easier to deny it exists or pretend that it is going to magically fix itself in the future.
It will be flagged because of the manipulative headline.
rimworld
today at 10:43 AM
cow farts lol
Another way of saying the same would be: Agriculture causes almost 60% of the biodiversity damage linked to global farmland.
Yep, is the miracle of literature. An hectare of cattle allows more biodiversity than the same hectare of lettuce.
facecalm
today at 10:23 AM
The miracle would be to read the article which states the biodiversity damage is 14 times higher per calorie than plant-sourced foods. Which means you could reduce the 40% to 2-3% if you would replace it totally.
And per protein gram? Taking into account bio equivalence and bioavailability between different kinds of protein source.
Vegetarian options are easier, cheaper and better to produce per gram of protein. Especially if you want to live in an society and not on the steppe.
You think cows are the only animals that require food production from farms?
nobodywillobsrv
today at 10:13 AM
Seems causally false.
tempfile
today at 10:30 AM
What does that mean?