vegan
Please also check out vegantheoryclub.org for a great set of well-run communities for vegan news, cooking, gardening, and art. It is not federated with LW, but it is a nice, cozy, all-in-one space for vegans.
We ask that the you have an understanding on what veganism is before engaging in this community.
If you think you have been banned erroneously, please get in contact with one of the other mods for appeals.
Moderator reports may not federate properly and may delay moderator action. Please DM an active mod if an abusive comment remains after reporting it.
Welcome
Welcome to c/[email protected]. Broadly, this community is a place to discuss veganism. Discussion on intersectional topics related to the animal rights movement are also encouraged.
What is Veganism?
'Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals ...'
— abridged definition from The Vegan Society
Rules
The rules are subject to change, especially upon community feedback.
- Discrimination is not tolerated. This includes speciesism.
- Topics not relating to veganism are subject to removal.
- Posts are to be as accessible as practicable:
- embedded images of text require alt-text
- posts with an image of text should have a transcription in the body or alt-text
- paywalled articles must have an accessible non-paywalled link;
- use the original source whenever possible for a news article.
- Content warnings are required for triggering content.
- Bad-faith carnist rhetoric & anti-veganism are not allowed, as this is not a space to debate the merits of veganism. Anyone is welcome here, however, and so good-faith efforts to ask questions about veganism may be given their own weekly stickied post in the future.
- before jumping into the community, we encourage you to read examples of common fallacies here.
- if you're asking questions about veganism, be mindful that the person on the other end is trying to be helpful by answering you and treat them with at least as much respect as they give you.
- Posts and comments whose contents – text, images, etc. – are largely created by a generative AI model are subject to removal. We want you to be a part of the vegan community, not a multi-head attention layer running on a server farm.
- No brigading, either off-site or on-site. An incitement to brigade includes two elements: a call to disruptive action and a specific direction outside of this community in which to take that action. Exceptions include:
- Calls to boycott.
- Calls to in-person protest of a government, high-profile individual, or company/organization.
- Votes provided they have a sufficiently broad target audience or provably effective controls against vote brigading.
- Petitions.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service also apply.
Resources on Veganism
A compilation of many vegan resources/sites in a Google spreadsheet:
Here are some documentaries that are recommended to watch if planning to or have recently become vegan:
- You Will Never Look at Your Life in the Same Way Again
- Dominion (2018) (CW: gore, animal abuse)
Vegan Fediverse
Lemmy: vegantheoryclub.org
Mastodon: veganism.social
Other Vegan Communities
General Vegan Comms
Circlejerk Comms
Vegan Food / Cooking
Attribution
- Banner image credit: Jean Weber of INRA on Wikimedia Commons
view the rest of the comments
Have you worked out how that food will be grown?
I'm not the expert, but I believe we're currently growing that food for the animals.
If demand for meat decreased then there'd be more food in the supply chain for humans.
First up, the principal is sound - meat production is very inefficient even if meat consumption is "efficient" just from the narrow perspective of getting adequate protein quickly and conveniently.
I don't really have any answers for #3.... just bringing it up as something to consider.
This is the "manure argument", and it is mentioned, typically by the Big Meat lobby.
While the argument has merit in principle, it neglects the issue of scale. The amount of manure produced by a meat industry of a scale needed to feed billions of omnivorous humans is massively excessive to any possible needs in terms of crop fertilizer. The vast majority of that sh*t ends up in the environment, completely untreated. So, not only does it function as a pathogen that leads to overuse of antibiotics and thus pandemics, it also "fertilizes" rivers and groundwater with nitrate pollution that kills off everything that was there already.
The issue is not just about distribution, it is about type.
This is true.
Edit to be more clear and add some nuance because re-reading everything I can see how you interpreted my comment the way you did.
The context was essentially replacing animal feed with human food, in whole or in part. I did say "less animal production" but to try to be clear - I am completely discounting industrialized production and CAFOs. I do not consider them legitimate methods. That is really the source of your pollution and excess. I didn't specify this and I should have.
We can argue that there is some large reduction in animal production where we can find a balance but the debate is always one or the other and dominated by militant vegans who want fresh veggies and NO animal production. Currently that's not possible.
But another issue that relates to CAFOs is that so much of the manure is not available for composting. We're not set up for that because there are so many fewer organic operations. So if you reduce animal production across the board without regard to type of operation we absolutely will see a fertility deficit.
It's not possible without trying. There are other ways to move organic matter from from freshly dead to soil without the accelerated processes of digestion through some warm blooded animal's intestines.
The problem is the lack of imagination and knowledge on the part of the "organic" types.
And if you don't understand the laws of physics and how there's no free energy, no magical cycles of C, N, P, K, S and others, let me know.
Rest assured, farmers in general are not actually lacking in imagination or knowledge.
Absolutely, please regale us with your outstanding wisdom and intelligence. Do tell us how we can "move organic matter from freshly dead to soil". I'm not sure what that means but perhaps you can educate us.
Yes, they are.
This exactly what I mean. You're looking for education on some random website in a comment when you should be taking years of education on chemistry, biochemistry, soil sciences, biology, microbiology, ecology and many more.
No they aren't. That's just your arrogance and prejudice.
LOL. Rest assured I did not think you were capable of providing such an education.
Did you know for example, that it's increasingly common for farmers to not just have a degree in agronomy but also subjects like chemistry soil science, etc? It's really a requirement if you want to work for any of the larger farming operations. Now my background is in tech, specifically software engineering. My partner has a PhD in biochemistry. A neighboring fruit guy has a PhD in biology and two other farmers I know have advanced degrees in ecology.
But of course you know better and what would I know, I'm just a stupid ignorant farmer.
You don't get knowledge from standing the shadow of someone. I actually publish in agronomic journals with my PhD and I've been through all of your feelings a long time ago. I've taught to the farmers you're picturing of as "knowledgeable".
Software or not, you should already be aware that those who practice and run a business do not have time to learn or experiment.
And no, nobody could provide that kind of education on Lemmy.
"Well actshuaaally...
Hurburdur dur durrrr"
Go ask your friends for courses and books. Let me know when you're ready to discuss papers on systems.
Me and my stupid farming friends laugh hysterically at people like you, especially when we are discussing peer-reviewed studies in relation to our real-world experience and some one like you comes along, needing desperately to tell us how everything works. We like to say you know "everything" and yet nothing. It's long been speculated that the arrogance comes from insecurity and that completely blinds you, closing your mind. One of the principal dangers of academia-itis absent real world experience. But I wonder how we would know... we're just a buncha country bumpkins. Golly gee wilikers huh huh.
I don't think YOU are not. Maybe even afraid. But feel free to try.
Bring it
No you.
Oh wait, you don't actually have a point to make, do you? I mean, beyond "farmer stoopid me so much better". Is that what you publish? Who reads that except other people who like to say "farmer stoopid" and hear themselves talk at dinner parties.
I am all for research and all for science, even in the very abstract. I make practical use of it constantly. But never mistake the reality of it - you are nothing without farmers.
You don't even understand how academia and science works. I'm sorry for your PhD holding friend.
LOL. If only you knew. But please explain! How does it work Pizza69? HOW? Does it involve trolling and endlessly saying nothing?
My partner. The tenured professor. In science.
LOL.
LOL.
LOL.
I love that you think you can handle "science" just by basking in the "science light" of someone. Are you taking private courses from your partner? That would be a start.
Do let us know when you start discussing "science"
Us? You're the lone hero main character here. I asked you to bring the papers backing your original claims, you didn't.
In fact, you did not. At any time. In any of your tail-chasing comments.
And that... that is the most hilarious part of all. You have NO point to make at all. You never once got past acting like you are a whole long week out of elementary school.
LOL.
The burden of evidence is on you.
I'm still not an expert, but I like to speculate and dream of a better world
I have no disagreement with point 1, I've heard that before. But gosh, it's a tough pill to swallow when you're not food secure. I think maybe it's easier for people to accept "there isn't enough food" than "there is food, but I can't have any."
Point 2: I imagine we'd probably grow different food there. I suppose there might be some concern for biodiversity loss, but if we were suddenly gifted a ton of arable land to grow food on we could probably get better variety.
Point 3 is a tough one, it's something I haven't really considered before. However, I suppose that raising animals for fertilizer could potentially be more humane and lower impact than raising animals for flesh. For instance, you're no longer incentivized to slaughter the animals at a young age, and older animals might actually have a lower caloric requirement. Plus you wouldn't need to raise the mega polluters like cows, you just want whatever gives good fertilizer.
You don’t need animals for fertilizer you can follow the veganic farming way of doing things to reduce nitrite runoff and e-coli contamination.
This is the comment I was waiting for.
I'm quite sympathetic to the ideas of veganic farming - most of it is just agro-ecological minus the animal contribution.
I knew a farm that was run by vegans. They literally, I kid you not, were running it on an animal sanctuary that had lots of manure which they refused to use. Great big piles of compost I would have cried over.
They drove 4 hours one way to get a load of veganic compost, which if you know anything about moving such things around, was probably enough for a raised bed or two. So when the veganic people talk about "maximizing local plant-based fertility" and "minimizing off-farm inputs", well, that ain't exactly what they meant.
This is an extreme example but it illustrates how sometimes the adherence to dogmatic principles in food production results in no production.
Growing vegetables without animal manure -and- without synthetic fertilizers works on a teeeny-tiny scale where you already have sufficient fertility and enough land do basically grow grass for compost. It's completely untenable for actual high-intensity food production.
Firstly, my general approach to this problem is to worry about it later, because obviously it's not a problem at all in a world of 8 billion humans all wanting to eat meat every day.
But, since you seem to know what you're talking about, what do you think would be the minimal amount of animals and land required to feed those 8 billion organically? Assumptions:
A rough picture of what that would look like? Lots of cereals and legumes and so on, plus a couple of chickens per hectare?
It's a question complicated by the current "realities" of capitalism where, for example, people are willing to have their food grown in terrible conditions in another country and then imported over thousands of miles and many weeks to save a few percent on costs.
If we can ignore all that and I can just spell out what I think is the ideal scenario, it looks basically like this:
These are a lot of preconditions, I acknowledge.
If this can happen I believe we will require less land than we currently use for our combined animal & human food production. Currently that's around 50% of the land area of the US, or 1.2 billion acres but this includes about 650 million acres for grazing and about the same for forest-use, which I believe means lumber production but could also mean grazing. Only about 400 million acres are used for growing crops and the majority of this is for commodities like soybeans and corn.
The best proxy for productivity is not actually yield of commodities but dollar value. This is because we want to equate as closely as possible productivity with nutrional value without the value-adds of say, processed foods. A typical acre for commodities might net you $150-300 per acre in profit while a typical acre on an integrated farm growing diverse produce (aka speciality crops) can yield over $25,000 per acre up to as much as double that. If you remove some of the headwinds from farmers like mortgages, competition with cheap imported produce, high marketing costs and high transportation costs you could probably see much more than that.
In this scenario food costs would very likely stay about the same or even go down because farmers can get very good margins and better economies of scale from higher demand.
So, back to the question of how much land - if you use the dollar amount and take $2 trillion as the figure we spend on food, and assuming margins around 30% that means revenue of $100k per acre. This would mean you'd need about 20,000,000 acres. Even assuming my napkin math is way off and it's double or triple that... it's a lot less.
Interesting. That certainly looks like a better world than the current one.
This model seems to be optimizing for a specific conception of human nutrition and wellbeing. Fair enough, that will definitely be an easier sell than veganism (if still extremely hard due to entrenched interests).
Personally (like many others here) I would prefer to go further still and optimize the model for biodiversity and animal wellbeing. 40% of current US meat consumption is still pretty high, seems it would be possible to cut that much more without conceding any ground on human nutrition. All of our nearest ape cousins are heavily (if not absolutely) vegan. That to me offers a pretty big clue about what's possible and even advisable.
In this alternative model, I suspect the bottom line for the animal biomass necessary for manure would be above the bottom line for optimal human nutrition, and lower than the figure necessary to produce a kilo of meat per person per week. Especially if it involves lots of egg-laying manure-producing chickens instead of large grazing ruminants. Such a model would require less land still. And if there's one thing even better for the environment than a best-practices agroecological farm with well-paid cooperative workers, it's no farm at all and a forest in its place.
It kind of deliberately doesn't come across but, primarily from the standpoint of lessening our impact on the earth, I'd like to see no animals produced for food. It really isn't strictly necessary for our nutrition but we've evolved and optimized for it's consumption to the point where whole species exist only for that purpose, e.g. cows and chickens and so much culture has developed around it. That's a lot of back tracking.
From the standpoint of their well-being... well, I can't put humans on some pedestal and say we somehow aren't part of the ecosystem here. We are animals too** and I think it's ok to act like it. It's just not ok to be the completely dominant species to the exclusion and extinction of others not least because it's literally to our own determent.
So promoting biodiversity to me means living lighter on the land and working in conjunction with other species, plant and animal. For now it's a compromise that maybe can put us in the direction of the ideal I tried to outline and beyond. There are lots of things that I have done that I think should be more common practice in farming, and many stem from quasi-permaculture principles. This isn't just "don't do monocultures" but more like "work with the land". A good example is that allowing native plants to grow around and in the field - I leave large strips as pathways for beneficials. This one thing has been hugely successful and completely eliminated the need for any pesticides, 'natural' or otherwise. Along with mulching, greatly reduce water consumption.
The principal obstacle is all this is our food systems have been optimized for profit - not by farmers but by corporations and others who seek to "add value" through processing. In that less money goes to farmers and less nutrition to consumers. And this isn't just because of the processing but also moving production away from nutritionally dense and tastier things to whatever ships and processes well both in terms of species and varieties. This means practices that make complete sense for regeneration, biodiversity and nutrition tend to be excluded in favor of more inequitable 'profit'. Given that we view food as a human right that's really messed up.
Edit: **I'm not saying that should justifying eating other animals. But I just don't buy that we are somehow special mainly because it's that thinking that got us into this mess in the first place. Like we don't have to adhere to the rules or something.
Sure but if Beyond Meat can make a delicious bit of fake cow or chicken with 1/10 of the land and water, then we have a drop-in replacement that requires no cultural change. As for the actual cows and chickens, personally I would have no problem letting them go extinct. Along with domestic dogs and cats (both of which I love) and indeed humans too, if necessary - but possibly this is getting offtopic! The point is that the objective should be a rich ecosystem without mass cruelty.
Ah, now things become clearer - you're an actual farmer! Well done for thinking so deeply about these questions.
I mean, good point but... I really do think it requires a cultural change. I'm a big fan of Beyond Meat products yet so many people don't view it the same way.
Alas, I have trouble believing their claims about land use and water even while I acknowledge it's an improvement. And although they are not organic, I can guarantee that animal products are used in the production of their ingredients and that it would be difficult for them to source said ingredients otherwise. Now imagine they blow up and do 1000x the volume...
Yes yes, all good points.
Um... Mostly the way it's being grown now? ~~Did you miss the part where that's already farm land being used to feed our food?~~
Edit: the last sentence was unnecessarily rude, sorry about that... Also, reading some of your other replies, I see more what you meant. I still think it's a very solvable problem though.
I also think it's a very solvable problem. But there are a lot of complex moving parts in our food production system. I'm thinking of this in the context of the current highly industrialized state of agriculture and the current demands of consumers and how do you make a shift toward sustainable agriculture while also reducing meat production and animal exploitation.
So for me, the way it's being grown now isn't actually an option. 5000 acres of feed corn on dead soil that's continually pumped with synthetic fertilizers is a thoroughly bad idea and turning those acres into corn (or anything) for humans is every bit as bad.
Believe it or not, it's actually rather hard to get quality manure inputs for many farms. Depends on where you are of course. But the stuff weighs a lot, is never where you want it and the largest quantities are from CAFOs which are decidedly NOT high quality and require a lot more work to be useable in a sustainable context. That manure is sold, sure, and ends up in food production, but not to the exclusion of synthetic inputs. If you eliminate CAFOs then there's even more demand for manure such that sustainable operations which require high quality compost because they don't use synthetic fertilizers are going to have a hard time getting enough fertility.
So it's easy to generalize and say there is excess manure from so much animal production, but the reality is that much if not most of that manure is not where you need it. I think a lot of folks don't realize that sustainable meat production that isn't integrated with sustainable vegetable production adds a lot of complexity, and yet that's where we are at right now. The integrated food systems (e.g. rotational grazing etc) of times gone by were much more efficient but are relatively uncommon today, mainly because of market forces.
Hopefully this is a better summary of the point I was trying to make yesterday.