(November 3, 2014 at 9:33 am)miniboes Wrote: Well, if you're not going to rear animals there's gonna be more demand for plant foods, although admittedly plant foods need way less space than livestock.

One might imagine so, but one would be wrong. If there were less meat there wouldn't be any reason to grow any more plants (and people wouldn't be looking to buy any more veggies). That market is already so saturated that we had to find something to do with the vast excess we currently produce. At present, that excess is used to feed livestock. Amusingly, if we lessened our livestock operations there would be -less- demand for a wide range of agricultural commodities.

As to the space livestock takes relative to crops - that's far too general a claim to make. Commercial spacing of pumpkins(and many other Cucurbitaceae) is 8foot in-row, 14 foot between rows. That's 112sq feet of space. That footprint extends upwards indefinitely, imagine the cubic feet. Maturation is on the short end 80 days on the long end up to 200. Imagine how many egg laying chickens would fit in a structure 112feet square and as tall as I can soundly build it? Imagine the number of eggs I would produce in two to seven months? Now imagine the useful byproducts, particularly the refuse (which can be processed into fertilizer). I'm going to get alot more out of egg laying hens than I am out of any commensurate space covered in pumpkins (and a wide range of other crops). On the other hand, lettuce, 6sq inches - 50-55 days seed to bolt.

So depending on what sort of livestock we're talking (fish are the big spoiler here, as they can be stocked vertically as high as the walls of their containment can be built or dug) and what sort of crop we're talking about the relative space required for either is going to change dramatically and will most definitely not skew toward crops over livestock as styated so generally in any significant way. This ignores the relative nutrient density between either source or the efficiency of use. Livestock is a very dense storage space for crop sourced nutrients, and when it comes to veggies it's generally only a very small percentage of the total structure of the crop that is consumed or used - single digit land use efficiency percentages when viewed by metrics of market.

After all of that, you have to consider the end product itself. The ease of transportation and preservation, the distance traveled from source to consumer (here livestock has a distinct advantage that we no longer avail ourselves of. As Aract has pointed out, livestock is produced on land not useful for ag - but it can also be produced in time not useful for ag. You can get an egg out of tomato season and from your own backyard.

If we wanted to create a more local and sustainable food production system - we would necessarrily have to include livestock to make best use of all available resources- and as a means of producing the fertility required for all of our other crops. And as regards the forests - little would help to reduce the destruction of those forests (and the further destruction caused by fossil fuel usage in both fertility, transportation, refridgeration, and production) more than greater land use efficiency in food production combined with sustainable alternative fertility sources.


I mention all of this not so that I can dress you down. I don't expect that many people at all would be so familiar with ag as to discuss the relative land use efficiency of any given production model. That's something that would be beyond even those -in the know- to determine without referring to a land use analysis (which is how ag startups and continuing operation are considered in the first place). I mention it so that you might see why no sweeping generalizations are really available in the discussion, and maybe so that I can get you geeked out about food production a little(it's an unbelievable difficult and rewarding subject to have any sort of constructive back and forth on). I'm always looking to lure you folks into my web.

(land use efficiency is the primary concern in my seasonal business plan. I have to arrange for a ratio of high eff crops (judged by gross) to cover the losses incurred by low eff crops that also happen to be all the big veggies, full of nutrients, that bring people to the door. In essence, I have to first produce, and then convince people to buy 10 lbs of lettuce for every lb of tomato - for example - I lose money on the tomatos, no matter how extravagantly priced. I'm actually saving every dime I can to get an integrated system up and running so that I can absorb that loss more effectively by reducing my input requirements and creating a byproduct stream that plugs into an underexploited and lucrative market. Fresh fish -particularly in my landlocked state- that's a bit too hilly and rocky for mixed veggie production, judged against more lucrative locations for the same, Florida, California, Mississippi, Louisiana, Mexico, etc)

As an addendum-

Quote:What the fuck does this even mean? How does it even make a difference? How did you determine that the killing is 'humane'? If I kill a man, but he experienced no pain, would it be okay for me to kill him? Is that the sort of morals you live by?

Lets consider that question in what is otherwise the context of livestock production. You need to kill that man. In that context I would defintely allow that the manner in which you do so has relevance to whether or not I would regard your actions as humane.

If you swiftly hit them over the head with a brick so hard that they were dead -tutsweet- ....... I would feel very comfortable stating that this was more humane(or "more moral") than had you killed the man by slashing some artery or asphyxiating him while you simulataneoulsy carved chunks off of his body while he yet lived. To be blunt, had you gone with the latter I'd be hard pressed to determine which of you was the more inhumane or immoral person even if the reason that you found yourself in such need was that he attacked you.

So, personally - yes, these are the morals I live by. I'm fairly confident that you live by them as well. I would suggest that your appraisal of the moral or humane status of livestock production in the general is based less on either the possibilities present, or the majority of operations in either the US or Aus...and more on the worst possible examples of people who bend or break every rule and every established best practice...with just a smidgeon of naivety as to how food is produced but also as to how the propaganda for -all- sides of this hotly debated issue is generated and marketed to the public.

(November 3, 2014 at 12:33 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Lets consider that question in what is otherwise the context of livestock production. You need to kill that man.

We can argue all day about what is the best diet, but one thing is certain and that is that you can be healthy with a vegan diet. You only need to kill that man for pleasure and convenience, which I do not think is a good enough reason to make a being suffer. Let's take it one step further; if you did not only kill a man here and there, but you breed billions upon billions of humans to exploit them, feed them obese and then kill them in the end, what kind of person are you? Because that's what's happening with animals, the deaths are equal to thousands of holocausts every single year. Should we not all strive to minimize suffering?

It is also to be noted that the whole thing about painless killing is absolutely worthless if before it happens the animals are brought in screaming and horrified.

I'll respond to your other post later, I'm tired.

(November 3, 2014 at 4:38 pm)miniboes Wrote: We can argue all day about what is the best diet, but one thing is certain and that is that you can be healthy with a vegan diet.

With additional supplements from decidely non-vegan sources, sure.

Quote:You only need to kill that man for pleasure and convenience, which I do not think is a good enough reason to make a being suffer.

If it's a need that I do so- so be it. I can't do anything about my needs. I think you're leaving out some fairly important details about food production here to reduce meat to an issue of pleasure or convenience.

Quote: Let's take it one step further; if you did not only kill a man here and there, but you breed billions upon billions of humans to exploit them, feed them obese and then kill them in the end, what kind of person are you?

Inhumane, but am I doing this, and does this need to be done to produce livestock? Nope, and nope.

Quote: Because that's what's happening with animals, the deaths are equal to thousands of holocausts every single year. Should we not all strive to minimize suffering?

Yup, by thoroughly integrating livestock production into our overall food production policies and phasing out unsustainable and deleterious oil-to-food schemes.

Quote:It is also to be noted that the whole thing about painless killing is absolutely worthless if before it happens the animals are brought in screaming and horrified.

Sounds shitty - definitely not best practice (and probably costs alot of money in lost efficiency). You can argue against poor practice all day long - I'm right there with you.

There's a middle road here, you aren't having a discussion with someone who thinks that ag as practiced is a very good idea...even if all of the things that you think about it -aren't true- let alone whether or not they are. Your objections aren't really required for me to hold a negative position on the matter, and that's good, because some of them are just meh. You don't need them to advocate for a change in food policy or the humane treatment of animals either. I would actually suggest that carrying that baggage makes the job even more difficult.

(November 4, 2014 at 12:03 pm)miniboes Wrote: Name me one nutrient that I need and I cannot get a vegan supplement for.

Depends on whether or not you can reliably leverage bacterials (or any of the means of production/delivery for any supplement) and what brand of veganism one has thrown their chips in with.

Quote:Which details?

You ready for a long and disappointing discussion?

Quote:You're paying people to do these things, albeit not to humans but animals that suffer just as much. You know, Hitler didn't kill Jews personally, he paid people to do it, it doesn't make a difference ethically.

My money also goes to people who hurt people - there's no sense candy coating what my money may be or is being used for. Thing is, I don't have a whole lot of control over what happens to money when it is no longer mine. I think that if we want to start going over our relative contributions to misery with a fine toothed comb neither of us is going to come out very clean. I'm willing to give you a pass, I think that there are things beyond your control that your money is trickling into that say nothing about you, personally. I think that it would be unreasonable to expect someone to achieve the impossible just for the honor of not being called immoral. I'm content, personally, to pursue what I feel to be the best possible outcome given the reality of a situation. If more is required, I guess I'll just have to fall short. hrugs:

Quote:How would that reduce suffering?

You mean how, other than replacing a non-renewable input that is responsible for global environmental devastation, chronic political upheaval, and widespread social exploitation?

Quote:Yet you pay to support these practices.

Oh? You get ahold of one of my grocery receipts? You do some investigate work into the products that I buy? Thought not. But so what if I were? Do I have a choice?

Quote:Here's the problem with humane treatment; even if you treat the animals nicely (which is not happening in the world I live in), you should not treat them as property. It's slavery still.

-and here we find a more specific example that can be used to answer the very first question in your post. For you, any of the bacterial supplementals should be off the table (I'm really not sure that eating -anything- should be on the table in the first place). Wouldn't want to be a dirty bacterial slaveholder, now would we? I hope I don't have to field any complaints about a loose usage of the term slavery.........