'>>16136943
Consider the average case of a Western vegan products consuming person.
Then yes, their animal death rates will be substantial, as they are among the consumers of crop.
Short caveat before I continue: however, vegans tend to buy less ultra-processed goyslop, which in turn lessens this dependence. The ultra-processing is significant because it tends to used much more in grain-based monocutures where that incidental animal killing can happen; if the vegan mostly eats apples, pears & grapes, which come from orchards that don't get picked by combine harvesters, the animal death rare is much lower.

Now let's regard the top meat consumer. He is animal-cruelty-wise "top" if all of his meat requirements are satisfied by e.g. some Montana ranch, where the cattle eat weeds and restore desertified areas with their dung. Basically 0 animals are harmed, besides the cattle at the end of the line needing to be slaughtered. By there certainly is barely a "collateral damage" compared to non-pastoral modern agriculture.

I have now presented two delimiting cases (you might misread the cattle as denoting some "lofty ideal", but nope, I actually mean it's already a common "high-tier" M.O).
Do you see how any deviations, now,from these two ideals worsen your argument?

If you, the vegan, simply refuse too buy things created by large agribusinesses and depend on things like said local orchards, your animal pain footprint now starts looking not so significant anymore.
More importantly:
If being a beef baron implies also putting your cattle at the final months of their lives into a CAFO (i.e. factory farm), you are now not so innocuous anymore.

How realistic is it that we can feed 100 of millions of goyslop-craving golems purely via mentioned Montanan rancher, when evidently we need to have a lot of these beef barons that don't give a shit about animal welfare, just so we even meet the demand for cheap meat?';

'>>16136943
>Is it true that far, far more animals die in order to produce vegan food than do to provide food for normal sane people?
No, because animals need feed too. From just the land we use to feed animals we could easily feed the world.
>Has science ever bothered to count up the animals dead from all of the pest control operations that farms do?
Yes, that could be answered with a google search';

'>>16137036
>From just the land we use to feed animals we could easily feed the world.
the rest of the world can already feed itself, theres nobody starving to death anywhere';

'>>16136943
Large scale farming of any kind will always be bad. The only option is to reduce the population, starting with china';

'>>16137036
>From just the land we use to feed animals we could easily feed the world.
Fake and gay. Simplistic comparisons are made on land use, without regard to land quality.
A lot of marginal land which can't economically grow nutritious human-grade crops is used to grow fodder for cattle. If it could be used to grow crops, it would, because crops yield much more money per acre for farmers than livestock do.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_land
Stop pretending all land is equal. Prime, fertile arable cropland is not the same as marginal land.';

'>>16136943
>Is it true that far, far more animals die in order to produce vegan food than do to provide food for normal sane people?
No, that meme comes from quacks that sell delusional shit like grass feed crap or regenerative crapiculture';

'>>16136943
What's this board's obsession with veganism?';

'>>16136943
animals prefer eating non gmo organic foods so probably';

'>>16136943
No. Why would they?

>>16137032
Retarded drivel.

>>16137208
Rancher cope.

>>16137265
It's all /pol/ shit. They just want to feel like they won something and they hate vegans.';

'>>16137349
>Rancher cope.
Not an argument. Not all land is created equal.';

'>>16137265
it's trolling

90% of this board is trolls trolling trolls';

'>>16137377
Even if you exclude pasture, land for growing crops for livestock consumption (including exports for that purpose) vastly outsizes land for crops for human consumption (again including exports).

I've no idea why you think animals don't need nutrition. Surely you've heard of corn-fed beef.';

'>>16137576
Livestock consumes parts of those crops that have previously been used for humans, e.g. onions oil extraction, then the inedible remains are fed to animals. It's incorrect to fully attribute it to livestock if those crops would need to be grown regardless of livestock or not. To the contrary actually, animals reintroduce those calories back to humans when we eat them';

'read something like
Meat a benign extravagance by Simon Fairlie';

'>>16137576
I'm not even include pasture. Fodder is grown on marginal land in places where no livestock graze and is not counted as pastuere, but the land is not suitable for growing commercial / human grade crops';

'>>16137882
It would be better if that land was left wild, ranching makes otherwise worthless wildlands valuable, and contributes to deforestation. Also, even if we had cattle only graze on otherwise fallow land, we would need to massively cut down on meat consumption';

'deep and complex topic polluted by ideologues';

'>>16137882
The area on the left being greener doesn’t necessarily mean it’s better. Introduction of pasture grasses for livestock is a big reason the Great Plains are so full of invasives. The more barren area on the right is likely has greater native plant diversity';

'>>16138017
Deep and complex topic on the left, polluted by ideologues on the right. As ever.';

'>>16138216
>The area on the left being greener doesn’t necessarily mean it’s better
That wasn't the argument. The point was that the argument "all the land used to feed animals" would let us rewild all that land is spurious, because it assumes that enough of the land either in use today or that would be 'freed up' without animal husbandry is suited to grow human-edible crops, but that hasn't been shown to be the case. A significant portion of global calories come from animal sources which are ultimately taking advantage of the productive capacity of marginal land that is unsuited for food crops. Not just pasture land either, but fodder fields.';

'ruminant > monogastric';

'>>16138594
Ideologues are the lefts wheelhouse, press them beyond ideology and they pretty much have nothing. The right has been adopting the lefty ideologue stuff for a while now';

'>>16138719
>The right has been adopting the lefty ideologue stuff for a while now
cthulu only swims left or at least until society goes broke and natural hierarchies of ability are forced to reassert themselves';

'>>16136943
if you're feeding grain to your cows, there are animals being killed in the crop field as well';

'>>16139584
so you're saying that eating vegetative matter is bad because of the evils of agriculture? why are you trying to blame people who eat cows and drink milk for that? most cows are pasture fed.
vegans are the ones who eat a 100% agriculture diet, they are responsible for nearly all the animal deaths and for poisoning the planet with pesticides';

'>>16137349
>Retarded drivel.
You have the reading comprehension of a 2nd grader. It's obvious you couldn't even penetrate a text as mine. You can't even summarize it.';

'>>16136943
Have you considered that five mites is far more animals than 1 cow despite the cow outweighing the five mites by over a ton?';

'>>16137576
Because the government massively subsidizes corn and its far cheaper to grow shitty corn that only cows want to eat than to grow non gmo sweet corn that is suitable for the average entitled vegan heifer.';

'>>16137265
poltards want so badly to have the science board agree with them so they spam it daily';

'>>16139584
If you are grazing your cows on grass, they are also eating all the bugs, mice, snakes, birds, and other creatures who live near grass and can fit in the cows' mouths.';

'Land used to feed animals is useless for crops. Do you think big Corn Syrup corpo in USA would give up land to cows if they could produce more Corn Syrup? Don't be stupid.';

'>>16140210
So you are saying pretty much none of middle america could be used to grow anything and that is why flyover states all smell like cow farts?';

'>>16137189
No, starting with India';

'As ab acctual agscifag is this how it feels for the other scifag disciplines when a bunch of retards start debating nonsense they vaguely understand because of some popsci vud they were recommended on tiktok?';

'>>16140250
No, you are describing what it feels like to be a retarded midwit who pays a lot of money to active study the problem and still can't articulate anything helpful, so you just blend in with all the nonsense spouting retards as a result.';

'>>16137189
We need to start with democrats, those parasites are beyond useless, they are extremely harmful for civilization.';

'>>16137265
>>16137349
>>16137451
>>16140131';

'>>16136943
Of course it isn't
>be vegan
>spray pesticides everywhere so the crops you eat can grow

>be meat eater
>spray pesticides everywhere so the crops your cow eats can grow, then eat the cow

It's a whole additional step until the nutrients are on your dish. Of course it's more resource intensive.

Also
>be vegan
>plant crops to eat them
>that's it
>be meat eater
>plant crops for your cattle to eat
>ALSO need crops for yourself, because no meat eater only ever eats meat and nothing else
>pretty much need double the amount of soil';

'>>16140309
No, nobody cares if the cow eats a few bugs, its not near the priority as making sure food people eat isn't infested with bugs.

>plant crops to eat them
>that's it
No you have to kill the animals that compete for the food since you can't just let the cows eat them.';

'>>16140312
>No you have to kill the animals that compete for the food

You mean like meat eaters have to kill the animals that compete for the cattle?
>be vegan
>spray pesticides everywhere so your food doesn't get eaten

>be meat eater
>set up bear traps everywhere and eradicate local predators so your food doesn't get eaten
>inject gallons of antibiotics into your cattle so it doesn't get killed (eaten) by bacteria';

'>>16140320
The animals who kill cattle will also kill people, vegans also kill coyotes and big cats if they invade their land and threaten their children and people would take antibiotics to protect themselves regardless of cattle population.';

'>>16140323
>>16140320
They also capture predators in the wild just to inoculate them, chip them, and release them back into the wild.';

'>>16140323
>The animals who kill cattle will also kill people
LOL no. Just no.
>foxes kill anything larger than a chicken

But I admit
>coyotes, big cats
occasionally kill people once every blue moon. But then, most of these cases are retarded cityfolk walking between them and their cubs to take le cute snapchat pictures and shit.

Also maybe stop spreading into their habitat like a fucking cancer, then you won't have to worry about being eaten. Which is easy to do if you don't need that much farmland for growing cattle feed.';

'organic farming is effectively impossible under veganism, livestock grant an immense amount of capability, both in crop rotation and use of crop byproducts. Total productive value of a piece of land is enhanced by the benefits livestock offer.
Consider grazing sheep in a orchard.';

'>>16140340
Babies aren't larger than a chicken, though.

I accept your concession, even vegans will kill predators that threaten their children.';

'>>16140256
No, most of the people in this thread are either retarded or completely delusional with no direct practical understanding of what they're talking about.
Measured and reasonable points are simply ignored. This applies to both "sdes" whenever you make a point it's taken out of context while the most extreme circumstances are presented as if they're absolutes.

There isn't so much a debate as people shouting at each other, the few reasonable observers probably leave more confused than when they entered the thread.';

'>>16140351
Kind of like how you are ignoring the content of the thread and just posting retarded nonsense about yourself and other people instead?';

'>>16140348
>even vegans will kill predators that threaten their children
Of course they do. But they'd have to do it less often because encounters between humans and predatory wildlife wouldn't happen that much in a vegan society, due to less space needed for farming.

>I accept your concession
LOL ok bro.
>my vegan neighbor swatted a bee once so it's okay for me to Zyklon B the entire forest LOL';

'>>16140365
There are papers on the environmental footprints of various systems. If you want to read those go ahead.';

'>>16140370
>less space needed for farming.
You wish. Without the cows on the marginal land to distract the predators, they will come to town looking for prey.';

'>>16140371
Too bad you aren't actually in the industry and don't have those handily available since you seemingly have no idea what you are talking about given you just want to talk about yourself and other people.';

'>>16140382
If you want papers I'm not going to find them for you.';

'>>16140380
>Without the cows on the marginal land to distract the predators, they will come to town looking for prey.
LMAO
>be bear
>untouched wilderness
>game in abundance
>deer everywhere
>salmon in every river
>hell you know what, I think I'm just gonna leave my habitat and go on a 100 mile hike to the next human settlement so I can get some low quality meat that shoots at me, instead of staying where I'm not being shot at and where I still have everything I need

But hey, get a load of this
>be bear
>be hungry because there's nothing to eat in my 0.5 square mile wildlife reserve
>let's check out that human settlement, yum
>OH NO there's bovines standing on that field, how am I gonna fill my belly, I'm gonna starve noooo';

'You can remain vegan right up until the first sounder finds your crop.';

'>>16140164
Great, I don't have a problem with ending animal life to sustain my own. Vegetarians often do.';

'So, the millions of animal species that are going extinct due to destruction of rainforests to make more room for crops to feed livestock do not count?
Also, crops for human consumption are regulated, meaning they are produced way more environmentally friendly than crops for livestock. Add in the gigantic doses of antibiotics that are wasted for "preliminary caution" for livestock, which is one of the biggest medical crisis of our time, and it should be pretty clear how bad the current meat industry is for humanity.

Last but not least, vegans tend to be more aware of their food, meaning they will tend to buy organic products, which are (at least in first world countries) not nearly as destructive for the local wildlife than the garbage that is fed to livestock.

By the way, the average american eats the equivalent of about 0,2 cows, 0,25 pigs and about 35 chickens of meat per year. I don't know how small the picrel family is, but it seems a bit unrealistic';

'>>16140571
See that's a compounding factor we're comparing a fringe group of vegans to the conventional masses, shouldn't we instead compare a more equivalent group?
It's like asking who is healthier between a fitness nut and someone eating the SAD.';

'>>16140556
>Vegetarians often do
Thats why they want to minimize the number of animals that get killed in the process.';

'Crops get fed to farm animals too?';

'>>16137036
>From just the land we use to feed animals we could easily feed the world.
Nope. Most grazing is done on land that has poor farming suitability. It's land that would be otherwise wasted if animals weren't grazing on it.';

'>>16140634
Grazing makes up about half of livestock feed, the other half is grain and onions.

By the way, do you want to guess what else we could use land with poor farming suitability for? Houses, factories, wildlife reservats, solar farms, power plants, sex dungeons and so on.
About 50% of the habitable surface of this planet is used for livestock. If you actually think this is all wasteland, you are severely retarded';

'>>16140667
>livestock feed,
exclude monogastrics and what happens to your guesstimate?';

'>>16140634
>wasted land
That's not a great way to look at it and is crude phrasing.
land value agricultually is related to its productive potential and ease of use.
the idea of wasted land is very flawed.
What we should look at more specifically is crops grown specifically for the feeding of animals but the use of by products and co products confuses the topic.';

'>>16140667
Okay so since your claim is grazing only makes up half of livestock feed, let's cut livestock in half and only keep enough to sustain by grazing alone. The price of dairy and meat will go up so poor people like you won't be able to afford it anymore, but I'll still be able to afford it so this isn't a problem for me.

>>16140689
>What we should look at more specifically is crops grown specifically for the feeding of animals
Not all food fed to grazing animals is grown solely for them. They often eat parts of the food not fit for human consumption.';

'>>16140693
I know anon, that's what I meant by by products and co products.';

'>>16140631
Correct.';

'>>16140250
Yep.';

'It's better for nature to nuke an area, than grow avocadoes in the same piece of land.
They kill the most insects, animals and the earth is drained off nutrients for years.dstk';

'Not a vegan, but I side with them in this point that the argument doesn't stand because animals are fed with crops just the same. They take their protein from the plants and we take it from them, there is always loss of energy in the process. Their point is not to replace a cow for a crop, but a cow and several crops for just the crops. Energetically speaking, it makes sense.';

'>>16141022
The energy savings is dubious and cost/benefit of completely changing humanity's diet for a hypothetical energy savings sounds retarded as well.';

'>>16141030
Again, I'm not a vegan, so I don't believe we should all just change diet. I just think the argument that we kill pests for growing plants does not make a good case for meat eaters, because we kill pests to grow plants to feed animals either way. And the trophic level energy loss is not negligible, I believe.';

'>>16141022
animals can convert low quality plant material into high nutritional value meat. there is a vast distance in the implications.';

'>>16141037
No, the purpose of raising the argument is to stop retarded vegan who've never thought about trhis before from claiming some moral superiority by thinking they aren't killing animals because they aren't eating things made from animals.
It may seem obvious to most people but not always that clear to those who want to believe in something.';

'>>16141046
Just add hemp seed to vegan meals. It's protein is equal to meat protein.';

'>>16141054
>It's protein is equal to meat protein.
You don't actually believe this do you?';

'>>16141059
I mean for one thing think of all the milions of pig farmers who would be planting and feeding hemp seed if that were actually true.';

'>>16141059
How am I wrong? Hemp seeds provide protein with all amino acids. It's a complete protein. Excellent Omega 3-6 ratio as well.';

'>>16141073
Find some pig feed studies and get back to me.';

'>>16141082
Yep figured as much, as usual they're low in certain key amino acids same as most plant proteins.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2020.572906/full
However, hemp by-products are deficient in growth-limiting amino acids including methionine (1.8 and 2.0% CP) and lysine (6.4 and 6.8% CP)

Considering this is a ruminant study which tend to be a lot less sensitive to this problem compared to monogastrics I think the results are probably much worse than you are aware of.';

'>>16141046
Just because they can doesnt mean that's what's always happening in industrialized society, or even the majority of time.';

'>>16141073
they don't, you're only willing to believe that because you're a drug addict';

'>>16142910
Funny because I don't even drink. What do hemp seeds have to do with drugs?';

'>>16136943
How many insects die to the chickens or does that not count for some reason?

Meatfag bad faith "arguments" will never change reality. A meat-heavy diet is unhealthy and globally disastrous. These are facts. You're not permitted your own facts. Only your own stupid opinions. Nor are you permitted propaganda. That's finished now.';

'>>16140422
>>deer everywhere
Deer don't manage their own populations, they will just over breed and start wandering into the city leading all the predators there too.

>>OH NO there's bovines standing on that field, how am I gonna fill my belly, I'm gonna starve noooo
Are you dumb, they are going to eat the bovine just like they would have eaten the deer, so they won't have to wander into town chasing deer or looking for human food.';

'>>16143083
>hey goy, eat the bugs
>whaaatt!!?!?! chickens are eating bugs!?!?!
>noooooo!!! chickens can't eat bugs!!!!! thats like racist and stuff or something!!!
>muh social conscience!!!
>muh social conscience mufffugguh!!
>muh smug sense of superiority that i conjured as a coping mechanism because i have nothing genuine or tangible to base my self worth on!!!!';

'>>16143349
When deer get overpopulated they'll end up eating all the crops that vegans depend on and the farmer will have to start shooting all the deer to assure that the selfish greedy vegans don't starve to death';

'How do vegans respond?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BcvN9n69Eo';

'>>16144928
stupidly';

'>>16141022
>because animals are fed with crops
They aren't. Cows walk out into the pasture and feed themselves. Then they walk back into the barn at night. They also walk themselves over to the milking facility and eventually they even walk themselves to the slaughterhouse. Its a completely pollution free process.
If the cow pasture were converted to farmland then that land would be worked with massive tractors powered by enormous diesel engines that create a lot of pollution. And the land would be sprayed with massive amounts of pesticides, another pollutant, so that bugs don't eat all the crops. Animal husbandry is far, far less polluting that modern agriculture is.';

'>>16143472
>When the various strawmen in my head clash it's clearly because they are so illogical and hypocritical!';

'>>16146545
I wish it was like that, most of the animals are fed with portions.';

'>>16146545
You have a warped idea of food production
For a start what would be the point of housing them if they're already foraging except to avoid climatic extremes or certain nocturnal predators?

My cattle spend pretty much all of their summer out in the fields grazing as soon as the ground has dried out enough and the grass starts growing in the spring, they come back for the occasional check up or sorting but then I bring them back and put them in pens when the ground gets too wet in the autumn. in my climate this means the cattle spend around 5-6 months housed in pens although I leave some small groups of certain age groups outside all year.
In order to house these animals I grow and preserve either as hay or a lactic acid fermentation known as silage which are either kept in barns for the hay or a mixture of small plastic sealed bales and bunkers for the silage, Many crops can be grow and ensiled typically we cut grass and grow a form of maize, the maize is an annual so it must be sown each year but the grass is a perennial and may typically be resown or overseeded every 5-10 years if it's not permanent pasture. winter feeding will also incorporate a concentrate component either grains or some byproduct for more energy
On top of this we need to use a bedding material commonly straw the stalks of grain crops which provides a dry and absorbent bed for them although other material are used such as saw dust this bedding straw is typically purchased unless grown and then stored in the barns.
During the summer months because of the growing cycle and the maturity of grasses making them low value at certain periods to counter this we grow fodder crops that are grazed using a movable electric wire fence. these crops can also be used in the spring or autumn to augment what's available as grass productivity is low.
In other parts of the world they certainly can keep their stock out all year which likely saves a massive amount of hassle and cost';

'Who gives a fuck every single one of these issues would be solved in under a year if we decided to pay attention to them. You could be vegan, eat meat every waking hour, pump as much co2 in the atmosphere as you want and it wouldn't matter';

'>>16136943
>Is it true that far, far more animals die in order to produce vegan food than do to provide food for normal sane people?
Yes, that is true

>Has science ever bothered to count up the animals dead from all of the pest control operations that farms do?
No, they wouldn't do it because the result would be a bad look for the "eat the bugs" globohomo agenda they're paid to shil';

'undefined';

'undefined';

'>>16150497
Good question, do vegans have an answer for it?';

'>>16143083
>A meat-heavy diet is unhealthy and globally disastrous
>t. the vegan who keeps collapsing at work because they never quite figured out how to supplement properly before they acquired anemia';

'>>16140127
Corn is a drought tolerant C4 photosynthesizer grass. It is among the most efficient plants (C4) on Earth in terms of turning sunlight into cellulose.

Cows turn inedible cellulose into dairy and meat.';

'>>16141054
>It's protein is equal to meat protein.
Incorrect. Protein quality is 66%. Meaning you must eat 150% the equivalent dry weight of protein. Meat quality is 100% and milk is 105% because it has compounds that aren't protein, but readily convert into protein.';

'>>16141061
Pigs can eat things you can't. Pigs might not be ruminants, but they're not like you. Animal food is not people food.';

'>>16151492
Read my reply again, I'm not sure you understood it. Or you just wanted to make an irrelevant jibe.

One of the key factors in pig diet formulation is getting the amino acid balance right for optimal growth. Methionine and Lysine are two of the common limiting factors.

And pigs are less sensitive than we are, so if hemp seed doesn't provide a good supply for pigs then it certainly fails even worse for human diets.';

'>>16143349
>Deer don't manage their own populations
That’s what the bears are for
>start wandering into the city leading all the predators there too
That’s not a thing, especially not with bears. They’re in cities because of garbage and fragmentation of habitat, not because they’re following deer
>so they won't have to wander into town chasing deer or looking for human food.
Yet they wander into towns regardless of whether or not there’s cattle around. Bears aren’t hyper predatory, they would much rather go through a trash can than attempt to hunt large prey';

'>>16145999
Has science ever found out the reason that vegans are so much lower IQ than people without eating disorders?';

'>>16136943
Vegans only care about macroscopic animals that are immediately visible. If you count the absolute individual animals killed or suffered, then yes vegan food has the largest negative impact in terms of absolute animal deaths and suffering. You can arrive to this conclusion by simple deduction.

Animal husbandry doesn't have as big of a pest problem compared to farming plants even though they require more land. Cattle can feed on grass and other plants that are mostly immune to pests. Plants to feed cattle don't require constant maintenance and pesticides.

Farming plants require constant maintenance, vigilance, and use of pesticides to eliminate pests, which include insects, mammals, birds, worms, and other multicellular animals that have nervous systems. They're killed by farming machinery, targeted killings, poisoning from pesticides and fertilizers.

Land which grass and other plants grow to feed farm animals are self-replenishing, self-maintaining, and don't require tilling, fertilizer and pesticide use, or targeted killings.

Vegans don't actually care about animals. They care more about alleviating their guilt. They have no criteria or metric for animal suffering or even what an animal is.';

'>>16152871
>Cattle can feed on grass and other plants that are mostly immune to pests.
No, cattle just eat the pests too, so there are less pests as a result and the pests tend to avoid the fields filled with cattle because the ones that don't get eaten by the cattle.';

'Can I just interject that livestock support more insect life because of the production of dung and various flies and parasites that live off them, these insects then support small insectivore animals and birds which subsequently feed up the food chain benefitting larger predators.
Think of the use of mobile chicken pens following rotational cattle grazing.

>>16152875
You're retarded';

'>>16152987
Literally look it up and you can find videos of cattle eating any pest you can think of: bugs, snakes, mice, snails, rabbits, birds, etc, anything they can fit in their mouth they will eat because they are opportunistic omnivores.';

'>>16152995
cows are a ravenous grazer, to them if it's on the ground it's probably food unless it's spiky or smells like shit, we used to feed them meat and bone meal as a cheap protein source before it was banned after the bse psyop';

'>>16153002
Tell that to the retard >>16152987, not the one who originally pointed out the facts to a retard.';

'>>16153010
But anon I am replying to you, cows aren't preferentiallty carnivorous. too much will dusrupt rumen function.';

'>>16153016
Which is why I didn't say preferentially, I said opportunistically as in if some pest is within striking distance while they graze on grass, they will probably eat the pest as well just like you said.';

'>>16153016
The would be if they had the choice available to them, their bodies make running down sufficient prey to satisfy their appetites pretty much impossible.';

'>>16136943
Trophic levels dumbass';

'>>16153961
>The would be if they had the choice available to them.
No, Im telling you that it causes rumen disruption, they rely on a fermentation vat. it requires certain conditions to fuction optimally, There are plenty of extremely fast ruminants they evolved to be able to outrun predators.
I don't understand why you are forcing the idea, it's worse than vegans claiming you can feed a cat a vegan diet.
Just stick to the facts and or take a course in ruminant physiology.
they consume plant material and convert the various normally indigestible structural polisaccharides into short chain fatty acids';

'>>16154637
>Just stick to the facts
The facts are that cattle are opportunistic omnivores, so they will eat pretty much anything that gets close to their mouth especially pests in their field.';

'>>16137189
Nah... keep that energy to yourself...';

'>>16154674
Omnivore here is really not the right word for it, It's probably closer to a faculative herbivore. But you seem to be pushing a personal agenda here. Pigs are actual omnivores and quite vicious ones, why not go with them instead?';

'>>16154752
cow eating a snake
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMmUHXiB4ak
deer eating a rabbit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWvQfGXO6rI
elephant eating fish
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WEuDFjDdU4

"""herbivores"""" only exist in your gay schoolbooks, they don't exist in nature. cows can't read, so they don't know they're only supposed to eat plants and instead they eat whatever they want. if they have the opportunity to choose between eating plant and eating meat, they choose to eat meat every single time';

'>>16155916
Do you not understand the meaning of words?';

'>>16155916
Herbivores exist to the same extent that unicorns do, only in printed works of fiction.';

'>>16136943
yeah
if you plow up land for a bean field all the insects, birds, rodents, earthworms die
if you use land to graze cows nothing dies
Dairy has a feed conversion ratio of 1.3
Land is more than 1.3x as biomass productive as a treed meadow than as a bean field
Whey has a protein quality of 105 beans have a protein quality of 70-80
Etc';

'>>16156288
>t. the disingenuous bad faith arguer who won't admit that animals that clearly eat both plants and meats when given the chance are opportunistic omnivores';

'>>16157366
>if you use land to graze cows nothing dies
Except all the insects, birds, rodents, earthworms, etc that try to compete with the cows and get eaten by the cows as a result.';

'>>16154752
>why not go with them instead?
Because other people aren't falsely claiming that pigs won't eat pests, birds, and other animals that get in their way, so there would be no point in proving nobody wrong when you are definitely wrong about cows since they are definitely opportunistic omnivores that will definitely eat whatever other animals they can fit in their mouths.';

'>>16157400
Let's try a different slant here. because you don't seem to see the problem.
A dog can eat some plants but a dog is not an omnivore it's a facultative carnivore.

A ruminant can eat some meat but it is not an omnivore it is a facultative herbivore.


Why someone is so determined to try and push this narrative of cows and other herbivores as engaging in ravenous carnivory is really baffling to me, it just seems so forced and an utter distraction from a meaningful debate.';

'>>16157404
This would be a lo easier if you knew what words actually mean.';

'>>16157471
*a lot easier';

'https://youtu.be/Zea8vTh5GSI';

'>>16157402
They'd just have been eaten by other animals if the cows weren't there.';

'>>16157469
No, you seem to be trying to push the agenda of veganism and trying to establish cows empathetic animals that don't eat meat, so shouldn't be eaten when that is an absolute lie and your sacred little cows have no problem devouring other cute little animals.

https://www.purina.com/articles/dog/health/nutrition/are-dogs-omnivores-or-carnivores
https://www.vetstreet.com/our-pet-experts/are-dogs-carnivores-heres-what-new-research-says
Dogs are omnivores according to the corporations that feed them and the vets who care for them, you liar.

>>16157471
Omnivore is a word that refers to animals that eat both plants and animals which is exactly what cows and dogs both do.';

'>>16157481
Then in no scenario where what you said could possibly be true since there is no case where nothing will die.';

'>>16157487
No, I'm a cattle farmer who spends my life around them.
We have dead rabbits, rats, mice and birds around the place but the cows never seem to show interest in their corpses. while various carrion birds and mammalian predators do.

You are literally pushing a narrative because you want to "own vegans" you aren't interested in reality.

They put their heads down and chomp their way through tonnes of grass every day, they will actively swarm areas populated with tastier grasses, if I put them on turnips they will actively run towards them.
Obviously they will consume some small animals or insects but they aren't going out of their way to do so.';

'>>16157494
>Obviously they will consume some small animals or insects
Then obviously they are omnivores, by definition.
> they aren't going out of their way to do so.
Which is why they are opportunistic omnivores instead of preferential omnivores.';

'>>16157494
This horse and the cow and other animals literally went out of their way to eat the smaller animals instead of the feed and grass that was nearby, you are completely full of iron deficient shit, vegantard.';

'>>16157500
>This horse and the cow
>>16155916';

'>>16157489
Animals all die, only DNA is immortal. Animals are just temporarily animated compost that the DNA rides around in';

'>>16157499
An omnivore can live on both meat and plants in exclusion their digestive systems permit them to break down and detoxify what they consume
A facultative animal can consume outside of its normal diet but it can't subsist on them.
A pig is an omnivore, quite a vicious one.
Cows are not omnivores even if they can consume some level of animal products.
As mentioned earlier they used to be fed a certain percentage of waste meat meal as a cheap quality protein source prior to the introduction of BSE restrictions.
But above a certain level their digestive system is unable to handle it.

The rumen is a fascinating device if you care about the truth of this topic why don't you do a course on it or go spend some time around them.

also something to consider is that mineral deficiencies can drive animals to consume certain things, I know deer will strip corpses seeking minerals, my cows seem to go and rough up earth from a specific corner of the field if they're deficient in something if the salt lick needs replacing.

It'll be summer soon why don't you go sit in a field or work on a farm and see for yourself what process goes into producing your food?';

'>>16157402
my friend, cows eat grass, not rodents and birds';

'>>16157506
Yes I agree, your scenario where nothing dies was complete bullshit that doesn't actually reflect reality.';

'>>16157487
also
>The opinion of a dog food company telling you to buy their grain loaded dogslop is a trustworthy source';

'>>16157514
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EpJamyuTJI
https://growlies.ca/blogs/news/facultative-carnivore';

'>>16157512
Wrong again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3NOhQlPGAU';

'>>16157511
I have already seen videos of them eating animals so I know that they do, whether you want to redefine omnivore so that omnivores are no longer omnivores and you personally get to dictate some standard whereby animals that eat whatever don't count because you say so, that is just your retardation and god complex rather than just sticking to the facts when the fact is that cows eat other animals.';

'>>16157514
Which is why I also included vets and even wikipedia and the american kennel club confirm that dogs are omnivores.
https://www.akc.org/expert-advice/nutrition/do-dogs-need-meat-in-their-diets/
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_food';

'>>16157517
cow is suffering from a deficiency
it wants the bones not the meat
calcium supplements';

'>>16157538
Yes and it can get the supplemental calcium by eating other animals because it is an opportunistic omnivore.';

'>>16157513
That's not me numnuts
>plow up field to plant toxic beans
>everything dies that very day
or
>graze cows
>nothing dies (immediately)
>things continue to die at normal rate
what part of this went over your head';

'>>16157584
>nothing dies (immediately)
*except all the extra pests who get eaten by all the extra animals grazing in the field.';

'>>16155916
>if they have the opportunity to choose between eating plant and eating meat, they choose to eat meat every single time
Source?';

'>>16157963
He doesn't have one.it's a troll, I'm still not sure what its objective is but it shows up in all these threads posting those videos and getting angry if you disagree with his flawed concllusions.';

'>>16136943
Its plausible, but not meaningful because meat eaters eat plenty of plants too. Burgers, cake, bread, they eat everything. But lets get serious, the vegan eats more grain, which gets picked by combines and the process kills a lot of grasshoppers and field mice.
With meat it also happens, but less, as cows eat a combination of grass, hay, corn, onions.
Both diets will kill animals.
The point is that no one gives a fuck about grasshoppers and these field mice, well they never see it coming, they just die in a split second.
Vegans dont like the prolonged lifelong suffering of cattle, be it cows, pigs or chickens. Fish can be better as it also has a normal life right before its violent death, its not a death as fast as that of field mice though.
Technically speaking yes, more animals die on a vegan diet, because grasshoppers are animals, no one gives a fuck but its technically correct.';

'>>16158019
You miss the part where bugs live off the animal dung reinvigorating the foundation of the ecosystem';

'>>16158019
You get to the real issue here anon, however animals can be raised for meat responsibly.
The argument should be over what counts as a good life and how to buy meat from farmers who meat these standards instead of them being raised in a concrete box stuffed full of grain';

'>>16157963
Animals prefer eating higher calorie food because they're hungry';

'>>16158347
source?';

'>>16158347
Corn and onions chow is high calorie.
Cows need to eat either some grass or silage on top of the corn and onions, im not sure why, something about their gut';

'>>16158903
they need fibre which mostly sellulose and other structural plant carbohydrates because it helps formulate a stable multisized matt and the scratchiness of it stimulates saliva production, too "hot" a mix from grains will cause a problem called acidosis.

Ruminant physiology is a really, really fascinating topic.';

'>>16137032
>vegans tend to buy less ultra-processed goyslop
Lolol no';

'The true reason vegans are psychopathic is twofold. 1) it's way more unhealthy for a human to eat like a sheep (we have no 4 stomachs is a hint), and 2) since we get sicker eating like a sheep we spend hundreds of billions a year in the US alone to treat the diseases caused by the psychopathy of veganism (mainly diabetes).';

'>>16158019
Factory farm deaths are designed to be as quick and painless as possible, If I were an animal I'd prefer a boltgun rather than a harvester running over me, or getting poisoned to death. Some animals will be mangled up and not die immediately, with poison they will have long agonizing deaths';

'>>16136943
Most of that plant food goes towards feeding livestock.
Without livestock farming would not need to be as intensive and would have much less impact on wildlife.';

'>>16159875
No it doesn't, rice, wheat and corn are the three largest crops in the world, they're all roughly the same size and of the three only corn is used for feed.';

'>>16158903
>Cows need to eat either some grass or silage on top of the corn and onions
They prefer eating meat.';

'>>16159922
Please refer to picrel. It should be clear that a reduction of livestock would free up land to be used for crops while at the same time freeing already existing crop capacity as livestock is being fed in modern industrialised settings and does not merely graze.
This could offer an abundance of crops to feed the population, reduce reliance on haber bosch processes and fertilization, reduce intensity of crop farming, cancel the perceived need for GMO and free land for naturalization.
But I am feeling you already knew that.';

'>>16161097
What type of cows are you talking about?';

'>>16161115
A lot of that goes to chicken or pork production which have pretty high conversion ratios while improving the nutritional value attainable from the plant matter as they make meat and eggs out of it. Not even getting into the use of by products or food deemed unsuitable for human consumption.

And we can go further by recognising that livestock impose a dampening effect on food supply gluts and famines.
If less grain is harvested in a bad season the market redirects through a higher price and farmers grow less pigs, while in a glut year pork prices fall.
Animals act as a sort of walking granary.';

'>>16161139
You do realise grain storage is literally primitive technology and in modern times extended reserves are not only easy to have but a reality ?
Know those funny NATO survical / crisis rations ? GRAINS.';

'>>16161167
Granarys are an ancient technology anon, literally biblical. I'm honestly perplexed what your issue is with redundancy.

livestock are benign or beneficial if used properly.';

'>>16161274
Which probably excludes excess.';

'>>16161281
it's more of a capitalist equation.
livestock are usually part of a rotation crop system, and their dung is incredibly useful, organic agriculture does not work very well without livestock';

'>>16161287
Meanwhile in reality farms, organic or conventional, are drowning in dung. Laws even have been passed in areas where theres a particular high lifestock density to regulate the amount of dung that may be used to protect the ecosystem. The problem is that the originally circular system (field, lifestock, dung, field) has been disrupted since feed is produced in one area, using artificial fertilizer, shipped to another place where lifestock is kept and the dung is not used on the fields that feed the lifestock but on local fields.
Another hint: Thanks to the circular nature any consumer of crops is a valid and proportional producer of fertilizer.';

'>>16137085
Africa';

'>>16161298
and the same problem exists and is much worse with humans living in cities and not shitting in the fields, what's your point?';

'>>16161299
The point is much rather: We could feed the population without straining the land, without straining the athmosphere and wasting energy by producing artificial nitrogen fertilizer, without pushing wilderness further and further out from all lands and into the last few spots that are barren enough to be uninteresting as farmland to date.';

'>>16161301
Well what is your point ? Highly construed redundancies are among the better of your points. Next up are bogus claims about dung, valid in general, but you forgot that all nutrients remain in circulation regardless, at the same time you seem to have forgotten that global agriculture heavily depends on artificial fertilizer, as such those nutrients aren't originally part of the agricultural cycle but artificially injected and becoming problematic. You have understood that fertilization is good in natural, that being circular, proportions and either missed this limitation or maliciously misconstrued this fact into the statement that arbitary amounts of dung must be beneficial.';

'>>16161307
>no livestock
>no srtificial fert
you've not thought this through very far.';

'>>16161312
I never said either. You instead haven't read or have issues with nuance or reading comprehension as a general. Or youre making malicious attempts at derailment.
On a side note: No livestock and no fertilizer does in theory work. If all the land currently in use remained in use it would even lead to a net increase in nutritional output.';

'>>16161311
Anon, I'm somewhat opposed to the "conventional" industrial international agriculture model.
I like closer more local food chains with proper nutrient circulation and adaptation to the land and seasons.

The vegan vs meat eater debate is artificially pushed and stupid it's reduced down to distract people from real questions about what constitutes food production and its relationship with our environment.';

'>>16161315
Wow. Nuance. I didn't expect any out of this thread anymore. We're getting somewhere.';

'>>16161314
I thought you were the other guy and onflated your agendas';

'>>16161331
These threads are shitflinging mud fights between ignorant retards who watched one tiktok video on the topic and act like they know everything. It's not hard to surpass that standard.

Any healthy and environmentally sustainable food system incorporates animals.
There's a concept of the default livestock where simply using all the byproducts of the food that a person eats and items they use or wear in their daily life you can naturally produce an quantity of animal product at virtually no extra strain on the land. think of the parts of plants humans don't eat or vegetable peelings. It just takes conscious effort to manage.';

'>>16161341
The point of default anon imageboards is that you dont know the other guy and avoid ad hominem arguments. And I suspect I am the guy you mean. 'Both' if you want. Still never said we should reduce livestock to 0.';

'>>16157991
Why wouldn't someone get mad when they repeatedly show you video evidence and you just say "nuh uh, your just a poopy head who doesn't understand words" over and over?';

'>>16161115
>a reduction of livestock would free up land to be used for crops
Most livestock are grazed on marginal land (that eventually gets converted to higher grade by the livestock due to the extra fertilize and tilling they provide) which is not suitable for growing other crops and your pic doesn't say that the majority of crop land is used for livestock feed like you claimed.';

'>>16161298
That wild animal map is not any where near accurate since ants alone are around 25% of the biomass of humans.';

'>>16161757
Its not an animal map. Learn to read and think.';

'>>16136943
Who cares? I don't give a fuck about animals.';

'>>16161755
I dont remember claiming a majority of crop land is used for grazing purposes, if that is what you're insinuating. Either way perhaps present the quote.
A majority of argicultural land is used, either directly or indirectly, for livestock.
Your points once again appear forced, the effects you speak off existed before man tamed livestock and our activities have simply crowded wild grazing species out of those lands. On top of that most modern livestock, the part I personally find problematic btw, does not sustain solely on grazing.
I don't see how the lands value would increase if livestock on it sustained solely by grazing. It is at best a closed nutrient cycle and as soon you take meat or diary from that cycle, you'd have to make sure to shit there too or you'd actually end up decreasing the lands value. The improvements youre seeing, again, stem from artificially produced nutrients that were used to produce animal feed that waa then used to ammend grazing. You would see the same improvement if you originally put the artificial fertilizer on said land. This is entirely omitting the fact that, as stated previously, in parts of the world dung already has become a major issue and is destroying ecosystems.';

'>>16161972
>A majority of argicultural land is used, either directly or indirectly, for livestock.
NTA but he has a point about marginal land
>Due to the poor land quality most of Scotland's agricultural land is used for livestock grazing. Over 3.6 million hectares of Scotland's land is rough or common grazing; a further 1.3 million hectares is grass. Only 574,000 hectares of Scottish land is used for crops or fallow
Scotland has 5M hectares of "agricultural" land for livestock + silage vs 0.5M for crops.
See picrel. How do you propose to use all that "agricultural land" for food production in the absence of livestock?';

'>>16161972
>The improvements youre seeing, again, stem from artificially produced nutrients that were used to produce animal feed that waa then used to ammend grazing. You would see the same improvement if you originally put the artificial fertilizer on said land.
No, you would have to till it into the soil and you can't get mechanized farming tools into land like >>16162002, but cows come with built in tilling tools called hooves that they use to work the fertilizer into the soil so it doesn't all just wash into the ocean.';

'>>16162002
Again: Grazing is not the reality of modern livestock management. Quoting fringe cases seems like a poor attempt at circumventing the original discussion.
On average the modern diary or meat product is produced in confinement utilizing high density animal feed.
The issues associated with extensive grazing of herds are marginal by comparisson. There's hardly anyone mad about sheep herding, cattle grazing or feeding your scraps to a hen or sow.';

'>>16162015
> Grazing is not the reality of modern livestock management.
It is in my nation.
>On average the modern diary or meat product is produced in confinement utilizing high density animal feed.
Maybe where you live. I'm Scottish, and free-range, grass-fed lamb and beef is plentiful and affordable.
>There's hardly anyone mad about sheep herding, cattle grazing or feeding your scraps to a hen or sow.
YOU WERE when you cited the global total agricultural land given to livestock as if that land were equivalent to arable cropland. Don't you remember posting this?
>It should be clear that a reduction of livestock would free up land to be used for crops
Land that can be used for crops IS used for crops, because of a higher return on investment. But the majority of agricultural land is too steep, too cold, too wet or too sterile to grow crops. Hence livestock.
Show me a single example of livestock being grazed or kept on land that could otherwise be profitably used for crops.';

'>>16162028
What's nationalism got to do with it ?
Land that can be used for crops being used for crops to be fed to livestock is ultimately being used for livestock.
Please don't pretend you are oblivious to the basic fact that the conversion efficiency of animal protein production is not 1.';

'>>16162032
>Land that can be used for crops being used for crops to be fed to livestock is ultimately being used for livestock.
Crops that are high quality enough to be used for human consumption are used for human consumption.
Stunted, compromised harvests and crop residues are fed to livestock. When maize is harvested, the majority of the plant is roots, shoots, stems and leaves, none of which humans eat, so it's fed to cattle. This is counted as "crops fed to cattle".
When land is left fallow and planted with nitrogen-fixers like clover to improve its fertility, and these inedible plants are fed to cattle, this is counted as "crops fed to cattle".
You are obsessed with numerical comparisons of land and biomass but you pay zero attention to the qualitative properties.
>Livestock is, however, not only fed crops. In industrialized countries livestock is fed with concentrates purchased from the feed industry. To produce concentrates the feed industry purchases feedstock from international markets. The feedstock used is selected on a least cost basis [15]. The feedstock purchased includes not only crops (wheat, maize, basedbeans, tapioca, etc.) but also food residue from, for instance, the food processing industry (oilseed scrap, molasses, potato peels, etc.). Currently, 70% of the feedstock used in the Dutch feed industry originates from the food processing industry [16]. These food residues are generated due to consumption of vegetable or vegetable-based foodstuffs. For instance, a sugar beet processing plant yields beside sugar and also beet pulp and molasses for feed purposes.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652607001588';

'>>16162032
>Please don't pretend you are oblivious to the basic fact that the conversion efficiency of animal protein production is not 1.
yeah it's better than one, ruminants can synthesise raw amino acids out of simple nitrogen molecules';

'>>16162112
Thats just what your body does. Awesome. Another attempt at sidetracking. Calorie for calorie the conversion has an efficiency less than 1. Meeting the caloric need of the population is the first priority of agriculture. Now guess what: Crops do synthesize amino acids, essential ones too. And crops provide you with everything needed to synthesisze all the other aminos. And guess what: They do so at greater efficiency with respect to almost all if not all input ressources. But you probably know that.';

'>>16162127
Then I guess you won't mind eating nettles and thorns for energy like they do.';

'>>16162127
>Calorie for calorie the conversion has an efficiency less than 1
Can your body digest cellulose and hemicellulose now?

Go eat a bale of hay for a month and post your before and after results.';

'>>16162127
>Crops do synthesize amino acids, essential ones too.
go find a high quality supply that satisfies demands for lysine and methionine';

'>>16162154
>methionine
literally brown rice
>lysine
pea, potato ...';

'>>16162176
how close to optimal are the proportions they contain?';

'>>16162180
youre failing to realise, or more likely continueing to purposefully ignore, that for the same amount of ressources invested the quantitative output of food crops is so much greater that it dwarfs any reduction in quality when compared to animal derived food.
On a side note: I am assuming by 'optimal' you are referring to the concept where the composition of EAAs mirror closely what is believed to be needed as balance for the catabolic and anabolic metabolism of a ln adult human. In even more generalising approaches this is assumed to be the exact composition of human muscle tissue. Besides the severe limitations being obvious (only EAAs, only comparing to limited soft tissues) there is currently no good evidence that PDCAAS or 'complete protein' and similar concepts thatball aim to do the same yield superior outcomes when compared to more unspecific, average and healthy protein intake. In short: It's a wonderfully elusive simplistic theory of parts of the metabolism that aren't too well understood yet and while it makes intuitive sense so far we have no indication of it being correct.
Besides UPLC–MS/MS having good potential to be way off.';

'>>16162192
nah, i base my knowledge off growth rate studies in pigs and other functional measurements that livestock science has refined to exremely high precision out of economic necessity';

'So are you going to reply to the two posts asking if you want to eat thornbush, hay and nettles?';

'>>16162195
So when asking someone about
>optimal proportions
you are simply assuming that someone knows exactly what your definition of optimal is ?
On a sidenote: Are you still growing ? Is the population, on average, growing phsically ? That, growth, is an economic necessity for the individuals in livestock operations. It should be obvious to you that ohysical growth alters requirements for amino acid by alot.
Let's have some DIAAS examples: A potato dish with 30% wheat will have a DIAAS of 1 for growing infants.
Potato alone will have a PDCAAS and DIAAS of 1. Just like chicken breast, whey protein isolatey egg and fish come in at 1 or very close to 1. For humans.
But go on about your unspecified mysterious pig growth rates. Provide figures at least.';

'>>16162200
>Potato alone will have a PDCAAS and DIAAS of 1
>The protein digestibility‐corrected amino acid score (PDCAAS) of Russet potatoes subjected to various cooking methods ranged between 0.27 (raw) and a high of 0.57 (boiled), with cooked values being comparable to other plant‐based protein sources, including grains, and some nuts and pulses';

'>>16162220
shhh you can't just expose his misrepresentation of the facts like that';

'>>16162220
finally numbers ! thats something to work with. Too bad were still wasting alot of time on a huge tangent here. Anyhow, again: Let's agree you have now established meals based on one single crop are inferior to meals based on one single animal derived food source. And let's disregard thw fact that no one is realistically eating like this, especially not over consecutive meals. So you can mix and match your protein sources to fit any needs and if you want to sperg you can even solve for optimum meal composition, which still hasn't been shown to hold any significant benefit over just eating. You'll still be facing the predicament that, using the same ressources for food production, you obtain more food by cutting out the highly inefficient and unnecessary modern industrialized livestock operation. So even if someone for some reason was forced to base all their meals on one and only one crop, the extra availability of food available would easily allow to increase consumption to the point where the daily need for the EAA that is limiting the obscure single source diet is provided for. This would have the added benefit of additional nonessential AAs being consumed and would provide far greater caloric value. In case of lazy couch potatoes: Move. And if that really isnt an option: The abundance would also allow for protein isolates and still trump the alternative.';

'>>16162245
so why are you fixating on this and not talking about how many calories you can digest from a bale of hay?';

'>>16162245
>using the same ressources for food production, you obtain more food by cutting out the highly inefficient and unnecessary modern industrialized livestock operation
How would you grow food in the 5M hectares of marginal agricultural land in Scotland currently used to graze cattle?
>>16162002
>>Due to the poor land quality most of Scotland's agricultural land is used for livestock grazing. Over 3.6 million hectares of Scotland's land is rough or common grazing; a further 1.3 million hectares is grass. Only 574,000 hectares of Scottish land is used for crops or fallow';

'>>16162246
the reasoning is above. I see merit in being able to feed sufficient and nutritious meals to a population for a possibly long time, preferably 'indefinately'.';

'>>16162259
The issues we are seeing are not associated with grazing livestock.
Nationalism doesnt have anything to do with it either.
Additionally largely infertile land CAN be made productive IF needed.
But there are other uses for land that is not needed, like allowing natural habitats to flourish.';

'>>16162262
*largely not
I need to be very precise lest some nitpickers sees an opportunity to derail the tangent onto another tangent.';

'>>16162262
But earlier you said
>>a reduction of livestock would free up land to be used for crops
You still haven't explained how this is the case, when livestock are almost universally housed on land that isn't suitable for crops.
>Let's agree you have now established meals based on one single crop are inferior to meals based on one single animal derived food source.
No. Milk or eggs are nutritionally superior to any individual plant food.
>Additionally largely infertile land CAN be made productive IF needed.
Yes, we can inefficiently dump fossil-fuel derived fertiliser on scrubland. Because with no livestock, you've lost 50% of the world's fertiliser.';

'rough idea but
15-20tdm/Ha of above ground biomass from a whatcrop
maybe 4-6t of grain for breadwheat, higher for biscuit or feed wheat
straw + chaff goes to livestock as bedding or feed
milled grain disposes of the bran and other sievings, more livestock feed
some flour fails to to make quality or goes off > fed to animals
made into bread > stale unsold bread fed to animals

So before we even get anywhere interesting probably less than a sith of the biomass made it to human mouths';

'>>16162271
As long as crops are being produced on land that is suitable for the production of crops for the purpose of being fed to livestock a reduction in livestock that is fed using such crops will lead to a reduction of the need for feed and ultimately either free up the production capacity previoudly bound or make it obsolete thus freeing up the land. See above.
The same goes for fertilizer produced in haber boschs process: Reduced demand for crop (see above regarding one way to reduce demand) will lead to reduced necessity for intensity of farming or a reduction of land usage for farming while retaining the same intensity, or a combination before.
Also again: People do not eat like this. I don't even see why you would begin your statement with
>no
implying you were presenting a contradiction to the statement you are quoting. People do not eat like this. No normal functioning person eats only wheat on every meal and every day just like no one eats exclusively eggs and nothing else.
Also you still not seem to have understood, at this point I am done with the discussion because it can not be an actual lack of reasoning but malicious intent, that when looking at a situation where livestock is grazing you are observing a circular economy of nutrients. Your 'lost fertilizer' refers to nutrients that were artificially produced to faccilitate growing crops as animal feed. In cases where any animals graze or no animals graze and microorganisms break down expired plant matter you have no genesis of nutrients through those process. Only weathering of bedrock will do that and none of those processes has anything to do with it.
There is no need for what you propose. It again seems like a cheap attempt at derailing even a tangent.
Again: The issues associated with livestock that is merely grazing are miniscule compared to issues associated with industrially raised livestock, the majority source of animal derived foods.';

'>>16162304
>As long as crops are being produced on land that is suitable for the production of crops for the purpose of being fed to livestock a reduction in livestock that is fed using such crops will lead to a reduction of the need for feed and ultimately either free up the production capacity previoudly bound or make it obsolete thus freeing up the land. See above.
Nah, this is just wrong.

You don't understand the systems at all you're just making it up at this point because you're ignorant of the basics.

No farmer worth their boots are going to waste their money feeding something a human could eat for a way higher price than for an animal.
And cattle are bred and raised on the land they only get put on a grain rich fattening diet for a few months of intense fattening.
This actually magnifies the total food available.
get rid of the cows grazing on all the untillable land and you aren't going to suddenly create extra croppable area.';

'>>16162323
On another point about you're "industrially raised livestock"
Keeping stock in sheds is bloody expensive which is why you only do it if the weather is bad or there's some reason to do so, they are raised in the fields or on the hills until they're old enough to be fattened then they'll be put in a shed on an intensive finishing ration generally a silage or fresh feed mixed with the cheapest starch source.
For monogastrics like pigs it's different but as mentioned earlier they're a more reactive industry.';

'>>16162328
>For monogastrics like pigs it's different but as mentioned earlier they're a more reactive industry.
Not to mention pigs and chickens are fed feedstocks, upcycling waste into food.
>>Livestock is, however, not only fed crops. In industrialized countries livestock is fed with concentrates purchased from the feed industry. To produce concentrates the feed industry purchases feedstock from international markets. The feedstock used is selected on a least cost basis [15]. The feedstock purchased includes not only crops (wheat, maize, basedbeans, tapioca, etc.) but also food residue from, for instance, the food processing industry (oilseed scrap, molasses, potato peels, etc.). Currently, 70% of the feedstock used in the Dutch feed industry originates from the food processing industry [16]. These food residues are generated due to consumption of vegetable or vegetable-based foodstuffs. For instance, a sugar beet processing plant yields beside sugar and also beet pulp and molasses for feed purposes.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652607001588';

'>>16137675
Good book. Really nailed the whole controversy about water use and feed ratio.';

'>>16162336
its surprising all of that waste molasses is more valuable as feed for livestock than it would be as rum';

'>>16162260
Ok, then you should accept that being able to turn plants that humans can't digest like hay, thornbushes, nettles into nutrients that the human population can use is a major component of accomplishing that task.';

'>>16163659
focusing on this misses the really important point that out of the bioomass a plant produces in a year only a fairly small proportion can humans actually consume directly, the rest is indigestible.';

'>>16163700
> the rest is indigestible.
Not for ruminant animals which the entire point I was focusing on since this thread has already mentioned that crops grown for humans also have stalks and other bitter indigestible parts that are fed to livestock as feed.';

'>>16137349
Dude went straight to /pol/ schizo mode right off the bat but wants to be taken seriously
They're right you're wrong, now give me my guaranteed (you) I'm waiting.';

'>>16163703
That was my entire point anon?
We are looking at just two advantages of ruminant lovestock, the extraction of greater human accessible nutrition from the residues of a crop already grown for human use and the utilisation of land that would not be suitable to grow crops for direct human consumption.
And the values attainable are not small.

This is a starting point for any real discussion that we might want to have on the relative goods and evils of livestock production.

Now the question of resource overuse and pollution from excrement should be addressed.
Because a slurry storage system from a cafo polluting the ground water, air or flooding into rivers is a massive problem when it happens.';

'>>16163715
>That was my entire point anon?
Then why did you say addressing it misses the point?

>a slurry storage system from a cafo polluting the ground water, air or flooding into rivers is a massive problem when it happens.
If that is the really important point, why did you just say that the really important point was "out of the bioomass a plant produces in a year only a fairly small proportion can humans actually consume directly, the rest is indigestible" and why are you trying to instigate an argument with someone you just said agrees with you since now you are bringing up problems that are more applicable to pig (non-ruminant) farms than the cow farms we have been talking about?';

'>>16163718
No, your post highlighted the consumption of scrub and grass but I thought the more important point at least when confronting a vegan is that a cow can eat all the parts of their kimchi, tofu their oatmilk that they can't.
All with the exact same effort of growing it in the first place.
Literal free food.';

'>>16163730
Using them to cultivate marginal land and turn scrub fertile is free food, free fuel, free landscaping, free pest management, free fertilizer, free terraforming, and free security since they will alert you to predators on the margins all without the effort of having to manage crops.';

'>>16163740
We're dealing with vegans here anon, you have to be more direct, they need simple concepts.

Now because we're actually sane we need to confront some of the problems with some forms of animal agriculture like river eutrophication.';

'>>16163745
Nah, unlike you, I don't feel the need to be a duplicitous liar just because I am dealing with duplicitous liars.
Ruminant animal waste isn't even as much of a problem as the human waste issue since animal waste isn't composed entirely of material that was rejected by a human body and rumination is a much more comprehensive process than human digestion.';

'>>16163748
I'm not a liar, there are issues with cafo systems. generally the have been solved by actual professionals outside of thirdworld shitholes. and human excrement is a complete mess, so much is just wasted or contaminated. it's a bigger issue than the animal component.

I'm not the faggot from earlier with the animu (lol) against livestock and meat consumption I just want to get this problem some air so we can answer it and address the issues with it and how they have been or could be solved.

like the use of bioreactors producing methane and a liquid fertiliser';

'>>16163798
Saying when dealing with vegans use simple concepts is just advocating lies to children tier logic and your moving the goalposts to waste management is outside of the scope of the original discussion about whether or not livestock provides more nutritional output from the land than crops alone since industrial level corporate farming utilizing all the shortcuts and outsourcing of labor is an entirely different discussion than whether maintaining healthy livestock populations provides net nutritional value for society.';

'>>16159870
if you were an animal would you prefer to live in a hellhole concentration camp or out in the open,
dumbass black idiot. buy a rope';

'>>16163808
Because it's blatantly obvious that adding livestock extracts more nutrition from a crop.
But I want to address the shit problem so that we can get it over and done with.';

'>>16163812
Depends how many, wolves, bears and other predators are outside of my fortified enclosure?';

'>>16163815
If you address your own human shit problem, it will most likely apply to animal shit as well, despite the fact animal shit poses much less of a threat to human health and has nothing to do with this thread, but could merit a thread of its own if you are really concerned with waste management instead of just trying to deflect to some ancillary topic.';

'>>16163819

you are black and im very sorry for you. comparing literal genocide factory to.... normal... living.... conditions..... post iq tyrone';

'>>16163832
Modern housing systems are far from hellholes, and because of seasonal climate conditions housing for at least some of the year can be a necessity';

'minieral mining and transport is the big problem, you need the nutrients taken from a field to be put back somehow';

'>>16163845
https://ahdb.org.uk/knowledge-library/brp-better-cattle-housing-design
https://media.ahdb.org.uk/media/Default/Imported%20Publication%20Docs/Dairy%20housing%20systems.pdf
https://ahdb.org.uk/knowledge-library/pig-buildings';

'>>16137036
in an ideal world all cattle will be grazing cattle.
and it is very much possible';

'>>16136943
livestock = better soil health which increases the numbers of insects alive in your soil
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8e3adqcG6nA';

'Big meat packers are evil.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS_3a8vtGYI';

'>>16163928';