this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2023
556 points (76.1% liked)
Memes
45746 readers
1779 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The problem with eating locally, is that it isn't a viable way to feed humanity. Like, yeah, the more local the better, you aren't wrong. We all should buy local foods as far as is possible. But the nature of humans living in cities, and many cities being near good trade areas rather than good agriculture areas, means that it just isn't viable.
If everyone was like you, and bought local near-exclusively, the price of food in most cities and many regions would skyrocket, and unless people stopped, many would starve.
Not to say its a binary; we do 'overship' foods, and certainly could (and should!) eat more local foods.
Add to that, that demand for meat (especially beef) means that a lot of animal agriculture requires the shipping of plant feed for that meat; see how the majority of soybean farming (77%) is for animal feed. And, similar to the point above, 'grass fed' beef just isn't possible to do while meeting demand. If we want grass fed animal meat only, a lot of people are going to have to give up meat, or dramatically cut down on meat consumption.
Well, it is for me :). But while you're not wrong, it's a sad fact that many states export so much local food, meat, only to import crops from the other side of the country. Hell, someone tried to open a seafood restaurant in my home town that bought their products from 2000 miles away, products that were harvested from a dock less than 20 miles away from the restaurant itself.
I wager that my home region's exports are nearly enough to feed its populace despite having 2 of the biggest cities in the country. For the rest, of course we'll never have a zero-logistics food supply. But if you want to reduce impact, the ROI is much better dropping logistics by 10% with more local food (and localizing meat farms wherever possible, since that also increases the organic fertilizer utilization) than dropping meat consumption by 10%.
Regulations can help with that. Oddly, that dynamic only works well with large farms. Small-scale feed operations tend to be local. Just like manure operations. Corn grows bloody everywhere, and you can grass-feed beef 90% of the way there. And the best way to grow corn? With cow manure. You're absolutely right that a cow farm 1000 miles away from a corn farm is a problem. The corn needs the cows. The cows need the corn. In at least 48 of the 50 states, the climate is amenable to both cows and crops with feedable waste. And in my area, ever farm does rotations. Guess what you use with all the cover crops you'd otherwise have to burn? YUP, feed em to the local cows.
70% of harvested soy material, call "soy meal", is inedible by humans and is used for cow crops. It is untrue that "the majority of soybean farming" is for animal feed. The true statement is "the majority of soybean output" is for animal feed, and nothing will ever change that. That's sorta the point of agriculture and horticulture. EVEN in factory farms (but moreso outside of that grouping) there is a critical synergizing effect between meat and animal farming, and it harms the environment in various ways to move away from that synergy.
"CAN" vs "IS". Current field rotations apparently would allow 1/3 the feed calories to be pasture grass, if we changed absolutely nothing about farming practices. But due to logistics, only 4% of cattle is grass-fed. Instead, we destroy all that pasture grass ungainfully and dispose of all that manure ungainfully. You want the one and only environmental problem in our food industry, that is it.
That said, I'd like to remind you of the discussion point above. We have corn and soy waste that are going to be destroyed otherwise. It is less ideal for us wanting tasty cows that it is mixed willy-nilly into the feed, but it does mean we would actually be able to fully waste-feed cattle on JUST the grass, soymeal, and other crop waste we have... if the megacorps in BOTH farming industries making the decision cared about the environment more than saving a buck. Which, perhaps, is why you have so many small self-sufficient farms that simply do not compete with the big guns.
I'm genuinely sorry if that's the takeaway from my message, as that was not my intent. That was, actually, the vibe I've gotten from you; that the primary issue in food production is locality. I think there are dozens and dozens of issues in our global food supply chain, and maybe a third of them are tied to meat production.
But I don't think all of humanity must give up meat or anything. My main opinion is that meat is over-represented in our diets, especially American diets, and that huge demand for meat has economically incentivized meat production in areas and ways that aren't sustainable. But I do think meat can be sustainable. The primary issue isn't meat existing, its meat being over produced.
Much of what you say in your reply is correct, at least in part, so your not wrong that meat could be produced more sustainably. But, also as you say, it mostly isn't. So, I choose to not eat meat. But I'm not asking you to not, but rather saying that your proposal, of eating exclusively local, isn't practical for 90% of humans.
But yeah, you're right, "it’s a sad fact that many states export so much local food, meat, only to import crops from the other side of the country." That's 100% correct, and a problem.
But your soy point isn't really correct. https://ourworldindata.org/soy. While yes, most of animal feeds is soy meal, a byproduct of soy oil production, if you compare the amount of soybean directly consumed by us, its slightly less that then 7% whole soybeans fed directly to animals. So, animals are eating more straight whole soybeans than humans are eating tofu, tempeh, soymilk, etc.
And, on top of that, Soy meal is human edible. Yes, it often does require further refining, but it already is used to make things like Textured Vegetable Protein and Soymilk, since neither need the oil. And, we lose somewhere between 2-5x the energy using that soymeal to feed chickens, and somewhere between 6-25x that energy feeding it to cows.
And to reiterate, I'm not saying to burn down all animal agriculture and make everyone everywhere vegan. I'm saying that I agree with a lot of what you say, about reworking global logistics and agriculture to make all farming more local and more sustainable. And, as a consequence of that, meat production will have to drop. Factory farming is horrible on so many fronts, but it is efficient at pumping out loads of meat. To dismantle that, like you're proposing, will result in lower global meat production, even if some localities might actually see a rise. Small scale operations are less efficient in terms of total meat production, even if they're more efficient by most other metrics (all those pesky 'market externalities').
No, that's not the takeaway I got from your message. It's the takeaway I get from a lifetime of growing up close to the source of my food. In an honest analysis, evidence after evidence shows the primary issue with food production is DEFINITELY locality. I have no problem living a carbon neutral life eating locally and balanced. And there's plenty of farmable land around me being underutilized, not utilized, or exported. And I don't live in a "megafarm state".
As for meat being "overrepresented", I agree with you with dozens of caveats. The problem is that meat is generally quite healthy so long as it's not heavily processed, and while there may be an environmental impact to meat overrepresentation, there is less of a health one (possibly more of a health gain). How much it's overrepresented is an especially hard problem because part of its overrepresentation comes from its sourcing. The well-balanced diet (health and ecologically) involves at least 2 meat/fish meals per day in my area, possibly 3 if you include dairy and eggs. In some other areas, that ecologically balanced diet might only be 1 meal of meat a day or less (though there may be no local way to find a nutritional balance in those areas).
I think I'll agree to disagree here. Nothing you said in your rebuttal really disputed my point effectively, and I don't think you recognize that effectively enough for us to discuss it. Something I'd like to point out - soy flour really isn't that healthy and there's no reason to believe soy meal would be consumed by humans in larger amounts if it weren't consumed by animals.
I know that. I probably wouldn't have replied to you (at least not as well-cited) if you were. Hardcore vegans that want everyone cutting out meat are brainwashed, and the only time I've seen them deconverted (rarely) was when they faced health issues due to also not actually spending the time and effort on nutrition required to attempt to sustain such a lifestyle.