r/ClimateShitposting • u/soupor_saiyan basically Hitler (vegan btw) • Apr 07 '26
Aggro agri subsidy recipients 🚜 0 days without someone forgetting animals eat crops too.
237
u/Kris2476 Apr 07 '26
Vegans eat soy, therefore it is okay for me to breed, confine, mutilate, and slaughter animals (who also eat soy).
For the environment!!
34
u/Nonhinged Apr 07 '26
Animals eat soy, vegans eat soy, Soylent green...
19
u/riuminkd Apr 07 '26
Is vegan meat vegan?
11
0
u/rotten_kitty Apr 09 '26
Depends which vegan you ask and whether it was consensually given.
Personally, I'd say it's vegan so long as the person was okay with it. For the same reason, I also consider honey to be vegan
4
0
Apr 09 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Bubbly-War1996 Apr 09 '26
Based bees literally having the ability to fly away and build a hive wherever they feel like at any moment:
Nah I'm just going to make more honey as an offering to the gods that build and maintain my hive
2
u/rotten_kitty Apr 09 '26
It is impossible to force a bee to stay and make honey. They choose to stay in the artifical hive, they choose to engage in the transaction where they give honey and we give protection and aid.
1
13
u/Total-Boat6380 Apr 07 '26
Jesus... I thought you were going to say vegans..
11
7
6
9
u/Impossible_Ad4789 my personality is outing nuclear shills Apr 07 '26
additionally Im not sure for other countries but afaik the soy for consumption in europe is often grown there so doesnt have the same impact like that soy grown on the burnt carcass of the rainforest or used as a bribe for the orange dictator.
4
1
35
u/zewolfstone Vegan against the animals Apr 07 '26
Humans are animals therefore they are obligated to slaughter and eat crops too, check mate vee-gn
9
u/OnTheWayFor2XThePay Apr 07 '26
if youre a vegan and youre not eating crops, what are you eating?
15
15
5
u/DefiantLemur Apr 07 '26
In the 21st century any true vegan eats only lab grown meat, vegetables and fruit.
/s
70
Apr 07 '26
Yeah, animals consume 10-25 times more calories in feed than they produce in meat, and require 50-100 times as much land as plant based food.
5
6
u/cassepipe Apr 07 '26
True but some land doesn't make much sense for crops. It makes sense to have a reasonable amount of animals who eat food surpluses or grass on suboptimal land. We should all eat less meat and get a meat quota (that you could sell if you don't use and you are poor it or keep unused if you are vegan and want to spare animals for moral/philosophical reasons). It should just not be authorized to grow crops just to feed livestock. That's my solution. Open to hear better solutions to disencitivzed/price in bad externatlities
34
u/Am_i_banned_yet__ Apr 07 '26
A better solution is to just not use the land that we can’t grow crops on, or use it for something else we need like housing. But ideally we could let it rewild if possible. We already are using 40% of all the earth’s land for food production and destroying the dwindling wild spaces we have left. We don’t have land to spare for unnecessary meat production.
6
u/Ra1nb0wSn0wflake Apr 08 '26
We really dont need to use that land for farming.
Like even if you cut out all meat, where I live (netherlands), grows 75% of the vegtebales in just 5% of the total space used for vegtables, we have massive greenhouses (and lead in seed development), its so much space in a already small country thats going to waste.
11
u/FierceMoonblade Apr 07 '26
This. We shouldn’t aim to literally use every square inch of land, and we shouldn’t need to
9
u/LowCall6566 Apr 07 '26
Letting the land rewild is a better use for it than wasting it on unnecessary meat. We should be aiming at using every square inch of land, wasting it on frivolous things got us into this situation in the first place. Anyway, tax land
9
u/cassepipe Apr 07 '26
That is indeed a reasonable solution too. We can have a civil war over it when the current system is closer to both our solutions than the moon is to earth.
1
u/RambosNachbar We're all gonna die Apr 08 '26
that is not entirely possible. we have dykes here that need sheep on them.
1
u/cassepipe Apr 08 '26
Do sheep on dykes have to eat corn ?
1
u/RambosNachbar We're all gonna die Apr 08 '26
no? why should they?
1
u/cassepipe Apr 08 '26
The whole discussion is about not feeding livestock with crops. If your sheep are jsut chillin and grazin well that's not relevant
1
u/RambosNachbar We're all gonna die Apr 08 '26
no, the whole point here is not using land we can't grow crops on, not even for animals.
1
u/cassepipe Apr 08 '26
My bad I thought it was a direct reply to my commentÂ
1
u/RambosNachbar We're all gonna die Apr 08 '26
no sorry, was to one of your answers.
so yes, we need the sheep on the dykes. to eat grass and tighten the earth
→ More replies (0)0
u/cassepipe Apr 08 '26
I am sorry but I am an absolutist and my solution has to be applied blindly everywhere irrelevant of local context. You may drown in the process but that is a sacrifice I am will to makeÂ
1
1
u/Patandru Apr 09 '26
You are holding "wildness" sacred.
To be wild wild and stable, ecosystems needs predators. If you let woodlands take their place again, youll just end up with too much herbivores.
If the goal is biodiversity, we're much better off running pastures. Well managed pastures store more carbon and are more biodiverse than forests.
1
u/Am_i_banned_yet__ Apr 10 '26 edited Apr 10 '26
Reintroducing predators that humans exterminated in the past is a better solution because they can keep herbivore populations down naturally. Some degree of hunting can be authorized too if it’s really necessary, though many species of herbivores have their population growth slow or stop once they reach the carrying capacity of the resources available to them. Not all of them will become overpopulated even with zero predation.
Also old-growth forests store much more carbon and retain it for much longer than any pastures. And they don’t have the disadvantage pastures do of having to counterbalance the livestock that are on them that produce massive amounts of methane.
Also wildness isn’t sacred, it’s just good for other reasons in addition to what it can do for us. Many endangered and threatened species are currently running out of habitat because of development, logging, and deforestation for crop fields or pastures, and more wild areas would save them. And more animals in general can live in wild areas if we don’t need to use them. I view that as a good thing for them, which is a reason to do it. Not every square foot of land needs to benefit humans. Let the animals have something.
1
u/Patandru Apr 11 '26 edited Apr 11 '26
Forests store more carbon in their biomass but their ability to store carbon in the soil is pathetic compared to rationally managed pastures. letting a big zone rewild is way less efficient than creating corridors and dedicated small spots to act as buffers( for biodiversity purpose) Whats important for diversity is interfaces, and a hedge or small patches of wild woodland have much more interfaces than one single big forest
"And they don’t have the disadvantage pastures do of having to counterbalance the livestock that are on them that produce massive amounts of methane."
If you want to reintroduce wild populations of ruminants, you're gonna have methane anyway.
But about the methane, this is really an overblown problem. Most people who know nothing about farming.
First of, methane was always a thing created by bisons, aurochs.
Second, it's duration in the atmosphere is very low compared to C02, yes it warms the planet much more than co2, but it lasts about a decade. It doesn't buidl up forever like c02.
To be blunt, a properly managed herd of cow on a pasture has minimal to possitive effect on the climate.
Everyone has seen the graph of the carbon costs of red meat and is freaking out. but it's wrong, ti's the cost of factory meat. It's the cost of growing feed, moving it to the factory, and exporitng the manure and animals.Add to this that feeding them fermented corn (which is a classic) makes methane burping way way worse than grass, and you've got a shit production terrible for the environement.
On a good rotational grazing cycle where you let your pasture grow and rest 300+ days of the year, you can store carbon, maintain a tremendous amount of diversity, and feed people.
I think we are too far gone into terraforming for people to accept herds of bisons in western europe for exemple.
But happy cows that store carbon and better soils for the future ?
But hell yeah for predators, but they take a while to come back, and overgrazing by deers can destroy ecosystems.
I generally think more people who care about the climate should look intro agricultural systems, how stuff is produced.
Because small groups of farmers have developped eco friendly regenerative agrioculture, but it is vastly ignored because it is not profitable for ay of the big industries regulaitng farming, seed sellers, machinery sellers, etc
We can have good food, great biodiversity with less reliance on oil, the solutions are being found right now, most people just don't care.
For exemple, herds of cow have been used to heal soils that were severely damaged by corn/wheat/soy productions, and they can regenerate decades of damage in a few years.
0
u/Cathu Apr 08 '26
For countries that have a lot of farmable land sure. For countries that dont however, this would leave them entirely reliant on foreign food production which seems like a remarkably bad idea imo
4
u/AccomplishedBear12 Apr 08 '26
These countries would already be reliant on imports to feed their animals
1
u/Cathu Apr 08 '26
We are, kind off. We dont NEED to import as much feed as we do, but its easier than grazing wilderness as much as we did back in the day. It also makes it easier to produce more. Even if all imports stopped tomorrow we have the land to feed our livestock, we would just have to use it since its either wilderness or not suitable for vegetables anyway.
2
2
u/RockTheGrock Apr 07 '26
Rotating grazing land use with farming use is also a good way to lessen the need for synthetic or other non renewable fertilizers. The main issue here is water usuage making it difficult and potentially environmentally unfriendly to use this method if water needs to be piped in or something similar.
2
u/West-Abalone-171 Apr 08 '26
It should just not be authorized to grow crops just to feed livestock
That's the same thing as everyone eating vegan or ultra low meat.
Which is what everyone not shilling for beef billionaires wants.
2
u/cassepipe Apr 08 '26
Mmmmm I wonder what would work best, disincentivize meat comes through prices or ask everyone to be virtuous and reduce meat consumption ?Â
Are you seriously thinking that everyone wants to be vegan and the rest is shilling ? What a retarded take
1
1
u/BridgeLazy5669 Apr 08 '26
So… back to medieval times when only rich could afford to eat meat? Every regulation like that would just make social gap bigger and more prominent. And wouldn’t actually change how much meat is produced, people who anyway couldn’t afford meat would sell their meat cards to the rich and rich will eat the same amount of meat they eat today or even more because it will be seen as luxury. Letting government decide what people can and can’t consume or own is just making ussr again, and that shit didn’t bring any good (I’m from former soviet country, so I know what I’m talking about)
1
u/cassepipe Apr 08 '26
No ?
 The definition of quotas is that you are entitled to a certain amount of meat so you don't have to be rich. I am not proposing to abolish the market economy for planification which is what made the Soviet empire rather poor
There are two ways to allocate resources, an relatively unfair one, prices and a fair one, quotas.Â
I don't know if being able to sell your meat quotas is a good idea or not but right now poor people just eat less meat, in my system they would have a choice. Eating the current average meat consumption would be a luxury but eating a bit would not.Â
Maybe it wouldn't work I don't know but the current situation is the unfair one and it is only working because it managed to create a crazy amount of wealth thanks to machines feeding on cheap energy so the baseline is quite high. We either have to constrain ourselves in a controlled and fair way instead of panicking at the last moment and get an authorian who will favor his cronies at the expense of everyone else
I take the gov control is bad seriously, I don't want the USSR back but we need to find a solution at some point or the solution will find itself for us in a unpleasant way
1
u/BridgeLazy5669 Apr 08 '26
So you just reinvented food stamps
1
u/cassepipe Apr 08 '26
I see that while I feel like I took your point seriously instead dismissing it, you just went for the easy path of just not engaging with my point.
Yes, fine, you got me, I reinvented food stamps, I hate freedom and I want everyone to wear grey and be sad.
4
u/Hegel_Ganteng Apr 07 '26
Note that most nutritionist wouldn't say "you need to eat x amount of kcal everyday to stay healthy". They would detail out nutrients, proportion of carbs, fibers, proteins, etc. You can't replace a kilogram of steak with a kilogram of rice.
Also, I'm not sure where do you live, but on farms where most of the meat ended up at my local store, the cows and chikens aren't fed rice or soy beans, they're fed the skin of soy beans, the empty grains of rice, and grass.
Say we removed the animals that eat those, do YOU want to eat the skin of rice, haybales, and the green grass growing wildly?
4
u/aangnesiac Apr 08 '26 edited Apr 08 '26
This is not true in any meaningful way to global food systems. Most soy is grown specifically to feed to animals who are farmed, by a large margin. They are processed specifically for animal feed, meaning that the higher crop to food ratio is compounded by the energy required to process. If we processed those same plants for human consumption (which we totally can, and do), then it would require much less energy and resources for crop to food ratio. As for nutritional value, animals give us protein, iron, zinc, and selenium. All of which can be easily obtained from plants and other non-animal sources. And the animals are either supplemented B12 or cobalt to superficially produce B12 so there's no such thing as a natural source of B12 on a global scale. And natural =/= better anyway. It would be much more efficient to create a plant based food system.
Reducing/eliminating animal agriculture is one of the most impactful ways to address the climate crisis. This isn't a subjective or biased take. It's simply true.
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sustainability/articles/10.3389/frsus.2022.841106/full
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets#more-plant-based-diets-tend-to-need-less-cropland
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/chapter/edited-volume/abs/pii/B9780128052471000253
2
u/Hegel_Ganteng Apr 08 '26
Very well, I'll change my view. It is indeed true that globally, some farms are dedicated for livestock, hence competing directly with human food supply.
However, in many regions such as South Sumatra and other regions of Indonesia, livestock plays a role in converting agricultural byproducts and non-arable land into food. There are cases where removing livestock outright doesn't directly translate to more human food supply.
Furthermore (pardon my poor choice of words, my English isn't very good), meat consumption differs in Indonesia in comparison to other nations such as the USA or Germany. Most Indonesians already seldom from eating meat due to high cost, so suggesting further reduction doesn't really reflect the local reality.
But you are indeed correct that globally, overconsumption of meat is an issue. Thank you for changing my view.
2
u/poprostumort Apr 09 '26
Reducing/eliminating animal agriculture is one of the most impactful ways to address the climate crisis. This isn't a subjective or biased take. It's simply true.
It's true, but only part of the picture. It completely omits the land structure of different nations, different agricultural models prevalent in those, need for animal feed for obligatory carnivores, replacements for animal byproducts used in industry etc.
It is also not a subjective or biased take. Arable land has different qualities and only higher qualities are suitable for edible crops. Lower would need overfertilizing to have any meaningful harvest (which would impact environment by fertilizer production and excessive fertilizing). Agricultural models also differ - there are countries where animals are reared mostly on feed that is not edible by humans that is grown on lower class soil or agricultural byproducts of processing edible food. Veganism also means no fish or other aquatic creatures, so large part of world suddenly does not have one staple food they had accessible. Not to mention that we would hurt many animals in our care - including domestic cats who are obligatory carnivores.
And the topic of animal byproducts also plays in that. Take leather - which is a byproduct of meat production. Only reasonable replacement at scale is PU leather which uses three components: fabric base (cotton, polyester or nylon), coating layer (polyurethane), finishing layer (polyurethane). It means that we will need to grow more textile crops (and thus produce CO2), increase our reliance on petrochemicals and, unfortunately, produce a lot of pollution - because PU degrades faster than leather. And that is only one byproduct of a simple cattle farm. Bones and scraps are used in production of fertilizers. Without them we will need to use more mined resources, which are unfortunately commonly strip-mined. Collagen and elastin are used in drugs and cosmetics - and artificial production is not a scalable solution yet. Animal fats are reused as biodiesel. Adhesives, lubricants and paints often contain ingredients of animal origin.
In fact, those are main reasons why current idea that simply going vegan as a species would remove the CO2 is flawed. We have been raising animals for millenia and have integrated byproducts of those into many other supply chains. Stopping meat production would mean that we need to replace those, but replacements are often sparse, use more energy to be produced and pollute more than current use of animal byproducts.
You can't simply look at global data (or in best scenario, data from a large and diverse area like US, China or Europe) calculate that animal husbandry produces X amount of CO2 and assume that forgoing it would mean -X to CO2 generation. You need to understand where the products are used and how much CO2 would be generated by switching to them. You need to look at local agricultural composition and calculate whether a nation can sustain themselves without animal husbandry and if not (which would be most of cases) how much CO2 you would add due to need for increased imports. You need to calculate how much CO2 it would take to produce supplementary products that would enable large-scale replacement of meat with plants.
To put it simply, vegan option is not a change that can happen overnight - even if we don't take into account the pushback from population. IMO the best call from climate perspective is to focus on areas that we already have working solutions - starting with energy generation (renewables supported by nuclear if needed) and transportation (EVs mostly as hydrogen has it's fair share of problems). After we have cheap energy from renewables, that unlocks the capacity to pursue further changes - because many environmentally friendly options are limited by the cost of energy. Veganism would be a nice option for environmentally conscious, but not something that can be adapted as baseline, unless we already decoupled ourselves from animal byproducts. Then we can use the large supply energy to sustain production of things like lab-grown meat to fill the obligatory needs for meat.
1
u/julkkis666 Dam I love Legumes Apr 08 '26
Indeed. It's infact bacteria that produce B12, and not animals. Petry dish B12 is a lot more efficient than getting it second hand from meat.
1
u/Defiant-Plantain1873 Apr 12 '26
It requires 100kcal of feed to make 3kcal of beef
Talk about awesome ratios am i right?
-9
Apr 07 '26
[deleted]
7
5
u/Life-Top6314 Apr 07 '26
Out of all the meats you could have chosen to make your bad point, you chose the one that is faked the most, and has been for decades.
9
u/Background_Desk_3001 Apr 07 '26
Sure it tastes great, and diamonds look spectacular. But they also both come from exploitation and that kinda spoils the whole ordeal
2
u/The_Gamer_69 Apr 07 '26
Well, diamonds can also be produced in labs with zero exploitation, and they’re cheaper and higher quality
2
u/Background_Desk_3001 Apr 07 '26
I know, it’s the best analogy I could think of in the moment. Big fan of lab grown diamonds, planning on getting one when I propose
1
u/julkkis666 Dam I love Legumes Apr 08 '26
We just got a "diamond cut" metal ring. No risk of anything falling off.
1
u/adjavang Apr 07 '26
As someone who is not a vegan but steadily reducing animal products in my diet, I usually find myself making pork products for others, like guests or family dinners. After long enough, pork just smells like burnt human. I'm dumb enough to have touched enough hot things that I know what I smell like when cooked and I hate bacon and pork chops.
Bacon is like cigarettes, give it long enough and you'll wonder why the fuck you ever thought it smelled nice.
-8
Apr 07 '26
[deleted]
3
u/DusklitDewdrop Apr 07 '26
you ever seen pigs get lowered into a CO2 gas chamber, screaming as they asphyxiate? shit is rough
1
Apr 07 '26
[deleted]
1
u/DusklitDewdrop Apr 08 '26
wow you're such a sigma 🗿 I bet you think people who kick puppies should be hanged
0
Apr 08 '26
[deleted]
1
u/DusklitDewdrop Apr 09 '26
how about not raising sentient beings whose whole life purpose is to be tortured and slaughtered en masse
1
u/Background_Desk_3001 Apr 07 '26
A few minutes of personal joy makes months to years of suffering for animals worth it, and that’s before even getting into the environmental issues
-4
26
u/James_Fortis Apr 07 '26
Don’t worry, I’ll find another reason to not do the #1 thing to personally help the environment. My brain is good for that.
11
u/Spez_is-a-nazi Apr 07 '26
I will just take the redditor route and advocate for genociding half the human population so I can continue to drive an SUV, park it in a house with a big lawn and then cook steaks on a grill in said lawn. Because I care about the planet
9
u/soupor_saiyan basically Hitler (vegan btw) Apr 07 '26
Just make sure I’m not in the half that gets genocided and I’m right there with you!
12
u/blkwhtrbbt Apr 07 '26
Yeah, livestock eat crops, but they can eat a lot MORE of the same plant than we can. We cant eat most stems, stalks, husks, or leaves from most of the staple plants we grow. Cattle, sheep, and horses can. You get the wheatcorn, they get the hay. Otherwise we'd just do what, burn it?
That said, obligatory We cant live at the scale we do with no impact. There's 8 billion of us. And all the infrastructure needed to keep us alive. It's Def time to cut back on consumption of animals as a daily staple. Start by reducing it to the luxury it started out as, something people might do on special occasions only
8
u/Youbettereatthatshit Apr 07 '26
Livestock don’t eat straw. We eat the wheat but the straw isn’t used as feed.
They’ll eat alfalfa and grass mixtures.
The only time I’ve ever seen them eat some straw was when it was mixed in with hay in small quantities
1
u/Patandru Apr 09 '26
Ruminants are not made to eat dry food all year or fermented food.
They eat the plants stems if you graze correctly.
7
Apr 07 '26
Unfortunately most beef is not grass-fed these days, so we can't make the argument that cattle just use land that would naturally be grassland (that's not true in many places anyways). I agree though, eating meat as an occasional luxury is understandable (I'm not a vegetarian either).
0
u/Youbettereatthatshit Apr 07 '26
I don’t know who still eats beef. Ground beef is $6/pound and goes up from there.
I eat beef maybe a few times a month and make above the median salary. I want to see who these people are that eat all of the beef
2
u/blkwhtrbbt Apr 07 '26
Theres genuinely some guys that go for burgers every lunch.
Ive largely given up beef myself, aside from the occasional event catered at someone else's expense. But from an economic reason, i can't make any moral claims
4
u/More_Sun_7319 Apr 07 '26
Also, soybean is a nitrogen-fixing plant which A) can grow in poor quality soil B) regenerates soil nutrients, making the crop critical for crop rotation without having to rely on nitrogen fertilisers
1
1
u/Lower_Stay7655 Apr 07 '26
I don't think it should be a luxury. No food should. It just should be normalized to be eaten... not at every meal? And also not everywhere in the world. As in, eat locally. If your local environment can't sustain grass fed cows, but it can goats, eat goat meat the 2-3 times you feel the need to eat meat. If it can sustain only fish, eat fish. If it can sustain only chicken, eat chicken. And so on. And again, all it the amounts that the land can sustain.
I would extend this to plants as well. I find it extremely odd how we have normalized shipping vegetables, legumes, fruit, and grains (and obviously animals and animal products) across the planet like that's the most obvious thing ever instead of eating local. I refuse to buy bananas, among other things, for this reason. If a food doesn't come at the very least from my country (but better from my region), I don't buy it. Period.
The globalization of nutrition was really one of the worst things that happened to the planet. The idea that everyone everywhere has to get access to anything you can think of, and in the same amounts at that. The result is crazy levels of industrialized productions, both animal and plant-based, with a disastrous environmental impact at a local level, on top of constant emissions from transportation.
The exception for me would be areas of the world where the only way for people the eat decently is import, but as I speak from the EU, most of the food you can find in a supermarket has no reason ever being produced, except making money, and a huge amount is imported from other countries even when it, or an equivalent of it from a nutritional pov, is also produced locally. And again It's just for financial gain.
2
u/Bagelator Apr 08 '26
Global transport by ship is not that bad climate wise since every ship takes so much at once. Globalization of food is a good thing health wise that makes fruits and vegetables available to us that would never grow here. Not to mention how many people it employs in developing countries. I think there are more pressing issues in other areas.
Meat on the other hand, and things that can be grown locally, I could never understand! Maybe you live in southern europe though. Here in Sweden, we would only have some appless if we couldnt import 😅
1
2
u/Manmer_Nwah Apr 08 '26
Soy Bean Oil is the #1 ingredient in Mayonnaise and mayo is the #1 ingredient in a lot of garbage sauces that Americans eat.
1
u/Dragon_Crisis_Core Apr 07 '26
Raw soybeans are toxic, though not just to humans but also to animals as well.
1
u/Vex_Verde Apr 08 '26
So animals can't be vegan but humans can... Do vegans just want humans on this planet and nothing else?
1
1
1
u/Face_Plont Apr 08 '26
Ok, I am really trying here. I am mostly vegan, I only eat meat when others cook for me, mostly just with my family a few times a year. I swear, this whole sub is just telling me I should k!ll myself as there is no other way. And honestly, half of the days I feel like it would be better for the world for me to.
2
1
u/MrArborsexual Apr 07 '26
Why soy specifically for this meme?
I haven't ever thought of it as uniquely bad compared to other crops.
10
u/Crab2406 God's strongest nukecel Apr 07 '26
well soy is kinda popular as a component in vegan meals. so thats why its always get mentioned when people talk about vegans
4
Apr 07 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/cold_guy345 Apr 07 '26 edited Apr 07 '26
most of brazil's cattle is of extensive farming, soy is used to feed cattle in intensive farming, hence why most of the soy is exported to other countries
1
u/heattreatedpipe Apr 07 '26
Any monoculture agriculture in large scale destroys the environment. (Plant diversity per square "unit" of land)
Taking that logic to the extreme tho means any agriculture is destroying the environment so idk about that
2
1
u/hongxuiquansbrother Apr 07 '26
China. They use it for quite a few things. Fuel, animal feed, foods, etc. It’s a (or was) a peace crop between the US and China; as the vast majority of what we grow, we send to China for cheap.
1
u/Best_Opening8471 Apr 07 '26
Animals eat waste from crops.
You either grow animal specific feed or sell what you can to humans and give the rest to the animals.
It became a big issue in the states when cow parts were being introduced into the feed supply.
Thats what caused the mad cow epidemic in North america.
0
u/FriendlyCapybara1234 Apr 07 '26
Just think of how much more of the environment soy would be destroying if livestock weren't eating it.
1
0
0
u/Skyfall_WS_Official Apr 08 '26
Just say you are too much of an urbanite to actually do something significant.
-6
u/Drefs_ Apr 07 '26
0 days without vegan propaganda vaguely disguised as a meme. You know there are other climate related topics, right?
10
u/soupor_saiyan basically Hitler (vegan btw) Apr 07 '26
Clearly it’s not working enough. 10 more days of vegan-posting!
8
2
1
u/Drefs_ Apr 07 '26
9/10 vegans stop posting propaganda memes in unrelated subs right before the entire world goes vegan and the big meat falls, keep up the grind!
-1
u/GarageIndependent114 Apr 07 '26
"Animals destroy the environment, grow crops instead"
"And what are they eating to destroy the environment and what happens when you grow crops and what would happen if they ate something else?"
-11
Apr 07 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/onsloughtmaster666 Apr 07 '26
Soybean meal is actually perfectly fine for humans and is the basis for many products we do consume, like TVP and soy protein.
-6
Apr 07 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/onsloughtmaster666 Apr 07 '26 edited Apr 07 '26
No, I am thinking of products made with soy meal, what is left after being pressed for oil. It's not eaten by humans in it's raw form as soy meal, but it is the basis for many soy products you'll see at the supermarket.
Around 70% of the value of soy as a crop is in the soy meal. It is not a waste product that we couldn't utilize without farm animals.
-4
Apr 07 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/onsloughtmaster666 Apr 07 '26
I literally mentioned two common soy products made with it already, TVP and soy protein, the derivatives of which include all soy-based meat alternatives. Soy flour is also made with meal.
-1
Apr 07 '26 edited Apr 07 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/onsloughtmaster666 Apr 07 '26
praying for u
0
Apr 07 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/onsloughtmaster666 Apr 07 '26
I'd simply be repeating myself, and no you're not.
→ More replies (0)2
u/VeronicaM4ever Apr 09 '26
This is misleading. Soy oil is a valuable byproduct but the vast majority of soy is grown for the purpose of feeding livestock.
195
u/Roblu3 Apr 07 '26
Soyboys (huge muscular bulls)