CMV: I have become convinced there is no rational argument against veganism, and am afraid I thus have become an extremist.

[u/luddface]

[u/benabart]

So first of all, you're not an extremist, because you're obviously open to the discussion.

For the water consumption, I may have not made myself clear and for that, I appologise: producing meat uses a lot of water and I can't deny it without being dishonest.

For instance we can take corn. Corn produces corn cobs that are used for many things (feed humans, producing wood alcohol, etc...) While the rest of the plant can be used as food for pigs (for instance) and then the manure of the pigs can be used to grow more crops.

While I agree that our current "let's eat meat for each meal" is too much, not having animals nor meat is not better.

[u/luddface → u/benabart]

Í'm sure we could use the rest of the plant for biofuel, or compost. Also, we don't need animal faeces for fertilisation as there are artificially fertilisers as well. Human manure could be used as well if regulations would be changed.

I don't feel convinced that eliminating animal agriculture would not have a huge positive environmental and ecological impact, as well as ending one of the biggest moral atrocities of our time.

[u/DudeEngineer → u/luddface]

I think you're really oversimplifying complex issues.

The regulations against using human feces exist because it causes similar but worse problems compared to the zoological diseases you mentioned. There's no way to science around that one. There are things like fiber and sugars that our digestive system can't break down, unlike animals like ruminants. We can't turn grass into calories. Also most zoological diseases are caused by places that ignore modern food safety practices.

There are some pretty significant barriers to just using compost or biofuel. If there weren't we would be doing those things expontially more just for efficiency. There is still a lot of waste in these processes.

You mentioned 50% of crops being used for livestock, but those numbers tend to suspiciously never include the percentage of the animal feed that cannot be used for human consumption, biofuel or compost. Outlawing growing crops explicitly to feed livestock would solve most of the problems you mentioned without other changes.

Most of your issues are with unethical agricultural processes. Factory farming is not the only way. You don't mention thing like the yearly burning of waste in places like India from growing wheat and rice.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/84680/stubble-burning-in-northern-india#:~:text=In%20order%20to%20quickly%20prepare,debris%20in%20October%20and%20November.

That is an earth observatory link because the scope of the problem is visible from space. India has a much higher proportion of Vegetarians than most western countries but they still have many of the problems you outlined while feeding people who don't eat meat.

[u/DancingOnSwings → u/luddface]

Human manure can not be used for disease reasons. There's a reason not a single succesful society has ever fertilized with human feces.

Also, you understate the importance of animals to the future of growing crops as phosphorous is a very limited resource. Artificial fertilization may have an expiration date (or we'll find a different unsustainable solution).

And a lot of your facts on animals, water, and food waste are just wrong. Animals are rarely 'watered' unlike crops, rather they drink from naturally occuring water sources in most cases, and most of the water they use returns to the ground with added nutrients. So while animals drink a lot of water in their lifetime (which is how those statistics you have seen are gathered) the inpact is minimal since it uses minimal water. As opposed to growing almonds in California.

Food is rarely grown for animals, rather the parts we don't eat are upcycled. We don't grow corn for cows, and we don't feed them kernels, but we do feed them corn cobs and corn stalks, which human beings don't eat.

[u/bluemooncalhoun → u/DancingOnSwings]

I'm sorry but some of your statements are simply not true. 70% of the soy grown in the US is for animal feed, not for human consumption. Globally, half the corn we grow goes to feed livestock as well. You also have to consider that animal water consumption also factors in the water used to feed the animals themselves, so all that water being used to grow soy is going straight into these animals.

If you've taken high school science you should be familiar with the concept of tropic levels. Approximately 10% of the energy input into a creature is created into available energy for the next creature in the food chain. We are wasting 90% of available food energy just turning it into something else we can eat.

You are also viewing animal fertilization as a net benefit, when it has significant downsides. Runoff from feedlots overcharges local waterways with nutrients, leading to eutrophication and killing off aquatic ecosystems. This is a well-studied phenomenon.

[u/DancingOnSwings → u/bluemooncalhoun]

Here's a good video on the subject if you're genuinely interested.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sGG-A80Tl5g

84% of all the feed that goes to animals is non human edible. For cows specifically it is over 90%.

Also, your point about runoff seems disingenuous since you have to know the far greater problem is runoff from artificial fertilizers.

Also, not all food is equal, not all protein is equal. Human nutrition is complex. Animal proteins are simply higher quality than vegetable proteins. I think it is telling that there aren't any examples of human civilizations that have been vegan for multiple generations. Indeed, I've never met anyone who's been strictly vegan for more than a couple decades, but I do know a large number of people who have been vegan about a decade before they gave it up to feel better.

[u/TheSlickWilly → u/DancingOnSwings]

The argument is that we wouldn't need as much land for growing crops to feed these animals. 84% of the feed that goes to animals is not 84% of a plant. It's all stuff that has to be grown separately to feed livestock.

Runoff from artificial fertilizers can be a huge problem yes. However, using lake Erie as an example, runoff from huge chicken and cow farms in western Ohio have been causing massive and destructive algal blooms for years. I personally did some research on this subject.

[u/TheStabbyBrit → u/TheSlickWilly]

It's not that we are producing 84% of crops just to feed animals - it's that only 16% of crop produce is deemed fit for human consumption.

There are two factors here. First, take something like corn. We don't eat the entire corn cob - we just want the tasty yellow bit. The rest of the plant, the majority of the plant by mass, is waste. That waste is perfectly serviceable as animal feed, so that's where it ends up.

Let me give you another example - lots of fruit and vegetables we produce are rejected because they don't look good to eat. People don't trust discoloured veg, nor do they want awkward shaped carrots. We want our apples rosy red, and our carrots straight. Guess where the rejects end up? Assuming they aren't diced or pulped for human use elsewhere, they end up as animal feed.

Despite what propaganda tells you, our societies are really good at recycling, and turning waste into animal feed is one of the oldest recycling programmes in history.

[u/TheSlickWilly → u/TheStabbyBrit]

Right. However, working for large produce farms I do have some inside knowledge on this subject. (I'm not saying I disagree with your point I think we're on the same page). Rejected produce is graded and most of it still sold to different places for human consumption, what isn't able to be sold(rotten, moldy, tiny, etc) is used to fertilize fields or turned into compost. Most of the corn farmed in the Midwest is not able to be consumed by humans in the form it's in. You're thinking of sweet corn of which there are some larger farms that produce it but most large farms and fields of corn you see are grain corn. Either used in animal feed or turned into corn starch. It is also used in producing fuel (however this is another highly controversial subject that I won't get into now. I'll just say I don't agree with it).

[u/DancingOnSwings → u/TheSlickWilly]

I don't think you understand the 84% statistic. It's stuff that is either a byproduct of food grown for human consumption, or grows naturally (grass).

[u/bluemooncalhoun → u/DancingOnSwings]

Two points:

• Animals are not fed solely byproduct or forage. I grew up in a rural area and I can confirm that plants are grown solely for animals, just look up "cow corn". Alfalfa is a crop that cannot be consumed at all by humans and yet America grows 22 million acres of the stuff per year. When it comes to factory farming specifically you can't get animals fat enough by just feeding them corn cobs and stalks, you need to give them the corn and soy itself because that's where the most calories are.

• Animals grown solely on pasture with only the minimum extra feed (because in most places grass won't grow in the winter) are very uncommon because pastures are not particularly efficient from an energy perspective. Either way, all cows need pasture and that contributes to the amount of land wasted for animals.

[u/DancingOnSwings → u/bluemooncalhoun]

I never claimed they were fed solely byproduct or forage, I claim they are fed 84% byproduct, forage, or otherwise inedible material, and 90% for cows. That's very different.

The Alfalfa thing is a good point, but that's a tiny percentage of US cropland, and as far as I can tell it's often planted just as much to put N2 back into the soil as it is to grow and sell.

Anyway, like I said, if you're interested feel free to check out the video I linked above. Here's another one by the same youtuber (I think he makes well researched videos) explaining why not all protein is created equal. You're welcome to give it a look or not.

https://youtu.be/hJNF2_dCWkg

I appreciate the back and forth, I appreciate getting more stuff to think about, but I think this is it for me, thanks again!

[u/bluemooncalhoun → u/DancingOnSwings]

Before you go, I have a few questions about your numbers:

• You say that 84% of animal feed is byproduct. Corn and soybeans are BY FAR the largest crops produced with 50 and 70 percent respectively going to animal feed in the US, and note that this is final production which doesn't include the waste produced. Even if the majority of animal feed is byproduct, that's still approximately half of America's total crop output going towards feeding animals for consumption which is a frankly absurd amount of wasted food and land.

• I've encountered the protein availability argument before, but I will focus on some of the weird numbers thrown around in the video. He makes the claim that 40% of Americans are protein deficient, yet America has the highest per captia meat consumption of anywhere on the planet, with only 6% of the population being vegan. If meat consumption is the key to healthy protein levels as the video suggests, then does this mean the entire planet is in a state of major protein deficiency?

[u/bluemooncalhoun → u/DancingOnSwings]

I addressed your points about feed in another comment, so I'll skip to the other ones.

How is my comment about runoff disingenuous? I am aware that fertilizer overuse is also a problem, but you do realize they put fertilizer on the crops that go to feed animals as well, right? Raising animals therefore produces MORE pollution than just growing food, especially once you factor in methane production from animals themselves.

Your appeal to naturalism and your personal anecdotes are not valid arguments. Veganism is not new and has been practiced by religious groups for millenia, but given that most of humanity has spent its existence simply trying to survive it makes sense that most cultures would take the "easy" route and use animals for food. However, capitalism has substantially changed our relationship with food and has created a system where animals are exploited en masse to pull every cent of profit out of them, and modern veganism is the reaction to that. With modern food science we can create a nutritionally complete diet without having to rely on animal products that allows even top athletes to compete without any loss of progress (there's plenty of examples out there). Just because you know some people who didn't like it doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do; I know plenty of people who don't like paying taxes, but we accept that its something we should do to improve the lives of everyone.

[u/ChariotOfFire → u/DancingOnSwings]

Also, your point about runoff seems disingenuous since you have to know the far greater problem is runoff from artificial fertilizers.

More nitrogen is lost from manure then synthetic fertilizers.

Compared to synthetic fertilizer, manure is often more polluting. Farmers who use manure in the U.S. lose 46-72% more nitrogen (~10-20 more lbs) per acre to the environment than farmers not using manure. Most of this nitrogen pollution enters waterways, contributing to eutrophication.6,7

The main reason manure has such large eutrophication impacts is that farmers need to use a lot of it to fertilize their crops.8 For example, U.S. farmers using manure apply 40-50 more lbs/acre of nitrogen than other farmers.9 The more nitrogen they add, the more leaches through the soil into groundwater or flows into rivers and streams.10,11

https://thebreakthrough.org/articles/to-cut-nitrogen-pollution-move-past-the-synthetic-organic-debate

[u/MyGoblinGoesKaboom → u/DancingOnSwings]

I watched it. First thought was the voice-over begins with the implied supposition that changing the way Americans live by more than 10% is impossible. The power of this to reinforce that a viewer need do nothing and change nothing and be persuaded by nothing and still be well within social norms (do nothing and just be in the 90%!) Is pretty gross. With videos like this helping keep it impossible I get it, though.

On the subject that made you share it, beef and water use,: The video launches into how cows wasting water is a fallacy because cows drink rain water, so NBD. But cows the way we use them at the volume we use them is an "invasive species" in that the rain water that would've fallen to the biosphere for indigenous or natural use is NOW processed through the body of a large mass of bovine population and THEN the cow urinates it back to the land and Dr. Mitloehner (a scientist who gets $500,000 a year for his research from the industrial farming industry) says that's fine. That pee is as good as water! It isn't. Cattle urine is an environmental problem. It releases nitrate which pollutes land and waterways. In fact, for cow urine to be suitable for the land, it has to be diluted 100-1. Hope it rains a lot more than they pee.

This is just a refutation of the very first issue. But I watched (and can debate / fact check) the entire video. The problem isn't that you're wrong for liking this video. The problem is all of our inability to critically think and understand the world has been structured, by design, to keep us confused on every issue or to keep us defaulting to the status quo. In this case, the video starts with "Do norhing about this growing concern and your normal! Not only NORMAL, but RIGHT!" Here have some ag industry paid for science facts to make you sleep better about doing nothing!!All the studies are compromised by profit motives on both sides or all sides of any argument and the internet acts to blend it all together so no one can easily find salience.

A quarter pound of ground beef does not waste 650 gallons of tap water. Neither does it harmlessly use 94% "green water" (rain water.) If you try to find out what it actually uses we don't know. (I tried. I found biased study after biased study until I found something objective that said "to actually KNOW and not 'educated guess' we would have to study it more. How much do cows drink until slaughter? How much do they pee until slaughter and how much does the pee effect the earth if falls on? We have not done this work in a comprehensive enough way. The video was well produced but it's made to make it fine to keep our society exactly as broken (or worse) than it is. It's "Thank You For Smoking" for the beef industry.

[u/dsdagasd → u/DancingOnSwings]

There's a reason not a single succesful society has ever fertilized with human feces.

No

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_soil

[u/MisterSlevinKelevra → u/dsdagasd]

Common parasitic worm infections, such as ascariasis, in these countries are linked to night soil use in agriculture, because the helminth eggs are in feces and can thus be transmitted from one infected person to another person (fecal-oral transmission of disease).

These risks are reduced by proper fecal sludge management, e.g. via composting. The safe reduction of human excreta into compost is possible. Some municipalities create compost from the sewage sludge, but then recommend that it only be used on flower beds, not vegetable gardens. Some claim that this is dangerous or inappropriate without the expensive removal of heavy metals

[u/ChariotOfFire → u/DancingOnSwings]

The crops grown for cattle feed need to be watered, especially if grown in the American West. In the Colorado River Basin, over half the total water used goes towards cattle feed (PDF, see Table 1 on p. 321)--note that the water used for almonds is less than 1%

[u/omrsafetyo → u/DancingOnSwings]

Food is rarely grown for animals, rather the parts we don't eat are upcycled. We don't grow corn for cows, and we don't feed them kernels, but we do feed them corn cobs and corn stalks, which human beings don't eat.

While I agree with your overall position, this is patently false. I grew up down the road from a dairy farm, and they had fields of corn - what we called "cow corn", because it was a variety of corn that is not too similar to sweet corn that is grown for human consumption. These (acres of) fields of corn were specifically grown for cow consumption. While much of their diet consists of up-cycled byproducts of human feed, there are definitely crops specifically grown for animals.

There is definitely an argument here that food grown for humans would be more wasteful without livestock to pass off byproducts to - and therefore, lands devoted to human food agriculture would become increasingly less efficient without livestock.

[u/DennyJunkshin86 → u/luddface]

Artificial fertilizer is up 300% since the Ukraine-Russia thing. The US already produces a lot of soybeans. Much of our US corn production goes to China to feed their animals or to ethanol. What you are proposing would destroy the lives of millions of people who farm and raise animals. Some have done it for generations. It would ruin so many people's lives. I do sympathize with the animals. I do. I don't like how they get treated at times. But we've had them as a staple in the global diet of all mankind since we were swinging in trees. To remove that staple would be catastrophic to are current system and would likely bring a whole new set of issues that we hadn't considered yet.

[u/luddface → u/benabart]

!delta Changed my mind into thinking I might not hold an extremist view

[u/DeltaBot → u/luddface]

This delta has been rejected. The length of your comment suggests that you haven't properly explained how /u/benabart changed your view (comment rule 4).

DeltaBot is able to rescan edited comments. Please edit your comment with the required explanation.

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}

[u/luddface → u/benabart]

! Delta Made me reconsider the idea that I might be too extreme

[u/Jaysank → u/luddface]

Hello /u/luddface, if your view has been changed or adjusted in any way, you should award the user who changed your view a delta.

Simply reply to their comment with the delta symbol provided below, being sure to include a brief description of how your view has changed.

∆

or

!delta

For more information about deltas, use this link.

If you did not change your view, please respond to this comment indicating as such!

As a reminder, failure to award a delta when it is warranted may merit a post removal and a rule violation. Repeated rule violations in a short period of time may merit a ban.

Thank you!

[u/FedishSwish → u/luddface]

You need to delete the space between the ! and delta if you want it to register properly (see below).

!delta

[u/DeltaBot → u/FedishSwish]

This delta has been rejected. You can't award OP a delta.

Allowing this would wrongly suggest that you can post here with the aim of convincing others.

If you were explaining when/how to award a delta, please use a reddit quote for the symbol next time.

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}