Yeah, the kurzgesagt episode on meat production did note that overall cows have a pretty good life right up until the final fattening feed lots which is pretty bad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sVfTPaxRwk
They did note though, that it wouldn't cost that much, relatively, to give chickens pretty good lives. That really we're doing this just to drive the price down by pretty small amounts.
Even if food shortages aren't an issue, reducing the amount of land dedicated to food production is a win for ecosystems.
Not saying people have to go vegetarian, but reducing meat consumption or using more efficiently produced meats (in terms of land use) would overall make the world a nicer and more interesting place.
And, really, with the whole neu5gc thing, it might be that humans would be better off focusing on chickens and seafood anyway (clams being a pretty good option for seafood that is relatively environmentally friendly).
Grass fed cattle can use land that is generally not fit for vegetation farming... because of excess rocks, etc. Ruminants that are being naturally (grass) fed are also regenerative in terms of soil health.
They don't tend to "bulk up" as much as conventional (grain fed and/or finished) options though, so are more expensive to produce... the gas emissions are another issue that is largely different for grass fed, where the off gases are roughly the same as the grass's natural breakdown would release anyway.
In terms of water use, naturally grass fed cattle are mostly using water that fell on the land as rain in terms of how much water they use. It's not much from municipal sources, unlike vegetation farming.
Of course there are other ruminant options that are more efficient than cattle, such as goats and sheep, with similar benefits to the soil.
It just bugs me that cattle gets such a bad repuation... especially in that it's one of the few things I can eat without issue.
So, I was saying ecosystems. Filling the world with cows is not the same as natural ecosystems.
Also, kurzgesagt did a pretty good episode on meat production (edit - they did several, but one was on the production demands in terms of energy and environment), and if I'm to trust their figures, the "cattle grazing exclusively on the pampas" is far from the majority of world cattle. If it was, that probably would be an improvement, esp if it was done in a way that allowed other species to exist too (maybe bring some buffalo back?). The percentage would be dramatically improved if finishing lots were eliminated though (still a minority though). So maybe that's a simple option. Plus, that's the cruelest part of the cow's existence.
I don't think the answer is reduce though... I think it's increase... humans wiped out so many of the ruminant animals (buffalo mainly) that kept the grasslands healthy... we've largely over-farmed in the interim since. We need more ruminants, not less.
This means raising much more than we currently do, and probably a reduction in slaughter numbers for the next 50+ years to increase the domestic supply. Can't speak for other nations... but it's literally expanding grasslands as opposed to desert.
Yes. I saw that TED talk about desertification being reversed by ruminants, and while it got a lot of critics, it had some pretty good points. But, those ruminants would be better off not being beef cattle in terms of biodiversity. Also, if they were beef cattle due to the lack of anything better, hopefully it would be short term, and if you're making a case for use of marginal land, they really shouldn't be finished in a feed lot, since that is using a lot of cropland to support that.
... and only some places would (possibly) benefit from that.
I think cattle are fine... though I'm also okay with more Bison, goats, sheep, deer, elk, etc. I'm also more than okay with less use of feed lots and direct butchery of grass fed ruminants.
As for marginal land... personally, I can only handle mostly eating meat and eggs, doing much better with ruminants. I'd be just fine with the majority of uninhabited lands being used by mostly wild ruminants over any kind of farming, especially farming that is using chemical fertilizers and stripping the land.
I mean we have the strategic buffalo herd in Montana, and the cattle grazing you talk about is often by for profit farmers on public land.
Seems like we could reintroduce buffalo from our reserve, a much better solution than government managed/subsidized free range cattlemen. Get government out of the cattle business, end government handouts and all that other free market talking point stuff.
> Grass fed cattle can use land that is generally not fit for vegetation farming
Can, but that doesn't mean it always is. There's lots of cattle that never even comes outside, and is fed food that humans could also eat.
I recall reading that during the famine in Ethiopia in the 1980s, Ethiopian farmers were exporting beans to feed cattle in Europe because that was more profitable than feeding people in Ethiopia.
Beef is simply extremely inefficient. And so, unfortunately, is cheese (I can do without beef, but not without cheese). If cattle is grazing on land that's simply not usable for anything else, that's a completely different matter, but that's not how most cattle are fed.
I’ve vegan for 20+ years and find weird the obsession people have with meat that without even talking about milk. Literally there are hundreds of alternatives better for health, for the environment and for the animals yet we keep looking for justifications to consume them.
Yeah. I used to be vegetarian (I eat some meat again), and I love cheese, but I'm well aware that it's almost as bad as beef. Quitting cheese feels like a bigger sacrifice to me than quitting meat. But I've been reducing my cheese consumption lately. That's something at least.
I'm not convinced by some of those. I'm a pescetarian, so I still eat cheese, but I enjoy unusual foods.
I don't find tahini to taste anything like yeast/cheese, though to be fair I mainly use tahini in hummus.
I'm not familiar with lactic acid fermented Tofu - does that go by a different name?
Tempeh seems more nutty than cheese-like to me, though I rarely eat it as my wife doesn't like the flavour or texture of it.
Personally, I'd recommend Japanese Natto if you're after a cheesy flavour - it's soy beans fermented in straw/hay and ends up becoming somewhat slimy/stringy, so it's a bit of an acquired taste.
>Not saying people have to go vegetarian, but reducing meat consumption or using more efficiently produced meats (in terms of land use) would overall make the world a nicer and more interesting place.
I've seen articles and threads like this for decades at this point. And the only thing any of you have convinced me of is that I must start securing my own production of meat. This is, I think, the exact opposite of "more efficiently" at least from your point of view. I will be unlikely to reach the feed-to-gain ratios that professionals regularly achieve.
Swine and poultry already in progress, beef and more exotic stuff within the next 2 years.
shrug poultry is already several times more efficient than beef in regular production (to say nothing of if your coop just has chickens wandering around finding their own food), and healthier for you. And hopefully your swine and poultry are having overall decent lives. And, if your beef is entirely grass fed (I doubt you can afford a finishing lot) you're still overall not using cropland to fatten up cows (but maybe that's your goal, who knows)
Anyway, you do you. Just offering my opinion on this 'cause it seemed like a good place to do it.
At least Xitter has Nitter proxies after they went full Javascript - which is also great since it allows accessing content that's often behind a registration wall.
I also like the powerful revision querying mechanisms that they pulled in from mercurial. They seem to work just like mercurial revset queries which can be used in various operations on sets of revisions.
I would like them to have mercurial's awesome hg fa --deleted when it comes to history trawling, but apparently for it to work well, they also need to swap out git's diff format for mercurial's smarter one, so I'll be waiting on that for a while I suppose.
I've had the ctrl-a setup ever since migrating from screen to tmux, just due to muscle memory. But it is more conveniently located than ctrl-b - it's also rather nice if I have multiple nested layers of tmux due to temporary ones on other hosts. Sure you can just keep repeating the bind, but, just remembering that the second layer uses ctrl-b is a bit more convenient I feel. Slows me down a little, but usually I'm not using the 2nd layer as much.
I don't use capslock for ctrl though. It's much too useful as the Compose key ;)
It is possible to just not use snap on ubuntu. The few ubuntu servers we have, even the couple with a minimal XFCE interface for some gui pieces, don't have snap installed. I realise local exploits happen all the time, but why add a whole new huge surface area if I don't have to.
It can be done, but it is quite irritating with the way that canonical have made snap a dependency in the minimal meta package. (And minimal on Ubuntu is really really super minimal, doesn't even have ping. Well apart from snap anyway).
They really went out of their way to make it awkward and annoying to take snap out.
But why bother running Ubuntu at all just to jump through hoops to avoid snaps? Snaps are obviously Ubuntus the thing, so feels counterproductive to run Ubuntu and fight against it.
use debootstrap to install instead, chroot is your friend. It comes with nothing and I mean that literally while still having the superior ubuntu kernel.
Our corporate linux machines have exactly the same monitoring software as Windows - even the servers.
The performance is still not even remotely comparable. Could be the hooks are more performant on linux, could be the filesystem, maybe the tools are written more sanely... But loading apps, filesystem operations... Everything is still far faster on the linux dev instance. And I have half the ram allocated to that one.
They did note though, that it wouldn't cost that much, relatively, to give chickens pretty good lives. That really we're doing this just to drive the price down by pretty small amounts.
reply