Funky_monks
Neo-Rustic
I do love a thread where multiple news articles based around the same three papers are posted as "lots of evidence".
Last edited:
Industrial animal farming has caused most new infectious diseases and risks more pandemics, experts warn
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
- Status
Funky_monks
Neo-Rustic
As an "interesting" aside, numerous livestock diseases were almost eradicated in this country until the "smallholder" trend of the late 90s/early 2000s came about (which, to be fair, I was a fan of - I still keep poultry).
Farmers then started to see things like classical swine fever (thought to have been eradicated in the 70s) and blackleg in poultry (which is almost always traced back to a hobby flock somewhere).
Farmers then started to see things like classical swine fever (thought to have been eradicated in the 70s) and blackleg in poultry (which is almost always traced back to a hobby flock somewhere).
I gave his podcast a shot but gave up after about one min in due to boredom.
Last edited:
Sounds like bullcrap to me. Where's your evidence? If it's not a fact then you need to back that statement up with evidence.
That doesn't surprise me. No doubt you'd prefer to listen to alex jones or some other loon. How many podcasts have you produced? Do you think you could do a better job?
Funky_monks
Neo-Rustic
Go and do five minutes research on the soy industry.
Soya is a bean. The part of the plant that humans can eat is the bean itself. Animals can eat the whole of the plant. Unless it is being grown for the beans (which isn't the most common product, but they are used - edamame), it is pressed.
The entire of the south American soy industry is based on deforestation for soy, the oil is extracted, the remaining meal is fed to either chickens in south America or exported to China for pig feed.
Soy is one of Brazil's most important oilseeds:https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainap... Products Annual_Brasilia_Brazil_4-2-2019.pdf
Done. With no indication that what was said was true. Do you have any citations? If it's true then that won't be hard.
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
Hang on a minute. It's you who asserted that forests were being cleared to feed animals, so it's you who should provide proof. I'm merely calling bullshit on your assertion.
It's one of the reasons I don't listen to podcasts. Imagine subjecting myself to an hour of a podcast, only to discover that the person reciting it didn't know their arse from a hole in the ground? It took me 30 seconds of skimming here to realise this.
Last edited:
ska invita
back on the other side
.
Are you denying that forests are being cleared for animal feed? I'm sure the claim was backed up in what I posted.
Environmental issues
Environmental groups such as Greenpeace and the WWF have reported soybean cultivation—especially soybean cultivation in Brazil—has already destroyed huge areas of Amazon rainforest, and is encouraging further deforestation.[41][42][43] The driving cause of this deforestation is the global demand for meat, which in turn requires huge tracts of land to grow feed crops for livestock. Around 80% of the global soybean crop is used to feed livestock.[44] According to the World Bank, animal agriculture is responsible for up to 91% of the destruction of the Amazon rainforest.[45][46][47] According to a report by Greenpeace, animal feed for meat production is Europe's largest contribution to deforestation. Soya imports hereby represent 47% of Europe’s deforestation footprint, compared to 14% for pasture expansion for livestock and 10% for palm oil.[48][49]
Did my 5 mins of research and found this from this page: Soybean - Wikipedia
So, according to Saul Goodman, the WWF and Greenpeace are lying?
Environmental groups such as Greenpeace and the WWF have reported soybean cultivation—especially soybean cultivation in Brazil—has already destroyed huge areas of Amazon rainforest, and is encouraging further deforestation.[41][42][43] The driving cause of this deforestation is the global demand for meat, which in turn requires huge tracts of land to grow feed crops for livestock. Around 80% of the global soybean crop is used to feed livestock.[44] According to the World Bank, animal agriculture is responsible for up to 91% of the destruction of the Amazon rainforest.[45][46][47] According to a report by Greenpeace, animal feed for meat production is Europe's largest contribution to deforestation. Soya imports hereby represent 47% of Europe’s deforestation footprint, compared to 14% for pasture expansion for livestock and 10% for palm oil.[48][49]
Did my 5 mins of research and found this from this page: Soybean - Wikipedia
So, according to Saul Goodman, the WWF and Greenpeace are lying?
Yeah, I just don’t think I’d be any good at doing a podcast myself so haven’t even considered doing one, not to mention on what topic.
Nonetheless, 10/10 to you for putting in the effort.
So, would you care to post your citations?
Funky_monks
Neo-Rustic
What do you think an "oilseed" is?
Rainforest is cleared because the soils are very rich, soya is very nutrient hungry (grass is not) - it is grown until the soil is depleted and then grassed for the ranchers.
Funky_monks
Neo-Rustic
Let me google that for you: Soy Agriculture in the Amazon Basin | Global Forest Atlas
None of that seems to disprove what I posted
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
Shouldn't you have done that when you researched what you were talking about? Or did you just read something on a random website and take it as fact?
Funky_monks
Neo-Rustic
So; I've posted two sources; one telling you that the Amazon is being cleared to grow soy, another telling you that soy is Brazil's biggest oilseed....
You can take a horse to water....
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
But you can't make it think
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
Count Cuckula seems to have conflated 85% of soybeans being used as animal feed, with 100% of soybeans being grown for animals.
The 85% is the percentage in weight that ends up going to feed animals. Given that 20% of a soy bean is oil, there's a shortfall of 5%, so I guess someone somewhere must be growing soybeans specifically to feed animals.
The 85% is the percentage in weight that ends up going to feed animals. Given that 20% of a soy bean is oil, there's a shortfall of 5%, so I guess someone somewhere must be growing soybeans specifically to feed animals.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
There's a way to combine these two points, no? Soya is grown and it is used in two ways - to feed humans and to feed livestock. The economics of that - how much does the farmer earn for the human bit and how much for the animal bit - are more relevant than the weights of each bit, I would think, which are kind of irrelevant. I can't believe pig food commands a huge price per tonne.
This is rather like the arguments over dairy farming. In terms of looking for a less destructive way of doing things, you need to look at the whole system. So is human consumption of soya products sustainable? If not, what could/should it be replaced with? What alternatives are there for soya farmers, and what would make them change over to those alternatives? Again, we're back to economics - if you're going to change farming practices, at the very least you need to be able to present farmers with viable alternatives and to incentivise those alternatives.
This is rather like the arguments over dairy farming. In terms of looking for a less destructive way of doing things, you need to look at the whole system. So is human consumption of soya products sustainable? If not, what could/should it be replaced with? What alternatives are there for soya farmers, and what would make them change over to those alternatives? Again, we're back to economics - if you're going to change farming practices, at the very least you need to be able to present farmers with viable alternatives and to incentivise those alternatives.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I'm learning something here. Following Funky Monks' piece, I looked up the use of meal and oil. And it appears that 85% of soya beans are processed into meal and oil. 98% of the meal goes to animal feed, while 95% of the oil goes into human food, with the rest used in industrial products. I've not found anything giving the relative values of each of meal/oil, but the oil is bound to be worth a lot more per kilo as humans can eat it.
Information About Soya, Soybeans
But yes, it's not inaccurate to characterise the soya industry as overwhelmingly growing soya to process into both meal and oil. Someone eating an animal fed on the meal is not necessarily doing anything more destructive to the planet than someone eating tofu. They're both participating in the same system.
Yuwipi Woman
Whack-A-Mole Queen
The number of deaths has risen since then. I believe the number of deaths connected to the Grand Island plant is now 35. If there's no official count, its difficult to get an accurate number.
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
I'll willingly accept equal responsibility for deforestation. Unfortunately, some people see themselves as free from sin, and refuse to admit that they're equally guilty of destroying the planet.
None of these references link to such a World Bank statement.
Would you care to post yours, starting with that World Bank statement?
Saul Goodman
It's all good, man
I must have skimmed past the world bank bit, but I'm glad you brought it up. I hear the Credit Union can't wait to tell their side of the story.
I'll admit that what you guys are saying here is interesting. However, I'd imagine that most of the deforestation is still caused by the demand for meat. Thing is, even if it's about equal, there are other problems with animal agrigulture to look at (including the immense suffering of animals), this is just one thing, and how do I know that your info isn't funded by the meat or animal agriculture industry?
In any case, please look at this: Total global agricultural land footprint associated with UK food supply 1986–2011 becasue it shows that most land use in the UK, the vast majority of the land footprint in the UK, is down to animal agriculture. I'd be interested to know what you think about the rest of what I posted, particularly the info relating to zoonotic diseases and pandemics (because that is most relevent to this thread).
What I posted though, is anti-capitalist because I think that most of these problems are not going to be properly dealt with unless we properly deal with capitalism first.
In any case, please look at this: Total global agricultural land footprint associated with UK food supply 1986–2011 becasue it shows that most land use in the UK, the vast majority of the land footprint in the UK, is down to animal agriculture. I'd be interested to know what you think about the rest of what I posted, particularly the info relating to zoonotic diseases and pandemics (because that is most relevent to this thread).
What I posted though, is anti-capitalist because I think that most of these problems are not going to be properly dealt with unless we properly deal with capitalism first.
Last edited:
Clearly wikipedia, or that particular page, isn't a great 'source', but I only had about 5 mins to find something and I spent most of that time looking at that page.
Last edited:
krtek a houby
Anger is Hi-NRG
Starving after reading this dogs dinner of a thread
And what are your suggestions for dealing with capitalism?
- Status
Similar threads
