As stated, animal agriculture does not need soy, it's cheap and has a favourable amino acid profile. If soy production dropped, animals would simply be fed other things.You’re both assuming that the ‘cake’ is the byproduct of the oil and not the other way round. The following analysis suggests animal products are the primary economic driver of soy production:
An argument could be made... that increases in the production of soy have primarily been driven not by the demand for animal feed, but by the demand for soy oil for human consumption. One might view soy cake as only a by-product of the production of soy oil, as its economic value is much lower (a kilogram of soy oil is about twice the value of a kilogram of soy cake). However, since the crushing of soybeans produces much less oil (20% by weight) than cake (80%), only a third of the overall value of a kilogram crushed soybeans is derived from the oil, as compared with two thirds from the cake. Soy oil is also one of the cheapest vegetable oils on the commodity market, whereas soy cake is the most valuable of all oilseed cakes due to its favourable amino acid profile and the low levels of anti-nutritive compounds it contains after heat treatment.
It is therefore likely that the growth in soy production has primarily been driven by the demand of soy cake for feed, and hence by the growing demand for animal-based products. However, because the oil and the cake originate from the same bean, there is a mutual and economically convenient dependency between their uses. The rapid expansion of soy and its use for feed is therefore likely to have been facilitated by concurrent increases in the demand for vegetable oil.
Soy: food, feed, and land use change
The global growth in the production of soy and its use for different types of foods has been, and continues to be, a major contributor to land use change in the Amazon and other regions in South America. This building block explores the connections between soy, land use change, and discussions...www.foodsource.org.uk
As stated, animal agriculture does not need soy, it's cheap and has a favourable amino acid profile. If soy production dropped, animals would simply be fed other things.
It is not the driver of oilseed soy production.
So what's the point of the expense of all the equipment and running costs to extract the oil? It would be far cheaper to just feed the soya (including the stalks, pods and leaves) directly to the cattle if it was the primary motive."It is not the driver of oilseed soy production" is just a baseless assertion and the fact that it doesn't 'need' soy is irrelevant to the claim that it is the primary driver of soy production.
So what's the point of the expense of all the equipment and running costs to extract the oil? It would be far cheaper to just feed the soya (including the stalks, pods and leaves) directly to the cattle if it was the primary motive.
E2a: you'll be telling us next that other products like grapes and sugar beet are primarily grown for animal feed because that's where the waste material goes.
Depends where the soy comes from. Im sure it can be grown sustainably.So what do you suggest we eat instead of soy? (And to be clear, I'm talking about everyone, not vegetarians. It's a straw man - pardon the pun - to talk about vegetarians eating all the soy.)
So what's the point of the expense of all the equipment and running costs to extract the oil? It would be far cheaper to just feed the soya (including the stalks, pods and leaves) directly to the cattle if it was the primary motive.
E2a: you'll be telling us next that other products like grapes and sugar beet are primarily grown for animal feed because that's where the waste material goes.
Depends where the soy comes from. Im sure it can be grown sustainably.
But in reality, avoiding soy oil shouldn't be hard, seeing as we don't cook with it here.
We can grow plenty other kinds of bean here
Yes and if you just fed the soya to the animals it would be more profitable and save money by not investing in the oil extraction equipment. So again your argument breaks falls apart.False extrapolation. The primary motivation of production under capitalism is to generate profits. When a productive process produces two or more commodities, to determine which one is the primary motivation as you put it, you have to work out which one is the most profitable. I have supplied analysis suggesting that the soy cake for animal fodder is more profitable than soy oil for direct human consumption. If that analysis is correct then the soy oil is better thought of as a byproduct of soy oil than the other way around. If you want to contest that you have to show that the analysis I linked to is incorrect. Instead you've offered a red herring.
What point are you trying to make here, by the way? Meat product is more harmful to the planet than soya, whatever the fuck its being used for, even though - of course - the majority of soya use is for meat eaters, one way or another.Yes and if you just fed the soya to the animals it would be more profitable and save money by not investing in the oil extraction equipment. So again your argument breaks falls apart.
Yes as a waste product not as a primary product.What point are you trying to make here, by the way? Meat product is more harmful to the planet than soya, whatever the fuck its being used for, even though - of course - the majority of soya use is for meat eaters, one way or another.
No, as a primary product too. Do you think the oil is only eaten by vegetarians?Yes as a waste product not as a primary product.
Yes and if you just fed the soya to the animals it would be more profitable and save money by not investing in the oil extraction equipment. So again your argument breaks falls apart.
The waste product is the soya cake. That's not eaten by anyone wether vegetarian or omnivore.No, as a primary product too. Do you think the oil is only eaten by vegetarians?
Possibly but then what do you do with the shit loads of waste product from soy/rape/sunflower etc oil and the waste from malt/cider/wine etc and all the other waste products from food production? You can't send it to landfill as it will just rot releasing tons more methane into the atmosphere and God knows what leaching into groundwater.But anyway. Meat is fucking up the planet and people have to start eating a shitload less.
This is a ridiculous argument. I don't give a fuck if you agree or not, but just about every scientific study has reached the same conclusion: eat less fucking meat, you cunts. And stop wriggling with bullshit excuses. The science is clear. And, best of all, when people do eat less meat, there will be a reduction in the horrendous, vile, disgusting cruelty involved in the meat industry, so that's a double win.Possibly but then what do you do with the shit loads of waste product from soy/rape/sunflower etc oil and the waste from malt/cider/wine etc and all the other waste products from food production? You can't send it to landfill as it will just rot releasing tons more methane into the atmosphere and God knows what leaching into groundwater.
Possibly but then what do you do with the shit loads of waste product from soy/rape/sunflower etc oil and the waste from malt/cider/wine etc and all the other waste products from food production? You can't send it to landfill as it will just rot releasing tons more methane into the atmosphere and God knows what leaching into groundwater.
Whatever. In this thread and others like it it has been shown over and over again scientific reports that contradict what some of you keep posting but you just keep ignoring it just like the conspiraloons do.This is a ridiculous argument. I don't give a fuck if you agree or not, but just about every scientific study has reached the same conclusion: eat less fucking meat, you cunts. And stop wriggling with bullshit excuses. The science is clear. And, best of all, when people do eat less meat, there will be a reduction in the horrendous, vile, disgusting cruelty involved in the meat industry, so that's a double win.
This is a ridiculous argument. I don't give a fuck if you agree or not, but just about every scientific study has reached the same conclusion: eat less fucking meat, you cunts. And stop wriggling with bullshit excuses. The science is clear. And, best of all, when people do eat less meat, there will be a reduction in the horrendous, vile, disgusting cruelty involved in the meat industry, so that's a double win.
A federal wrongful death lawsuit alleges that a manager at a Tyson Foods plant in Iowa organized a group bet on how many meatpacking employees would contract Covid-19 just as the coronavirus began to spread widely among plant workers in late March and early April.
The suit, filed on behalf of the estate of a deceased Tyson Foods Inc. employee, Isidro Fernandez, alleges that Covid-19 was spreading widely at the Waterloo, Iowa, pork processing plant in early April when Black Hawk County Sheriff Tony Thompson visited with county health officials.
Working conditions at the plant were so bad that they "shook" Thompson "to the core," according to the suit, which said that, at that time, Waterloo plant workers were crowded together and few wore face coverings.
The suit alleges that Thompson lobbied Tyson to close the plant but that it did not.
The suit also alleges that as Waterloo employees fell ill, Tyson transferred employees from another shuttered facility to Waterloo and did not properly test them beforehand, worsening the spread.
"Around this time, Defendant Tom Hart, the Plant Manager of the Waterloo Facility, organized a cash buy-in, winner-take-all betting pool for supervisors and managers to wager how many employees would test positive for COVID-19," the suit alleges.
Hart did not immediately respond to a request for comment.[
On April 22, because of the wide spread of the coronavirus among its employees, Tyson shut down the Waterloo pork processing plant at the center of the lawsuit.
But even better to immediately drastically reduce the amount of meat eaten.Depends where the soy comes from. Im sure it can be grown sustainably.
But in reality, avoiding soy oil shouldn't be hard, seeing as we don't cook with it here.
We can grow plenty other kinds of bean here
But even better to immediately drastically reduce the amount of meat eaten.
It's just that you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to deflect from this one simple, science-backed, obvious statement of fact.Didn't say we shouldn't reduce the amount of meat we should eat.
What?By simply ignoring meat,
It's just that you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to deflect from this one simple, science-backed, obvious statement of fact.
What?
And intensive farming and factory farming helps how exactly? Because that's how the majority of meat is produced in this country. Is that essential too?In the UK, for example, cattle and sheep are essential to preserve habitats and capture carbon.
shit trollingcattle and sheep are essential to preserve habitats and capture carbon
And intensive farming and factory farming helps how exactly? Because that's how the majority of meat is produced in this country. Is that essential too?