The irony of having to fill out a captcha before you can play the game is really something
If you look at the reddit post it's citing, it's from r/shittysuperpowers. A subreddit where you come up with fake shitty super powers is now getting cited as truth by google
Industrial egg production is the vast majority of egg production. Using the word only there is perhaps a bit misleading when for instance, 98.2% of US egg production is from factory farms [1]
I'm not sure one can call any of those methods painless either
Raising non-human animals ends up taking more plants anyway because they eat a lot of feed who's energy is mostly lost. So if one were concerned with plants, eating plants directly results in fewer plants being killed
It's worth mentioning this isn't an isolated instance sadly
Fires on large-scale animal farms, or factory farms, are surprisingly common. Over the last decade, at least 6.5 million farmed animals, mostly chickens, perished in barn fires in the US
The true number is likely significantly higher, AWI notes, because not all states have the same reporting requirements, and because farm animals are property with essentially no legal protection from suffering
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23683141/texas-farm-fire-explosion-dimmitt-cows-factory-dairy
The industry kills them right away because they're not selectively breeded to grow as fast as broilers do. Egg laying chicken have been selectively bred to lay high quantities of eggs instead
Due to modern selective breeding, laying hen strains differ from meat production strains (broilers).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick_culling
As an aside, in both cases, the selective breeding has led to all kinds of health issues for these birds. Broilers can hardly walk due to being fast-growing. Egg laying chickens have all kind of bone health problems due to producing lots of eggs (takes a lot of calcium to produce an egg shell)
Isn't animal agriculture so fun? Always some neat new horrors you couldn't even come up with
For global estimates (~73%)
Previous studies have estimated that 73% of all antimicrobials sold globally are used in animals raised for food
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7766021/pdf/antibiotics-09-00918.pdf
For US in particular (~80%)
Of all antibiotics sold in the United States, approximately 80% are sold for use in animal agriculture; about 70% of these are “medically important” (i.e., from classes important to human medicine).2 Antibiotics are administered to animals in feed to marginally improve growth rates and to prevent infections, a practice projected to increase dramatically worldwide over the next 15 years.3 There is growing evidence that antibiotic resistance in humans is promoted by the widespread use of nontherapeutic antibiotics in animals. Resistant bacteria are transmitted to humans through direct contact with animals, by exposure to animal manure, through consumption of undercooked meat, and through contact with uncooked meat or surfaces meat has touched.4
?
196 is a meme/miscellaneous community. This is a meme ergo fits within the community. Pretty much the only rule of this community is "if you visit the community you must post" besides rules like no transphobia, racism, etc.
Most likely more people being aware of it, and then people seeing those posts doing well leads to more posts like that
Arguably, you should be moreso concerned about the opposite. The industry runs well known astroturfing campaigns:
NCBA [National Cattlemen’s Beef Association] calls it “proactive reputation management”: a strategy that entails monitoring the internet for messaging opportunities, then leaping in to burnish beef’s image whenever it’s advantageous
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/03/beef-industry-public-relations-messaging-machine
The meat industry has helped fund research and communications initiatives to minimize its links to climate change. And it has organized astroturf attacks on initiatives like EAT-Lancet
https://newrepublic.com/article/177575/never-trust-green-meat
That is just not true. Complete protein isn't really a problem because you just need to get the amino acids in at some point in the day. It takes much less than you'd think for that. For instance, beans technically are incomplete, but beans and rice are complete proteins.
Plus soy, which is an extremely common plant-based protein, is fully complete on its own
Never is a strong word when that's just not true
An animal model of spontaneous exclusive homosexuality has however been described in sheep. About 8% of the males in a population studied in the western United States were shown to mate exclusively with other males, even when the choice was given between a male or female partner (Perkins and Roselli, 2007; Roselli et al., 2011b).
and a well rounded vegan diet is not cheap.
Not the person you are replying to, but want to counter that part specifically. The cost is actually usually the other way around. It's much more of a privilege to consume large amounts of meat and dairy
From a modeling study looking at healthy plant-based diets:
It found that in high-income countries:
• Vegan diets were the most affordable and reduced food costs by up to one third.
• Vegetarian diets were a close second.
• Flexitarian diets with low amounts of meat and dairy reduced costs by 14%.
• By contrast, pescatarian diets increased costs by up to 2%.
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-11-11-sustainable-eating-cheaper-and-healthier-oxford-study
From some real world spending data
Based on primary data (n = 1040) collected through an online survey, representative of the Portuguese population, through logistic regressions, it was possible to conclude that plant-based consumers, particularly vegan, are associated with lower food expenditures compared to omnivorous consumers. In fact, plant-based consumers are shown to spend less than all other consumers assessed
https://agrifoodecon.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40100-022-00224-9
Compared to meat eaters, results show that “true” vegetarians do indeed report lower food expenditures
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800915301488?via%3Dihub ---(looking at the US)
There are plenty of other people posting about the meat industry. I've seen people making the same comments on places. It's also in part because many people are just seeing the vegan circle jerk community posts on the all feed. That also shapes perception too
One example of someone complaining about just that on someone else's post (comment ended up getting removed by a mod because of other parts of their comment, but you can infer based on replies) https://lemmy.ml/post/16139346/11287396
The example honestly doesn't make much sense to me. You take issue with someone daring to want to talk about the worker abuses in the gaming industry? Are we to forbid someone from being passionate about an issue?
Someone caring about the harm in an industry doesn't make them think they are "morally superior". Posting about the harms in an industry is to raise awareness of that harm. It's not about one self at all
If the meat industry thought truly independent investigators would find nothing, they would be funding them by the handful to report nothing
Instead, even the definitions they claim to use for being "humane" show it means very little
This smells like something being blocked by Cloudflare's WAF (Web Application Firewall) rules. I'd imagine there might be a rule there to try to block requests that look like they could involve sensitive files like the passwd file
https://developers.cloudflare.com/waf/
The UI should probably alert you of there being an issue posting after getting a 403 response
There's been more videos about this too since. This article only looked at the US, but this stuff also exists elsewhere. In the UK they simply arrested people filming some of the slaughterhouses using CO2 gas chambers.
Ag-gag laws and similar kinds of stuff are fun. Problems apparently don't exist if you just can't film them :/
QR codes have error corrections up to about ~30% error tolerance when using the highest error correction level
It's worth noting the QR code from earlier went to this site and was not lemmy related
It found that in high-income countries:
• Vegan diets were the most affordable and reduced food costs by up to one third.
• Vegetarian diets were a close second.
• Flexitarian diets with low amounts of meat and dairy reduced costs by 14%.
• By contrast, pescatarian diets increased costs by up to 2%.
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-11-11-sustainable-eating-cheaper-and-healthier-oxford-study
Compared to meat eaters, results show that “true” vegetarians do indeed report lower food expenditures
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800915301488?via%3Dihub ---(looking at the US)
Based on primary data (n = 1040) collected through an online survey, representative of the Portuguese population, through logistic regressions, it was possible to conclude that plant-based consumers, particularly vegan, are associated with lower food expenditures compared to omnivorous consumers. In fact, plant-based consumers are shown to spend less than all other consumers assessed
https://agrifoodecon.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40100-022-00224-9
Repeating the post body context in the comments: Spy Cams Reveal the Grim Reality of Slaughterhouse Gas Chambers
Also before someone comes here commenting about nitrogen as if it's a perfect painless method, it's got problems too:
Hypoxia produced by N2 and Ar appears to reduce, but not eliminate, aversive responses [escape attempts and gasping] in pigs
[...]
These gases [Nitrogen and Argon] tend to cause more convulsive wing flapping in poultry than CO2 in air mixtures
https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/2020-02/Guidelines-on-Euthanasia-2020.pdf
Land use, even cropland use, is actually far lower on a plant-based diet
The research suggests that it’s possible to feed everyone in the world a nutritious diet on existing croplands, but only if we saw a widespread shift towards plant-based diets.
[...]
If everyone shifted to a plant-based diet we would reduce global land use for agriculture by 75%. This large reduction of agricultural land use would be possible thanks to a reduction in land used for grazing and a smaller need for land to grow crops.
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
we show that plant-based replacements for each of the major animal categories in the United States (beef, pork, dairy, poultry, and eggs) can produce twofold to 20-fold more nutritionally similar food per unit cropland. Replacing all animal-based items with plant-based replacement diets can add enough food to feed 350 million additional people, more than the expected benefits of eliminating all supply chain food loss.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1713820115
Also wanted to point vast majority of people consuming animal products contain a number of deficiencies in vitamins and minerals that only or mostly occur in plants. For instance, only 5% of the US population gets enough fiber
It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that the public should consume adequate amounts of dietary fiber from a variety of plant foods. Dietary fiber is defined by the Institute of Medicine Food Nutrition Board as “nondigestible carbohydrates and lignin that are intrinsic and intact in plants.” Populations that consume more dietary fiber have less chronic disease. Higher intakes of dietary fiber reduce the risk of developing several chronic diseases, including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and some cancers, and have been associated with lower body weights. The Adequate Intake for fiber is 14 g total fiber per 1,000 kcal, or 25 g for adult women and 38 g for adult men, based on research demonstrating protection against coronary heart disease. Properties of dietary fiber, such as fermentability and viscosity, are thought to be important parameters influencing the risk of disease. Plant components associated with dietary fiber may also contribute to reduced disease risk. The mean intake of dietary fiber in the United States is 17 g/day with only 5% of the population meeting the Adequate Intake. Healthy adults and children can achieve adequate dietary fiber intakes by increasing their intake of plant foods while concurrently decreasing energy from foods high in added sugar and fat, and low in fiber. Dietary messages to increase consumption of whole grains, legumes, vegetables, fruits, and nuts should be broadly supported by food and nutrition practitioners.
https://www.jandonline.org/article/S2212-2672(15)01386-6/fulltext
Unless things have changed, Apple's policy of generally not allowing programs to download executable code would block this. Browsers are locked into using Apple's allowed web engines because of this, so basically every browser on iOS is safari or re-themed safari
If you have concerns about plant agriculture, they are only magnified by animal agriculture which uses a lot more of it for animal feed
1 kg of meat requires 2.8 kg of human-edible feed for ruminants and 3.2 for monogastrics
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211912416300013
Or in environmental terms:
we show that plant-based replacements for each of the major animal categories in the United States (beef, pork, dairy, poultry, and eggs) can produce twofold to 20-fold more nutritionally similar food per unit cropland. Replacing all animal-based items with plant-based replacement diets can add enough food to feed 350 million additional people, more than the expected benefits of eliminating all supply chain food loss.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1713820115
To produce 1 kg of protein from kidney beans required approximately eighteen times less land, ten times less water, nine times less fuel, twelve times less fertilizer and ten times less pesticide in comparison to producing 1 kg of protein from beef
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25374332/
or for overall diets
The diet containing more animal products required an additional 10 252 litres of water, 9910 kJ of energy, 186 g of fertilizer and 6 g of pesticides per week in comparison to the diet containing less animal products
Plants don't have the same receptors as animals. Disease jumping from plants to animals is much more difficult. Even the diseases that you hear about coming from plants are usually from spraying or containmention from animal manuare produced by animal agriculture
We aren't dumping 73% of the worlds antibiotics on plants like we are with animal agriculture
Raising non-human animals ends up taking more plants anyway because they eat a lot of feed who's energy is mostly lost. So if one were concerned with plants, eating plants directly results in fewer plants being killed
The H5N1 strain of bird flu is the big one right now, but it's responsible for a large amount of disease spead
Since 1940, an estimated 50% of zoonotic disease emergence has been associated with agriculture (1–3). This estimate, however, is necessarily conservative because only direct agricultural drivers are considered in the epidemiological literature, i.e., within the farm gat
[...]
The intensification of animal agriculture through confinement and industrialization has directly led to the emergence of viruses including Nipah and H5N1 influenza (“swine flu”) (18) and antibiotic-resistant infectious bacteria including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli (19, 20).
Not living with biological parents is different than being seperated, living alone in small veal cages, and ultimately being killed as a child for veal as happens for male calves
We also do not intentionally seperate all child from their parents regardless of circumstances. Maybe a tiny amount from child protective services for abusive parents, but it's not like the dairy industry is doing so because of abusive cow parents
Be mindful that a soldering iron cable can pull a soldering iron from your hand, so don't have too loose of a grip. Learned that one the hard way :(
It still take more human-edible feed than it produces out. From the same study that produced the cited figure:
1 kg of meat requires 2.8 kg of human-edible feed for ruminants and 3.2 for monogastrics
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211912416300013
For the claims about sequestration
There’s not been a single study to say that we can have carbon-neutral beef
[...]
We also have to ask how much of the sequestered carbon in these systems is actually due to the cattle. What would happen to the land if it were simply left fallow?
The answer is, depending on the land, and on the kind of grazing, it might sequester even more carbon
https://www.washingtonpost.com/food/2022/10/03/beef-soil-carbon-sequestration/
And good luck scaling up grass-fed production even if it did sequester more
We model a nationwide transition [in the US] from grain- to grass-finishing systems using demographics of present-day beef cattle. In order to produce the same quantity of beef as the present-day system, we find that a nationwide shift to exclusively grass-fed beef would require increasing the national cattle herd from 77 to 100 million cattle, an increase of 30%. We also find that the current pastureland grass resource can support only 27% of the current beef supply (27 million cattle), an amount 30% smaller than prior estimates
[…]
If beef consumption is not reduced and is instead satisfied by greater imports of grass-fed beef, a switch to purely grass-fed systems would likely result in higher environmental costs, including higher overall methane emissions. Thus, only reductions in beef consumption can guarantee reductions in the environmental impact of US food systems.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401
And it is perfectly healthy
It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage. Vegetarians and vegans are at reduced risk of certain health conditions, including ischemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, certain types of cancer, and obesity. Low intake of saturated fat and high intakes of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, soy products, nuts, and seeds (all rich in fiber and phytochemicals) are characteristics of vegetarian and vegan diets that produce lower total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and better serum glucose control. These factors contribute to reduction of chronic disease
For one thing, they contract out their labor to subcontractors who they can hide behind when they repeatedly used child labor in slaughterhouses
https://apnews.com/article/child-labor-meat-processing-poultry-usda-5f8c769b572e57315b8e3b0a57a7e345
The technology for it that currently does not scale to higher egg consumption rather well among other potential problems
They have not yet tried to sell the technology to the US egg industry but, even if they did, the volume it can handle is currently too low for this technology to be used to get rid of chick culling across the board.
[…]
One issue that complicates these efforts is the difficult-to-answer question of when an embryo becomes a chick. Some researchers say day seven is when chick embryos can begin to experience pain. If that’s right, sexing the eggs eight to 10 days after incubation as Respeggt does, and 14 days as Agri-AT does, may still end up inflicting pain on the embryo, which could be trading one animal welfare problem — culling — for another
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22374193/eggs-chickens-animal-welfare-culling
Added the source to the post text now. Probably should have done that to begin with
Both of the two. The two main reasons are that it incidentally boost growth and there are lots of circulating diseases due to heavy overcrowding conditions. Note that the use is not on those who are sick, but to everyone even if they show no symptoms
Antibiotics are administered to animals in feed to marginally improve growth rates and to prevent infections, a practice projected to increase dramatically worldwide over the next 15 years.There is growing evidence that antibiotic resistance in humans is promoted by the widespread use of nontherapeutic antibiotics in animals.
People on plant-based diets tend not to eat a ton of plant-based meats, and lower income people are esspecially less likely to be relying on them because of cost?
I don't follow what you are saying about not being applicable to the US, and UK. Those countries are the modeling study most applies to and shows lower costs?
Additionally it's worth mentining if we look at other data, lower-income people are most likely to be vegan and vegetarian
Meanwhile, lower-income Americans (7%) are about twice as likely as middle- (4%) and upper-income (3%) Americans to be vegetarians . https://news.gallup.com/poll/510038/identify-vegetarian-vegan.aspx
To be fair my suspicious is steam deck users likely make up a larger chunk of recent desktop Linux growth and aren't (as) likely to go to typical linux spaces online. Though since this is based on browser data, I also wonder how many steam deck users are actually browsing the web on them, so perhaps that my be a bad assumption on my part
> Vegans aren’t trying to clean up the food industry, they want to end it
If we're going to talk about ignoring nuance, making statements like that isn't doing any favors. Animal agriculture =/= the entire food industry. Plant agriculture exists as well
> Many vegans recognize it as a choice, like the abortion issue, they aren’t against any abortions they only choose not to themselves have an abortion
The problem with that characterization is that things can really only be a personal choice with no effects on any one else when we're talking about non-sentient beings. Without that presumption the assertion makes less sense. For instance, most in the west generally don't conceptualize killing a random healthy dog as a personal choice.
Even if we set aside the creatures themselves, the environmental factors alone make it difficult to conceptualize as a pure 100% personal choice. Is it a personal choice to let an industry keep us from climate targets on their own?
To have any hope of meeting the central goal of the Paris Agreement, which is to limit global warming to 2°C or less, our carbon emissions must be reduced considerably, including those coming from agriculture. Clark et al. show that even if fossil fuel emissions were eliminated immediately, emissions from the global food system alone would make it impossible to limit warming to 1.5°C and difficult even to realize the 2°C target. Thus, major changes in how food is produced are needed if we want to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.
(emphasis mine)
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357
And the issue on that end is quite fundamental. It takes a lot of feed to raise non-human animals. They lose most of the energy using it to perform body functions, move around, etc. Even best case production just comes out worse than worst case plant production for humans
Plant-based foods have a significantly smaller footprint on the environment than animal-based foods. Even the least sustainable vegetables and cereals cause less environmental harm than the lowest impact meat and dairy products [9].
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/8/1614/html
If you tried to use something like grass-fed production instead, you'd find it generally does not scale and ends up with increased methane production
We model a nationwide transition [in the US] from grain- to grass-finishing systems using demographics of present-day beef cattle. In order to produce the same quantity of beef as the present-day system, we find that a nationwide shift to exclusively grass-fed beef would require increasing the national cattle herd from 77 to 100 million cattle, an increase of 30%. We also find that the current pastureland grass resource can support only 27% of the current beef supply (27 million cattle), an amount 30% smaller than prior estimates
[…]
If beef consumption is not reduced and is instead satisfied by greater imports of grass-fed beef, a switch to purely grass-fed systems would likely result in higher environmental costs, including higher overall methane emissions. Thus, only reductions in beef consumption can guarantee reductions in the environmental impact of US food systems.
Maybe "seem to be" would be better. Edited the title to that. I phrased it that way in case there was some weird technical issue though not sure how likely that is
I do accept discussion, and rely heavily on source based discussion. I cite nearly everything I say. See how I cited two sources earlier when I made a claim about meat industry funded astroturfing
When people have critiques based on their own sources, or methodological/other critiques of the sources I provide, there is a good back and forth.
Even when other people never provide a single source, I still converse and provide sources for my claims
I qualify my claims to reflect what the data and research actually says. That's what nuance looks like. When people argue for a specific claim that makes things more complicated, I respond to their claim about that specific issue. That's also what nuance looks like
This is a good reminder that the fight against transphobic laws is something that can be won if we fight