It depend where you live. If you live where I live a fully plant diet is mor environmentally damaging that omnivore diet. Because I would need to consume lots of plants that come from tropical environments to have a full diet, which means one of two things, import from far away or intensive irrigation in a dry environment.
While here farm animals can and are feed with local plants that do no need intensive irrigation.
Someday I shall make full calculations on this. But I’m not sure which option would give best carbon footprint. But I’m not that sure about full plant diet here.
The catch is there’s nowhere on earth where a plant diet has a higher carbon footprint unless you go out of your way to pursue foods from foreign sources that are resource intensive.
Realistically it will always take more to grow a chicken or a fish than grow a plant.
Realistic, as in real life, my grandparents had chickens “for free”, as the residues from other plants that cannot be eaten by humans were the food of the chickens. So realistically trying to substitute the nutrients of those free chickens with plant based solutions would be a lot more expensive in all ways.
If your answer is going to be again some variation of the dogma: “Still true no matter where you live because the carbon costs of raising animals is higher than plants.” without considering that some plants used to feed animals are incredibly cheap to produce(and that humans cannot live on those planta), and that some animals live on human waste without even needing to plant food for them. Then don’t even bother to reply.
I did read your statement And the costs of those feeds are not free. You are growing a feed plant to full maturity. Then you harvest said feed which has its own costs and then you give it to the animal which produces its own footprint.
Eating a different plant would have a lower cost than growing feed for an animal.
Yeah you have no idea what my background is si that’s not a safe bet. Im willing to believe you just don’t understand the carbon cycle based on your comments because you keep using the word “free”.
Fish farms have their own footprint and environmental problems as you still need to feed them and they still produce carbon and waste.
I think the issue here is you seem to be uncertain how the carbon costs are factored.
You know that you can take fish out of rivers or the sea, don’t you? Humanity have done so for thousands of years, without liberating CO2 in the process.
Who are you to tell some guy that take a fishing rod and go to the coast and take a couple of fish for dinner that he is polluting the atmosphere for not eating a plant instead?
Hmm, even developing countries with local livestock and organic feed for them it’s still a lot better for the environment to be vegetarian or vegan, by far. It’s always more efficient to be more plant-based, rather than growing plants for animals to eat and then eating those animals.
Because growing plants for animals do not have, by far, the same cost that growing plants for humans.
My grandparents grew lucerne for livestock. And it really doesn’t take much to grow. While crops for humans tend to take mucho more water and energy.
And for some animals, like chickens, you can just use residues from other crops.
I don’t think it’s that straightforward.
My grandparents used to live in an old village, with their farm, and that wasn’t a very contaminating lifestyle. But if they would want to became began they would have needed to import goods from across the globe to have a healthy diet.
There’s some argument to be made there.
It depend where you live. If you live where I live a fully plant diet is mor environmentally damaging that omnivore diet. Because I would need to consume lots of plants that come from tropical environments to have a full diet, which means one of two things, import from far away or intensive irrigation in a dry environment.
While here farm animals can and are feed with local plants that do no need intensive irrigation.
Someday I shall make full calculations on this. But I’m not sure which option would give best carbon footprint. But I’m not that sure about full plant diet here.
The catch is there’s nowhere on earth where a plant diet has a higher carbon footprint unless you go out of your way to pursue foods from foreign sources that are resource intensive.
Realistically it will always take more to grow a chicken or a fish than grow a plant.
Try living on lucerne. Then, come again.
Realistic, as in real life, my grandparents had chickens “for free”, as the residues from other plants that cannot be eaten by humans were the food of the chickens. So realistically trying to substitute the nutrients of those free chickens with plant based solutions would be a lot more expensive in all ways.
Still true no matter where you live because the carbon costs of raising animals is higher than plants.
You didn’t even read my statement.
If your answer is going to be again some variation of the dogma: “Still true no matter where you live because the carbon costs of raising animals is higher than plants.” without considering that some plants used to feed animals are incredibly cheap to produce(and that humans cannot live on those planta), and that some animals live on human waste without even needing to plant food for them. Then don’t even bother to reply.
I did read your statement And the costs of those feeds are not free. You are growing a feed plant to full maturity. Then you harvest said feed which has its own costs and then you give it to the animal which produces its own footprint.
Eating a different plant would have a lower cost than growing feed for an animal.
At this point I’m just going to say that you are very wrong about how agriculture and farming works, specially on a traditional environment.
And we haven’t even entered in the great world of fishing, because you know, you don’t need to grow crops to feed fish.
I have nothing against veganism, but I have a lot against misinformation. So I will end here my part of the conversation.
Yeah you have no idea what my background is si that’s not a safe bet. Im willing to believe you just don’t understand the carbon cycle based on your comments because you keep using the word “free”.
Fish farms have their own footprint and environmental problems as you still need to feed them and they still produce carbon and waste.
I think the issue here is you seem to be uncertain how the carbon costs are factored.
You know that you can take fish out of rivers or the sea, don’t you? Humanity have done so for thousands of years, without liberating CO2 in the process.
Who are you to tell some guy that take a fishing rod and go to the coast and take a couple of fish for dinner that he is polluting the atmosphere for not eating a plant instead?
Hmm, even developing countries with local livestock and organic feed for them it’s still a lot better for the environment to be vegetarian or vegan, by far. It’s always more efficient to be more plant-based, rather than growing plants for animals to eat and then eating those animals.
I really need to do the calculations here.
Because growing plants for animals do not have, by far, the same cost that growing plants for humans.
My grandparents grew lucerne for livestock. And it really doesn’t take much to grow. While crops for humans tend to take mucho more water and energy.
And for some animals, like chickens, you can just use residues from other crops.
I don’t think it’s that straightforward.
My grandparents used to live in an old village, with their farm, and that wasn’t a very contaminating lifestyle. But if they would want to became began they would have needed to import goods from across the globe to have a healthy diet.