Eduk wrote: ↑
November 26th, 2018, 11:10 am
Not only are efficiency and environmental soundness not correlated
Are you sure? Just seems like common sense to me if you use less energy per kilo of meat then you cause less global warming because you are using less energy. You use less land because you are more efficient. You need less crops because you are more efficient and so on.
For example a lot of people erroneously believe organic farming to be good for the environment because... But if you switched all crop production to organic there wouldn't be enough room on the planet to grow the food we are currently eating. So I'm sure meat production does cause a host of problems but it might be that factory farming, whilst the cruellest and least humane, is actually the most environmentally sound.
By the way I'm not saying that it categorically is, it just seems to follow that if you do anything more efficiently you cause less of the problems associated with whatever you are doing. Can you think of other examples of greater efficiency which actually cause more harm?
By the way could you possibly cite some of the studies from the documentary? I'm not sure it is easily available to view without buying it?
By the way I'm all for eating less meat. Even the most efficient meat is still contributing to lots of problems. Well regarding traditional meats that is, cricket meat might be better. Not sure.
You can find some of the positions taken by the movie by visiting the movie website and clicking on resources. I'll try to link it here but I imagine I'll be blocked by forum rules: https://www.eatinganimalsmovie.com/resources
If you aren't opposed to using streaming sites of nebulous legality, the movie is available on go watch series dot co, one word.
For sure the antibiotic resistance phenomenon is unique to the conditions under which factory-farmed livestock occurs. Animals that are allowed to go outside and move around develop immunities naturally and aren't exposed to the petri dish-like conditions.
Some other cases where the efficiency of factory farming and environmental impact are not necessarily correlated have to do with the priorities of the major agriculture corporations in comparison to that of the average farmer. The average farmer is inclined to maintain the health of the surrounding ecosystem since he has to live in the community there, but corporate entities are perfectly willing to overproduce manure that pollutes the surrounding bodies of water in exchange for higher production and profits. Excess production concentrated in a small area corresponds to excess waste, which above certain ppm concentrations can do significant damage to the surrounding water supply and ecosystem. Industrial approaches like mono-crops and excess pesticide are also more efficient and profitable but worse for the environment in the long run, causing soil erosion, killing bees, and potentially affecting human health.
However, looking at some data that appears to be unbiased, you are correct that industrial farms use land more efficiently with potentially less environmental impact in terms of land use and carbon emissions. There is probably no substitute for reducing meat consumption like you mentioned.
Still, part of the difficulty in finding data to evaluate these claims accurately is the passage of "Ag Gag" laws in many states, which disallow whistleblowers and investigative journalism to occur on factory-farm locations.
You may have a heart of gold, but so does a hard-boiled egg.