Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

mucifer

(24,828 posts)
Sun Jan 30, 2022, 04:03 PM Jan 2022

The Economist: If everyone were vegan, only a quarter of current farmland would be needed

Veganuary” might be considered an attempt to cut out the middle creatures. Many vegans—even those who dabble only during the first month of the year—restrict their diet to reduce animal suffering. But many also do so for environmental reasons. Eliminating meat, fish, dairy and eggs would reduce emissions. Enjoying a prime steak or vintage cheese, for example, means feeding the animals that produce meat and dairy with plants, rather than consuming those plants directly. Beef farming produces 31 times more CO₂ emissions per calorie than tofu production does and generates only 5% of the calories that go into producing it.

That inefficiency means humans need to grow more plants than they would in a vegan world. For all the spread of veganism and the growing popularity of partial alternatives, such as veganuary, meat-eating is increasing globally. Its geography and composition is changing too. China’s appetite for its favourite meat, pork, appears to have peaked; beef is becoming more popular. India, which eats very little beef, is drinking more milk. Africa, with its fast-growing population, will demand more meat in future. Already, of all habitable land, half is used for agriculture, according to the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation. Of all food production around 80% is dedicated to pasture or crops for animal feed, according to Joseph Poore and Thomas Nemecek, the authors of an extensive study of global food systems.

The research comes with considerable uncertainty. Although it compiles data from 38,700 farms and 570 studies, mapping the environmental impact of food production is difficult and imprecise. Roughly half of the data are from before 2010, for instance. But the study gives a sense of what land use could look like, if diets changed radically.

If everyone were vegan, agriculture would need just a quarter of the land it uses today. Even a diet avoiding only meat from cattle and sheep would cut land use in half. What might that surplus space be used for? Quadrupling food production is not a viable option. Some current pastureland, for example in the Scottish highlands, could not be converted to high-yield cropland. But in most places where agriculture is currently expanding, such as the Brazilian Amazon, a shift from animal to plant production would mean more food per acre. Surplus farmland could be used for other purposes, such as forestry, or restored to rainforest.


https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2022/01/28/if-everyone-were-vegan-only-a-quarter-of-current-farmland-would-be-needed

And so good for the animal suffering
5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Economist: If everyone were vegan, only a quarter of current farmland would be needed (Original Post) mucifer Jan 2022 OP
Well, it's a wonderful life choice for many. Lunabell Jan 2022 #1
If we cut our consumption of animal products in half DBoon Jan 2022 #2
I'm with you Mucifer! MLAA Jan 2022 #3
Awesome !!! mucifer Jan 2022 #4
This message was self-deleted by its author jfz9580m Feb 2022 #5

Lunabell

(6,810 posts)
1. Well, it's a wonderful life choice for many.
Sun Jan 30, 2022, 04:07 PM
Jan 2022

Veganism is not for everyone. My wife has serious bowel issues and a vegan/vegetarian diet is so rich in fiber, she can't tolerate it. It causes severe discomfort, bloating and a mix of constipation/diarrhea.

DBoon

(23,052 posts)
2. If we cut our consumption of animal products in half
Sun Jan 30, 2022, 04:12 PM
Jan 2022

That would still have a very positive impact on the environment. Reducing meat, fish, and dairy consumption in half is much more feasible for much of the population. Done properly, I bet most people wouldn't even notice.

MLAA

(18,598 posts)
3. I'm with you Mucifer!
Sun Jan 30, 2022, 04:15 PM
Jan 2022

I got there fully about 10 years ago. Got husband abound 90% there and I’m delighted with him. So many plant based options these days. Takes some trial and error to find what you like. I find new ‘treasures’ nearly every visit to Trader Joe’s and Sprouts. I’m also pleasantly surprised how the big grocery chains’ plant based food section keeps growing.

I’m not the healthiest vegan, so I can’t resist some of the meat/dairy/egg alternatives. My latest finds:

Impossible Sausage that comes frozen in a tube
Immaculate cinnamon rolls in a tube in the cold case
Kite Hill Ravioli and tortellini
Field Roast Stadium Dogs

However, this year I’m going to eat a more unprocessed whole food plant based diet.
🙂

Response to mucifer (Original post)

Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Vegetarian, Vegan and Animal Rights»The Economist: If everyon...