A vegan diet is not sustainable for the average person. Ex-vegans vastly outnumber current vegans, of which the majority have only been vegan for a short time. Common reasons for quitting are: concerns about health (23%), cravings (37%), social problems (63%), not seeing veganism as part of their identity (58%). 29% had health problems such as nutrient deficiencies, depression or thyroid issues, of which 82% improved after reintroducing meat.

Many environmental studies that vegans use are heavily flawed because they were made by people who have no clue about agriculture, e.g. by the SDA church. A common mistake is that they use irrational theoretical models that assume we grow crops for animals because most of the plant weight is used as feed, The reality is that 86% of livestock feed is inedible by humans. They consume forage, food-waste and crop residues that could otherwise become an environmental burden. 13% of animal feed consists of potentially edible low-quality grains, which make up a third of global cereal (not total crop) production. All US beef cattle spend the majority of their life on pasture and upcycle protein even when grain-finished (0.6 to 1). Hence, UN FAO considers livestock crucial for food security and does not endorse veganism at all.

Vegans have never been able to define or measure that their diet causes less deaths/suffering than an omnivorous one. They are ignorantly contributing to an absolute bloodbath of trillions of zooplankton, mites, worms, crickets, grasshoppers, snails, frogs, turtles, rats, squirrels, possum, raccoons, moles, rabbits, boars, deer, 75% of insect biomass, half of all bird species and 20,000 humans per year. Two grass-fed cows are enough to feed someone for a year and, if managed properly, can restore biodiversity. The textbook vegan excuse where they try to blame plant agriculture on animals and use only mice deaths, fabricated feed conversion ratios of 20:1 and a coincidentally favourable per-calorie metric is nonsense because:

The majority of animal feed is either low-maintenance forage or a by-product that only exists because of human food harvest.

It literally shows that grass-fed beef kills fewer animals.

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 23 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

EDIT: also why do you keep using random imgur links as source with no context as to their origin and a lot of low quality random blogs. More links does not mean more correct. This all smells a lot of like gish gallop

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

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27886704/

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 months ago

that is not the position of the academy and hasn't been for years

[–] Lavitz@lemmings.world 4 points 5 months ago

What are you going on about bruh??? Did you read the study? It was about antibiotics. Triggered much?

[–] Sizzler 3 points 5 months ago

This link simply shows what rubbish you are talking. https://ourworldindata.org/wild-mammals-birds-biomass