Never a bad time to go vegan.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/20/us/onions-salmonella-outb...
There's a big difference between the FDA limit of 15% of chicken being contaminated with salmonella (with the average from this article looking to be around 5%), and the once or twice a year events where more than 0% of a veggie is contaminated and it makes the news.
I know when I make something with fruit or vegetables I'll go through, rip off all the black or dark parts, throw out any rot. Often if I see rot I'll throw out the entire batch. (one bad apple....)
And then, I have to force myself not to think about how people making salads for me (ie, at a restaurant) are far less vigilant.
Those rotten bits on your vegetables are probably perfectly safe to eat, if unpalatable. It might not even involve microbial spoilage at all, just enzymatic breakdown.
It's funny how factory farming is suddenly an issue when a human might end up in hospital. I hope those who didn't care before get to see battery cages or fledgling shredder in person at some point.
Unlike quite a bit of industrial farming including growing most vegan staples.
Are you sure?
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/13/746576239/is...
"A number of past studies have found lower greenhouse gas emissions associated with the feedlot system. One reason is that grass-fed cows gain weight more slowly, so they produce more methane (mostly in the form of belches) over their longer lifespans."
https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local
"‘Eating local’ is a recommendation you hear often – even from prominent sources, including the United Nations. While it might make sense intuitively – after all, transport does lead to emissions – it is one of the most misguided pieces of advice. Eating locally would only have a significant impact if transport was responsible for a large share of food’s final carbon footprint. For most foods, this is not the case. GHG emissions from transportation make up a very small amount of the emissions from food and what you eat is far more important than where your food traveled from."
> Unlike quite a bit of industrial farming including growing most vegan staples.
Like what?
https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local
"Many of the foods people assume to come by air are actually transported by boat – avocados and almonds are prime examples. Shipping one kilogram of avocados from Mexico to the United Kingdom would generate 0.21kg CO2eq in transport emissions. This is only around 8% of avocados’ total footprint. Even when shipped at great distances, its emissions are much less than locally-produced animal products."
"Paige Stanley, a researcher at the University of California, Berkeley, says many of these studies have prioritized efficiency — high-energy feed, smaller land footprint — as a way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The larger the animal and the shorter its life, the lower its footprint. But she adds, "We're learning that there are other dimensions: soil health, carbon and landscape health. Separating them is doing us a disservice." She and other researchers are trying to figure out how to incorporate those factors into an LCA analysis.
Stanley co-authored a recent LCA study, led by Jason Rowntree of Michigan State University, that found carbon-trapping benefits of the grass-fed approach. Another recent LCA study, of Georgia's holistically managed White Oak Pastures, found that the 3,200-acre farm stored enough carbon in its grasses to offset not only all of the methane emissions from its grass-fed cattle, but also much of the farm's total emissions. (The latter study was funded by General Mills.)"
That's from your first link (npr dot org). Seems like the jury's still out on this one.
77% of global farm land is used by livestock already (https://ourworldindata.org/land-use) and is a leading cause of deforestation.
Can't comment on if those prices would change with scale. I don't know if it's more or fewer head of cattle per acre compared to the maize needed for feedlot cattle. Maize is a pretty dense crop, so my guess would be fewer head per acre.
Many cows go to fattening up centers before they are slaughtered, but the cattle don't spend their lives in them. In these centers many are fed corn -- so-called "grain finished" non-organic beef. This is the main difference between the feelgood beef and normal beef. The U.S. has ~120M acres devoted to pasture for ~80 million heads of cattle, about 1.5 acres per animal. This is land not fit for farming, so rather than saying we set aside 77% of global "farm" land for cattle, it's more accurate to say that without cattle converting grass to protein, 77% of the land devoted to food production would be abandoned. Of course you can argue it should be a wilderness -- millions of buffalo roamed on that grassland in the past.
There are an additional 10 million dairy cows living in conditions ranging from nice farm animals to horrific factory lots.
Saying that cattle is a "leading cause" of deforestation is misleading. Cattle graze on low productive land, usually more arid plains like in the Western U.S. (what was once called the Great American desert). You do not see large herds of cows wandering on farmland. You do see lots of cattle in the dry plains of Argentina.
What you mean is that a primary source of deforestation in the Amazon rain forest is the practice of slash and burn agriculture, which consists of setting fires that nourish the soil in lieu of fertilizer. This productive soil lasts about 18 months and then you need to set fire to more forest. Slash and burn was a pre-industrial farming technique widely practiced by Amazonian natives, but does not scale well in industrial application. Better to spend money on fertilizer and leave the rainforest alone.
It's true that after the 18 months (or so), the land is not productive farmland anymore but is still suitable for cattle. However you might as well say that the growing of vegetables is a leading cause of deforestation, since the would-be farmers are after the wood from the forest as well as the ~1.5 years of cash crops before the ground is only fit for cattle. Pastureland is not a good money maker, requiring so much land per animal. The rents obtained in this way are minimal.
You're also presenting pastureland as a viable option when there are tenfold superior ways which we could use that pastureland for almost every climate when it comes to carbon sequestration. 80%+ of deforestation world wide driven by the animal agriculture and the desire to create grazing land for cattle, and growing crops to feed said cattle[1].
Additionally, the idea of a slurry pits near my home, running off into local water supplies and ground water, and fumes affecting peoples respiration[2], do not seem like a sensible alternatives to a permaculture food forest.
I live in the UK where unlike most countries, our cattle are largely pasture fed as the norm. Half of farmland (which makes up about 70% of the UK), mostly uplands and pasture, produces just 20% of the UK’s food [3]. We could re-wild most of that if only people moved away from eating meat; including local, pasture raised alternatives.
[1]https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02409-7 [2]https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/14/muck-spr... [3]https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/31/convert-...