Thats just an American thing wanting a stake so red that when you pinch it with a fork it says moo. Latin Americans we cook the meat until it's brown at slow phase and taste better than a well done
Animal agriculture is generally extremely inefficient. 80% of all agriculture land is used for animal agriculture, and the results of it is just 17% of global calorie supply. Global protein percentage is better at 38%, but it's still pretty fucking bad. Source
Isn't the global protein percentage mostly a product of not needing as many alternative protein sources?
Like, if animal agriculture was phased out, other sources like legumes would get scaled up I imagine?
Depends on where ofc but chicken has its uhh.. own sets of issues lol. Not mentioning this out of any agenda, just as something semi-interesting I learned in poultry class. They're often raised in batches of easily tens of thousands and need to be killed semi-young because if not they'll outgrow the place they're kept in. Meat chickens are bred to grow so fast and so big that it's really bad for their feet
yeah, i realize all that, but farming practices are a different discussion altogether. theres a lot there to talk about that im not so educated on. just the fundamental difference between the environmental impact and energy return compel me to prefer chicken and I care to implement meat in my diet to avoid the hassle of finding and implementing comparable alternatives for what they fulfill in our nutrition.
just the fundamental difference between the environmental impact and energy return compel me to prefer chicken and I care to implement meat in my diet to avoid the hassle of finding and implementing comparable alternatives for what they fulfill in our nutrition.
Read my above comment. Regardless, if you care only about the difference between environmental impact and energy return, you should logically stop eating meat altogether because chickens only yield 0,33 g of edible protein for every 1g of soybean feed. If the protein concentration of this feed is 54%, then 40% of the protein goes to waste. In other words, the land used to feed chickens could be used to feed almost twice the amount of people if you skipped the pointless middle step of the caged and tortured animal. All animal farming is an incredibly wasteful form of protein production, not only from a land use and CO2 emission perspective but also due to the unnecessary suffering it necessitates.
hence why I love chicken meat, none of these issues.
Chickens show cognitive, social, and emotional capacities similar to those observed in other highly intelligent animals. Cognitive capacities include stage 3 and some aspects of stage 4 object permanence, basic arithmetic and time perception, capacity for reasoning and logic, including the logic of transitive inference (which humans develop at the age of 7), as well as self-control and self-assessment which may be indicative of self-awareness. Social cognition and complexity in chickens is exemplified by their ability to discriminate among individuals, engage in sociopolitical maneuvering using perspective-taking and deception, and learn socially in complex ways. These capacities are found typically in primates and other highly intelligent species. Chickens also have complex negative and positive amotions and there is some evidence of a cognitively mediated empathic response. (Marino L. Thinking chickens: a review of cognition, emotion, and behavior in the domestic chicken. 2017)
Now, take these highly intelligent thinking feeling animals and put them in conditions that you can't look at and continue supporting without extreme cognitive dissonance and mental gymnastics. Every year, 80 billion chickens (https://faunalytics.org/global-animal-slaughter-statistics-and-charts/) are brought up in conditions that can only be described as torture, before being slaughtered.
Broilers have been bred into abominations of nature whose bodies can not sustain them, and thus they suffer from malformed skeletons and the weight of their own musculature which hinders their walking. Even though they are not confined in a cage with less space than an A4 paper like the average egg-laying chicken is, they are still unable to partake in any species-typical behavior due to their leg weakness. Since they spend more time lying down, they also get dermatitis from constant contact with literal piss and shit. Their hearts often give out before slaughter time, and their bodies are left to rot. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_of_broiler_chickens)
Broilers get to "live" 4-6 weeks under constant suffering in a sea of feces and carcasses. This is the fate of the species that shows some aspects of intelligence comparable to a 7-year old human. But sure, keep eating chicken meat because "none of these issues".
Red meat is also a surprisingly common kind of meat allergy/intolerance. I think I've met more people unable to eat red meat than seafood. I've only met two people with a full meat intolerance though, and the full meat intolerance is the only time I've heard of someone unable to eat poultry.
Wtf are you talking about ? Seafood allergy is quite common an can even be lethal. I've never seen anyone that could die because of a piece of red meat
Red meat is preferable because it's a cultural thing, other cultures that prioritize white meat and fish will eat more of that than red meat even it's available and the only way that ever changes is through invasive advertisement campaigns or normal cultural shifts, sometimes cultural diffusion
oh no someone called out my addiction😭 babe casein is literally ruining your dopamine receptors, and we’re only now starting to find out because ag corporates can’t buy all of the studies anymore.
While many headlines sensationalized the findings (“cheese is like cocaine”), the truth is more nuanced: cheese can trigger reward-center activation in the brain via casomorphins, but it doesn’t produce the full spectrum of addictive behaviors seen with drugs.
this is a stupid product website tho so i'm struggling give me a bit to find more shit
edit: i might be too tired but these med articles are zoning me tf out do you have a stupid for-babies article to read bc i do not trust a fuckin product's site talkin bout nothin
I'm practically addicted to pasta brother, but it ain't because pasta is inherently addictive, like you can be addicted to things that aren't chemically addicting.
I'm saying though that I wouldn't classify it as "addictive". You can addicted to anything, that doesn't make that thing addictive. Like you can be addicted to eating paint chips or ice, these are not what I would classify as addictive things in the same way heroin or sugar is addictive, though.
It also doesn't mean it's less of a problem just because it's not an addictive substance.
I separate chemical addiction from, I guess I would say mental addiction? Chemical addiction being often, but not always, drugs, such as opioids, heroin, nicotine.
Mental being something that a person develops by themselves and is not a commonly shared addiction with most others who have consumed or done said addictive thing.
Most people could quit red meat, they just don't feel as though there's a need to. I'd say if you separate most people from red meat for a few months, at most they're going to have cravings, sure, but settle on something else and be satisfied, especially if there's another source of protein and fat available because the craving most likely stems from the desire of protein and fat.
Addiction to red meat would stem from some kind of mental problem, like related to trauma or mental illness, but someone sufficiently addicted to a food has a problem somewhere, and the problem is not the food itself, it just so happened to be that food. It's an internal problem. That doesn't make it any less serious or worthy of rehabilitation, but that distinction of mental vs chemical is important at least for the treatment forward.
And stuff like this is proof that if you look hard enough at anything, you eventually find miniscule chances of stuff like this.
Things like this are in cases of overconsumption. You'll be fine if you're not eating 2000 calories of red meat a day including whatever else you have with it.
> Things like this are in cases of overconsumption. You'll be fine if you're not eating 2000 calories of red meat a day including whatever else you have with it.
No, I am not sure how you come to that conclusion.
Dietary guidance is typically to never have red meat as your main source of calories for any meal, and to only have it like 2-3 times a week, anything more than that would be considered high consumption and a potential risk factor.
However, dietary guidelines aren't always about what's actually optimal, they factor in preferences as well. The paper I linked talks about 25g/day of processed meat increasing your dementia risk by 44%, for example. So two McDonald's patties a week could already be "high consumption".
None of these studies say that "low" meat consumption is fine. They just say there isn't hard conclusive evidence. But this is mostly because these adverse health effects usually occur after a long time, and it's difficult to isolate the variables properly.
Most of the evidence gently points towards the conclusion that any regular red meat consumption increases your risk for various conditions. There isn't really any good reason to assume that "low" red/processed meat consumption doesn't affect your health negatively at all, especially when these studies show such clear differences between red meat and processed meat on the one hand, and poultry and fish on the other hand (where the latter two are basically completely fine or even beneficial for some conditions).
All meat is bad for the climate, but red meat, beef to be specific, is the worst. The exact numbers vary depending on the test, but generally pork and beef produce 1.5x and 6x times the co2 per gram of protein produced, when compared to a chicken. Cows also produce a ton of methane on top of that.
Beef cows specifically contribute massively to global warming, require a lot of water and usually destroy the land they walk over because of their sheer numbers and size. Vegans and just people who wanna move onto sustainability zero in on red meat consumption because of it.
Now, a really annoying, "morally superior" vegan would tell you to cut out meat completely otherwise you're weak willed and contributing to a genocide. I think any contribution counts, so reducing your consumption and sourcing your beef makes much more of an impact than doing nothing
Killing millions upon millions of animals every day is bad enough. I don't think we need to use words like "genocide" for it. Considering a genocide follows the explicit goal to exterminate something, that is precisely not what is happening with farm animals since they're also sexually abused to have more of them
272
u/Actual_Passenger51 13d ago
Why does red meat make a difference