I heard something to do with Nitrogen and …cow farts(?) I am really unsure of this and would like to learn more.

Answer -

4 Parts

  • Ethical reason for consuming animals
  • Methane produced by cows are a harmful greenhouse gas which is contributing to our current climate crisis
  • Health Reasons - there is convincing evidence that processed meats cause cancer
  • it takes a lot more calories of plant food to produce the calories we would consume from the meat.

Details about the answers are in the comments

    • fkn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I read your other post using poor and nemeck and even that article shows it.

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        if you can cite where in that article it gives credit to cattle for conserving water that would be wasted, I would eat my hat.

        • fkn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          For each study, we recorded the inventory of outputs and inputs (including fertilizer quantity and type, irrigation use, soil, and climatic conditions).

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                no. I just want to see how much water they say cows consumed from cotton and the total amount of water they say was used to grow the cotton. and then I want you to ask yourself if it’s reasonable to attribute ANY of that water to cows (it isn’t)

                • fkn@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Cam you link specifically what you mean? I don’t see any attribution of cotton water to cattle in the 2018 Poor, Nemeck.

                  • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    i’m having problems right now even pulling up the full article, but, to my recollection, they didn’t actually gather any of this data themselves, so you should be able to find some oblique reference to water used somewhere in the body of the paper, and then follow the citation to the actual study that did gather the data.

                • matlag@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  A non-peered review article from a totally unbiased source.

                  Coming up next, an article demonstrating the benefit of burning oil for the environment by Shell.

    • WetBeardHairs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not trying to be a dick here, but do you honestly think that you, a non-expert who likely doesn’t even practice in ecology or environmental sciences, are the authority here on whether any studies have attempted to account for the water consumption based on the feed variety and sources?

      Because if you thought of it as a way to shoot down a random internet comment, then the experts who work in the field have certainly done so and followed through with those calculations already. Have you ever met a professor? They fucking love to tear apart arguments because it gets their names into publications and that’s how they earn tenure and notoriety for grant funding.