[–] 2 points 3 months ago*

To the people who downvote our community, i also explained this concept of animal agriculture requiring more land because of the ecological pyramid: https://slrpnk.net/comment/23745702

You do not necessarily have to eliminate all meat, but reducing or eliminating your meat consumption is imo the biggest impact an individual person can make to help the environment.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)

    I think what you're missing here is the concept of the trophic pyramid or ecological pyramid which explains how energy is transferred from one level to the next. In general only about 10% of energy is transferred from one level of the pyramid to the next.

    Only 1 to 2 percent of the energy from the sun is absorbed by photosynthetic processes and converted into food.[2] When energy is transferred to higher trophic levels, on average only about 10% is used at each level to build biomass, becoming stored energy. The rest goes to metabolic processes such as growth, respiration, and reproduction.[3]

    Right now you're just thinking of the cattle themselves, but to support the cattle there is the additional land space of all the food they eat (and also the lagoons for their shit). If we were to plot them in the food chain, then plants/grains would be the primary pruducer on the bottom tier of the pyramid, with cattle at the next tier. To gain 1 lbs the cattle would need to eat 10lbs of grains. Obviously cattle weigh much more than just 1 lbs so the land to support their 1100 lbs weight ends up being massive and not something a lot of people think about when they end up eating a burger. And above the cattle in this trophic pyramid we could place humans as a secondary consumer where there is another loss of energy as you go from one trophic level to the next. Not to mention 1 lbs of cattle is not 1 lbs of take home beef. A quick search on this number is ~35-45% of live animal weight ends up as take-home beef.

    You had asked about what the plots would look like with replacement foods grown instead of animal agriculture. The trophic pyramid answers that and we could forecast if we were to remove an animal based product then we would require only 10% (on average) to replace it with primary source non-animal food

    This is why I believe that if anyone seriously cares about the environment then the single, biggest thing they can do at an individual level is to reduce or eliminate their animal consumption. This doesn't mean I think we shouldn't care about AI data centers and other major elements of environmental impact, it just means that for me personally my diet I have direct control over. I can and should still care about other environmental impacts but I don't need to ask a city board to stop feeding me animal products--I can make that choice on my own.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago* (3 children)

    Here you go, I'm interested in your thoughts. The charts can also be adjusted to be per 100g of protein or 1 kcal

    Greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram of food product

    Land use per kilogram of food product

    Freshwater withdrawals per kilogram of food product

    Eutrophying emissions per kilogram of food product : Eutrophying emissions represent runoff of excess nutrients into the surrounding environment and waterways, which affect andpollute ecosystems. They are measured in grams of phosphate equivalents (PO₄eq).

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    As a vegan this was what i got from the post without additional commentary. Ive felt this way for a long time and while I'm glad people are vaguely aware of the environmental impact of data centers, i do wish they would be concerned enough to learn about other things negatively impacting the environment.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    Cattle contribute to methane gasses through their burps and farts, as well as their shit fermentation ponds and maybe other things im forgetting.

    Cattle, like cows, deer, sheep, and buffalo, belong to a specific group of animals known as ruminants. Characterized by their four-chambered organs, ruminants are able to rapidly have a large meal of grass and hay and later digest it by re-chewing it in their mouth. In the cattle’s stomach, a rumen microbe called methanogen converts the excess hydrogen and CO2 produced during the digestion of this high-fiber food to methane. This methane, called enteric methane, is expelled from the cattle’s body as belching or burping.

    In 2022, methane from enteric fermentation accounted for 27.4% of total anthropogenic [caused by humans] methane emissions in the US and 3% of total gross emissions.

    Source (links the EPA report these numbers come from)

    There have been other studies on this topic I've read in the past but that was just first one that i came across

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 child)

    Looking at indianapolis this is laughably bad:

    Joella's Hot Chicken offers a unique twist on Southern comfort food with a fully vegan menu that includes flavorful plant-based chicken and house-made sauces.

    Um... no. Not fully vegan. I think they briefly had one option but idk if that's still a thing, not seeing it on the menu.

    Jasmine Thai Restaurant

    🌿 100% Vegan

    Delight in an array of authentic Thai flavors with a fully vegan menu at Jasmine Thai Restaurant.

    ... the picture has shrimp in it, so also not 100% vegan

    10th street diner - vegan friendly

    This is one of the few vegan only restaurants in the city and is being done dirty here. There's no option to report it as actually 100% vegan.

    Anyway, the project seems neat and could be useful in the future. When i say laughably bad im referring specifically to the AI model being used to categorize these restaurants. I can only assume it was an AI mislabeling these obvious mistakes

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    Tofu is a general go-to as a meat alternative because of the high amount of protein, the many ways it can be cooked, and for being able to take on flavors well. Basically it's very versatile. Lots of advice online for cooking tofu for a curry. My general advice is to freeze every block of tofu to give it good texture, then thaw and press. For a curry just think about if you want the tofu to be hard and firm, or more tender as this will impact how it is cooked.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

    A restaurant near me used to make delicious chocolate cake but shut down during initial covid lockdowns. I love nora cooks but idk why i never thought to check for a chocolate cake recipe. Going to have to give this a try

    Edit: i have successfully recruited the MiL to assist next time she visits 😅

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago (7 children)

    I have already excluded animal exploitation by not eating meat. Why would i reintroduce animal exploitation by consuming such a product?

    It's really not that extreme. And in my comment, the part you didn't quote, i acknowledged some vegans may think the trade off is worth it, but i do not.

    But thanks for the disingenuous mushroom nonsense. I love it when meat eaters come into a vegan space to insult me

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago*

    I will once again and ask you the question you asked:

    Wouldn't you agree that endeavoring to do less harm [...] is better than nothing?

    Your comment is arguing against itself by suggesting insects are not worth the same level of endeavorment to no harm as other animals.

    This goes back to the definition of veganism i shared, where it's a way of life to exclude animal exploitation, cruelty, and death, as much as possible. I can't prevent killing every insect, but i can go out of my way to not kill them. I can let my yard grow wild, i can plant plants that create a vibrant ecosystem for various insects. I can let a jumping spider live on my desk and visit me during lunch because it's not bothering me. This is not an exhaustive list.

    Ive already excluded animal meat from my diet, why would i introduce animal exploitation so i can eat lab grown animal meat?

    You seem to be thinking on a global scale when you poise your question. I'm not. I'm thinking about me as an individual and my own way of life.

    So why do you, specifically, need to consume meat so badly that this need must have at least some level of animal exploitation if not cruelty and death as well? And if you don't already, are you willing to eat only lab grown meat going forward? If not, why not?

    These can be rhetorical questions, mostly because i don't come to vegan communities to debate or convert non-vegans so I'm unlikely to respond again. But if you're being genuine in reducing harm then giving some thought to those questions i think will help you better live your beliefs.

  • source
  • parent
  • context
  •  

    Link text: A jury took just 51 minutes to unanimously declare five Animal Rising campaigners who ran onto the tracks of the 2023 Grand National not guilty of public nuisance at Liverpool Crown Court today (13/11/25). This was the third of a series of five Grand National trials; after this third consecutive failure to convict, the CPS will now review whether the remaining trials will go to court with the next one currently due to start on 1/12/25.

    • 118 people were arrested at Aintree in 2023 for attempting to access the racetrack and halt the Grand National race, opposing the frequent deaths of horses on the tracks and the use of horses as entertainment. [1]
    • The five defendants in this nine-day trial managed to occupy the track, with several affixing themselves to jumps on the course.
    • The Grand National race was delayed by 15 minutes, and horse Hill Sixteen died after falling at the first fence.
    • Subsequently, the British Horseracing Authority brought in additional safety measures for horses running the Grand National race from 2024 onwards; these changes are welcomed by Animal Rising, but the group says these changes do not go far enough. [2]
    • Two previous trials for other campaigners who attempted to access the track that day ended in a not guilty verdict (24/09/25) and a hung jury (21/10/25). [3]
    • Over 480 horses have been killed at racecourses in the UK since the 2023 Grand National protest [4].

    Hundreds of campaigners joined Animal Rising’s effort to halt the 2023 Grand National, aiming to protect horses from harm and death whilst sparking a public debate about the exploitation of animals in sport. With two acquittals and a hung jury, Animal Rising contends that these trials reflect a broader shift in public opinion against horse racing. The group views them as significant victories for all activists operating within an increasingly hostile climate for peaceful protest in the UK.

    A key defence of the campaigners was “reasonable excuse”, a provision of public nuisance law. Defendants argued the suffering and deaths of horses within the racing industry constituted a valid reason to attempt to stop the race and draw attention to the plight of horses in UK racing.

    Michelle Farnham, 27, from London, was one of the five found not guilty today and said:

    "Horses are dying on British racecourses at an average rate of one every other day. This cruelty isn’t entertainment, it’s exploitation, plain and simple.

    Today’s verdict is the third time in a row that juries have refused to criminalise people for trying to stop horses dying at the Grand National. When the public hears the truth about the brutality of racing, they clearly don’t want to punish those who try to save lives.

    This is why trial by jury matters: it gives ordinary people the power to say what is morally right. The writing is on the wall for the racing industry. It’s time horse racing was consigned to the past where it belongs, and this needless suffering is finally brought to an end.”

    According to a University of York study, over half of those under 40 would not consider attending horse races due to welfare issues. The same study stated that attendance declined by over 500,000 from 2015 to 2019. [5] A survey released earlier this year by World Horse Welfare found that only 5% of people in the UK believe that ‘all sport horses live good lives’ and only 11% support the use of spurs. [6]


    Additional reading (substack): https://animalrising.substack.com/p/historic-verdict-for-horses-acquitted

    view more: next ›