Should that matter much? Looking on their website it looks like they sell feeds for all sorts of animals, not just ones producing red meat. For most people, "not eating red meat" means eating pork/chicken not going vegan, so they don't stand to gain much from this study.
It's absolutely incredible how much more efficient cow milk is per kg compared to beef. Some of that must be because milk is even more watery than meat is, but the rest must come from being able to get milk from cows throughout their (kind of miserable, sadly) lifespan.
A huge amount of muscle is grown and destroyed cyclically as part of a cow's natural life. It's horrific, but imagine if meat could be "harvested" from living animals - how much would that improve beef's efficiency? Is there a less-abusive to sentient critters equivalent of this idea? (mushrooms?)
I think the equuvalent that still produces meat is lab grown meat. Then you can just grow the parts you need to eat it, which should be about as efficient as it gets once it's all figured out.
That's an option, but like switching to fish/vegetables/whatever, it's not something that most people actually do. This chart[1] shows that beef consumption has been falling since the 70s, but it's being more than made up for by the increase in chicken consumption.
You'd be surprised to know that there are some other stuff holding proteins that's not meat. Like fish or chickpeas, or lentils, or beans, or seeds, or buts, or broccoli...
Protein is not all you get from meat. If you want to replace meat, fine. But dont act like its just a protein swap. For instance you're not getting creatine and all the amino acids from beans amongst other nutrition.
I also dont really understand the full appeal as mono-cropping has devastated forests and animal species. And those harvesting machines kill many animals in the fields.
How does vegetarianism or veganism promote monoculture? I associate mono-cropping with production of animal feed and hyper-processed human feed, not with growing crops for vegans.
Right, but are people likely to switch to those when they find out that red meat is bad? Or are they more likely to switch to pork/chicken? My previous comment doesn't say those protein sources don't exist, only that people are unlikely to switch to them.
The main issue here is the bioavailability of those proteins when digesting.
red meat is 100% digested and bioavailable for all amino acid that are required for life.
Bio availability of protein in plant is far lower, and doesn’t cover the full amino-acid profile.
But well, I worship Darwin and let the vegans dying from malnutrition.
Latest story is that mother getting life sentence after killing her baby with vegan diet.
If it works for them, so be it. The one thing that this quite obvious with diet and nutrition is that there is no “one size fits all” diet for everyone.
You didn’t let them live enough long. Also please provide the complémentation list ( all the chemical they need to add into their daily diet to sustain this narrative).
No need to cherry pick far right elements of the bell curve. For centuries diet poor in meat is associated with bad health, shorter life and multiple specific diseases. This topic is widely reported on old littérature from 17th 18th and 19th centuries. 0 meat diet is malnutrition whatever the artifice you use to hide it.
Which cuts both ways. Neither of us know when they will die.
> No need to cherry pick far right elements of the bell curve.
Your comment specifically mentioned Darwin and dying. Most people will take that as quip on the “survival of the fittest” phrase, so I showed you examples of the fittest.
> all the chemical they need to add into their daily diet
Even if that were true, it does not support your point. Your claim was of malnutrition, you’re now shifting the goalpost to a value judgement on how that nutrition is ingested. All food is made up of chemical substances¹.
> This topic is widely reported on old littérature from 17th 18th and 19th centuries.
After asking for concrete data, your rebuttal is to offer none? I know we’re amidst a replication crisis², but a general hand wave to unspecified publications which don’t take into account the last century of science doesn’t advance the conversation.
Fortunately, it is possible to eat more than one foodstuff. Grains and beans is the classic combo. Grains are lacking in lysine, and beans are lacking in methionine, but together they make a complete protein. You don't even need to eat them in the same meal.
Yes, it's possible to mix and match at get close to a complete profile. But, this requires more accountability than people are willing to do with their own diets. People have a hard enough time not eating themselves into hyper-obesity, and now they have to factor in amino profiles verses just eating some red meat from time to time.
On the whole, I've met more unhealthy vegans and vegetarians than healthy ones.
> How do you know the diet of everyone you meet? How are you assessing the health of your acquaintances?
Oh, they'll tell you, together with their pronouns.
> Are things not worth doing because they are difficult? Exercising is pretty inconvenient - doesn't mean we should give up on it.
I've been vegan for long periods of time and I've always tended to veganism because of the science. When my symptoms started becoming intolerable and doctors said it was all "stress" I switched to carnivore.
I tried both sides and dieting while eating a high carb, low fat diet is insanely hard: you're hungry all the time and you keep snacking. You need to calorie count everything.
Dieting on a carnivore diet is easy. You'll get full by eating fat, you won't be able to put more in you. No calories counting needed, you're never hungry.
