• Dasus@lemmy.worldEnglish
    3 hours

    Wild caught fish is there, but no wild caught game?

    I’m thinking the footprint for that should be quite neutral.

  • CADmonkey@lemmy.worldEnglish
    4 hours

    Questions for those who can answer them:

    1.) What is the difference between “Milk” and “dairy herd” with regards to pollution and land use? Honest question.

    2.) I’ve always wondered, but didn’t want to get flamed for asking: What if you have pet chickens? I don’t eat them, they live a great chicken life, but I end up with a ton of eggs that I give to people I know. Obviously those eggs are eaten. Does this count as some kind of horrible animal cruelty?

    • Doom@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2 hours

      Dairy is the farm, milk is the product. As to pollution and land use factory farms will always cause pollution because they squeeze too many animals into an area smaller then they can live in healthily for profitability. (Cows for example need 2 acres per cow in lush lands or 50 acres per cow arid lands).

      As for chickens. In my opinion as long as you have at least two chickens (they are social animals), maintain them properly, protect them from predation, keep up with vet visits/vaccinations, and let your chickens out to forage, they are a wonderful addition to a neighborhood. But make sure you read up on egg safety, especially if you plan to share your eggs.

    • LwL@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3 hours

      1. The dairy herd seems to be about beef from a dairy herd. So still meat, but offset by the fact that milk is produced as well. Not sure how they calculate it, nor have I ever seen beef labelled as that (…granted I also haven’t bought any in years), but it makes sense.

      2. This just seems like a pet with a byproduct to me but maybe someone knows more about the effects of breeding for egg laying on chicken quality of life

      • CADmonkey@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3 hours

        I hadn’t considered that they would sell the meat from dairy cows, so thanks for that answer. My neighbor has cows but that’s the extent of my knowledge on them.

        A few of my chickens are basically “mutts”, which haven’t been bred for anything specific. (we got them from a local who sells chickens, she turned out to know even less than I do about them, though. They’re not as healthy as the others and I suspect they are inbred) The rest of them were picked up from a farm supply store and seem to be specific “breeds”, I have some easter eggers, some Australorps, a welsummer, a black star, and some rhode island reds. I may not be doing everything right BUT my chickens have a half acre to run around on instead of being locked in a tiny box their entire lives, and the meanest thing any of them have endured is me catching them by the tail feathers before putting them back over the fence.

  • pelespirit@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    1 day

    Water resources aren’t even on the chart. Nuts, for example, can use way too much water. Almonds in California are a battle.

    • prettybunnys@piefed.socialEnglish
      1 day

      can you expand on that for those of us who don’t wanna Google and confirmation bias ourselves?

      • goedel@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
        1 day

        they combine disparately methodized LCA data. this is explicitly against good practice. the fact that they found outrageous disparities got them great headlines and impressive graphs, but the underlying science is questionable at best. I could go deeper but this is the thousand foot view.

        • shane@feddit.nlEnglish
          19 hours

          It’s a meta analysis, so I’m not sure it would be possible to get identical methodologies for all data sets.

          • goedel@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
            17 hours

            of course it’s not. Meta analyzes fly in the face of the guidance for LCAs. it’s just not good science.

            since I’m already being tasked to address this again, it’s worth pointing out that poore and nemecek didn’t even gather the LCA data themselves. they, themselves, actually cite other meta-analyzes of LCA data. those meta-analyzes do recognize that they are violating best practices in the text themselves, and just go ahead and do it anyway. egregiously, poore and nemecek Don’t even acknowledge this faux pas and pass off their “findings” as sound investigation.

  • surewhynotlem@lemmy.worldEnglish
    24 hours

    I have trouble believing that those giant CO2 spewing cargo ships are so small a factor.

    • FishFace@piefed.socialEnglish
      9 hours

      Because you’ve been fooled by the focus on those ships.

      They’re not problematic because of their greenhouse emissions. Hauling stuff by sea is very efficient - by greenhouse gas emissions it is more efficient than rail freight. They’re problematic because they burn very dirty fuel which releases sulphur dioxide and particulates which are a different kind of pollutant. However, they’re released far from human population centres, and their most serious effects are localised, unlike greenhouse emissions, which are global. The environmental problems of cargo ships are there, but they are not the serious, urgent threat to human life that climate change is.

      As such, they are a distraction.

    • shane@feddit.nlEnglish
      19 hours

      It’s why the “buy local” movement wouldn’t really save much CO₂. Driving the trucks from the harbour to the consumers emits more, AIUI.

      • surewhynotlem@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4 hours

        Yeah, that’s a good point. But I’ve always looked at the buy local movement as a way to fuck over billionaires.

        • shane@feddit.nlEnglish
          4 hours

          I’m totally in favor of buying local! It preserves local culture, helps your neighbors, and deprives capital of a way to exploit people out of sight. The food is fresher, and having to cook with seasonal ingredients adds variety and gives fun challenges.

          But it won’t prevent much carbon from entering the atmosphere.

  • corsicanguppy@lemmy.caEnglish
    16 hours

    Now do water requirements per gram of protein.

    A kilo of ‘food’ can be dense and rich … or neither.