The most bioavailable foods are animal foods. Plant form iron is not even remotely comparable to heme iron.

Heme iron is found only in meat, poultry, seafood, and fish.

Take a iron deficient person and give them plant iron and it will be weeks to never before their iron returns. Feed them a liver and see it spike up in a day.

The same can be said of vitamin A and many other vitamins. A No indigenous society on earth has ever been vegan. Even horses who eat grass sometimes eat birds.

Hong Kong has one of the highest life expectancies on earth and one of the highest meat consumption rates on earth.

Every “Vegan” body builder got their start on whey protein. And are in their 20’s usually. There is no good 50+ year old long term vegan body builders who aren’t on massive amount of steroids and who didn’t get their start on animal protein.

Vegan farming is unsustainable. Animals naturally help the soil become more nutritious.

Vegan foods are terrible for the environment. Mass produced mono crops destroy the soil.

Being a vegan is OK if you want to destroy your body. Pushing it on children is evil because it will limit their growth.

  • mrpotatoe@gtio.ioOP
    3·
    2 years ago

    All of that may be true, but most cattle and chicken currently don’t graze on that land.

    Incorrect, most cows in the U.S. Are raised on grass most of their life.

    In fact, more than 97 percent of U.S. beef cattle farms and ranches are family farms. It’s a myth and one that has really gotten out of control. Vegans will hunt for the worst farm and take a picture at the worst time to make it look like all those farms are that way. False, fiction.

    You’re also assuming that those grasslands should actually be used that way. Nowadays, much of the land has been obtained by deforestation, and an increased demand for energy and protein, combined with the inefficiency of animals, is an important factor contributing to this.

    Again this isn’t really true. Pre colonial America, the Buffalo were everywhere. Grass lands everywhere. America is where horses evolved. That is how much grass land is here. (they left but came back long story). Grass lands are very common naturally.

    As for antibiotics, I believe you’re partially missing my point. While reducing the number of animals reduces resistant organism spread proportionally, applying counter-resistance policies would only have an effect if a very large proportion of the animals are under that policy, that is, if nearly every country enforces it.

    Again I think you missed my point here. There is only one option either way. Stop using Antibiotics.

    You can either stop using antibiotics by not eating meat or stop using antibiotics wile using meat. In either case you would have to force it in every country and in either case you will fail.

    Also, not using antibiotics at all is not an option.

    Yes it is. And actually, feeding animals more of their natural diet would make it more possible. One of the reasons cows get bacteria over growth is when they are fed to much corn. It messes with the ph balance of their stomach. If you feed them only grass, they won’t need antibiotics at nearly the amount the do now.

    So antibiotics is a non issue.

    • pancake@lemmy.ml
      3·
      2 years ago

      Weird, 97% is a really high number… In my country it’s about 10%, even with the EU laws to promote extensivization. I’ll take it though.

      Grass lands are common, but what about the animals? There couldn’t have been nearly that many if a few early colonists hunted them down so quickly. Also the kind of grassland those lived in was vastly different from what cows need, let alone chicken.

      Messing with their pH balance? As in, giving them diarrhea? Yes, that’s usually treated with antibiotics if severe, but still insufficient. Cattle get many different kinds of infections, anything from infected cuts to insect-transmitted diseases.

      If we humans get and transmit diseases today, animals do the same. The first risk factor for that is the total number of individuals, so that needs to be cut down, and livestock are much more numerous than us.

      • mrpotatoe@gtio.ioOP
        1·
        2 years ago

        Grass lands are common, but what about the animals? There couldn’t have been nearly that many if a few early colonists hunted them down so quickly.

        It wasn’t actually that quick. It was over many generations. White people did hunt them by the millions but also the natives were newly armed with horses and guns and so could hunt them down much more efficiently, then sell the hides.

        Messing with their pH balance? As in, giving them diarrhea?

        Not just diarrhea, salmonella and other diseases. Their stomachs are not designed for corn. Feeding them mostly corn makes them vulnerable to lots of bacterial over growth. That is the reason they need antibiotics to begin with.

        Maybe in parts of the EU people should protest cattle farming but here in the states I see lots of really happy cow farms.

    • Grace@lemmy.ml
      1·
      2 years ago

      The only source I can find for the claim that beef is 97% family farms is the Kansas Livestock Association.

      Most others say 98% of farms are family farms - not cattle farms, just farms, and then use a weird definition of family farm. Small family farms are 89% but there is no indication of how much of the cattle farms are family owned.

      USDA says “Finally, large-scale and non-family farms dominate production of beef production and high value crops which include vegetables, fruits/tree nuts, and nursery/greenhouse products.”

      What’s your source? Save me from digging, I’m tired lol