/ck/ - Food & Cooking

>>10853454
shut up fag stop posting vegan garbage

>>10853463
And what about all the other garbage threads on here and you pic this one why ?
Fool

>>10853482
Huh?

>>10853463

Is vegan really healthier? Everything I read suggests it is harder to have a balanced diet.
I don't care about animals desu

>>10853633
Depends on what your diet is now.

If your diet is mostly processed crap then yes being a vegan would be significantly healthier.
If your diet is well balanced and diverse then no, it would be a less healthy choice.

The fallacy that vegans often fall for is assuming their gain in health is because they don't eat meat, they neglect the fact that they just don't eat crap (mostly)

I knew some pretty fuckin fat unhealthy vegans when i was in university. They'd constantly spout out PETA propaganda, while showing of their bovine like physiques. The best part about the PETA crap was they had references on their pamphlets, that pointed to other peta pamphlets and peta propaganda which in turn pointed at the initial peta pamphlets. A very nice example of the circular logic fallacy

>>10853687
I see. In that case it wouldn't be healthier. The only "vegans" I knew ate fish and or chicken. Strange stuff.
Vegan food tastes fine from what I've had but cooking it is a pain. I like mushroom centered meals.
Animal saving is something I understand but I just can't care. They just say the same thing.
>would you eat dog?!
The only thing that I could care about is the environmental crap but that would lead to come genocide.

>>10853705
Humanity has much bigger problems than eating meat and more effective ways of helping the environment.

veganism =/= environmentalism

>>10853711

>>10853716
Fuck off with your propaganda

Your house, your phone, you car, all your chinese made shit comes at the cost of animals and habitat.

You're just lieing to yourself so you can feel better

>>10853711
Yessss you are correct. But >>10853716
This cheap is used frequently for people that feel the need to convert others.
Why are you vegan anon?

>>10853724
>propaganda
Do you even know what the word propaganda means ?

>>10853705
Mushrooms aren't vegan because we're descended from mushrooms (they're not plants, they're closer to animals) and they have a kind of hivemind-type intellect (see: tokyo subway network mushroom experiment)

>>10853738
Life feeds on life

if you are alive, it comes at the cost of a great number of other life forms always.
The vegan philosophy is broken.
I'm not saying we are doing things correctly now, but their extremist view is not the answer

>>10853738
Is this a common view? Mushrooms are too good to let go.

>>10853749
GOD I hate carnies!

Why can't we just have peace and GET ALONG. If only every animals stopped killing each other there would be no suffering and war and we could have WORLD PEACE and everyone could be vegan and happy all the animals and plants in HARMONY

FUCK

>>10853769
What is wrong with you people?

>>10853770
Fun fact:
The recent state of peace between rebels and governments in south America has lead to the fastest deforestation of the Amazon in human history!

>>10853775
I'm not a vegetarian I eat meat at least once a week. I've considered being a vegetarian or even vegan but I think I'm okay as I am.

>>10853454
I think veganposters on 4chan are kind of fags, but pitch me some awesome vegan recipes I can use in the future.
No froufrou millenial fake egg shit. Good Indian she continent recipes or something.
I feel like I rely too heavily on meat for a hearty meal. Even chana masala doesn't seem to hit the spot, and I'm leery to add potato.

>>10853799
sub continent*
I'm a filthy phone poster.

>>10853799
>>10853809
I love Indian food myself, m8. Have you tried this curry?
>Chef prepared curry after wiping bottom with his bare hands 'for cultural reasons'
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/chef-prepared-curry-after-wiping-7745790

>>10853633

>>10853687
This. Vegan diet can be full of an assload of sugary carbs if you don't skew towards eating mostly raw foods or veggies. Most just load up on bread, faux meats, and pastas.

>>10853817
You're probably the reason I can't express my opinions without being called /pol/. You're as bad as reddit and neofags. Fuck off with your bait, mate. I'm asking for recipes can make myself, regardless.

>>10853799
>>10853930
If you want a real response...
>I feel like I rely too heavily on meat for a hearty meal. Even chana masala doesn't seem to hit the spot, and I'm leery to add potato.
There is no such thing as a hearty meal without meat. You simply can't achieve the nutritional density of meat with vegan ingredients, aside from artificial shit like Soylent or "veggie burgers." The closest thing you can do is something like dahl and rice, but you need to eat a ton of it; I've found it eventually gives me acid reflux from over-eating by volume, if I eat like that too often.

Before veganfags get on my back about how I should just try it, I actually grew up vegetarian by the choice of my parents. As per the lack of hearty vegetarian meals, I was perpetually hungry. I remember the first time I had a meat meal when I was old enough to make decisions for myself -- I truly felt full for the first time in my life, and it was a wonderful feeling. I drank their koolaid as a child, but after that experience I never looked back on the question of whether to eat meat. Your body knows when it isn't eating right, and you won't feel good.

>>10853463
The absolute state of meatcucks

>>10854343

>>10854707
based beardo weirdo

How can you tell if someone is a vegan?

They tell you

I eat vegan when I'm broke, which is most of the time. I think I can only do that because I have a great bulk store near me that has health food shit for dirt cheap.

>>10853942
I disagree. I think that feeling comes from just getting enough protein. A good tempeh "burger" makes me feel just as satisfied as a beef one. I don't think just lentils would be enough, adding chickpeas might help.

>>10854721

>>10853687
This x1000000

Whether you only eat vegan or you only eat meat, there is an increase in health either side of the spectrum and its due to cutting out all of the processed chemical filled trash in the middle.

I don’t understand how vegans go on and on about how they eat so much healthier and more natural when they have to take a shit-ton of pills and supplements in order to obtain all of their nutrients? Example I saw a recipe for cashew cheese and then I saw the person adding some dust from a pill in it.

This doesn’t make any sense to me.

>>10853463
Dude, as much as I find vegans annoying, that’s just a pic of fruits and vegetables...

>be meatfag
>still like some vegan recipes from time to time
>come into a 30+ replies thread expecting to find some nice gems
>there has been 1 recipe posted and its a link to a different website
can we rename this shit to meme and arguek already?

Ideas for tofu other than mapo tofu, some form of curry, miso soup or just marinated+fried? I'm always cooking those 4 with some variation.

Also stop talking about idealism and philosophy you cunts.

>>10853942
Hey anon, I grew up vegetarian until I was 11, also at the choice of my parents. I don't have any recollection of perpetual hunger, and I'm sure my brother would say the same. A few basic meals I can remember rumpledthumps, bean chilli, vegetable soups, tofu and broccolli and pasta with sauce, along with whatever else my mother decided to whip up where plenty filling, and we almost always had leftovers to enjoy. I don't know if being vegetarian was the problem in your case so much as having parents that didn't know how to cater their vegetarian diet to the nutritional needs of their growing child, be it through bad cooking/poor portioniong/bad nutrional balance/what-have-you, which in my opinion is a gross case of negligence.

Glad you're enjoying meat too now, anon. Nothing beats a well balanced plate of food.

>>10854964
I was vegan for a while and all I had to take was B12 occasionally. B12 doesn't naturally occur in plants nor animals, the B12 in meat comes from supplements given to the animals.

Otherwise, it's all food balance. You can get all the iron/protein/whatever the fuck you need. I only stopped eating like that because it was getting boring.

>>10853633
that's because food execs push lies. remember when milk was considered good for you? at one point cigarettes were too. dont believe anything you see in media

I joined the Salt Lake City vegan group on facebook and all they talked about was impossible burgers and junk food. someone even mentioned fucking taco bell. why are there so many tiny brained vegan idiots that forgot that you're also supposed to eat healthy

>>10853923
> muh carbs

For the same BMI a vegan will have less intermuscular fat deposits, less insulin resistance all while eating more carbs.

>>10854964
>dust from a pill

Probably probiotic. If so they didn't that to supplement, they did that because it's the easiest available vegan source of lactobacillus.

Complaining about this is like complaining about using yeast in a pizza dough.

>>10853716
it is crazy to cling to a "Vegan" identity that purports idealistically, to be the "most ethical" option or "most healthy" or "most harmless" when in reality, big agriculture is synergistically composed of monocultures both plant and animal, and whether the vegan supports only those large industrial plant monocultures does nothing to end the industrial food chain of suffering and poor nutritional output, for the workers, animal and plant products and the environment.

there is a serious lack of knowledge of the actual production of food coming from a vegan, otherwise they couldn't in good conscience say things like "i'm just doing the best i can" and "i'm trying to reduce harm" while supporting large agricultural consortiums that directly trade or are part of the same company with the animal business.

the label of "vegan" is preventing you from supporting the small farms that can actually treat their animals and plants with the care they deserve. Small animal farmers lock their chickens up at night not to "cage them in" but because there are wild animals that will kill them, and the farmer's want to protect them.

my advice is learn to cope with the idea of death. You don't have to eat a dead body, but you should become okay with the idea that everything dies. A chicken on a farm is not necessarily exploited if the farm provides a comfortable and safe life for a chicken that would be stressed trying and failing to survive in the wild. Drop the label of vegan, it is holding you back from actually ethically eating and supporting actual ethical farms.

>>10855143
>B12 doesn't naturally occur in plants nor animals, the B12 in meat comes from supplements given to the animals.
Do vegans actually believe this?

t. liver eater

>>10855230
I guess it’s because you don’t see yeast coming pill forms.

>>10855311
Vegans are philosophical children who have yet to even begin to cope with their own death anxiety, so they project it on their own food. It's a pretty big ask to just ask them to reconcile their lack of acceptance of their own mortality, their absurd harm-reductionist worldview, and reality, all at once.

>>10855311
>does nothing to end the industrial food chain of suffering and poor nutritional output, for the workers, animal and plant products and the environment.

Your mixing up two arguments here. Not doing their best is not the same as doing nothing. There's far less animals, acreage and workers involved to feed an average vegan than an average omnivore. A simple obvious truth.

They could do more to pursue their ethics, they could also do less ... ie. eat supermarket meat. Sourcing ethically raised meat is a lot of effort, veganism can also just be the lazy way out of doing so.

>>10855429
>A simple obvious truth.
It's not true at all. If you're buying normal supermarket products you're still feeding the exact same industrial complex.

>> Sourcing ethically raised meat is a lot of effort
Nonsense. It's even easier than posting propaganda online. Pick up the internet appliance of your choice and order it online. Takes just a few seconds. And while you're at it, seek out some heritage produce. The problem of ethics isn't limited to meat.

>veganism can also just be the lazy way out of doing so.
From a mental perspective, yes. It's much easier to dump everything in the same bucket than it is to evaluate everything, plant-based foods included, on a case-by-case basis.

Pic related.

>>10855453
>It's not true at all.
If you are going to assert it's not a truth don't just spout something non sequitur. Address the point of about number of animals, acreage and workers.

>From a mental perspective, yes. It's much easier to dump everything in the same bucket than it is to evaluate everything, plant-based foods included, on a case-by-case basis.
It's easy and it's not doing nothing. Per capita the average vegan supports less of your reviled industrial system than an average omnivore. To make a change to cause less of something is not doing nothing, another obvious truth.

>>10853782
Post a link where I can read more please.

Can you guys post some damn food already?
I wanna make my vegetables taste better, fuck!

>>10855522
>Address the point of about number of animals, acreage and workers.
Animals: more animals die as a result of farming crops than slaughtering animals to feed people. A single cow provides many many meals. A single bushel of wheat requires far more animals to die, it's just not as obvious because there's no literal slaughterhouse involved. But things like the gopher gasser I posted above kill thousands of animals. so do all the other things involved with agriculture, like mechanized harvesting, fertilizer and pesticide runoff, etc. As for the acreage, understand that not all land is the same. A great deal of land is useless for growing crops that humans can eat, but it does provide fodder for animals. That kind of land is actually treated the best compared to other ag uses because it rarely gets messed with. It's not plowed or fertilized. It's just left wild while animals graze on it.

>>Per capita the average vegan supports less of your reviled industrial system than an average omnivore
I disagree. There is a lot more industrialization in vegan meat-replacement products and nut milks (for example) than there is in a steak or cow's milk.

>> To make a change to cause less of something is not doing nothing
That wasn't my claim at all. My claim was that adopting the vegan religion of "no meat, period" is easier-but-less-beneficial than evaluating everything on a case-by-case basis. (to be continued).

>>10855143
>B12 doesn't naturally occur in plants nor animals, the B12 in meat comes from supplements given to the animals.
>"A synthetic chemical is a necessary nutrient for life"
This is some of the stupidest shit I've ever read. Good job.

For example, there's a local farmer I buy hogs from every once in a while. They have a fantastic old-school operation going. Mostly they grow veggies. But there's a lot of byproduct from that--for example, the parts of a plant that humans cannot eat. They feed those to pigs. They only have a handful on a 90-acre farm. The pigs cost nothing to raise other than vet care since all their feed comes from farm byproduct. The pig's waste is used as fertilizer. They do the same with chickens. Yes, a pig or chicken dies now and then, but the overall loss of life, and dependence on industrial chemicals is far lower than a box of morningstar patties or bag of quorn.

>>10855592
Sorry, forgot to mention that was the continuation of >>10855589

>>10855591
>This is some of the stupidest shit I've ever read. Good job.
IT's right though. B12 comes from neither plants nor animals. It comes from bacteria in soil.

You are aware that there are other things beyond plants, animals, and synthetic, right?

>>10855156
>Durrr milk make my tummy hurt so it bad for you
Hahaha

>>10855544
>I wanna make my vegetables taste better, fuck!
Stop buying industrially farmed shit.
Grow your own or buy from small-scale farmers.

Today's veggies mostly suck because industrialized agriculture has traded away flavor in favor of high yields and durability during shipping and storage.

>>10855156
>dont believe anything you see in media

you don't have to tell me, I always ignore vegan propaganda when I see it.

>>10853687
>If your diet is well balanced and diverse then no, it would be a less healthy choice.
not necessarily... meat, eggs, and dairy are full of hormones and antibiotics.
even if you eat a "well balanced" omnivore diet, you're still consuming a ton of shady chemicals that you wouldn't get as a vegan.

>>10855592
Those 90 acres could be used much more efficiently by an industrial monoculture operation.
There simply isn't enough land in the world to feed everybody from that type of farming operation.
If a lot of people switch to "fantastic old-school operation" like that, then there will be significant habitat loss, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, etc.

>>10855618
>not necessarily... meat, eggs, and dairy are full of hormones and antibiotics.
some are. but you don't have to buy factory farmed meat, you can buy meat that isn't raised with any of that shit.

>>you're still consuming a ton of shady chemicals that you wouldn't get as a vegan.
How so? Modern produce has just as much artificial junk added to it. Imitation meat-replacement products are even worse.

Avoiding things like hormones, pesticides, chemical fertilizers, etc, has nothing to do with being vegan vs. omnivore. Instead it has to do with rejecting industrial ag products.

>>10855636
it only seems efficient because you're not factoring the shitloads and shitloads of oil / non-renewables used in monoculture farming.
there's like 8 calories of oil in each calorie of food you buy.

>>10855636
>Those 90 acres could be used much more efficiently by an industrial monoculture operation.
Efficiently? Sure. But the environmental harm would be far worse, and the quality of the product would not be as high.

>>There simply isn't enough land in the world to feed everybody from that type of farming operation.
On people's current diets? You're right. The idea is to eat less meat, but not zero meat. Small amounts of high quality meat.

>>If a lot of people switch to "fantastic old-school operation" like that, then there will be significant habitat loss, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, etc.
It's the opposite. That farm has a far better biodiversity than the neighboring monoculture farms. And as far as habitat goes, that's improved as well. They encourage native wildlife by feeding & providing next boxes & forage. It turns out that by keeping native wildlife around they don't have to engage in as much pest control via poisons. They rotate their fields so there is always part lying fallow. That's better for the land, uses a lot less fertilizer, and is a wildlife haven.

>>10855589
>That kind of land is actually treated the best compared to other ag uses because it rarely gets messed with. It's not plowed or fertilized. It's just left wild while animals graze on it.
You have to fertilize grazing land or you will destroy it eventually. Humans open the loop by taking the animals out and pooping in the loo, fertilizer replaces what we take.

>>10855679
>some are. but you don't have to buy factory farmed meat, you can buy meat that isn't raised with any of that shit.
if you eat meat regularly, it's basically impossible to avoid.

>Modern produce has just as much artificial junk added to it
not hormones or antibiotics though. just pesticides and fertilizers. and organic veggies are a lot easier to come by than honest meat.

>>10855701
>But the environmental harm would be far worse, and the quality of the product would not be as high.
The localized environmental harm of an industrial operation is worse than a natural operation. But the net environmental harm of feeding a large number of people using industrial operations is less than feeding a large number of people using natural operations.

>On people's current diets? You're right. The idea is to eat less meat, but not zero meat. Small amounts of high quality meat.
I wasn't just talking about meat. I was talking about all of the products produced by such an operation, including crops.

>It's the opposite. That farm has a far better biodiversity than the neighboring monoculture farms.
Better than neighboring farms, yes. But not better than no farm at all. Converting monoculture farms to old-school farms will improve local biodiversity, but it decreases the food output of the farms. Less food output means more farms will have to be built somewhere else, hurting global biodiversity.

>>10855708
>You have to fertilize grazing land or you will destroy it eventually

Nope. The other option is to keep a fairly small number of animals on the land, that way they never eat enough to deplete it. This is very commonly practiced in a lot of the US where vast expanses of land are dirt-cheap and very difficult to do anything else with.

>>10855711
>if you eat meat regularly, it's basically impossible to avoid.
Nonsense. I use my computer to mail-order heritage breed meat. I supplement that with animals that I hunt. None of the meat I cook for myself is factory farmed. I probably do end up consuming some every once in a while when eating out, but I do that very rarely, and when I do eat out it's high-end places that often have small scale ag meat.

>>not hormones or antibiotics though. just pesticides and fertilizers.
Seems like a silly distinction to make when the latter are more dangerous than the former. And as for hormones specifically, the US has a blanket ban on all hormones in pork and poultry. I assume that other countries are similar.

>>and organic veggies are a lot easier to come by than honest meat.
both are equally easy to mail-order with your PC or phone toy. And as for "organic" veggies, that doesn't really help you much, they can still contain a lot of nasties:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience-sushi20110718mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/

"organic" is not good enough.

>>10853463
>mad
>at plants

>>10855744
>But the net environmental harm of feeding a large number of people using industrial operations is less than feeding a large number of people using natural operations.
Sounds like nonsense. If the localized environmental harm is reduced, then wouldn't that extend in a general case? Why does it not scale up?

>> I was talking about all of the products produced by such an operation, including crops.
small scale ag most certainly can produce enough crops. the yield of the farm I just mentioned is on par with the neighboring industrial farms in terms of tons per acre.

>> but it decreases the food output of the farms
Incorrect. It does increase the expense of the product though, I will grant you that.

I don't see that as a problem though. Most of the world has a massive amount of disposable income. We could easily afford better meat and produce if we bought slightly smaller bigscreen TVs and were happy with last month's Ifone toys. Heck, we could both eat better AND save money if more of us cooked at home instead of patronizing the local McFatty's.

>>10855767
>mail order meat
>hunting
yeah, nothing at all inconvenient about that.

>the latter are more dangerous than the former
well the pesticides and fertilizers are in your meat too... what, you think they feed cows organic feed?

>"organic" is not good enough.
i'll give you that.

>>10855767
but also, what site do you order meat from? i'd like to get my omnivore parents eating better shit.

>>10855767
>"organic" is not good enough
Sure, when the USDA wrote the rules for certification they were strong armed by big agri monocultural growers who wanted broad spectrum pesticides included. That's why there's a big push by small and mid sized organic growers who don't use the nasties and grow sustainably to have an even higher level of certification than organic which would leave the monoculturalists using the same scorched earth practices as conventional out of the picture.

>>10855805
>yeah, nothing at all inconvenient about that.
What's inconvenient about mail-order? It's no more effort than shitposting on a Bhutanese marquetry forum. and as for hunting, I personally enjoy it. It's a great way to de-stress, though I can see that not everyone might want to do that.

>>well the pesticides and fertilizers are in your meat too... what, you think they feed cows organic feed?
Factory farmed stuff? I know they are fed utter junk, which is the main reason I refuse to buy it. It's not the fact that an animal has to die that bothers me, it's the utter shit conditions & diet which makes the meat taste bad by comparison. The meat I hunt or mail-order? No pesticides or fertilizers in that.

>>10855143
B12 comes from bacteria that grows in animal guts. Even your supplement isnt vegan.

>>10855808
>what site do you order meat from?
All sorts of places. Off the top of my head:
D'Artagnan
Niman Ranch
Fox Farm
Winfield Farm
Blackberry Farm
Ondarrea foods (seafood)
Benton's
La Tienda
ForTheGourmet.com

>>10855751
>The other option is to keep a fairly small number of animals on the land, that way they never eat enough to deplete it.

So small that unless government is ready to give them a baseball bat to the knees, farmers will not do it. US farmers fucked up the land with free range grazing until government stepped in.

Eventually the lack of micronutrient fertilization on grazed public land will come back to haunt you as well. Eventually there will be nothing left to dissolve from the mineral deposits in the soil and then the micronutrients crater.

>>10855865
>o small that unless government is ready to give them a baseball bat to the knees, farmers will not do it.
Lol, well, that's one way to do it. Another way is to educate customers so that customers demand a higher quality product. Remember, killing animals for food does not bother me. My motivation for wanting meat like this is because it *tastes better*. The market follows public demand. If the public wants higher grade ingredients then the market will follow suit.

>>US farmers fucked up the land with free range grazing until government stepped in.
That hat much more to do with private property rights than it had to do with "land damage".

>>Eventually the lack of micronutrient fertilization on grazed public land will come back to haunt you as well.
Agreed. Animals need to be raised on private land. That way the landowner has motivation not to ruin his land.

>>10855891
Farmers are commercial creatures too ... if depletion is a problem extending far more than a decade in the future then it's irrelevant. Because their competitor isn't solving it right now, returns in a decade won't make you any less bankrupt now.

Cheap range grazing land allows farmers to make bad decisions. Sooner or later (on human timescales) farmed soil is always just a substrate for fertilizer, unless everyone who eats from it, poos and is buried in it too.

Europeans are forced to be smart with their grassland, they can fuck it up in under a decade.

>>10855783
>the yield of the farm I just mentioned is on par with the neighboring industrial farms in terms of tons per acre.
Bullshit.
I can't argue against some magical non-existent natural farm. This absolutely doesn't match the current literature. Solving the world's food problems would be so much easier if these farming practices achieved the same yields as modern industrial monoculture farming.

>Incorrect. It does increase the expense of the product though
If they really have the same yield per acre as industrial operations then where does this extra cost come from?

>>10855863
thanks senpai

>>10855976
>If they really have the same yield per acre as industrial operations then where does this extra cost come from?

Several things. They use heritage seed which has lower yield and requires more water than modern industrial strains. Increased labor. And more costly fertilizer.

>>10855604
It is naturally occurring in animals. The vegan was wrong and stupid.

>>10855636
>Those 90 acres could be used much more efficiently by an industrial monoculture operation.
Not if they aren't suited for an industrial monoculture operation.

>>10856011
>They use heritage seed which has lower yield
Doesn't this contradict what you were saying about the farm having yields as good as industrial farms?
>more costly fertilizer
Environmental impacts of the farm should also include the impacts in the production of the fertilizer. If the fertilizer is more costly then it probably hurts the environment more than the fertilizer used on industrial farms.
If this fertilizer is organic rather than synthesized, there is a huge amount of land use concealed in the production of the fertilizer.

>>10855618
>you're still consuming a ton of shady chemicals that you wouldn't get as a vegan.
#ecoli

>>10855711
>organic veggies
Organic veggies use manure, an animal byproduct, and are therefore not vegan.

>>10856037
>Doesn't this contradict what you were saying about the farm having yields as good as industrial farms?
I didn't say it was 100% as good. Close, but not exactly on par.

>>If the fertilizer is more costly then it probably hurts the environment more than the fertilizer used on industrial farms.
They don't use chemical fertilizer. They buy manure and spread it on the field. It's less dense compared to chemical fertilizers in terms of amount of nitrogen per lb so that means more of it needs to be applied, and the cost per lb of nitrogen is higher.

>>10856063
> They buy manure and spread it on the field.
And how is that manure produced? It needs land to be produced.
So the true yield is considerably worse than you think, because of the land requirements to produce the manure they buy.

>>10855858
Presumably, if the supplement is labeled vegan, the bacteria cultures were grown in a lab and harvested.

>>10855858
B12 comes from soil bacteria that eat cobalt.

>>10856056
Not necessarily. There are green manures like clover and vetch that fix nitrogen from the air into the soil. They can then be plowed in along with other vegetable matter to decompose essentially providing all the required soil nutrients sustainably. Even better is to plant edible legumes like beans and english peas which do the same thing but are food.

There are many powerful techniques for sustainable growing and if researchers hadn't been blocked from developing methods for upscaling to large scale by the mega chemical corporations/big agri we'd be doing large scale sustainable production now instead of continuing to rape the earth with unsustainable, deadly practices.

>>10856056
Synthetic fertilizer is allowed for organic, at least here in the EU. Also natural manure is quite common for non organic as well, washing all those phosphates into the sea would be a waste of money.

>>10856082
>So the true yield is considerably worse than you think, because of the land requirements to produce the manure they buy.

That does take land, yes. Though that's why they're getting more pigs, to reduce the dependence on outside sources. Raising meat and crops at the same time in the correct ratio will eliminate the need for that outside land.

And as for comparing to the monoculture industrial farms, I didn't account for the land occupied by the massive chemical plant which makes their fertilizer either.

>>10856117
Nitrogen is nice, but that leaves phosphorus, potassium, calcium, magnesium, sulfur as well as all the micronutrients.

Unless the vegetable matter you're adding is from a farm with synthetic fertilizer, you'll eventually run out. We wash a ton of stuff down the sewer, something has to replenish it.

>>10856167
It's the same in the US.

For some reason people think that "organic" automatically means all natural when that's a load of manure in itself.

See the link in >>10855767

>>10856194
Meh, they occasionally get it wrong, like with Rotenone. Organic still massively cuts down on how wrong they can get it. Currently the only complex pesticides allowed for organic in my country (Netherlands) are Neem based, Pyrethrins and Spinosad. EU adds bitter-wood based pesticides.

So 3 plant extracts and one batch fermentation product versus the hundreds of complex chemicals non organic growers are allowed to use.

>>10856190
Composted plant material mixed with a good soil has most of the macro and micro nutrients required for veg production. Interestingly, a loam/clay soil has a ton of micronutrients because clay is loaded with them. Potassium, calcium and phosphorous can be supplemented with bone meal and fish emulsion. For veg that require higher sulphur, animal manures contain it.

>>10856194
Synthetic fertilizers are not permitted under USDA organic. As I've said before, the broad spectrum pesticide pyrethrin synthesized from plant toxins is permitted but not used by reputable farmers because it destroys the beneficials as well as the bad guys. It's permitted because it was strong armed in by the scorched earth monoculturalists who wanted to keep a hand in the "organic" pie.

>>10856629
The problem remains, unless you use human manure you're working in an open loop ... there are unavoidable losses. Something has to replenish it. Doing it with fish waste is not going to cut it. So fossil fertilizer is the only option.

>>10855592
Unfortunately the buying a pig from even a small farm still increases demand. It doesn't halt the problem. The actual solution would be to support lab-grown meats, but too many people are on the organic "natural" woo-filled bandwagon to truly get behind it.

>>10855324
>Vegans are philosophical children who have yet to even begin to cope with their own death anxiety, so they project it on their own food
Explain yourselves, vegans.

I like eating plants.

>>10856993
Why? Plants have feelings too, plants' lives matter too.

>>10857051

>>10857071
Why am I masturbating to this?

>>10855636
>Those 90 acres could be used much more efficiently by an industrial monoculture operation.
Oh my God please tell me this is bait
Do vegans actually believe this?

>>10855540
Not that poster, but I've heard the same factoid before myself. Pretty sure it's true. The conflicts were making people unable to cut down the Amazon rainforest, but now many conflicts ended all at once. Can't be arsed to look it up for you, but I'm sure you can take care of that yourself.

>>10856762
You're wrong and have no source, not even propaganda from the mega chemical bastards themselves. Learn sustainability or contribute to the destruction of the only known habitable planet in the universe thinking you or your spawn (in the unlikely event you mate) will be one of the .00000000000001% who might escape the dead planet earth.

>>10857075
huh?

>>10856975
>I accept my own mortality therefore I don't mind unnecessarily killing animals and spoiling the planet
Carnist logic

>>10857486
I don't need any source, common sense suffices. That said, here's the rules for my nation. Only 65% of fertilizer has to be sourced from organic farming (there are still restrictions on the rest).

https://www.skal.nl/biologische-teelt-van-gewassen/voorwaarden-teelt/u-gebruikt-alleen-toegestane-meststoffen/

Common sense prevails. Only nitrogen can be fixed from the sky, but in my country the weather and cost of the land make even that have limited appeal. Everything else which is lost due to leaching, human consumption etc has to be replaced somehow ...

>>10854985
Try a lemon pepper marinade then baked. I’ve also made a pretty decent feta cheese substitute, but you have to press it for a while. If you add cornstarch during cooking it makes the tofu a little crispier. Also if you freeze the package and then thaw it out, it makes the tofu spongier and more absorbent for marinades and sauces after you drain + press it. If you live near an Asian market, I really recommend picking up some fried tofu for $3 for two pounds. Shit is so good.