I’m not arguing in favor of livestock farming in general. The issue with growing soy is that imperialism incentivizes irresponsible use of the land and exploitation of the people and resources of the global south. Soy farming could be done far more responsibly without capitalism.
What would be done with the beans if they weren’t used for livestock feed? They’re being grown anyway because of the oil so there wouldn’t be much of an impact on how much is grown
Yeah the issue I’m concerned with is exploitation of the global south. The food is grown for exports and the farms are owned by people who don’t care about the local population. It’s certainly possible to use crop rotation of lentils, soy, etc to keep the soil fertile. Veganism isn’t the problem, imperialism is. I think reducing dependence on animal products is a goal that should be pursued. I’m just worried about how it will be done by capitalists
Do you have a source on this? I'm skeptical, because everything I've read on the subject has pointed to there being a lot of reasons for soy's ascendance (nitrogen-enriching soil, good protein/fat for livestock, the versatile oil you mentioned). I haven't seen it explained as "it's for the oil, animal feed is incidental byproduct." In fact, when I read about future projections of soy's growth, this growth is almost always tied to its role as a good feed for livestock. Example:
"The importance of soy on the global market is not likely to decrease anytime soon. With growing demand for meat around the world in places such as China, the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) predicts that soy production will continue to increase dramatically, from around 276 million metric tons in 2013 to 390 million metric tons by 2050. Brazil, Bolivia, Paraguay, or Argentina may be likely to fill that demand."
This comes from the most recent article of this sort I've come across:
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/soybeans
Not saying that's like the gospel truth, but since I've never really seen your particular take I'm curious where it's coming from.
https://foodsource.org.uk/building-blocks/soy-food-feed-and-land-use-change
There are some whole-bean products made for humans, but those are grown from specific cultivars that are made to look and taste good to humans. Most soy is not from those cultivars.
70% by weight is livestock feed because the beans are difficult for humans to digest. The oil is extracted for the soy products that humans consume.
deleted by creator
I’m not arguing in favor of livestock farming in general. The issue with growing soy is that imperialism incentivizes irresponsible use of the land and exploitation of the people and resources of the global south. Soy farming could be done far more responsibly without capitalism.
deleted by creator
excuse me youre denying the southern bourgouise agency here youre doing a western chauvinism
deleted by creator
What would be done with the beans if they weren’t used for livestock feed? They’re being grown anyway because of the oil so there wouldn’t be much of an impact on how much is grown
deleted by creator
Yes it would. The 70% figure is by weight. The beans are grown for the oil and the beans themselves are fed to livestock.
deleted by creator
Yeah the issue I’m concerned with is exploitation of the global south. The food is grown for exports and the farms are owned by people who don’t care about the local population. It’s certainly possible to use crop rotation of lentils, soy, etc to keep the soil fertile. Veganism isn’t the problem, imperialism is. I think reducing dependence on animal products is a goal that should be pursued. I’m just worried about how it will be done by capitalists
deleted by creator
Do you have a source on this? I'm skeptical, because everything I've read on the subject has pointed to there being a lot of reasons for soy's ascendance (nitrogen-enriching soil, good protein/fat for livestock, the versatile oil you mentioned). I haven't seen it explained as "it's for the oil, animal feed is incidental byproduct." In fact, when I read about future projections of soy's growth, this growth is almost always tied to its role as a good feed for livestock. Example:
"The importance of soy on the global market is not likely to decrease anytime soon. With growing demand for meat around the world in places such as China, the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) predicts that soy production will continue to increase dramatically, from around 276 million metric tons in 2013 to 390 million metric tons by 2050. Brazil, Bolivia, Paraguay, or Argentina may be likely to fill that demand."
This comes from the most recent article of this sort I've come across:
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/soybeans
Not saying that's like the gospel truth, but since I've never really seen your particular take I'm curious where it's coming from.
https://foodsource.org.uk/building-blocks/soy-food-feed-and-land-use-change There are some whole-bean products made for humans, but those are grown from specific cultivars that are made to look and taste good to humans. Most soy is not from those cultivars.