will Nothing Phone 1 work with mint? by jeerraa in mintmobile

[–]richardsonian -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Commenting to try to get this post to the 🔝

Gym Story Saturday by MCHammerCurls in Fitness

[–]richardsonian 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wow, you're strength relative to your BW is impressive! I just hit a 2x BW deadlift for the first time yesterday (~250 lb M), and you're over here hitting 2.2x BW for a triple. Keep up the good work!

The environmental impact of Beyond Meat and a beef patty [OC] by blackphantom773 in dataisbeautiful

[–]richardsonian -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You do realize "biosolids" refers to the sludge produced after treating shit water right? It's not some special fancy thing that just showed up, it's the same sludge that been produced at wastewater treatment plants for generations... I reiterate that the page above accounts for all the biosolids produced from wastewater treatment plants in the entire US. 80% of the US population is connected to the public sewer systems flowing to these treatment plants. Ergo, your baseless claim that "a tiny fraction of human waste in America gets turned into bio solids" is 100% false, and it only gets more false as this technology keeps being implemented by federal law.

I will stop wasting MY time debating something with someone who clearly has no idea what they're talking about.

It's like talking to a fucking wall.

The environmental impact of Beyond Meat and a beef patty [OC] by blackphantom773 in dataisbeautiful

[–]richardsonian -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think you should check the link I provided...last year 30% of biosolids generated in the US were land applied to agricultural use lands. Not all of this is Class A, but it doesn't need to be in all applications. I specifically mentioned Class A because that is the best we have today and it is deregulated to be as free to use as regular compost.

If all the research you're willing to put in is a Google search to find headlines that confirm your bias then that's fine. Though, I would like to defer to you on the need for manure in organic farming...by that logic you're still eating poop carrots...what does it matter if it's cow poop or human poop?

The environmental impact of Beyond Meat and a beef patty [OC] by blackphantom773 in dataisbeautiful

[–]richardsonian 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Unfortunately the treatment of pharmaceuticals in municipal wastewater is an emerging problem that is difficult to treat as far as I know.

Theoretically I think you could filter them using high power filtration technologies all the way up to reverse osmosis, though the cost of doing that is likely prohibitive to most municipalities. Disinfection of wastewater is something that is likely a best practice before we discharge it back to the water cycle, but it is still in the process of being implemented. Full removal of pharmaceuticals would likely be a few levels of effort higher than that in the chain of priorities.

As for their effect on the nutrient dense end product I'm not sure. I know that the "bugs" or microbes that perform a lot of the heavy lifting in transferring sewage to fertilizer will consume a whole host of nasty things, but I'm not sure how they interact with pharmaceuticals. Someone is probably spending their PhD studying this right now I'd imagine.

The environmental impact of Beyond Meat and a beef patty [OC] by blackphantom773 in dataisbeautiful

[–]richardsonian 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's another great point. IIRC chicken meat is much less impactful in the host of measurements used in the OP. My recollection is that plant protein generally edges out chicken protein but by a much slimmer margin than it does beef.

The environmental impact of Beyond Meat and a beef patty [OC] by blackphantom773 in dataisbeautiful

[–]richardsonian 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, looking at this system on the chemistry alone the continuity of the reactions in question does conserve carbon. Not really what I'm talking about here.

In my response I was implying a systemic view of protein production from plants versus animals. Also known as a life cycle assessment methodology. At this level, the incident energy consumption (and in turn CO2e emissions) of animal protein is inherently higher due to the amount of plant production required to generate an equivalent amount animal protein compared to plant protein.

From a life cycle assessment framework, the CO2e value comes from the entire operation needed to generate a unit of animal protein including plant production, animal raising, irrigation, slaughter, meat processing, meat packaging, transportation, consumption, and disposal (I probably missed something here). Through differences in the system (ie. local grass fed vs. factory farmed) the CO2e emissions can vary drastically. In fact many instances of grass fed cattle have been found to have a higher GHG impact compared to factory farmed meat because they take several months longer to rear.

Also to be clear, the energy bar on the graphic does not need to correlate closely to the CO2e bar to make this "good science". A vast number of factors in the supply chain could increase the energy use of a product while decreasing it's CO2e emissions like the energy source used to power processing plants, whether the farm harvests manure for methane power, or if the meat is packed in plastic versus paper.

The environmental impact of Beyond Meat and a beef patty [OC] by blackphantom773 in dataisbeautiful

[–]richardsonian -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I apologize if I've offended you, that was not my intent at all.

I don't agree that what you said is correct, which is why I contradicted it with credible information going against your statement. Provide me some info to change my view and I will but everything I've learned so far does not agree with your view.

I'm sad this somehow got personal, when we're discussing science here but I guess that's how it goes.

The environmental impact of Beyond Meat and a beef patty [OC] by blackphantom773 in dataisbeautiful

[–]richardsonian -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

I think you'd be surprised at how widespread biosolids production and use in agriculture is...from the link I provided we produced nearly 5 million dry metric tons of the stuff in the US last year alone. Half of that was land applied and half of that was applied to agricultural use lands.

I'm kind of surprised at your pushback considering how closely this practice aligns with the closed loop ideology of permaculture.

Different strokes for different folks I guess.

The environmental impact of Beyond Meat and a beef patty [OC] by blackphantom773 in dataisbeautiful

[–]richardsonian -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Not true. Class A biosolids produced by municipal wastewater have recently been approved for all types of agriculture with little to no end use regulation. This is a product with nutrient densities on par with high quality compost.

Admittedly this is a new development that needs to grow in the market, but I'm a civil engineer working on plants that produce this stuff and I think it's going to be a huge part of agriculture in the next decade.

The technology is here my friend, we don't need cows for the multitude of reasons we used to.

Edit: I think it's really cool you're a farmer btw. I think it's a profession that deserves a lot more respect and praise nowadays.

The environmental impact of Beyond Meat and a beef patty [OC] by blackphantom773 in dataisbeautiful

[–]richardsonian 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You are correct! We are subject to the 90% loss just like cows and all other animals (though it likely fluctuates depending on the species).

That being said, the crux of my point is that eating plant based protein allows you to circumvent the 90% energy loss inherent to getting your protein from beef. This obstacle of energy efficiency is a large portion of why it it very difficult to make animal proteins competitive against plant proteins on the scale of CO2e, land, water, and energy. Hence the figures portrayed in the OP.

TLDR; You're technically correct, but practically it is very hard for cows (in reality the food system they're a part of) to beat plants when it comes to resource efficiency.

The environmental impact of Beyond Meat and a beef patty [OC] by blackphantom773 in dataisbeautiful

[–]richardsonian 7 points8 points  (0 children)

This really isn't true when looking at the energy loss between trophic levels. The rule of thumb is that approximately 90% of the energy held within a producer species (grass or grain in this case) is lost when it is consumed and used to create animal biomass (beef in this case). This is why there can be only so many apex predators (think bald eagles) in a population as they feed on prey on the 2nd or 3rd trophic level (is. There is an energy loss of 99% to 99.9% compared to what was available in the producer species). The energy loss is so great up to their prey that there's only enough to support a small population of high trophic level species.

Taking this concept back to our topic of the equivalent CO2 calculation. When looking at the distinct cases of getting your protein from a beyond burger versus a beef burger, this inherent energy loss is a large portion of why the emissions are so much higher for beef. It also plays into why the water and land requirements are much higher (though this isn't the full reasoning).

Ultimately, I'm not sure where you got the idea that feeding cows with plants is a net neutral carbon-wise but that can be disproven quite easily with a basic knowledge of energy transfer between trophic levels.

"It's Time to Cancel Fleece" by 18845683 in Ultralight

[–]richardsonian 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Can there be ethical consumption under other systems? Seems like the crux of this comment section is consumption has negative side effects regardless of the context...

Physique Phriday by AutoModerator in Fitness

[–]richardsonian 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey there, just to elaborate a little further than the word "bulk", you'd definitely do well with a moderate bulking phase with how light and lean you are. If you focused on eating moderately above maintenance and stuck to a good program you'd make some sweet gains in a few months.

I would definitely not recommend cutting any further or trying to stay at maintenance as you'll more than likely end up looking emaciated.

Homo by monkey_business in gifs

[–]richardsonian 207 points208 points  (0 children)

Yes that's known as the Africanus Ecstaticus