• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About moonshadow

  • Rank
  1. Option e) ”Composting is the preferred method of carcass disposition in animal agriculture for animals that either die or must be euthanized. It accelerates the decomposition and provides for soil enrichment. “-“Farming guy” – And according to my research it sounds useful ie for replacing chemical fertilizers.
  2. “Option d) Leave the carcass where it fell and eat the flies.” Okay but I’m not necessarily talking about a carcass but let’s say I was, is there a benefit to this or is just an alternative assuming we follow the same safety procedures we would with eating animals? “The circle of life is about more than just food.” Right I realize this but I’m not suggesting upending the circle of life just trying to see what the benefits of each way are in terms of food just because that’s the purpose that I’m interested in, humans will still ultimately end up contributing themselves in one way or another which leads me to maybe a key question, is there a benefit to a human being and an animal dying separately and contributing to the circle of life vs. a human being eating the animal and then eventually dying by themselves? "Without oil, there is almost no food production." Ya, I read this somewhere but it wasn't backed up by anything so I assumed it wasn't necessarily science but it seems like both of you are saying it like it’s obvious? Do you mean like modern day food production or just the natural process (because I don't think my ancestors used oil in any way =p). But as mentioned above the circle of life will continue obviously but what I find interesting about this is my research seemed to indicate that oil is a resource that is a fast depleting one vs it’s production. But that’s an entirely different topic I would say plus it’s already probably been beaten to death elsewhere I would assume lol.
  3. "Nothing is lost, the problem is, where is the gain? The circle of life goes much deeper than what lives and dies now, oil comes from what died 'then'. A benefit now doesn't equal advantage tomorrow; whilst we keep borrowing from 'then', our ledger will never see black" Well I’m more interested in the production of food than oil from dead bodies since you can’t eat oil but that’s interesting. "There is no theory (even scientific theory) here." Well I’m just a physics student so I’m sure the following interpretation of all the facts is riddled with a fair amount of holes but based on what you've told me and my own research I've tried to compare the three options in optimal conditions, assuming there are no concerns like epidemic for the specific animal. Option a) I or someone eats the animal obtaining some organic molecules/some energy and the organic transfer isn’t perfect but unless there’s some big difference in efficiency (between eating a plant and animal) enough to tilt the scales between the options then I wouldn’t see that as relevant? Option b) If I could bury it on a farm (theoretically for argument’s sake) it would enrich the soil and contribute to all the natural cycles like the carbon and nitrogen cycle probably but I could instead achieve the same soil enrichment part using fertilizer “mined” from sources like poo or apparently air and water so option a) plus just using fertilizer instead should result in more gain food wise?(i.e 100% for burial vs. 120% from eating and using air/water/poo for the soil enrichment) Option b2) I bury it elsewhere and the same waste of soil enrichment is achieved? Option c) I cremate the already dead animal releasing C02 and H20 which I could theoretically capture using some type of sealed box I guess? And proceed to use that somehow for farming (which may sound messed up but I’m just considering all the options), but while burning the animal, energy is converted to heat so that would also have to theoretically also be used for farming (which seems legit from one google search =p). So nothing seems to be wasted in an ideal scenario? Option c2) I cremate it elsewhere and the C02 and H20 is used for various other purposes than farming so I would say this is below 100% transfer? So my conclusion from the above is that c) and a) are both fair options for agriculture/farming but depending on the region animals could be thought of as a separate area of food production since farming needs are already met, that and the infrastructure needed for option c) make option a) seem like the best option. Just from the little research I did it does ring true that nothing is wasted in the sense that nothing is lost but where it goes, comes from and how useful it is can be arguably important if one wants to compare the methods in relation to food production.
  4. Ya I figured but don't close the topic in case anyone wants to try to answer that in some way(even if it's just the theories of each process), thanks for all your help sensei =). I found it funny that you answered cuz I watch a lot of anime lol.
  5. Ya I figured on the co2 and h2o just confirming, and what I was trying to ask is which way is more efficient in a theoretical sense only lol. I burn the animal and it produces CO2 and H2O you said that will be used by plants or I bury it or I or someone eats the animal which way gains more food for humanity/which way is more efficient? I think the answer might be obvious but without any scientific backup I feel ignorant so, if I ate the animal and gained say 100 calories(if that's a good measure of food) or I buried it or I burnt it would the resulting plant gain(eventually) be equivalent to 100 calories or less? Or maybe in other words what is lost in both processes?
  6. Cool, personally I wouldn't want to be cloned so you're making me afraid of burial =p. And how does it reach farms, winds or some other process like the clouds(sorry for asking so many questions)? And if say an animal dies and we burn it, it wouldn't be the equivalent of eating it right? Things would be lost through the process regardless of how we try to contribute to the circle of life(burning, or burial)?
  7. So does that mean the circle of life is fueled by animals being decomposed or is the circle of life not integral to farming/not helpful to human beings?