Experts say current US outbreak is unlikely to end without intervention with further mutation of virus likely

Summary

A new H5N1 bird flu variant has become “endemic in cows,” with cases detected in Nevada and Arizona, raising concerns about human transmission.

Experts warn that without intervention, the outbreak will continue, but Trump has cut CDC staff and halted flu vaccination campaigns.

The virus’s spread coincides with a severe flu season, increasing the risk of mutation.

The administration has also stopped sharing flu data with the WHO and shifted its containment strategy away from culling infected poultry, raising fears of inadequate response.

  • That Annoying Vegan
    9·
    7 hours ago

    I try to buy local fruit and veg only. Fun fact: if we all went vegan, we could free up 70-80% of the land currently being used for animal ag. We could rewild that land and still have excess food. We currently grow enough plants to feed 15B people, but we feed that to the animals instead.

    • NSRXN@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      6·
      7 hours ago

      We currently grow enough plants to feed 15B people, but we feed that to the animals instead.

      a lot of the plant matter fed to animals is parts of plants we can’t or won’t eat.

      and a lot of the land used isn’t crop land, but grazing land

      and they’re is no reason to believe the land would ever be rewilded.

      • tree_frog@lemm.eeEnglish
        9·
        6 hours ago

        It’s mostly corn.

        Granted, it’s not processed in a way to be fit for human consumption.

        But still, most of it is corn. Some of it is corn cobs and stalks but most of it is kernels.

        Outside of that, other grains are very common. Oats for example.

        So, they are right. Raising plants to feed animals so we can eat the animals is less efficient than raising plants for us to eat. Especially in regards to cattle. Which is one of the most inefficient things in the US food system. The only reason it’s so cheap is because of subsidation, both of the cattle and the corn that’s grown to feed them.

        And countries much larger than our own survive on rice and beans just fine. As queerminest eluded to in her comment.

        As far as local food, I have a co-op. So I buy local vegetables and fruits when I can.

        • NSRXN@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          2·
          6 hours ago

          it’s not mostly kernels. livestock are fed the entire plant, and the kernels are a slim minority of the weight.

        • NSRXN@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          1·
          6 hours ago

          Raising plants to feed animals so we can eat the animals is less efficient than raising plants for us to eat.

          if that were the situation, you might be right. but since we actually feed livestock mostly crop seconds and byproducts, it’s actually a conservation of resources in a lot of situations, with minimal competition with human food sources

          • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml
            4·
            5 hours ago

            Where they emit the most methane and still are given supplementary feed. There’s also not enough land to sustain a grazing only production system with the massive demand we have

            We model a nationwide transition [in the US] from grain- to grass-finishing systems using demographics of present-day beef cattle. In order to produce the same quantity of beef as the present-day system, we find that a nationwide shift to exclusively grass-fed beef would require increasing the national cattle herd from 77 to 100 million cattle, an increase of 30%. We also find that the current pastureland grass resource can support only 27% of the current beef supply (27 million cattle), an amount 30% smaller than prior estimates

            […]

            Taken together, an exclusively grass-fed beef cattle herd would raise the United States’ total methane emissions by approximately 8%.

            https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401/pdf

      • lumpybag@reddthat.comEnglish
        5·
        6 hours ago

        Even just replacing 25-50% meat with plants in the US would have incredible outcomes for the people. I guarantee we would be a far healthier population. The cheap meat being served up to Americans is not good.

      • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml
        1·
        5 hours ago

        Still results in overall reductions in arable-land usage. Even more than just eliminating 100% of food-waste

        we show that plant-based replacements for each of the major animal categories in the United States (beef, pork, dairy, poultry, and eggs) can produce twofold to 20-fold more nutritionally similar food per unit cropland. Replacing all animal-based items with plant-based replacement diets can add enough food to feed 350 million additional people, more than the expected benefits of eliminating all supply chain food loss.

        https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1713820115

        Grazing usage isn’t free from harms either

        Livestock farmers often claim that their grazing systems “mimic nature”. If so, the mimicry is a crude caricature. A review of evidence from over 100 studies found that when livestock are removed from the land, the abundance and diversity of almost all groups of wild animals increases

        https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/16/most-damaging-farm-products-organic-pasture-fed-beef-lamb

    • dmtalon@infosec.pub
      1·
      7 hours ago

      My point is, you try to… I try to also, but in the dead of winter there’s no a local fruit and veggies. I’m also not vegan/vegetarian, I eat meat. Fish, and chicken primarily but I don’t raise either, so I have to rely on someone else to do that for me.

      We do actually get probably half our eggs from someone at my wife’s work, and some. fruits and vegetables at the farmers market down the street in the summer. But they’re closed now and have been most of winter.

      It’s harder than just saying “just stop” was my point. I’d love to be part of the solution where I can but there’s zero chance of me not eating meat if it’s available.

      • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml
        4·
        5 hours ago

        It’s worth noting that environmentally, where the food comes from matters far far less than what you eat. Production emissions are far larger than any transportation emissions

        Transport is a small contributor to emissions. For most food products, it accounts for less than 10%, and it’s much smaller for the largest GHG emitters. In beef from beef herds, it’s 0.5%.

        Not just transport, but all processes in the supply chain after the food left the farm – processing, transport, retail and packaging – mostly account for a small share of emissions.

        This data shows that this is the case when we look at individual food products. But studies also shows that this holds true for actual diets; here we show the results of a study which looked at the footprint of diets across the EU. Food transport was responsible for only 6% of emissions, whilst dairy, meat and eggs accounted for 83%.

        https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local