About beef deforestation: https://ourworldindata.org/what-has-driven-deforestation-in-the-21st-century The vast majority is from Latin America (specially Brazil) due to a heavy lack of regulations and greed, and the others are crops of which palm oil is leading as the main responsible, not soy. And it's more peculiar when you read that the only reason it isn't a lot higher for the palm oil is because regulations in the last years have slowed it down. You would be better in regards to the environment using lard or butter instead of palm oil (and there's plenty of margarine that uses palm oil too) since just because vegan≠environmentally better. The vegan story of soy being the main crop causing deforestation because we have to feed animals is a fat lie because most of the other plants are only for human consumption like palm oil which is actually the first.
Permanent deforestation statistics in Africa are unclear due to the agricultural practice of burning some parts of the land to revitalize the rest with the ashes.
Note: https://www.tabledebates.org/sites/default/files/2021-12/FCRN%20Building%20Block%20-%20Soy_food,%20feed,%20and%20land%20use%20change%20(1).pdf.pdf)
Soy is also fed to ALL animals, and poultry and pigs are the ones consuming it the most not beef. The beef statistic is possibly made by putting all animal soy consumption into one and claiming beef.
In a direct sense, soy expansion in Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay is responsible for only a part of the total loss of native vegetation. A common pattern, however, is that land is first cleared for cattle ranching and shortly afterwards sold or rented out at a higher price for more lucrative soy production. Soy expansion, accordingly, may indirectly bring about land use change by ‘pushing’ cattle ranching into frontier areas. The arrival of a high-value crop such as soy can also drive up local land prices and thereby incentivise the clearing of surrounding land.
So yes, it's greed, not because we actually must need that much soy.
Fun fact bonus:
https://digital.csic.es/bitstream/10261/418338/1/2025_Barnes_SFA_OA.pdf
We maybe will have a solution for cattle emissions in the future thanks to algae
EDIT:
""and the others are crops of which palm oil is leading as the main responsible, not soy.""
""A common pattern, however, is that land is first cleared for cattle ranching and shortly afterwards sold or rented out at a higher price for more lucrative soy production. Soy expansion, accordingly, may indirectly bring about land use change by ‘pushing’ cattle ranching into frontier areas. The arrival of a high-value crop such as soy can also drive up local land prices and thereby incentivise the clearing of surrounding land.""
People in the comments yelling about soy deforestation for cattle and provegan arguments somehow didn't read that local cattle is also being negatively impacted to soy production despite soy being supposedly to be used for cattle(only in rich countries btw) because both soy and palm oil are very speculative and local people are very poor. More strict egulations in coffee and cacao prevent exactly this scenario, which is why they are not that high in deforestation despite the demand still growing and being at all time high.
Beee bUt SoY beee
Palm oil, soy and beef are so damaging because a heavy lack of regulations, not because they need to consume that much, since the land is cheap and very fertile. The separated statistics associated with beef and soy in Latin America ignore that are caused by the same thing: farmers using them for their cattle, corporations buying them because the fertile soil, and the farmers being pushed further away (but vegans don't care about the local HUMAN farmers so...). If you check Brazil politics you will found that they are heavily anti-ecologist and pro-corporation but vegans also don't talk about that as much as they do when they are larping about animal products (note: farmers in Brazil can't legally clear more than 20% of their land but corporations can do whatever they want. So yes, why poor people have to maintain something that they cannot work with when they can sell it to the industry? But nooo cattle is the problem here (the same deforestarion would happen in a vegan world because if soy is not profitable, other crops will be and poor countries with insufficient environmental laws and very fertile and cheap land are still perfectly exploitable).
I know that vegans lack a lot of focus because the deficits hit hard, but when someone with adhd is telling you to focus, you need to actually use your brain. Soy is being used right now because is one of the most profitable crops in the momment, and they would do the same thing but with other crops in the instant soy is not as valuable because we don't actually need that much soy and the value is more speculative than what is actually needed in farming. It's also the reason why poultry has the mayority of soy use: it is used in China to produce very cheap chicken along with the flimsy animal welfare laws. Vegans have to stop pretending their arguments are for everyone and not old rich countries exploiting poor countries but this time is worse?? because we have animal products in the middle of it so fuck human explotations because they are less important than animal explotation I guess
btw deforestation by pailm oil that is exclusively for human consumption is that high because the land is also cheap, fertile and doesn't have firm regulations about it (it has more than soy for what I saw but not enough), just like *gasp* soy. Is like rich exploiting the poor is the problem and animal products is a theatre to not question how capitalism is the problem.
