4 ms·
Actually, one-third is a pretty small number in the grand scheme of things. Drop it down to zero (asymptotically difficult) and carrying capacity rises by 50%.
by mapt 10y ago
Actually, one-third is a pretty small number in the grand scheme of things. Drop it down to zero (asymptotically difficult) and carrying capacity rises by 50%.
Switch the meat eaters over to grain & legumes (with minimal fresh vegetables), and it rises by something in the 200-1000% range.
- Ygg2 10y agoI don't think it does. Land used for feeding cattle != Land used for farming grains/legumes/vegetables. Plants that we eat require higher quality of land, than ordinary grass. Also it's not an easy transition. Essentially it's like saying if everyone keeps same distance between car behind and front of them, then there would be little to no traffic jam. I mean sure, that's true, but requires a tectonic change in human behavior.
- saalweachter 10y agoYeah, my personal guess is that animals have a place in even the ideal, most efficient agricultural system, even if it is at a lower intensity than in modern American agriculture. Sheep and cattle can graze on land that is not useful for crops. Pigs can eat food waste and reclaim those calories. Chickens can forage in suburban spaces and convert corn quite efficiently. We might be better off feeding less corn to livestock, but keep in mind field corn is one of the most productive crops in modern agriculture -- either we need to start feeding humans a lot more corn meal, or you're stuck planting a less efficient crop in place of corn. Growing corn to feed to pigs and chickens, while supplementing their diet with foraging and food waste, is not that crazy of a prospect, from a land use perspective.