7 ms·
> and the ones that we do, we consume only a tiny minority of the plant (most of the time) So do the animals. The soy and wheat we feed the animals is a tiny
by xexers 10y ago
> and the ones that we do, we consume only a tiny minority of the plant (most of the time)
So do the animals. The soy and wheat we feed the animals is a tiny portion of the plant... so what? If we have 1000 calories of wheat, it's better to feed that to a human, than a cow; The cow will only produce 100 calories of meat for the same grains that we would have eaten.
- jimmywanger 10y ago> So do the animals. Not really. Cows, goats, sheep raised somewhat naturally eat grass and leaves and twigs, things we cannot digest. They can also eat the parts of the tomato that we don't eat, such as the stalks and leaves. If you're talking about feeling animals with grains, the way we grow grains is even more problematic, with huge amounts of petroleum and water inputs.
- xexers 10y ago> Cows, goats, sheep raised somewhat naturally eat grass and leaves and twigs, things we cannot digest That's correct. The problem is, 99% of our animals in america are not raised that way [1]. They are raised eating soy, wheat, and corn. Grass is more expensive, so it's not used. [1]: https://farmforward.com/ending-factory-farming/ https://farmforward.com/ending-factory-farming/
- jimmywanger 10y ago> Grass is more expensive, so it's not used. Nit: grass is less profitable. The expense of grass is nothing, but it takes longer to raise the livestock to pasture weight and the meat is less marbled and gamier in texture, which drives the price down.