2 ms·
> and usually fed from land that could have grown crops for humans directly. That's not necessarily true. I think you are underestimating the amount of land th
by vilmosi 10y ago
> and usually fed from land that could have grown crops for humans directly.
That's not necessarily true. I think you are underestimating the amount of land that's suitable for animal farming but not crops. It's a lot.
> Only a fraction of the energy we put into animals gets returned when we eat them, which means it's far more energy-efficient to eat the plants directly.
That's technically correct but still wrong. We can't eat grass and lichens, no matter how many calories they have. Animals can.
- scandinavegan 10y agoI was mainly thinking about soybeans, not humans eating grass. 75% of soy bean production goes to animal feed, and more than 50% of US, and 40% of worldwide, grain production goes to animals instead of directly to humans, where it's inefficiently converted to energy humans consume. All this because people like the taste of meat and because of tradition. Other resources, such as fossil fuels and water, are used at a much higher rate when raising animals than when producing crops. Grain-fed beef production uses 100 000 liters of water per kilogram of food produced, broiler chicken 3500 liters per kilogram, and soybeans 2000 liters per kilogram. Water is a precious resource in many places of the world. This is the way the world works today, but you don't argue for animal products over vegetables, you argue for grass-feed animals instead of crop-fed. You should vote with your wallet and only buy grass-fed meat, both when you cook at home, when you buy an animal-based snack, or when you go to a restaurant. I think that many meals would have to be vegetarian, because a purely grass-fed meat, dairy, and egg diet would be hard to uphold.