16 ms·
I don't think that your conclusion follows from your argument. You could say the same thing about directly eating vegetables -- they can be fed to animals we no
by swolchok 8y ago
I don't think that your conclusion follows from your argument. You could say the same thing about directly eating vegetables -- they can be fed to animals we normally eat (e.g., cattle).
More directly to your point, isn't there significant energy inefficiency from eating higher on the food chain?
- acomjean 8y agoIt’s less efficient higher up the food chain. I think the point being made is a grasshopper, goats or cows can digest plants a human could never and get sustenance out of. They have different food processing stomachs
- privacypoller 8y agoI agree with your points - each step of processing feed material leaks some of the efficiencies gained by harvesting at lower levels. Generally the benefits from chaining production come from the lower level consuming the waste products of the higher level, like fertilizing aquatic plants with fish waste. Where insects could make a big difference is replacing more expensive or less effective inputs into higher-level products, ideally commodities. For example, if we could produce breads using crickets that have higher caloric densities for the same price that would be a huge global win. We're not there yet though.
- adrianN 8y agoEvery step up on the food chain loses roughly 90% of the energy.