3 ms·

That's not true in the US. Less than 15% of the feed used for animals would be edible for humans, and much of the land in the US is not suitabe for growing crop

by hkeide 7y ago

That's not true in the US. Less than 15% of the feed used for animals would be edible for humans, and much of the land in the US is not suitabe for growing crops other than grass. Most of the food given to animals are farm waste products and leaves etc. Using regenerative farming, cows can even be net carbon negative, meanwhile a lot of human feed uses artificial fertilizer which is a big contributor to carbon emissions. See White Oak Pastures for an example (verified by third parties): https://blog.whiteoakpastures.com/hubfs/WOP-LCA-Quantis-2019.pdf https://blog.whiteoakpastures.com/hubfs/WOP-LCA-Quantis-2019...

gdubs 7y ago
Oak Savanna and regenerative farming, in general, are great things. If we committed to only farming animals in these types of regenerative systems, it would _greatly_ reduce the supply. As a vegetarian, I’m all for that. As someone who really wants us to address climate change, I’m all for that. The fact is, our current system not only ignores the negative externalities of (animal intensive) agriculture — we subsidize it. That’s why I think a carbon tax is a good idea. It would mean meat would become more expensive. This angers a lot of people. But if we get serious about measuring the actual environmental effects of agriculture, it needs to be reflected in the cost. To me, if we solve this problem the world would eat a lot more plants, and the meat that is consumed would be produced by carbon negative, regenerative practices.
bjoli 7y ago
That is not what I said. I said that fodder production takes up a very large part of arable land. In my home country, animal feed and human food take up the same amount of area. That land is suitable for growing human food as well. I suspect that arable land use is about the same in the US. Land that is capable of storing carbon is generally great farmland since the process in carbon sinks is what leads to humus.

by hkeide 7y ago

gdubs 7y ago

Oak Savanna and regenerative farming, in general, are great things. If we committed to only farming animals in these types of regenerative systems, it would _greatly_ reduce the supply. As a vegetarian, I’m all for that. As someone who really wants us to address climate change, I’m all for that. The fact is, our current system not only ignores the negative externalities of (animal intensive) agriculture — we subsidize it. That’s why I think a carbon tax is a good idea. It would mean meat would become more expensive. This angers a lot of people. But if we get serious about measuring the actual environmental effects of agriculture, it needs to be reflected in the cost. To me, if we solve this problem the world would eat a lot more plants, and the meat that is consumed would be produced by carbon negative, regenerative practices.

bjoli 7y ago

That is not what I said. I said that fodder production takes up a very large part of arable land. In my home country, animal feed and human food take up the same amount of area. That land is suitable for growing human food as well. I suspect that arable land use is about the same in the US. Land that is capable of storing carbon is generally great farmland since the process in carbon sinks is what leads to humus.