4 ms·
The point is that if the food is not meat we need like up to 75% less crops, which is completely attainable without synthetic fertilizer.
by tarsinge 6y ago
The point is that if the food is not meat we need like up to 75% less crops, which is completely attainable without synthetic fertilizer.
- ekianjo 6y agoClaiming it does not make it so.
- tovej 6y agoEvery addition of a new consumer in a food chain brings with it a high rate of energy loss. The cow will need to use its energy to live, only a small portion of the energy is left in the steak you eat. 75% is a good approximation. In general, the shorter the food chain, the more efficient it is. This is a universally known fact. I will drop some helpful links for you if you doubt this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_flow_(ecology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_flow_(ecology) https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z2m39j6/revision/6 https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z2m39j6/revision/6 https://scienceaid.net/biology/ecology/food.html#ecological_pyramids https://scienceaid.net/biology/ecology/food.html#ecological_...
- tarsinge 6y agoSource: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use https://ourworldindata.org/land-use The figure given is 77% of agricultural land is used for livestock
- tremon 6y agoThat land use figure includes grazing areas, not just crop fields.