3 ms·
Don’t we grow food specifically for livestock though? That must consume a lot of resources (oil, water, etc). I think the argument is the cut out the middle man
by rapind 5y ago
Don’t we grow food specifically for livestock though? That must consume a lot of resources (oil, water, etc). I think the argument is the cut out the middle man (beef / chicken) due to inefficiencies.
I personally suspect the real ratio is less than what’s being cited just because I’m a cynic, but there seems to be some logic to it no?
- frankus 5y ago> Don’t we grow food specifically for livestock though? I think that’s the central point of this thread where folks are talking past one a other. In a hypothetical scenario where animals are more or less only eating food that humans can’t, it makes a lot of sense (from an environmental if not ethical standpoint) to include animals in the mix of foods people eat. The impression I get is that in reality, animals grown for meat consume quite a bit of human-edible food (or food that could be trivially replaced with human-edible varieties), although I have no idea of the actual percentage.
- maxerickson 5y agoYes, lots of agriculture is growing animal feed. Animals get feds lots and lots. Here's a description of finishing cattle, from a beef marketing perspective: https://www.highlandcattleusa.org/content/Grain%20Finished%20Beef.pdf https://www.highlandcattleusa.org/content/Grain%20Finished%2... Casually talks about feeding cattle their weight (or 2x) in corn over the last 3 months of their lives.