4 ms·
It's 77% (why round up to artificially boost your narrative?) and this source is intentionally misleading as "This includes grazing land for animals" (I couldn'
by ascar 4y ago
It's 77% (why round up to artificially boost your narrative?) and this source is intentionally misleading as "This includes grazing land for animals" (I couldn't find an exact source but probably around 30mil km2 of the 40mil km2, e.g. derived from [1]) . Most of this land isn't suitable for producing crops, especially without fertilizers (which bring their own host of problems) and thus the livestock provides additional food that we otherwise wouldn't have. Also worth mentioning that grazing livestock is a natural source of fertilizer.
I'm not arguing against us eating too much meat. We do! Using land usable for human crop production to feed livestock is incredibly inefficient. But your linked graph is just pushing a narrative that's just not true to that extent.
[1] https://www.fao.org/3/x5304e/x5304e03.htm https://www.fao.org/3/x5304e/x5304e03.htm
- steve_adams_86 4y agoYou really opened my eyes to some new and important information about how agriculture works. You’re right, that statistic is misleading. We wouldn’t be using grazing land for anything agricultural if not feeding animals. I definitely won’t use this statistic anymore. For what it’s worth, I didn’t meant to skew things with that 3% in a disingenuous way. Since I had the number 77 I should have used it though, you’re right. This has sent me down quite a rabbit hole of understanding agricultural practices, their impacts on the environment, and many other parts of this complex system of how humans sustain themselves. The information is hard to find, surprisingly. It’s good to get a little closer to the truth, though. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.