3 ms·
> you get somewhere around 35% That still has to be in the millions or billions of acres globally. No?
by TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
> you get somewhere around 35%
That still has to be in the millions or billions of acres globally. No?
- ender341341 4y agoI think the rest of what that post is saying is that 35% is an important part of soil maintenance (ie avoiding another dust bowl). Though I do think with testing we should still be able to drastically reduce the amount of land needed, though likely not exactly 1:1 with previous animal consumption.
- randomdata 4y agoBillions, it would appear. But that doesn't necessarily mean that billions of acres can be taken out of service. While local conditions don't perfectly extrapolate to the world, remember that 100% of my acres grow human food when observed over the span of more than one year. The 35% animal food production seen in a single year is the outcome of the crop rotation. Certainly, I'd be far more profitable if I could reliably grow beans for human consumption over and over and over, but Mother Nature is a harsh mistress.