4 ms·

> Livestock takes up around 80% of agricultural land around the world, yet produces only 20% of the world's supply of calories: https://ourworldindata.org/agric

by addaon 3y ago

> Livestock takes up around 80% of agricultural land around the world, yet produces only 20% of the world's supply of calories: https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets https://ourworldindata.org/agricultural-land-by-global-diets Is this ratio particularly bad? How does this number (4x the land per calorie compared to the agricultural average) compare for, say, broccoli or spinach? My intuition is that 4x is pretty good for anything but grains and perhaps tubers... but I wouldn't know how to start finding evidence one way or the other. Maybe grapes and other densely-growing high-calorie-density fruit are up there with grains?

myshpa 3y ago
If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-kcal-poore https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-kcal-poore https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-per-kg-poore https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-per-kg-poore https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-protein-poore https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-protein-poore
- SAI_Peregrinus 3y ago
  I suspect we'd increase population to match production capacity. Just like every other time we've had an increase in effective resource production, we just increase consumption to match.
  - steve_adams_86 3y ago
    That would arguably still be better for the planet. Plant agriculture is lower-impact and poses far less threat to biodiversity and the human species via disease vectors. Take for example that lettuce is a leading cause of food-born illness. It's actually because there's poop from animals on it, and it almost always comes from agricultural animals with the intent of it functioning as fertilizer. Without that factor, plants would be far safer. There isn't much about animal ag that makes good sense apart from "it tastes good".
steve_adams_86 3y ago
When you’re discussing a limited resource like arable land, 4x is absolutely crazy. We can’t come anywhere close to making 4x sustainable or scalable for the global population.

by addaon 3y ago

myshpa 3y ago

If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-kcal-poore https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-kcal-poore https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-per-kg-poore https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-per-kg-poore https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-protein-poore https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-protein-poore

SAI_Peregrinus 3y ago
I suspect we'd increase population to match production capacity. Just like every other time we've had an increase in effective resource production, we just increase consumption to match.
- steve_adams_86 3y ago
  That would arguably still be better for the planet. Plant agriculture is lower-impact and poses far less threat to biodiversity and the human species via disease vectors. Take for example that lettuce is a leading cause of food-born illness. It's actually because there's poop from animals on it, and it almost always comes from agricultural animals with the intent of it functioning as fertilizer. Without that factor, plants would be far safer. There isn't much about animal ag that makes good sense apart from "it tastes good".

steve_adams_86 3y ago

When you’re discussing a limited resource like arable land, 4x is absolutely crazy. We can’t come anywhere close to making 4x sustainable or scalable for the global population.