3 ms·
> 2M tons of wild fish used to produce 27% less farmed salmon ... > The issue is not the absolute number but that you are using more to produce less. But this
by enriquto 2y ago
> 2M tons of wild fish used to produce 27% less farmed salmon ...
> The issue is not the absolute number but that you are using more to produce less.
But this will always be the case when growing animals. The 83% number seems quite efficient to me.
I'd bet that the weight of a cow is a way smaller percentage of the weight of grass needed to grow it. Surely closer to 1%.
- forty 2y ago> But this will always be the case when growing animals. Yes. The question is: should we continue growing animals then?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- inglor_cz 2y agoThe case of grass-fed beef is less clear-cut than you seem to imply. We cannot directly eat grass or grass products, grassy lands depend on big ruminants to thrive, and are often unsuitable for intense agriculture. Grass is one of the most efficient ways of nature to turn sunlight and water into biomass. Feeding animals on it and using animals products for humans is a great way to use resources. Of course, that doesn't necessarily imply eating their meat. In India, cows are holy and only their milk and milk products are used to feed people.
- forty 2y agoYes! You are right, my question was more target towards animal that we eat, producing milk and eggs have probably a better environmental impact/protein
- alexey-salmin 2y agoThe answer is: yes, we should.
- Timshel 2y agoThis 83% is just for the oil which I'm quite certain is only part of the diet. But it's quite certain it will stay more efficient than a cow (But efficiency is not everything since I can't eat grass; and yes I'm aware that quite a number of cow has never seen a blade of grass).