5 ms·
> This is clearly more efficient Animal feed is only grown on this land because it is subsidized. Growing plants on it is economically inefficient. If agricu
by kingkongrevenge 17y ago
> This is clearly more efficient
Animal feed is only grown on this land because it is subsidized. Growing plants on it is economically inefficient. If agriculture in the US were unsubsidized, nobody would try to grow plants on this land. It would be grasslands. And the only human use for the land would be to graze animals on it.
- jshen 17y agothat's only true for a subset. I grew up in an area that had a lot of vegetable farming for 200 years or so, naturally and a wide variety, and it was replaced by soy farming due to the retarded policies we currently have in place. Anyway you cut it, growing primarily plants for food is far more efficient than meat production. I agree with you about the current absurdity of our system.
- kingkongrevenge 17y ago> growing primarily plants for food is far more efficient than meat production. Dairy cows and egg laying chickens and farmed catfish are much more efficient at turning vegetable matter into complete proteins than humans. If you accept the premise that humans need almost a gram of complete protein per kg of body mass per day, animal production is more efficient and quite necessary.
- jshen 17y agoyou have to back that up with some studies.