453
(page 2) 48 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Redjard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 9 months ago

On earth we have a land shortage. If you grow animal feed, that could have also been a foodcrop. In terms of land efficiency, meat is an order of magnitude less efficient.

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago

We do not grow crops for just animal feed, the majority of what they consume is waste byproducts from what you are able to consume. It's around 85% of their diet. So unless you have a way to all of a sudden eat stalks or roots or leaves and grass, it's wasted if not feed to livestock.

[-] Redjard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I'll try to take a more nuanced and in depth look.

As a start, I'm relatively sure the main use of a large chunk of agricultural land is solely food production. A cursory search gives data like this image
global land use
from this page.
It's reasonable to assume some of the plant waste of food crops feeds some of the livestock, but if that much land is exclusively used for animals it would seem reasonable we could at least double the human plant food production with a reduced animal portion in that land use.
From a pure energy efficiency perspective animals are around 10%, so if you take half of produced plant calories and use them for animals, that will result in 10x fewer calories of animal products than the other half of the plants. This lines up with the energy spread by end human food product, which seems to be something like this:
this is a shitty image link, that will probably break in the future. sry

By the raw numbers and that coarse approach we expect 75% ⸱ 10% : 25% ≈ 1:3.3, the actual data seems to be slightly worse at 1:4.

So it seems to me we are using something like 25% of the land area to produce 80% of the food, just by not passing it through animals. And if you are right then some of the animal calories are even supplemented with the plant waste of those 25%.

The raw energy approach is actually quite a good approach by now, because we can use technology to transition most things into each other. You can pass plant waste into animals and loose 90% of the energy, or convert cellulose into (digestible) sugar and get the full energy. Or use it for other things that take energy like drug production. Using the plant waste on animals still brings that opportunity cost that means more land is used in other places to get the cellulose for those alternative uses, or to produce sugar the old fashioned way from more dedicated crops.

Traditionally you had land that you could not use for agriculture but could use to graze goats, you had plant material you could not use for anything but feeding animals. Animals were our bioreactors to transform that material or land into usable products. Now we have better chains of use.

The energy approach will finally be complete when we can turn plant material straight into animal products, with methods like lab grown meat or artificial milk, but we are not there yet. When we are, the energy balance of those should be close to that of plants and this entire problem simplifies greatly.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 months ago

The raw energy approach is actually quite a good approach by now, because we can use technology to transition most things into each other.

this assumes some sort of centralized economy, instead of letting farmers give wasted apples to their neighbors horses or whatever.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 months ago

much of the land that is attributed to animal agriculture is grazing land, and is not suitable for growing crops.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 9 months ago

much of the waste that is fed to animals does not have a better use, as you are suggesting. for instance, soycake. no one wants to eat that, but it's high protein. giving it to animals conserves resources.

[-] wheeldawg@sh.itjust.works -4 points 10 months ago

I wanna see a massive dump of them. All of them. If you gonna smoke smoke weed. Fuck tobacco and anyone who thinks it's cool. They have the freedom to choose for sure, but anyone that chooses that is 100% idiot until proven otherwise.

No ifs, ands, or buts. If you like it, you are part of the problem.

Quitters finally saw the light. People who start smoking in the 2020s are just outright stupid. It's not all over TV anymore, it's not the cool teenage rebellion thing. It's not even hidden knowledge about how bad it is to start, and how hard quitting is. Wtf is making people start now?

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 22 Jan 2024
453 points (98.9% liked)

World News

39033 readers
994 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS