That’s just incorrect. The water, food, and land taken up by your animals in the months from birth to slaughter are order of magnitudes above the amount needed to grow the equivalent amount of calories of plants.
Livestock need plants to grow. You need to grow plants first, then give it to the livestock, and you need a tonne of plants for each animal. Cutting out the animal and just eating the plants instead is an enormous gain of efficiency.
It’d be like saying you create your own energy on your property by maintaining a forest which you sustainably log to use as fuel for a boiler where you use the steam to turn turbines and that’s more environmentally friendly than someone getting their energy from a solar farm 100km away because the solar farm isn’t local.
Farmland isn’t locked to one specific crop. It can be used to grow anything. The vast majority of farmland on Earth grows cattle feed, not because it’s the only thing that grows, but because there is more economic demand to grow feed for cattle than food for humans. That huge demand comes mostly from wealthy countries where the average person eats meat multiple times a day.
I’m factoring in growing the plants, building the factories, making the product, packaging it, selling it to a grocery store and finally ending up in someone’s hands.
Your animals also eat plants. The calculation in how much energy it takes to produce and ship plants also occurs with meat products. I’m sure you’re not growing the plants your livestock eats. It’s grown somewhere else using land and water and then harvested, packaged, shipped to a warehouse, and then shipped to your farm.
Then your animals eat it, and most of the energy provided by the plant goes to making the animal warm and not growing the animal’s mass. Most of the previous effort of growing, harvesting, shipping, is completely lost to heat. There is no way to go from plant->animal->human in a way that is more energy efficient than plant->human.
people don’t eat silage. giving cornstalks and cobs to livestock is a preservation of resources. the same land that grows food for us already grows food for livestock.
That’s just incorrect. The water, food, and land taken up by your animals in the months from birth to slaughter are order of magnitudes above the amount needed to grow the equivalent amount of calories of plants.
Livestock need plants to grow. You need to grow plants first, then give it to the livestock, and you need a tonne of plants for each animal. Cutting out the animal and just eating the plants instead is an enormous gain of efficiency.
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
It’d be like saying you create your own energy on your property by maintaining a forest which you sustainably log to use as fuel for a boiler where you use the steam to turn turbines and that’s more environmentally friendly than someone getting their energy from a solar farm 100km away because the solar farm isn’t local.
We can’t eat grass, which is the plant that cattle eat
Farmland isn’t locked to one specific crop. It can be used to grow anything. The vast majority of farmland on Earth grows cattle feed, not because it’s the only thing that grows, but because there is more economic demand to grow feed for cattle than food for humans. That huge demand comes mostly from wealthy countries where the average person eats meat multiple times a day.
I’m factoring in growing the plants, building the factories, making the product, packaging it, selling it to a grocery store and finally ending up in someone’s hands.
Your animals also eat plants. The calculation in how much energy it takes to produce and ship plants also occurs with meat products. I’m sure you’re not growing the plants your livestock eats. It’s grown somewhere else using land and water and then harvested, packaged, shipped to a warehouse, and then shipped to your farm.
Then your animals eat it, and most of the energy provided by the plant goes to making the animal warm and not growing the animal’s mass. Most of the previous effort of growing, harvesting, shipping, is completely lost to heat. There is no way to go from plant->animal->human in a way that is more energy efficient than plant->human.
people don’t eat silage. giving cornstalks and cobs to livestock is a preservation of resources. the same land that grows food for us already grows food for livestock.
You assumptions are wrong.
Your animals don’t eat?
You’ve made your mind up that your way of living is the only ethical way.
Enjoy your factory produced chemical laden plastic wrapped food and I’ll enjoy eating beef, chicken and pork that is fed with food I grow on my land.
Too bad the microplastic from your way of life is throughout mine now I can assure you that my meat isn’t in your food.
Lmao you got me. I knew you were a troll but engaged anyways because somehow your top comment has fucking up votes.
Personal attacks mean you have nothing else to add to this conversation.
I’m posting this comment right now with solar power what runs your grid?
this conclusion is based on poore-nemecek 2018, a dubiously methodized study. the conclusion may be right but the study used cannot support that.
So by that logic we just just cull all creatures because they require resources to live.
Holy strawman
Logic is not a strawman.
Too bad it’s not logic.
Threeonefour pointed out that existing costs resources, and it is inefficient to use those resources to produce meat.
Bassturd made the leap to conclude we should kill those who cost resources (everyone)
Threeonefour did not assert that we should kill anyone.
That IS a strawman.