this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2023
174 points (93.1% liked)

Green - An environmentalist community

5237 readers
1 users here now

This is the place to discuss environmentalism, preservation, direct action and anything related to it!

RULES:

1- Remember the human

2- Link posts should come from a reputable source

3- All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith

Related communities:

Unofficial Chat rooms:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
174
The Comforting Lie of "Climate-Friendly Meat" (newrepublic.com)
submitted 9 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
90 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] capital 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

That wasn’t intended to mislead and I provided my source so others could read.

It’s why I referenced the US data first (I know it better) but now it has a paywall.

I found another source saying,

Today only 55 percent of the world’s crop calories feed people directly; the rest are fed to livestock (about 36 percent) or turned into biofuels and industrial products (roughly 9 percent).

Feeding crops to animals for us to eventually eat is always going to be less efficient and more costly environmentally.

plant-based replacements for each of the major animal categories in the United States (beef, pork, dairy, poultry, and eggs) can produce twofold to 20-fold more nutritionally similar food per unit cropland. Replacing all animal-based items with plant-based replacement diets can add enough food to feed 350 million additional people, more than the expected benefits of eliminating all supply chain food loss.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1713820115#ref-2

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Feeding crops to animals for us to eventually eat is always going to be less efficient and more costly environmentally.

but very few people want to eat the parts of plants that we feed to animals after we process the rest of the plant for human food. soy, for instance: most people don't want to eat soy cake, so feeding it to animals and then eating the animals is actually a good use of the "crop calories".

[–] capital 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If we only raised enough animals to eat our waste, you’d have a great point. But as I’ve shown, we don’t do that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

If we only raised enough animals to eat our waste, you’d have a great point.

I have a good point, anyway. besides our waste, there is also a great deal of ag land that is unsuitable for crop cultivation. my point is still the same: using the metric of land use is not a great way to understand efficiencies in the agriculture sector. I don't believe any single metric is the key, probably.

off the top of my head, multigenerational ecosystem stability without artificial inputs might be the metric id aim to achieve, but it's hard to say what kinds of impacts that might have (efficiency would surely be impacted). given the vastness and interdependency of the modern agricultural system I don't believe any radical change is prudent. if the issues we are facing from carbon emissions are what we are looking to address, I would say we need to focus on other sources of carbon emissions primarily, rather than upset the agricultural system.

[–] capital 1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I don’t know of any other way to put this…

We have land that we dedicate solely to growing food for animals. Not the waste, not land that is otherwise unusable.

That is not environmentally friendly when we could feed far more people by NOT doing that or using less farmland to feed our current population.

Did that make more sense?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

we could feed far more people by NOT doing that

I don't think so.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

We have land that we dedicate solely to growing food for animals. Not the waste, not land that is otherwise unusable.

I haven't disputed this

[–] capital 1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

You seem to be by repeatedly bringing up the fact that animals can eat parts of the plants we can’t when it makes up a minuscule part of the equation so I though it prudent to really drive home.

And now I know what part of the problem is give your other comment. I’ve already linked you a study showing how and why we could feed more people on less farmland and I even quoted the important part of it in my comment so you didn’t even have to click.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I’ve already linked you a study showing how and why we could feed more people on less farmland

and I don't find your study convincing

[–] capital 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

How convenient.

Anyway, if anyone else comes by this thread I feel pretty good about my portion. You made it really easy. Thanks!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

if anyone else comes by this thread I feel pretty good about my portion

the feeling is mutual.

have a nice day!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

it makes up a minuscule part of the equation

citation needed