• Lemongrab@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    7 months ago

    Animals products are less efficient for a simple energy reason. Animals produce heat which radiates away as lost energy, and they rely on consuming autotrophs. All life gets its energy from the sun, we as animals get it one or two down the food chain from plants or other animals (which are also eating plants). Animal-based products are simply less efficient.

    • SupraMario@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 months ago

      You can think this all you want, but you cannot consume what they do, you also cannot grow crops usually where livestock are raised. Crops need a pretty flat chunk of land, livestock don’t.

      • Lemongrab@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        Except for the deforestation needed to increase pasture area and for growing more feed. Destroying habitats and pushing indigenous people further from their homes. Meat on a large scale doesn’t work because it is energetically less efficient. Farmed animals produce waste products like methane which are large contributors to global warming. Even if the land used by livestock was completely unusable for other purposes, they would still be polluting the environment through eutrophication and destroying locally endangered species.

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 months ago

          Everything you just said…is the same shit that happens for plants as well. Deforestation isn’t something that happens only with livestock. It also only really exists now in poor countries for people who are trying to survive by any means. You also are assuming that plants don’t use nutrients from the soil or that the ground has to be fertilized or sprayed with pesticides or that large machinery has to be used to harvest it.

          • Lemongrab@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            7 months ago

            You forget that the food required to make even small quantities of meat is much higher than just growing plants for human. Better to directly eat the energy produced by autotrophs. Deforestation doesn’t happen in “poor countries” just so people can survive, it happens because corporations lobby the government of corrupt countries like Brazil so they can destroy habitats for feed and pastures.

            Meat production is a simple maths problem to see that wasted energy used by livestock (to survive and grow) is lost energy.

              • Lemongrab@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                7 months ago

                All you did was step around the problem. I am not arguing that what is fed to livestock should be fed to humans, I am saying that livestock take up useful space, pollute the air with methane (which is near to 100x a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2), that the lands are cleared of their native plants to feed the ever growing meat industry, and on a large scale animal feed has to come from somewhere (which is why I bring up the inefficiency of not sourcing the energy from autotrophs). Animal feed may be inedible, but it is also grown specifically to be feed. I am not suggesting the complete veganizing of the whole planet, just the meat on a large scale is killing the planet.

          • Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 months ago

            Ok but we use twice as much land to grow animal feed than we do human food and it has all the same drawbacks. And then the meat we get still only provides 18% of our calories.

            • SupraMario@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              No we do not. Provide a source that shows we grow crops directly to feed livestock in any meaningful amounts.

                • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Yep, and that 36% is dead corn that the gov tells farmers to grow, they pay farmers to grow it so we don’t have a famine. The majority is sold over seas and turned into ethanol. The rest that we eat is mainly HFCS. So no we don’t grow it directly to feed animals, it’s grown and not used, so the stuff left in the fields to dry is harvestes whole and tossed into grain. You might want to read your own article.

                  • Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    7 months ago

                    You keep trying to have it both ways. You’ve finally conceded that there’s 36% of land used to grow livestock feed. But now it’s time to shift the poles somewhere else. At least you’ve started reading and trying to back up what you’re saying.