You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
-22 points

https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/50901500/px-based_v3.2/educ-matrls/pdfs/HO_what-cows-eat.pdf

We do not feed them food we can eat, it would be such a waste to do so. We literally feed them shit we cannot consume. Feeds are made from roots/stalks/inedible plants.

The vegan industry doesn’t like this, so they say well that land could be used for other things, when in reality it’s already being used for the food that we eat.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

Yes, but inefficiently.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-7 points

You go eat some grass/roughage and tell me how well that fills you up.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Pretty well, actually. Grasses like corn, wheat, rice, and oats make up a substantial portion of the typical diet.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

They are also fed grains and soy in varying percentage depending on regions and countries.
There is also still the use of land, energy, fresh water and the methane emissions typical of cows.

This is another break down of the above-mentioned study: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

You can see that indeed, the USA does better than other countries on not dedicating crops to animal feed, but it is still about 14%, while the world average is around 40%. Isn’t that a lot that could be earned back?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-8 points

The majority of the land used for cattle grazing is not suitable for farmland. It’s either to hilly or rocky or just plain doesn’t have great soil. Not to mention the level of crops it would require to feed people and the amount of people who just cannot sustain on a all vegan diet. There is a reason we are omnivores and not herbivores.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

This is also covered by the study and the article I shared above. It would require using more lands for crops that feed people, but that’s ridiculously small compared to the land that would be regained from stopping animal agriculture, which is 75%. Just removing cows would do the vast majority of that.

Crops for feed can be regained and if most pasture land is inappropriate for crops, some are, so we would gain from freeing those too. Furthermore, this land can be given back to biodiversity, which will also benefit us in the long term, if just protecting biodiversity for the sake of it is not a good argument for you.

Again, I am not vegan, I mostly advocate for reducing, not forbidding, consumption proportionally to ecological impact. If some people for medical reason require meat, I’m completely fine with it, this would likely be a small percentage of the current consumption.

Omnivore, not obligate carnivore except for a few exceptions maybe, so we could use a low meat diet or a fully plant based diet fine.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

The majority of the land used for cattle grazing is not suitable for farmland.

But why should land be treated in that binary? How much biodiversity is being destroyed just to keep cattle or some other animals instead of keeping it in its natural state?

permalink
report
parent
reply

science

!science@lemmy.world

Create post

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

<— rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.

2024-11-11

Community stats

  • 3.9K

    Monthly active users

  • 1.3K

    Posts

  • 15K

    Comments