• Footer1998@crazypeople.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 hours ago

    The fact is that animals need to be fed, and they are inefficient. Most animals eat plants, so to create 1,000kcal of beef products, for example, it takes 25,000kcal of plant products. Most animal feeds are based on corn or soy, which otherwise could be turned into human food products directly with a 25x efficiency bonus.

    I suppose you could make an argument that grass-fed livestock might work, but then I guess an explanation for why grass is growing but other crops aren’t.

    My underlying point is that animal protein is inefficient compared to plant protein

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Animals can digest stuff we can’t. We can eat crops because we bred them for many thousands of years to be mostly edible by us. Early wheat, for example, is hardly different than grass. Animals are much more efficient at turning grass into energy than we are, and grass grows all over naturally without any effort. You don’t have to plant it, water it, or anything else.

      Yes, meat is much less efficient than, for example, eating the corn ourselves. It isn’t less efficient than us eating grass ourselves. In that state, we basically can’t survive. There are some native plants we can eat still, but usually they’re seasonal and not overly abundant. You have to move around to survive, hence hunter-gatherers.