• abraxas
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    11 months ago

    The problem is only 9% of the beef production and 30% of global sheep and goat production are feed using grazing

    The rest so most of them are feed using some form of human edible plants and they would not be replaced by wild animals

    These two statements exclude the middle. There is grazing. There is feeding animal edible foods. And then there is feeding animals inedible waste. Your same source organization (FAO) points out that 86% of animal feed is inedible by humans. Realistically, a very high percent of that would be destroyed in a landfill or in burning if they were not being fed to animals.

    Of the remaining 14% of feed that is edible to humans, they are the worst sorts of calories, empty and non-nutritious carbohydrates. And they are largely fed to the animal intentionally at certain parts of the feeding process (the end) to produce the highest quality of meat. Why? Because it’s a waste of money to give animals feed that you could sell to humans if you have no good reason.

    • Fleur__@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Grazing is terrible for the environment and crops are specifically grown as animal feed. It wouldn’t be destroyed or burned because it wouldn’t be grown at all. Additionally there are plenty of other uses for inedible plant waste other than feeding to animals.

      • abraxas
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        Grazing is terrible for the environment

        Why do you say this?

        and crops are specifically grown as animal feed

        Generally speaking, this is untrue. A small number of crops are grown as animal feed, but it’s a waste of money to grow human edible crops for a majority of the animal feed cycle. As I said above, 86% of animal feed is inedible to humans, and a majority of the remaining 14% are dead calories.

        It wouldn’t be destroyed or burned because it wouldn’t be grown at all

        I guarantee nobody is backing off on growing corn, wheat, rice, or soy right now, even if we suddenly stopped letting anyone eat meat.

        Additionally there are plenty of other uses for inedible plant waste other than feeding to animals

        Are there? Care to cite which uses exist for feed that are better than the efficient process of using livestock to create some of the objectively highest-quality human-edible calories that exist in nature?

        • Fleur__@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          11 months ago

          Devastates local ecosystems

          It’s not untrue food is literally grown to feed animals

          Yes but I’m talking about the food grown to feed animals

          Biofuel and compost

          • abraxas
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Devastates local ecosystems

            Nope

            It’s not untrue food is literally grown to feed animals

            Actual nope.

            Yes but I’m talking about the food grown to feed animals

            So, you’re talking about fiction

            Biofuel and compost

            Whatever that means.