Most of the food we grow for animals is not edible by humans.
Also the soil we use for growing that food is not suitable for growing human food, permanently or temporary.
One of the basics of agriculture is crop rotation. And this crop rotation usually need for foods that are good for animals but not so good for humans.
That while talking about food that is grown specifically for animals. A good part of animal food is just residues from human food. For instance, in my grandmother’s house I remember the chickens were basically a walking bio-disposal bin, at not point food was grown specifically for those chicken.
In the matter of wasted food, resources. A lot of it have to do with transportation from very far away places.
The main ingredients in almost all animal feed for industrial farming (90+% of meat production) is grain/cereals. Like corn, wheat, oat, etc. humans eat those things. The protein sources for animal feed is usually soy… humans eat soy.
Please explain why “the soil we use for growing animal feed is not suitable for growing human food”
The only factual part of your comment is about your grandmas chickens eating food scraps. But I’ll bet you they didn’t live entirely on scraps. They still get grain to survive. Also, as stated before, 90%+ of meat doesn’t come from sustainable grandma’s chickens. It comes from hell on earth factory farms.
I don’t know if that’s the correct english translation.
Widely used as a source of animal food. Good luck trying to eat that.
Search which cultives tend to be part of healthy crop rotations and most of the times you’ll find a crop that’s used for animals and cannot be eaten by humans.
Also not are grains and soy are created equal or are as suitable for human consumption in a healthy diet as other plants. Or almost most planta that are used for animal consumption. There’s two fact here, first that many times there’s a mixed use (part of the plant goes to the animal and part of the plant goes to the human) and other times even when everything is for the animal, there tend to be different varieties. The corn dedicated to human consumption is not the same corn dedicated to animal consumption. It grows different and can take different amount of nutrients for the soil, or take different economic requirements. Human food tend to be much more expensive overall, because our stomach cannot digest plants as easily as herbivores.
Do you think human beings have been farming animals and those “extra crops” just for funsies. It’s the most efficient way to feed human population. That’s why it have been done for millenia.
Search which cultives tend to be part of healthy crop rotations and most of the times you’ll find a crop that’s used for animals and cannot be eaten by humans.
Yeah that’s a choice. There are plenty of crops that can be rotated for human consumption. It’s a choice to waste land and destroy the planet so carnists can torture and murder animals.
Do you think human beings have been farming animals and those “extra crops” just for funsies.
Do you think that’s the only option? Do you think agriculture hasn’t progressed in 2000 years?
It’s the most efficient way to feed human population. That’s why it have been done for millenia.
You gonna start promoting the keto diet next?
Your oversimplification was maybe a relatively efficient way to feed small populations 2000 years ago. Now it’s the most inefficient. Literally starving people while destroying the planet.
Yeah, alfalfa is the correct translation. I tried to do a quick search for how much land is used for forage crops (like alfalfa and hay) but didn’t come up with any decent stats. However, I looked for the global crop production stats and the top 4 globally are sugarcane, corn, rice, and wheat. These 4 contribute almost 50% of total arable land use. On the graphics for production— forage crops don’t even get an honorable mention. So unless you have some info on how much wasted land alfalfa grows on, I’m going to say it’s not all that important (land use wise)
Second, using different cultivars for animal feed and direct human consumption is true. We don’t eat dent corn. We eat sweet corn. Two very different varieties. However, saying that one variety can be grown on this patch of land and the other varieties cannot is simply false.
Yes there are differences in adaptability of different varieties, but they aren’t massive. Especially when you read about how much fertilizer and water we dump on our animal feed crops each year. Any damn plant could grow with those kind of inputs.
And lastly, your “appeal to tradition” argument is a classic logical fallacy. So I won’t try to refute it.
There’s a economical difference. Growing plants for animals is cheaper. Plants for animals are easier to take care. We dump a lot of fertilizer on animal crops. But we dump even more in human crops.
They amount of care and soil usage is always going to be higher on crops destined to human consumption.
This could grow if we tried to grow only human based food? Yes, but with much higher economical effort andes yield per sqrmeter. When nutrients grow thin in soil is not only that things straight up do not grow, is that less things grow and they grow smaller.
It’s not tradicional. It’s observation of history. Humans have not grown as omnivore because of tradition. We have not domesticated animals because of tradition. We have done it because it’s the most efficient way to do things.
You for instance are vegan because of tradition. Not because economics or efficiency dictate it, but because a series of moral considerations that were passed onto you thus modifying your behavior. But most humans population if faced with the nutritional challenge will both grow plants and farm animals because it is the most efficient way to do things.
Traditional exceptions would be the opposite. Like the cultures that forbid certain foods because religious reasons.
Gonna need a source for that claim on higher inputs for human food.
If economics is your excuse for raising animal feed instead of human food then it’s just another knock on capitalism. (Although if you calculated the economic cost of raising/slaughtering/shipping all that meat, I’d wager it’s not cheaper than growing plants for humans to eat)
Also, we farmed animals in the past because they are a good storage for calories when it’s winter and you can’t grow food. We live in a global society now. It’s not necessary. Animals are grown and killed because their meat is pleasurable to eat; simple as that.
Hard to find a source for fertilizer usage per type of crop so of you want to dismiss that for lack of source I’m ok with that. Still think that a crop with higher sugar content and a more precise composition would need more input. But if you can provide a source otherwise would also be welcome to clear doubts.
When I’m talking about economy I’m not talking wall street. I’m talking about the definition of economy. Which is the distribution of resources.
I don’t agree in your final statement. For many reasons: It’s not a good thing being global, it is not desirable that your food comes from the other side of the world just because you decided not to eat a local chicken. That’s quite complex and a different conversation overall but I think local food consumption is better overall. And without putting restrictions as in “do not eat meat” it’s easier to achieve local consumption.
While winter storage is important, plant based food can also be stored, and we see animal consumption in human cultures from places without cold winters so the statements can be labeled as not true, or at least not sufficient.
Most people eat meat because it’s the easiest way to have the necessary caloric and nutrient input. Not for pleasure. If we would only eat for pleasure we would only probably eat sugar which is plant based. Vegan diet is just too much of a headache within a population that already have issues maintaining balance with an omnivore diet. Many pleasure foods are plant based, like pizza, so that must no be the only reason people eat meat.
They amount of care and soil usage is always going to be higher on crops destined to human consumption.
It doesn’t matter because the other costs of raising animals (eg water, land, waste) completely outweight any supposed, tiny advantage from growing plants to feed them.
It’s not tradicional. It’s observation of history… We have done it because it’s the most efficient way to do things.
I love this dishonest change of tense. Even if it was once “efficient”, the current state of industrial murder is literally destroying the planet. Completely unsustainable.
Please don’t waste food.
fun fact: we grow enough food to feed 15B people. It’s just that we feed it to the animals, then eat the animals.
We also throw away approximately half the perfectly good food we produce in the U.S.
Most of the food we grow for animals is not edible by humans.
Also the soil we use for growing that food is not suitable for growing human food, permanently or temporary.
One of the basics of agriculture is crop rotation. And this crop rotation usually need for foods that are good for animals but not so good for humans.
That while talking about food that is grown specifically for animals. A good part of animal food is just residues from human food. For instance, in my grandmother’s house I remember the chickens were basically a walking bio-disposal bin, at not point food was grown specifically for those chicken.
In the matter of wasted food, resources. A lot of it have to do with transportation from very far away places.
This is weapons grade copium.
The main ingredients in almost all animal feed for industrial farming (90+% of meat production) is grain/cereals. Like corn, wheat, oat, etc. humans eat those things. The protein sources for animal feed is usually soy… humans eat soy.
Please explain why “the soil we use for growing animal feed is not suitable for growing human food”
The only factual part of your comment is about your grandmas chickens eating food scraps. But I’ll bet you they didn’t live entirely on scraps. They still get grain to survive. Also, as stated before, 90%+ of meat doesn’t come from sustainable grandma’s chickens. It comes from hell on earth factory farms.
Do you know what “alfalfa” is?
I don’t know if that’s the correct english translation.
Widely used as a source of animal food. Good luck trying to eat that.
Search which cultives tend to be part of healthy crop rotations and most of the times you’ll find a crop that’s used for animals and cannot be eaten by humans.
Also not are grains and soy are created equal or are as suitable for human consumption in a healthy diet as other plants. Or almost most planta that are used for animal consumption. There’s two fact here, first that many times there’s a mixed use (part of the plant goes to the animal and part of the plant goes to the human) and other times even when everything is for the animal, there tend to be different varieties. The corn dedicated to human consumption is not the same corn dedicated to animal consumption. It grows different and can take different amount of nutrients for the soil, or take different economic requirements. Human food tend to be much more expensive overall, because our stomach cannot digest plants as easily as herbivores.
Do you think human beings have been farming animals and those “extra crops” just for funsies. It’s the most efficient way to feed human population. That’s why it have been done for millenia.
Yeah that’s a choice. There are plenty of crops that can be rotated for human consumption. It’s a choice to waste land and destroy the planet so carnists can torture and murder animals.
Do you think that’s the only option? Do you think agriculture hasn’t progressed in 2000 years?
You gonna start promoting the keto diet next?
Your oversimplification was maybe a relatively efficient way to feed small populations 2000 years ago. Now it’s the most inefficient. Literally starving people while destroying the planet.
why are you so aggressive?
Yeah, alfalfa is the correct translation. I tried to do a quick search for how much land is used for forage crops (like alfalfa and hay) but didn’t come up with any decent stats. However, I looked for the global crop production stats and the top 4 globally are sugarcane, corn, rice, and wheat. These 4 contribute almost 50% of total arable land use. On the graphics for production— forage crops don’t even get an honorable mention. So unless you have some info on how much wasted land alfalfa grows on, I’m going to say it’s not all that important (land use wise)
Second, using different cultivars for animal feed and direct human consumption is true. We don’t eat dent corn. We eat sweet corn. Two very different varieties. However, saying that one variety can be grown on this patch of land and the other varieties cannot is simply false. Yes there are differences in adaptability of different varieties, but they aren’t massive. Especially when you read about how much fertilizer and water we dump on our animal feed crops each year. Any damn plant could grow with those kind of inputs.
And lastly, your “appeal to tradition” argument is a classic logical fallacy. So I won’t try to refute it.
There’s a economical difference. Growing plants for animals is cheaper. Plants for animals are easier to take care. We dump a lot of fertilizer on animal crops. But we dump even more in human crops.
They amount of care and soil usage is always going to be higher on crops destined to human consumption.
This could grow if we tried to grow only human based food? Yes, but with much higher economical effort andes yield per sqrmeter. When nutrients grow thin in soil is not only that things straight up do not grow, is that less things grow and they grow smaller.
It’s not tradicional. It’s observation of history. Humans have not grown as omnivore because of tradition. We have not domesticated animals because of tradition. We have done it because it’s the most efficient way to do things.
You for instance are vegan because of tradition. Not because economics or efficiency dictate it, but because a series of moral considerations that were passed onto you thus modifying your behavior. But most humans population if faced with the nutritional challenge will both grow plants and farm animals because it is the most efficient way to do things.
Traditional exceptions would be the opposite. Like the cultures that forbid certain foods because religious reasons.
Gonna need a source for that claim on higher inputs for human food.
If economics is your excuse for raising animal feed instead of human food then it’s just another knock on capitalism. (Although if you calculated the economic cost of raising/slaughtering/shipping all that meat, I’d wager it’s not cheaper than growing plants for humans to eat)
Also, we farmed animals in the past because they are a good storage for calories when it’s winter and you can’t grow food. We live in a global society now. It’s not necessary. Animals are grown and killed because their meat is pleasurable to eat; simple as that.
Hard to find a source for fertilizer usage per type of crop so of you want to dismiss that for lack of source I’m ok with that. Still think that a crop with higher sugar content and a more precise composition would need more input. But if you can provide a source otherwise would also be welcome to clear doubts.
When I’m talking about economy I’m not talking wall street. I’m talking about the definition of economy. Which is the distribution of resources.
I don’t agree in your final statement. For many reasons: It’s not a good thing being global, it is not desirable that your food comes from the other side of the world just because you decided not to eat a local chicken. That’s quite complex and a different conversation overall but I think local food consumption is better overall. And without putting restrictions as in “do not eat meat” it’s easier to achieve local consumption.
While winter storage is important, plant based food can also be stored, and we see animal consumption in human cultures from places without cold winters so the statements can be labeled as not true, or at least not sufficient.
Most people eat meat because it’s the easiest way to have the necessary caloric and nutrient input. Not for pleasure. If we would only eat for pleasure we would only probably eat sugar which is plant based. Vegan diet is just too much of a headache within a population that already have issues maintaining balance with an omnivore diet. Many pleasure foods are plant based, like pizza, so that must no be the only reason people eat meat.
It doesn’t matter because the other costs of raising animals (eg water, land, waste) completely outweight any supposed, tiny advantage from growing plants to feed them.
I love this dishonest change of tense. Even if it was once “efficient”, the current state of industrial murder is literally destroying the planet. Completely unsustainable.
I’m not dishonest. Please be respectful if you want others to respect you aswell.
But do we really want 15B people?
it’s probably gonna happen eventually. We really can’t sustain too many more people on an animal based diet :/
The billionaires do, otherwise their tiny little egos will shatter for not feeling speshul
So that’s why Elon makes all these kids …