• chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    I bet we could still multiply output by a decent number by replacing meat production with directly edible crops, if there was a need for it

    • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Most pasture/grazing land simply isn’t suitable for crop farming, which is why we use it for pasture. Be it because of water retention or lacking topsoil or whatever, it’s often the case that the only feasible way to produce food from an area is livestock farming.

      • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        The “livestock feed” section of the graph looks more than twice as big as “Food we eat”, and at least some of the pasture land (much larger than both) has got to be viable, even if it mostly isn’t.

        • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Sure, and there’s a very important discussion to be had about the influence livestock has on the environment. But that’s a separate topic from the usefulness of pasture land for alternate purposes.