634

Rule (lemmy.blahaj.zone)

submitted 7 months ago by Persona3Reload@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone

219 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Please provide a source that shows that we grow crops directly for livestock consumption in a meaningful amount. So far no one has shown anything that states otherwise.

[-] uncertainty@lemmy.nz 5 points 7 months ago

Over a third of crops are grown to feed livestock, and that's if you're not counting pasture as a crop, which it absolutely is - arguably our first solar powered factory floor. Even areas that were grazed in the past have had the relative proportion of native flora and fauna severely reduced to minimal levels through introduced grasses and overgrazing. To get a feel for land use against calorie production, you could have a browse through https://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/feeding-9-billion/ for an overview.

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211912416300013

86% of the global livestock feed intake in dry matter consists of feed materials that are not currently edible for humans

But it also makes an important contribution to food security through the provision of high-quality protein and a variety of micronutrients – e.g. vitamin A, vitamin B-12, riboflavin, calcium, iron and zinc – that can be locally difficult to obtain in adequate quantities from plant-source foods alone

We already make enough food to feed the planet multiple times over, the issue isn't how much we've got, it's how to get it to people. Distribution is the issue.

But no, 1/3rd is not grown for livestock, this isn't true at all.