[MiroF]

> cattle is raised on land that is unsuitable for crop production

This doesn't really matter - it's about the fact that the cattle are eating crops that could have more efficiently been directly turned into food. Unless you're claiming most Australian cattle aren't given feed? (Hint: pretty much all cattle are given feed, even the "free-range" ones)

> If they respond by stopping eating meat, then great - not the best choice, but a step in the right direction. If they respond by stopping to care where their food comes from then not so great.

In terms of the environmental impact, "caring where your food comes from" is truly, qualitatively nothing compared to stopping eating meat. Why are you trying to push this message?

[bobthepanda]

This is at least a step in the positive direction.

A quick Google tells me that soy has a yield of 2.81 metric tons per hectare, and seaweed has a yield of ~20 metric tons per hectare. Depending on how much of the feed can be replaced by seaweed additive, it's another arrow in the quiver to reduce the environmental impact of food production, the same way that cheap solar and wind don't displace the need for energy efficiency.

[MiroF]

It's a very small amount of seaweed in the feed.

[jazzabeanie]

I'm not claiming most Australian cattle aren't given feed. I'm claiming it's possible to get beef that was raised almost exclusively on grass that was grown on land that is unsuitable for crop production. (Hint: I have 10s of kilos of it in my freezer)

> In terms of the environmental impact, "caring where your food comes from" is truly, qualitatively nothing compared to stopping eating meat. Why are you trying to push this message?

Caring about where your food comes from is the driver behind avoiding meat for a lot of people. If people don't care about the impacts of the food they eat you will never convince them to stop eating meat. Not sure why you have a problem with this message.