|
|
|
|
|
by pclmulqdq
1251 days ago
|
|
Nothing said here refutes the parent comment. It turns out that a lot of land is really shitty for growing stuff that isn't a weed (without adding a ton of chemicals to the environment), and humans don't eat weeds. Cows, sheep, pigs, and chicken do. I doubt that 86% of that 77% is truly unsuitable for farming human food, but I wouldn't be surprised if 30-50% of it was. |
|
Of all the cropland we have, 57% is used to produce human food and 43% is used to produce animal food.
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets#more-plant-based-d...
The whole point is that you need way more crops in general to "produce" the same amount of calories & proteins. That's because feeding the animals with crops instead of eating them is highly inefficient in comparison to eating them directly. "As an example: beef has an energy efficiency of about 2%. This means that for every 100 kilocalories you feed a cow, you only get 2 kilocalories of beef back."
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets#livestock-waste-a-...
With how much meat is eaten right now, there is just no way we have enough grazing land to produce enough meat. 99% of meat comes from factory farms. [1] These animals are always fed with crops, so there will always be land usage to product food for animals. And it is way more inefficient.
[1]: https://www.livekindly.com/99-animal-products-factory-farms/