Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushwick
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I'm interested in knowing where you're getting this from. Livestock are themselves (mostly) vegetarian, and consume much, much more energy and water than they yield in the form of meat (thermodynamics and all). They are fed mostly corn, which while edible by humans, could also be replaced by other, more nutritious crops.
|
Cattle are cattle bro, you could feed them styrofoam and they'd eat it, and yes they are herbivores but you're not really feeding them "quality" grain you're basically shoveling piss poor "bulk feed" down their throats to fatten them up for a higher yield.
The grain that cattle eat is grown on very hostile soil where most plants couldn't thrive, mostly very sandy, clay-like soils with little to no nutrients as most grains don't need that many nutrients to grow.
What I'm saying is the quality of land, and the quality of grain which would be used for human consumption is on a whole nother level than the over-milled patches of land that they grow grasses on just to fatten their herd up. The only ecological damage from cattle comes from runoff into streams and lakes which kills wildlife, but as for consumption of space?
That's hardly the case cause the space isn't even suitable to live on