@The Grand Nudger It sounds like the only thing that was wrong was the numbers in comparison to transport. The primary point that livestock is a contributor is still true.
People don't really have to eat meat, that's a myth. Meat production in some parts of the world is far more expensive and less efficient and the land would be better served growing crops. Growing crops to feed animals to feed humans is inherently less efficient than cutting out the middle-food and eating the crops. And you think livestock production doesn't require fossil fuels? Whut?
Raising some wild animals for food would certainly increase their likelihood of long term survival, that's clear with those that we do use. No chance the cow is going extinct anytime soon. But what's the likelihood that such practices expand to include the thousands of animals that are endangered? Not possible, so it's a nonsequitur.
?? I'm at a loss to understand your point here. Overall, you seem to be saying increasing livestock is good for the environment and people have to eat meat. Is that what you mean to say?
Quote:As far as the necessity of livestock - doesn't have anything to do with dietary requirements, and vegetarians also make use of livestock production. It has to do with land use and capacity and agricultural inputs. Of the necessity of livestock in commercial and sustainable agriculture - unless we just want to keep making food from oil. People have to eat meat because that's what they can produce where they're at, because we need the fertility, because we need the funds, because we need the food, because we want to get out of fossil fuel based production, because farmed protein is the only way to save wild stocks. You can see how harmful that miscalculation was and is to the reality of sustainable ag when you consider the models.Yes, I'm aware that land use is the primary concern with livestock production. It's also a major contributor to deforestation. And I know that everyone uses some forms of livestock products, but the point is still valid. Increased livestock = increased carbon footprint. There are some new efficiencies in livestock production that seem to reduce the carbon footprint per animal, but I'm not sure I understand how it's happening.
People don't really have to eat meat, that's a myth. Meat production in some parts of the world is far more expensive and less efficient and the land would be better served growing crops. Growing crops to feed animals to feed humans is inherently less efficient than cutting out the middle-food and eating the crops. And you think livestock production doesn't require fossil fuels? Whut?
Raising some wild animals for food would certainly increase their likelihood of long term survival, that's clear with those that we do use. No chance the cow is going extinct anytime soon. But what's the likelihood that such practices expand to include the thousands of animals that are endangered? Not possible, so it's a nonsequitur.
Quote:Iowas low number, for example, is likely to reflect a drop in feedlot operations year over year as the pastured market overtakes share. Last year, they saw an 18-35% reduction - continuing a trend.
?? I'm at a loss to understand your point here. Overall, you seem to be saying increasing livestock is good for the environment and people have to eat meat. Is that what you mean to say?
Why is it so?
~Julius Sumner Miller
~Julius Sumner Miller
