Hacker News Reader

I wonder when people will realize that not all the land used by animal agriculture is particularly suited to high-yield crop outputs. I'd be less concerned with the portion of land being used for animal agriculture and more concerned about the amount of crop land being used for animal feed.

View on HN

Is the implication here that meat-reduced diets are less ecologically sustainable in your opinion? Considering that biomass transfer efficiency typically sits around 10%, it's likely still better to eat the majority of our crops directly.

Red-meat reduced diets are likely much more efficient, especially grain-fed cattle. Animals that graze well on rocky, nutrition-poor land like goats or that can be raised in small plots lots goats, chickens, and crickets can have far less impact.

Primarily, though, I'm saying that the biggest impact isn't the raw amount of land being used by animal agriculture. It's the amount of productive cropland that's not being used for human crops but for animal feed. If your goal is to eat the crops directly, then feeding the same grains humans eat to cattle is counter to that goal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com