this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2025
648 points (96.3% liked)
memes
16164 readers
2452 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Except that you're eating way more plants if you eat animals than if you just eat plants, as animals eat lots of plants.
Depends on the animal. Home raised chicken, for instance, can almost live on human lefts.
Insects also eat things that humans really do not consume, for instance.
They don't really eat the same thing, do they?
Source
Edit: 25 million chicken are getting killed daily in the US.
So what you're saying is that for each animal you eat, you save a lot of plants?
No, for each animal you eat you're eating lots of plants in a really inefficient - and needlessly cruel - way
I cannot eat grass, ruminant animals can. How is it inefficient for me to eat the animal rather than the grass?
Because we use the land that could be used to grow enough food to feed many people to grow food for cows, which then feed fewer people. By buying into this system, you’re propagating inefficiency.
Right, we bulldoze forests to make fertile land available. I agree that's bad, I don't want celery from that land either
We’d need less land for crops generally if we were allotting it to human food instead of livestock feed.
To add to idiomaddict's great points, the animals don't eat exclusively grass. In Australia (assuming based on your instance): "the latest estimate (2017-18) of annual feed use in Australia is 13.58 million tonnes" (SFMCA).
This includes "cereal grains, legume grains, vegetable protein meals, animal protein meals, cereal milling co-products, minerals and vitamins" as per that same source.
I often see people use the deforestation of the Amazon for soy crops as a sort of gotcha for vegans, even though most soybeans are grown for use as animal feed (in the Amazon, mainly cattle). Incidentally, cattle farms are also responsible for much more deforestation in the Amazon than soybeans, but I digress.
I'll also note that grass-fed beef has often been shown to be as bad (or sometimes worse) for the environment than feedlot beef. It also can't scale to meet current meat consumption.
in fact, most soy beans are grown for oil, and even what is fed to livestock is mostly the byproduct made by pressing beans for oil. but even beyond that, cattle only eat about 7% of the total global soybean crop.
Cattle sure, but if you include poultry and porc that shoots up to around 80% of soy used for feed.
a soybean is only like 1/5 oil. after we've extracted the oil, feeding the meal or cake as it's variously called to animals is a conservation of resources.
Kurzgesagt explained it very well
Oats, barley, wheat, rye, rice and bamboo are all grasses humans can eat.
That would have been correct in the pre-domestication era.