@
kayoshin even without livestock humans can only process 20% of corn because we are NOT herbivores we only eat the seeds, while the cows turn the 80% that is garbage to us into food.
Same with oats. So your complaint is that animals make agriculture efficient instead of inefficient.
No, this isn't what they're talking about here. We feed grains to livestock as supplement or finishing feed - and a lot of it. That isn't a reference to the byproducts, but to the grains itself. Looking around, a cow will consume about 2800 pounds of corn (seed) in the feedlot - often as part of an all-grain diet.
This is done to rapidly speed up growth - it used to be that an animal had to mature for a few years before slaughter, now we have it down to 14 months. The crowded environment and rich diet of the feedlot isn't all that healthy for the cows - the rumen is evolved to digest forage, not straight grain. But this can be managed with antibiotics, with yet more side effects for society as a whole.
The world is not Brazil. Just saying.
This is a blurb about worldwide impact, Brazil is part of the world.
Question how much water does Botswana have and how would their life be without livestock?
Botswana has problems with water, they don't have a lot. They export beef, so it's not a subsistence situation. The agricultural sector isn't as important as it used to be due to the current mining boom, but there is a strong traditional aspect to things.
Other question: what would you use for fertilizer without livestock?
We have an overabundance of animal manure, we waste a ton of it, and are forced to burn or dump it - with corresponding environmental damage. And it's far from the only source or method of obtaining fertilizer.
How much land do you think you would need without livestock to feed the humans remembering that agriculture without livestock is as low as 5% efficiency as your own example study shows.
You misunderstood that example. And this is also a strawman because nobody is actually suggesting the whole world go vegan. But actually table-destined agriculture is far more efficient for the calories it produces, which is why most plans for a sustainable future as the population breaks 10 billion has us eating a more plant-based diet, with less meat. The meat-based diet is far less efficient in terms of land/water use, greenhouse gases, etc. Ironically, we know this by studying areas of the world that you accuse of having poor agricultural yields. Surprisingly, it's still an improvement in efficiency.
18% of greenhouse gases produced by animals AND logistics not excluding the logisics and even so the numbers seem inflated as they take numbers of animals per year Into account but most animals registered do not live the whole year to produce gas cause they are on someone's plate so even if a farm produces 3000 heads a year it might only have 1500 alive at a time.
There have been a lot of studies done on this subject. The numbers vary a bit, but they're generally quite high.
How much greenhouse gases would agriculture produce to substitute meat products realistically considering a large portion of the globe gives poor yelds and many countries have poor agricultural practices and top all that with logistics and storage energetic costs.
Less.
Throwing numbers is silly when you don't present the alternative too.
This wasn't a question about solutions, tbh.
But here is a solution, and an answer to the rest of your questions: the answer is not to go vegan. It's to eat
less meat. Certainly, Americans especially, will only benefit. It's pretty obvious that while some people in the world can use a bit more meat in their diet - whole swaths of it could use way, way less.
