• usernamesAreTrickyOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    The first study’s I cited in the previous comment whole goal was to directly measure what amount of their feed was human-edible. It still found it takes more kg of human-edible feed than it produces in kg of meat. These studies aren’t leaving things out, they are just finding the opposite result

    Repeating the claim without any evidence does not make it more true

    • SupraMario@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      https://lemmy.world/comment/9023734

      Tired of repeating everything…read the thread. You’re studies are biased crap, it’s always some vegans that run the studies and it’s always got a biased lean to make the studies sound like we can magically feed 7+ billion people on plants with no issues.

      • usernamesAreTrickyOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        The very study that you cite found it uses more human-edible feed than it produces. That is the more relevant figure

        Contrary to commonly cited figures, 1 kg of meat requires 2.8 kg of human-edible feed for ruminants and 3.2 for monogastrics

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          That doesn’t magically make it less nutritional than what it requires to feed them. 1lb of meat is not going to be replaced with 1lb of any veggies. You have to eat way more vegetables to get the same amount of nutritional value. Meat is packed with a higher concentration of most of the nutrients we need.

          Do note I’m in no way saying it can replace vegetables, I like my greens, but I’m also not someone who thinks that we can magically feed the entire world on a plant diet.