• chetradley@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    6 months ago

    This is an interesting edge case you’re presenting, but it’s not representative of the overwhelming majority of agricultural land devoted to livestock, and it’s been largely solved by modern supply chains and distribution.

    • CapeWearingAeroplane@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Which is why I said “in general, you’re right”. However, that doesn’t take away the fact that most livestock from some countries is primarily raised on land that can’t be farmed.

      Speaking of supply chains: We could do the math on whether shipping a vegetable-based calorie from Brazil to Norway is more or less of an environmental burden than a meat-based calorie produced in Norway.

        • CapeWearingAeroplane@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Did you read the text on that graphic?

          … land conversion for grazing and feed …

          I’m not talking about meat production in general (which I think should be minimised), I’m specifically talking about meat production from land that is not viable for other uses.

          This was exactly my point: I’m legitimately interested in how that graphic looks if you consider meat produced on land that cannot be used for other types of agriculture, and which is local so that transportation is a negligible cost, and feed production is close to non-existent, because the livestock primarily lives off the land.