this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2024
-20 points (22.2% liked)

Data is Beautiful

1165 readers
17 users here now

Be respectful

founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cardboardchris@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago (6 children)

Aren't the meat products used for pets by-products of the meat (for humans) industry? That is, isn't it the case that no additional livestock animals are slaughtered to feed pets, beyond those that are already being slaughtered to feed humans?

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 day ago (4 children)

and the feed grown "for animals" is largely a byproduct of plants grown for people. it's incredibly dishonest.

[–] Squirrelsdrivemenuts@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That is incorrect. Around 40% of fields are used to grow food for livestock, as well as a quarter of fish caught being fed to animals. I found this article saying we could slightly increase byproduct use for feed, but they are minor improvements. https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-022-00589-6

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

from the abstract

We then analysed the potential of replacing food-competing feedstuff—here cereals, whole fish, vegetable oils and pulses that account for 15% of total feed use—with food system by-products and residues.

a distinct minority of animal feed competes with human food

[–] Squirrelsdrivemenuts@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, humans cannot eat grass (for example), but grass is also not a byproduct. And fields used to grow grass could be used either for other (human-edible) crops, habitation or for wildlife restoration.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 19 hours ago

fields used to grow grass could be used either for other (human-edible) crops

some. I doubt that's true for most grasslands.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)