this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2023
578 points (89.7% liked)

Funny: Home of the Haha

5490 readers
984 users here now

Welcome to /c/funny, a place for all your humorous and amusing content.

Looking for mods! Send an application to Stamets!

Our Rules:

  1. Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.

  2. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.

  3. Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.


Other Communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

letting a cow graze a field and killing it next year takes way less time than tilling and planting and fertilizing and watering and harvesting.

[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Did you miss '/s' or do you genuinely believe that?

Cause if it's the latter, you should go to your school and ask for a refund.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I don't think youve ever planted a field if you think I'm wrong

[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

And I don't think you've ever considered the amount of food and water required for just a kilo of meat.

Hint: It's exponentially more than a kilo of veggies or grains.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

you haven't been reading what I'm writing.

buy a cow. put it in a pasture. come back in 18 months.

OR

buy seed. till. plant. water. feed. harvest.

the time investment per calorie is vastly different.

[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yeah good luck with that when 8 billion people start doing that. Moron.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 11 months ago

the discussion is about effort, not scalability.

[–] Serdan@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

We've got machines for that stuff.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

running machines still takes effort. letting a cow live doesn't.

[–] papertowels@lemmy.one 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't most pastures also planted, fertilized, and watered? You're also assuming infinite land here - I don't know shit about farming, but the first google hit I got suggests that cows need about 1.8 acres of pasture per year.

1 cow, consuming 1.8 acres of land, produces on the scale of 0.5 to 1.4 million calories, according to this estimate

However farming produces up to 18 million calories per acre, so if you were growing potatoes you'd have 32 million calories. On the same land that produced up to 1.4 million calories via grazing cow.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 11 months ago

https://www.northamptonseed.com/pastures

if you ask a seed salesman whether you should buy his product for your pasture, he'll try to sell it to you. but no, for the most part pasture management is very low intensity: repair fences and deter predators. these have direct analogues in raising crops though in warding off pests that would eat the crops.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 11 months ago

However farming produces up to 18 million calories per acre, so if you were growing potatoes you’d have 32 million calories. On the same land that produced up to 1.4 million calories via grazing cow.

so? the work of lettin a cow eat what grows is still less work than planting, tending, and harvesting.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 11 months ago

aren’t most pastures also planted, fertilized, and watered?

no. they're grasslands, and hilly terrain or rocky soil is a common feature of land designated as pastures because of the difficulty of working the land.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You’re also assuming infinite land here

no, i'm not. i was comparing the work done to plant a field of potatoes against raising an equivalent amount of cattle. i'm making no sweeping policy proposals.

[–] papertowels@lemmy.one 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Great, in a vacuum, and assuming efficiency of land does not matter, you are correct in saying it takes less work to produce less calories.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 11 months ago

not just in a vaccuum but literally any time you have the option to plant a field or put a cow in it, it will always be less work to put a cow in it.