What a loaded question.
Outside of the fact that a single cows life provides about 900 meals for humans, and the scraps left over make boots that last for a decade and also feed our cats and dogs. Plus, it’s delicious.
Yeah so, the amount of meals is correct. But that’s about it. I mean, I can’t say about the taste, to each their own, but one kg of cow meat needs two dozen kg of grain.
That’s about as inefficient as it gets.
As for the leather, the industry doesn’t like products that last a decade, so it isn’t actually using the leather in such a way. Industrial leather boots last a year tops.
Finally, pet food is made out of discarded cuts of meat, the uglies, etc. But also lots of cereals, and vegetables.
So we could really afford eating less meat. It isn’t good for anything. Not for us, not for the other species (certainly not for the cows, that get often half assed butchered in a hasty way because of quotas and profit), and absolutely not for the ecosystem.
But I guess the taste is all that matters.
Cows are not all fed on grain. A lot of cows are ranched on land that would not be suitable for growing grain crops.
Or even land that is suitable for growing grain, but they’re kept being fed almost entirely on grass, for better quality, better health (and less cow farts, lol), rather than cost cutting nasty to bulk them up.
Well, if we’re talking pure food-production efficiency, then if the land is capable of growing grain then it’s probably better to grow grain there and feed the grain directly to humans.
But upvote anyway for responding to a year-and-a-half-old thread, this is the oldest necro response I’ve received yet on the Fediverse. :)
Well, if we’re talking pure food-production efficiency, then if the land is capable of growing grain then it’s probably better to grow grain there and feed the grain directly to humans.
Well in that case perhaps we should do just algae and worms.
Or maybe we should consider more than “pure food-production efficiency” in such a crude manner.
Perhaps we should consider nutrition and health (of those eating the food, and the environment), more than just crude bulk quantity.
Grain based diet would ruin our immune systems, and the health of the soil, without animal fertilizer.
Why do people eat food they know isn’t good for their health? Why do people continue to buy products from companies that have proven to only sell bad products or engage in scumbag practices?
They all have the same answer.
It turns out in 1961 the American heart Association took bribery money from procter and gamble, who owned and sold “healthier Crisco” cooking oils that weren’t high in saturated fat, like beef and other cooking oils were.
The AHA then claimed and pushed that saturated fats caused heart disease.
Problem is, something like 88% of every study done in the past 60 years has found little to no link between heart disease and saturated fats.
So beef, according to most studies, isn’t bad for you. The AHA was just crooked and on the take, being paid off to sell Crisco.
Now it is calorie dense and people tend to eat too much of it, but that seems to be a lot of things. Don’t eat too much or you get fat. But apparently, you don’t have to worry about saturated fats being bad for you.
Beef is one of the least-woke proteins. /s
We only eat the fascist cows. And the homophobic chickens at Chick-fil-A.
THOSE COWS ARE NOT FASCIST!
THEY’RE HINDU!
Different swastika.
;D
This might not be a “stupid” question, but it sure is a loaded and leading one that for sure isn’t in good faith. Welcome to my block list, enjoy your stay.
It’s ingrained into our capitalistic culture. Fast food ads every 20 minutes on tv. Grilling on weekends. Tailgating. A WackDonald’s on every corner. Not to mention big Dairy.
