Vegans are wrong - Animals produce more food than plant farming does

Author: Best.Korea

Posts

Total: 11
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 352
Posts: 10,314
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Vegans usually compare animal output (meat) in kilograms vs plant output (grains, vegetables, fruit) in kilograms per same amount of land and conclude that plants produce more.

However, they ignore 5 important things.

1. Animals dont produce just meat. One cow can produce over 7000 liters of milk a year, which already puts it on an close to equal ground in terms of food production.

2. The land necessary for farming doesnt include just area where plants grow.
It also includes storage, which must be huge because plants produce huge amounts of food once a year compared to animals which produce food constantly instead of all at once.
It also includes area for processing. You cant exactly eat raw wheat. It must be ground into flour, then flour must also have storage from where it will be taken and made into bread. To make bread, you also need space and resources.

3. Plant farming requires more machines and uses lots of fuel. You cant till soil on large scale without tractor.

4. Animal farming can be combined with tree farming, and animals can even eat leaves provided by trees. Same cannot really be said about plant farming. Tractor which tills soil cannot till near trees, as it would damage roots.

5. Different farm animals can make use of same land. Chickens can eat insects and grass seeds from land and cows wouldnt eat those anyway, and cows can eat grass from same land.
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,962
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Best.Korea
Vegans are right, it's a matter of conservation of energy. So long as the animals are eating things humans are willing to eat we must be losing energy by further conversions.


Animal farming can be combined with tree farming, and animals can even eat leaves provided by trees.
Very few animals can graze on trees. Trees like it that way.


Same cannot really be said about plant farming.
Ever heard of fruit trees? Nut trees?


Tractor which tills soil cannot till near trees, as it would damage roots.
True.


Different farm animals can make use of same land.
Not really. If you have land with different biomes you can use it more efficiently with different animals but that's not really "the same land".


Chickens can eat insects and grass seeds
Chickens can eat insects in a grain field too.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 352
Posts: 10,314
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Ever heard of fruit trees? Nut trees?
Those are the trees you are supposed to farm on same land as animals, obviously.

Very few animals can graze on trees. Trees like it that way.
Really? You think cow cant eat tree leaves?

If you have land with different biomes you can use it more efficiently with different animals but that's not really "the same land".
Grass lands usually have grass seeds and insects.

Chickens can eat insects in a grain field too.
Sadly, not unless you want to reduce your grain yield by half.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 352
Posts: 10,314
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So long as the animals are eating things humans are willing to eat we must be losing energy by further conversions
Well, unless you are willing to eat grass and insects, I dont really see your point.

ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,962
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Best.Korea
Ever heard of fruit trees? Nut trees?
Those are the trees you are supposed to farm on same land as animals, obviously.
Well it's not like the animals would be getting energy from the trees, so you're talking about secondary power from the undergrowth below the canopy; and sure you can capture that with some animals, goats are ideal I would think but others could do it as well. If we had robot pickers you could grow more human edible low light tolerant plants like herbs, some vegetables, and several kinds of berries.

That's not "animals produce more food than plant farming does" that's "in some cases animals can add a small amount of food to a base plant farming strategy"


Very few animals can graze on trees. Trees like it that way.
Really? You think cow cant eat tree leaves?
Not an adult tree, that's one of the reasons they grow high; but they also have chemicals in the leaves to make them bitter if not poisonous.

I don't have a list of which saplings could be eaten by cows but it hardly matters since a sapling will never be a good plant to feed cows and if they did eat them they would never grow large enough to be useful otherwise and if you did let them grow large enough they would no longer be a food source for the cows.


Chickens can eat insects in a grain field too.
Sadly, not unless you want to reduce your grain yield by half.
Why is that? and if the chickens didn't produce more calories than the half harvest you would supposedly lose aren't you conceding the original contention?


So long as the animals are eating things humans are willing to eat we must be losing energy by further conversions
Well, unless you are willing to eat grass and insects, I dont really see your point.
I eat grass seed all the time. Grass is the best, too good actually.

Again if you're talking about using waste products or plants to feed animals that is not the contention of the title of this thread.

Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 352
Posts: 10,314
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Well it's not like the animals would be getting energy from the trees, so you're talking about secondary power from the undergrowth below the canopy; and sure you can capture that with some animals, goats are ideal I would think but others could do it as well. If we had robot pickers you could grow more human edible low light tolerant plants like herbs, some vegetables, and several kinds of berries.

That's not "animals produce more food than plant farming does" that's "in some cases animals can add a small amount of food to a base plant farming strategy"
Its fruit/nut trees plus animals. I dont see what you are not getting about this, since you cant have trees+grains, since tractor cant till around roots of trees.

Not an adult tree, that's one of the reasons they grow high; but they also have chemicals in the leaves to make them bitter if not poisonous.
I don't have a list of which saplings could be eaten by cows but it hardly matters since a sapling will never be a good plant to feed cows and if they did eat them they would never grow large enough to be useful otherwise and if you did let them grow large enough they would no longer be a food source for the cows.
Not all trees grow high. Apple trees and hazel trees dont grow high, and no, their leaves arent poisonous. And since you attacked a strawman, I will just point out that no one here suggested feeding animals with leaves alone. Leaves are just extra what you get and they drop on their own during fall.

Why is that? and if the chickens didn't produce more calories than the half harvest you would supposedly lose aren't you conceding the original contention?
The point is that "cows + chickens + trees" produce more than "grains + chickens". So stop punching strawmen please.

I eat grass seed all the time. Grass is the best, too good actually.
Again if you're talking about using waste products or plants to feed animals that is not the contention of the title of this thread.
You can play stupid here as much as you want. No, you dont eat grass seeds other than the likes of corn, which wont grow unless you till the soil. If you dont know what grass is(not a waste product) or how it grows, then I suggest that you go back to school. Really, I dont have time to give you the education which you need to understand what I am even saying.
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,962
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Best.Korea
Why is that? and if the chickens didn't produce more calories than the half harvest you would supposedly lose aren't you conceding the original contention?
The point is that "cows + chickens + trees" produce more than "grains + chickens". So stop punching strawmen please.
That could be true, but it would only be true if the trees are better (at capturing solar power and making it available as starch/sugar) than the grains regardless.

That's some plants are better than other plants, not that animals are better than plants.
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,408
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@Best.Korea
5 Reasons We Need Trees for a Healthy Planet
  • 1. Trees purify our air and combat climate change ...
  • 2. Trees provide housing to millions of species that protect us from disease ...
  • 3. Trees cool our streets and cities ...
  • 4. Trees protect against floods and water pollution ...
  • 5. Trees ease the mind during stressful times

ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,962
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
5 reason FLRW sounds like a bot:

5 Reasons We Need Trees for a Healthy Planet
  • 1. Trees purify our air and combat climate change ...
  • 2. Trees provide housing to millions of species that protect us from disease ...
  • 3. Trees cool our streets and cities ...
  • 4. Trees protect against floods and water pollution ...
  • 5. Trees ease the mind during stressful times
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,408
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty

So you cut down all the trees in your neighborhood?
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,962
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
Nope, I haven’t done anything like that. In fact, I’m all for keeping the trees where they are! They’re crucial for the environment and make neighborhoods much nicer. If you’re dealing with a tree-related issue or need advice on trees, I’d be happy to help!