🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@admitsWrongIfProven

Most of what it listed was not crops grown specifically for animals. I listed the breakdown and most of it were either grass (grazing, mostly 66% of which is on land not suitabke for crops and only supports grass) or explicitly food waste like seeds and processing leftovers.

@tripu @bonifartius

@admitsWrongIfProven

The study i provided addresses it with 86% of food stock being inedible for humans

@tripu @bonifartius

@admitsWrongIfProven

No but factory farms do still consume mostly food waste, converting inedible food into edible food. That is an argument against shutting it down.

@tripu @bonifartius

@admitsWrongIfProven

So first, i foubd a number on grazing. So cows that graze 67% of them graze on land not suitable for crops

https://www.fao.org/3/ar591e/ar591e.pdf

The source for the percentages in my last response is here:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211912416300013

@tripu @bonifartius

@admitsWrongIfProven

To give specific numbers it is ....

14% edible (13% of which is grain)
46% grass (primarily land not suitable for crops)
19% residues from processing crops for humans
8% fodder crops (crops grown specific for animals)
5% from crop seeds
8% by products and other inedibly byproducts
@tripu @bonifartius

@admitsWrongIfProven

No your missing the point 14% is food suitabke to humans. 50% or so is grass (most of which on rocky or.mountainous land that cant grow crops). The overwhelming remainder are things like like stalks and leaves, the waste product of harvest. Yes we do sometimes have crops specifically to feed animals, but it isnt the bulk of it.

@tripu @bonifartius

@admitsWrongIfProven

Nothing is 100%. Only 14% of food stock for livestock is edible at all by humans. Even less so is palattable to humans. But yes very little is grown exclusively for livestock

@tripu @bonifartius

@tripu

Another flaw is your assumption that the feed for livestock is taking away from land grown for humans. This too is not true. Generally livestock are fed the food waste from the part of the food we cant eat. So the edible parts go to us and the human inedible parts go to the livestock, either that or the graze on grasses on mou tainous land not suitable for crops.

So everythi g about your estimates are based on faulty assumptions.

@bonifartius

@tripu

> But note that we can’t assume that land reclaimed from animals would have lower caloric output, either.

Actually we can. We know livestock can be raised on both land suitable for crops and land that isnt. We also know that a lot, and perhaps even the vast majority, are raised on rocky terrain where crops cant be grown. Therefore since anywhere from some to most of the land reclaimed from animals has 0 caloties per acre, on average we know for a fact such land will have less output than current land used for crops.

The only thing we dont know is exactly how much of the land is suitabke for crops, we just know its considerably less than 100%

All of the rest of your post ia moot since it assumes thibgs we dont know to be true about reclained land.
@bonifartius

@hendrikboom3 not sure what "style" you mean but every distro supports dual booting, you do that via the bootloader and not the distro

@hendrikboom3 guix is newer and based on guile (i find lisp styled languages unbearably ugly which is half the reason i went with nixos which uses a different but functional language)

@tripu @bonifartius

You are assuming the land reclaimed from animals would have the same caloric output per acre, thats a faulty assumption.

@EubieDrew yes im tryibg to get them into the next update

@admitsWrongIfProven Yes, those profiting are going to be a bit bias in this regard for sure. But lets not forget the activaists trying to save the world, as desirable as their goal may be, are equally bias and going to produce bad numbers in the other direction (this very info-graphic is an example of that as I pointed out).... in other words, the problem in getting accurate data is not one of profit so much as one of bias.

@tripu This misses a very important point... While almost all land suitable for crops is also suitable for animals the reverse isnt true. In fact it is quite often the case animals are raised on land explicitly not suitable for crops. I dont know the exact breakdown, and that would be important to evaluate this fairly. But I know from my interaction with farmers that a great many of them raise their livestock on mountainous land not suited for crops and use fertile farmland mostly for crops.. Even when the land is flat and not mountainous it is often unsuitable for crops due to the makeup of the soil (too rocky, no good drainage, etc)

@icedquinn it is common in projects where semantic versioning doesnt make sense. For example Ubuntu uses it.

@bot

What are you on about, UFOI is not a block list.

@PKMNLives@masto.ai @casey-magazine @realcaseyrollins

@Romaq

What a class act, lol

@realcaseyrollins @ufoi @casey-magazine @stux @PKMNLives@masto.ai