Please correct the mistype: .. PIGS and chicken have one stomach.
The article brings a lot of different thoughts together, however sometimes not takinn nto account the place of each argument in the system.
Central is the sligh of hand on the humane treatment of animals. Perhaps this is the central question to focus on. Is it possible to use acceptable standards? Individually, probably yes. As an indudtry, the past 30 years seem to prove : no.
If only we would use waste to feed our ruminants instead of mostly growing and occupying prime land to grow these for humans not digested material. In the studies of efficiency the land use alternatives are often mixed up. Clasic cows eat from marginal land, or products not useful for humans. Industrial cows their foodcrop is grown on prime land... The food systems are complex. Meta studies, often funded by industrial, ageicultural or political interests don't grasp the totality of this complexity. What would the result be if for each cow the system is taken into account? I don't know. Does it matter much? The industrial livestock industry poisons our environment, and even the most advanced countries seem not able to solve its problems. This is beyond fancy global averages. In general I find global compound indicators less useful to steer policy than focused problem solving ( see also use of gdp to steer economy).
The question is: what would be the alternative to/for this cow?
The water argument is the most convincing: the alternative water uses of grassland in the Netherlands is to let it float to the ocean, not to use it for another crop. Here too, the global averages don't matter.
Please correct the mistype: .. PIGS and chicken have one stomach.
The article brings a lot of different thoughts together, however sometimes not takinn nto account the place of each argument in the system.
Central is the sligh of hand on the humane treatment of animals. Perhaps this is the central question to focus on. Is it possible to use acceptable standards? Individually, probably yes. As an indudtry, the past 30 years seem to prove : no.
If only we would use waste to feed our ruminants instead of mostly growing and occupying prime land to grow these for humans not digested material. In the studies of efficiency the land use alternatives are often mixed up. Clasic cows eat from marginal land, or products not useful for humans. Industrial cows their foodcrop is grown on prime land... The food systems are complex. Meta studies, often funded by industrial, ageicultural or political interests don't grasp the totality of this complexity. What would the result be if for each cow the system is taken into account? I don't know. Does it matter much? The industrial livestock industry poisons our environment, and even the most advanced countries seem not able to solve its problems. This is beyond fancy global averages. In general I find global compound indicators less useful to steer policy than focused problem solving ( see also use of gdp to steer economy).
The question is: what would be the alternative to/for this cow?
The water argument is the most convincing: the alternative water uses of grassland in the Netherlands is to let it float to the ocean, not to use it for another crop. Here too, the global averages don't matter.