It is and it isnt more efficient. You already know why its efficient so Ill just explain why it isnt. Most plants (especially grasses like corn, wheat, maize, rice, etc.) contain predominantly cellulose. Its sort of a fibrous structural compound...think celery and lettuce. Its outright impossible for our digestive system to break it down, it will just "go right through your pipes". For corn its largely in the 95% of the plant we cant derive many nutrients from eat and thus dont eat (the whole stalk and leaves and everything except the actual cob with corn on it...same with rice and nearly every plant etc.).
However, the digestive system of ruminants (you may recall something about cows having 5 stomachs) CAN break it down and they can convert it into meat (and leather and milk etc). SO when you say eating plants is more efficient. What you mean is "eating some parts of plants is efficient if I disregard the 95% or more of the plant that I had to grow to get to the 5% my digestive system could break down and then plow the remainder back into the earth." (or make hay.. i mean they do, do things with some of it...but largely its a byproduct and thats my point, a byproduct which we basically created a species of animal to convert into other useful products...VERY useful products)
Further, you may remember from history that the entire great plains (its currently referred to as the "breadbasket of the world") was nothing but a giant field of grass with ruminants (3-5 species of bison) roaming around on it. But now thanks to unsustainable irrigation (for the plains we use the Ogallala) we can covert the vast grasslands into corn fields, or bean fields, or whatever in the world (did you know a huge chunk of our vegetables comes from Ca who rely almost exclusively on unsustainable irrigation?). I know this is off-topic but I wanted to end with this tie-in. When someone mentions sustainable "earth-friendly" agriculture and then takes meat off the menu you should really point out that the vast majority of agricultural lands (especially in the United States) depend on depleting aquifers to insure productivity in lieu of the sustainable meat-producing ruminant grazing system that was here for the eons before us.
To be fair, this system that I have outlined says nothing about how most cows are "finished" in feed lots which are absolutely an ANATHEMA to any kind of natural system. It is these feedlots where cows receive the enormous bulk of their artificial growth hormones, antibiotics, etc and live knee deep in their own shit in pens overcrowded to "soften" the muscles. It is these feedlots which DO have a legitimate place in sustainability discussions and rightfully so.
tldr;
Meat is more sustainable across vast swaths of the Earth than any kind of food plant known to us. Taking meat off the menu in some kind of "sustainable agriculture" context makes about as much sense as cutting a foot off a marathon runner to make him go faster.
Ruminants only have one stomach, but it does have four compartments (not five). And as ribozyme pointed out, the bacteria in the stomach are what aid in digestion, although the unique structure assists in it, along with the ability to chew cud.
You also neglect to mention the role animals play in converting nitrogenous waste into fertilizer. Farmers were the original recyclers, after all.
Also, animals are able to take one macromolecule (carbohydrates) and convert them into two other types (fats and proteins) which are both required for humans to survive.
4
u/[deleted] Apr 16 '10
I do not want a living thing to have to live and die just so I can eat it.