I know that conditions in factory farms are gross and cruel to animals, but I don’t understand how it isn’t sustainable from an environmental perspective. Less cruel and more natural means for raising livestock take up much more land. With all the beef eaten in the United States, could most of it easily be raised on grass pastures, or would that require an unreasonably enormous portion of land be devoted to grazing? As for chickens, I know they’re generally considered carnivores but are fed grains in most farms, which is less healthy for them. They also aren’t given much space to move around inside giant pens.
​
With the huge appetite for meat humanity has, and with a growing population, it seems like the means of raising livestock that are the most popular became that way because they were the most efficient. I’m not saying efficient is best for the animals or for the quality of the product, but it seems like it’s designed to use the least amount of land and produce the most output. Are these more efficient methods really worse for the environment than other means?
​
Please feel free to point me to sources for more reading on the subject!
In: Planetary Science
>I know that conditions in factory farms are gross and cruel to animals, but I don’t understand how it isn’t sustainable from an environmental perspective. Less cruel and more natural means for raising livestock take up much more land. With all the beef eaten in the United States, could most of it easily be raised on grass pastures, or would that require an unreasonably enormous portion of land be devoted to grazing? As for chickens, I know they’re generally considered carnivores but are fed grains in most farms, which is less healthy for them. They also aren’t given much space to move around inside giant pens.
>With the huge appetite for meat humanity has, and with a growing population, it seems like the means of raising livestock that are the most popular became that way because they were the most efficient. I’m not saying efficient is best for the animals or for the quality of the product, but it seems like it’s designed to use the least amount of land and produce the most output. Are these more efficient methods really worse for the environment than other means?
The non-sustainability stems from the inherent [energy inefficiency](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-efficiency-of-meat-and-dairy-production) of using animal products for sustenance.
Higher organisms spend most on their energy on simply *existing*, not on growing steaks, so not a whole lot of the effort/energy you put into any kind of animal farming system (factory or otherwise) ends up on plates. Expending the equivalent of 100 calories of energy in order to get beef worth 2 calories or milk worth 25 calories is just never going to be a good deal if the alternative is to just use the 100 calories you started with.
It’s like fueling a lawnmower that sits within a hamsterwheel that powers the truck carrying it. Why not just pour the fuel into the truck directly?
Latest Answers