Why would there be more food if everyone ate plants and vegetables?
- 0 votes
I'm really stuck on this - according to my AQA Additional Biology GCSE revision guides, if everyone in developing countries ate plants, then there would be more food - why? This whole topic leaves me baffled so if you could give me any additional info it would be very much appreciated!!!
- 3 votes
plants consume less space than animals,
plus animals consume plants so without them being used as livestock there'd be more
ANDDDD plants are primary producers so they get energy direct from sunlight, so they have the most energy available to consumers- more energy consumed, means you need to consume less mass. :)
- 1 vote
So much space is cleared to grow cops for animals and to graze animals, if all of this land was used to grow crops for human consumption there would be so much more food
Apparentlly The cattle population across the world eats enough calories to feed 8.7 billion people. And i think the world's population is estimated to be about 7 billion currently so if you add that to the amount of food that is being currently produced currently you see there is more food than people.
Of course it must be considered (from a geography point of view) some LEDCs don't have the sutiable climate (sub-saharan Africa) or the technology to mass produce crops like we do, or some are simply so overcrowded that there isn't space. But if all of the land was turned to crops, food prices would drop dramatically meaning these people would now be able to afford cheap imports but it would also mean they proberally wouldn;t be able to make a living from farming anymore with prices being so low.
It's a hard situation but in theory, leave the meat and eat your fruit and Veg!
- 0 votes
the problem is the many places, especially in the UK the land is completely unsuitable for crop production, and so pastoral production is by far the best way to produce food. Also, meat tastes good and it provides good nutrition.
And in reality, the crops grown which are being fed to animals aren't really contributing to starvation and in the modern world starvation is rarely due a simple lack of food, due to international aid structures and the like, it is more to do with the maldistribution of food and the geopolitics of food, for example in civil wars where one group of people, as they are the opposition, do not get enough food.
- 0 votes
Thank you very much, everyone. I have a much clearer understanding of that now. One question, though: I now know what humans eating crops means there's more energy in the crops to begin with and that us eating meat means that the cattle 'waste' a lot of energy through movement etc. So does this mean that crops are more satisfying, so we need to eat less of them - is that why there would be more?