Is it more efficient to eat plants than to eat herbivores?

Question

In reviewing the energy pyramind, I noticed a claim that it is more efficient for humans to eat plants than to eat herbivores. Without considering other factors, this makes sense.

While energy is lost as it moves up the energy pyramid, I can't help but think a greater amount would be lost on humans than herbivores because we don't have the bacteria available to digest cellulose as herbivores do. Does the amount of energy we "waste" in eating cellulose rich foods make it less efficient than eating herbivores? Or is the amount of energy an herbivore gets from cellulose so insignificant that it doesn't matter?

Don't get me wrong, I know fiber is good for our system. I'm just looking at the efficiency point of view.

I'm not bringing nutrients into the equation here. I'm speaking from a strictly ecological standpoint. I'm interested in know how many calories a cow (or any herbivore) derives from cellulose. I often here the arguement that a higher amount of producers in our diet is good for the environment and is more efficient BUT if we're losing a very large amount of energy from producers because we can't process cellulose, it might not be that efficient.

Answer 1

That partly depends on which specific plants you are referring to. Humans don't eat grass. If comparing the energy gained from something like cereal grains, yes, cows can derive a somewhat greater amount of energy from the plant matter than humans. However, this difference is severely overshadowed by the huge inefficiency of eating from a secondary producer. Considering how much energy is needed for just a basal metabolism and minimal movement, any benefit from additional digestive capabilities is insignificant. Actual quantification is all across the board and depends on a lot of different factors (like animal size, activity, milk production, etc.), but in general results indicate that, on average, the farmland required to feed 1 person on meat could be used to feed 20 people on plants.

Answer 2

In terms of thermodynamic efficiency, yes, eating plants is more efficient, as herbivores convert plant calories into usable food at much less than 100% efficiency. However, plant proteins are not well balanced with respect to amino acids, and since about half of the 20 basic amino acids required for nutrition cannot be made by humans from other food products, some attention to eating appropriate vegetables to deal with this is necessary. Also, humans require vitamin B-12, which cannot be obtained from plants.

Answer 3

I think two things are mixed up here.
1. Efficacy of human feeding: the same amount of beef or the same amount of grass gives you more nutrients (calories, proteins, whatever)
2. Most efficient use of plant resources: given amount of grass can support larger human population, or cows raised on the same amount of grass.

I'm pretty sure that in 1. it is more efficient to eat beef.
In 2. as I know it would be more of efficient to be vegetarian.

Answer 4

I think it would be better to each foods rich in fiber and vegetables and fruits rich in color with a moderate consumption of meat. Remember you in the end inherit the problems the animal you ate was having most factory farm raised animals are fed a very poor diet and have chemicals like artificial growth hormones. I am not against meat just a moderation compared to the vegetables you eat.

Answer 5

consume both and you don't have to worry about it, It's all sunlight conversion into sugar which is both food and building blocks