> If there was an ecological disaster that killed crop production, we wouldn't waste it by feeding it to animals for a grossly inefficient luxury item.

This is what I interpreted the parent comment as saying.

Most animals can feed on wild grasses which we can't digest. They can serve us with a lot of resources and stay alive too (milk, wool, eggs). But if the event is so severe that even grass is gone, then rats are left and canibalism.

A good point.

Also:

https://www.covercropstrategies.com/articles/1368-adding-hay...

There's also strong logic in having hay as part of crop rotation, which as we know, is vital to reduce the need for fertilizer.

On top of this, there's loads of land useless for anything other than grazing. Too dry, with no irrigation (only usable for grazing in the spring). Too rocky, too much of a slope, soil quality not right (too much clay, etc, etc), yet still able to support grasses.

There's a lot of grazing done, in and outside of the US.

Lastly, and this was mentioned GP, it's vital to produce more than we eat each year. Extremely vital. Part of all the subsidies we have, is to ensure farmers DO grow more than required.

To ensure that the free market, doesn't bottom out pricing too much, because we have farmers over producing. If you want to start removing subsidies, then you should first ensure people have a year's worth of canned emergency food on hand.

If people get hungry, that's where the knives come out. If your kid is hungry, you're going to feed it.

That's what I meant by meat pyramid (we're both arguing the same point)