This figure & the article underlying it are great examples of how bias affects the reporting of animal agriculture's impacts. Looking at percentages obscures the sheer *magnitude of stuff animals eat. "Only" 13% animal feed is grain? That's 1/3 of the grain on earth! https://twitter.com/GHGGuru/status/1338259691613220870

So many other problems abound: "byproducts" are often things that are perfectly edible to humans or result from junk food processing streams. One example: sugar molasses and sugar beet tops are fed to dairy cattle. That's because we're eating so much sugar!

Another problem: the fodder crops and oil seed cakes that are "inedible" to humans are occupying land that could otherwise feed humans. Again, the total of arable land that we allocate toward supporting animal agriculture is massive.

Yet another issue: this graph & report, like many others, doesn't distinguish between how ruminants vs. monogastrics compete with human food supply: sure cows can eat grass leaves & straw, but pigs and chickens have to (mostly) eat things that are also edible to humans.

I could rant all day about technical problem with the paper, but the biggest issue as I see it is that interpretation of the facts stems from values. They're not *really* saying anything wrong, they're just trying to paint the same numbers in the most exculpatory light possible.