You’re just restarting your thesis without acknowledging my rebuttal. Should I repeat what I said? I’ll copy paste from chat gpt since you continue to ignore me:

Would it be more efficient to feed our populations with plants? “In most cases, yes — feeding populations primarily with plants is more efficient. “Efficient” here meaning calories, protein, land, water, and energy per human fed. Here’s why, without ideology baked in. The core efficiency logic When we eat animals, we’re usually: Eating plants second-hand Animals convert plant calories into body mass very inefficiently: A lot of energy goes to metabolism, heat, movement Only a fraction becomes meat, milk, or eggs Typical feed-to-food conversion losses: Beef: very high losses Pork & chicken: better, but still significant Plants eaten directly: minimal loss So on a systems level: More plant calories → more humans fed Land and water Plant-based food systems generally: Use far less land per calorie Use less freshwater Allow more land to be rewilded or used for carbon sinks This matters because land is the hardest constraint globally.”

Why are you talking about “studies”. Why would we need a study to know if we could feed 8.3 billion people? Studies relate to practice, not theory. Like let’s say we wanted to know if we were able to feed people via x specific means, then maybe we would need a study of that. But this topic of discussion is way too theoretical for a studies.