This seems like a dubious line of reasoning. It’s like making the claim that if you eat moss your net water consumption is lower than if you eat the leaves off an oak tree because of all the water it takes to grow. I mean I guess it’s sort of true but it’s also sorta weird. The argument is basically eat closer to the bottom of the food chain and the younger the better, but I don’t think you’re going to be happy if people eat more puppies and veal…