5 ms·

Because growing 1000 calories worth of a plant takes less space then growing 10000 calories. And if you want a 1000 calories of cow meat you will need to feed i

Because growing 1000 calories worth of a plant takes less space then growing 10000 calories. And if you want a 1000 calories of cow meat you will need to feed it much more then 10000 calories of plant.

losvedir 10y ago
That's not necessarily true since the plants are different.
- Kbelicius 10y ago
  It is necessarily true that you need to put more calories in a cow then you get back.
  - vilmosi 10y ago
    Not if the cow is grass fed in a natural environment. Yes, it's a lot of calories they consume, but those calories were never going to be used by humans.
    - good_vibes 10y ago
      Cows, lambs, pigs, goats produce a lot of methane. The contribution to total greenhouse emissions is another hidden cost people don't normally account for. We clear forests to make room for more farms to feed the growing demand for meat around the world. If a plant-based diet doesn't become more popular and mainstream, we are headed for trouble by mid century.
    - Kbelicius 10y ago
      Whatever you may think it is still true that it takes more calories to grow a cow then you get from a cow. No matter what kind of food a cow consumes. Weather those calories were going to be used by humans or not that land is now used to feed some cows that will feed a few people. Instead we could use that land to grow plants and feed more people then with cows. Also, AFAIK, that natural environment where cows are fed is mostly created by destroying forests.
      - soundwave106 10y ago
        A grass fed cow by definition will not use any extra calories from feed crops. At least in the United States, there is a fair bit of land that is both non-arable and yet perfectly sustainable for cattle (much of this land was historically home of a bovine species, the plains bison, in the first place). I'm thinking areas like certain areas of Texas, Wyoming, Montana, etc. There are probably other areas in this regard, so I think it's possible to keep some meat and actually have it be relatively sustainable. Everyone's overall point is correct, however, in that this does not apply to a lot of meat production today; keeping only the more sustainable practices would end up making meat a luxury product (as it was in earlier times).
      - vilmosi 10y ago
        > Instead we could use that land to grow plants and feed more people then with cows. Sometimes we can't grow crops on that land. And it's a lot of non-arable land.
  - lawless123 10y ago
    >Not if the cow is grass fed in a natural environment. That space for grass feeding could be used to grow much more food to feed humans directly.
vilmosi 10y ago
That's a gross oversimplification and not true in many cases. For instance, New Zealand lamb flocks are grown high up in the mountains, eating and drinking from local sources unsuitable for plant farming. It would literally take more arable land for the equivalent plant based diet.
- Kbelicius 10y ago
  The fact that animals consume more calories then they give is not a gross oversimplification and is true in every case. What is a generalization and is not true in many cases is that the meat we eat is produced in environments unsuitable for plant farming.
  - vilmosi 10y ago
    > The fact that animals consume more calories then they give is not a gross oversimplification and is true in every case. Maybe not oversimplification but deceiving. It makes it sound like we can eat grass.
- lawless123 10y ago
  >For instance, New Zealand lamb flocks are grown high up in the mountains That's such an edge case though.. Burger King and Mcdonalds aren't selling lamb burgers in large quantities. What about all the cattle farmed all over the world? They're not all on a steep mountainside. Most will be on plains or more factory like conditions.
- crispyambulance 10y ago
  I'm sure the lamb is delicious at the dozen or so restaurants and butchers in which it is sold for a high price. When you're talking about scale, feeding 10's of thousands of people, plant based food sources win out.
  - michael_h 10y ago
    'Dozen or so'? You can get a lamb roast at Costco.

losvedir 10y ago

That's not necessarily true since the plants are different.

Kbelicius 10y ago
It is necessarily true that you need to put more calories in a cow then you get back.
- vilmosi 10y ago
  Not if the cow is grass fed in a natural environment. Yes, it's a lot of calories they consume, but those calories were never going to be used by humans.
  - good_vibes 10y ago
    Cows, lambs, pigs, goats produce a lot of methane. The contribution to total greenhouse emissions is another hidden cost people don't normally account for. We clear forests to make room for more farms to feed the growing demand for meat around the world. If a plant-based diet doesn't become more popular and mainstream, we are headed for trouble by mid century.
  - Kbelicius 10y ago
    Whatever you may think it is still true that it takes more calories to grow a cow then you get from a cow. No matter what kind of food a cow consumes. Weather those calories were going to be used by humans or not that land is now used to feed some cows that will feed a few people. Instead we could use that land to grow plants and feed more people then with cows. Also, AFAIK, that natural environment where cows are fed is mostly created by destroying forests.
    - soundwave106 10y ago
      A grass fed cow by definition will not use any extra calories from feed crops. At least in the United States, there is a fair bit of land that is both non-arable and yet perfectly sustainable for cattle (much of this land was historically home of a bovine species, the plains bison, in the first place). I'm thinking areas like certain areas of Texas, Wyoming, Montana, etc. There are probably other areas in this regard, so I think it's possible to keep some meat and actually have it be relatively sustainable. Everyone's overall point is correct, however, in that this does not apply to a lot of meat production today; keeping only the more sustainable practices would end up making meat a luxury product (as it was in earlier times).
    - vilmosi 10y ago
      > Instead we could use that land to grow plants and feed more people then with cows. Sometimes we can't grow crops on that land. And it's a lot of non-arable land.
- lawless123 10y ago
  >Not if the cow is grass fed in a natural environment. That space for grass feeding could be used to grow much more food to feed humans directly.

vilmosi 10y ago

That's a gross oversimplification and not true in many cases. For instance, New Zealand lamb flocks are grown high up in the mountains, eating and drinking from local sources unsuitable for plant farming. It would literally take more arable land for the equivalent plant based diet.

Kbelicius 10y ago
The fact that animals consume more calories then they give is not a gross oversimplification and is true in every case. What is a generalization and is not true in many cases is that the meat we eat is produced in environments unsuitable for plant farming.
- vilmosi 10y ago
  > The fact that animals consume more calories then they give is not a gross oversimplification and is true in every case. Maybe not oversimplification but deceiving. It makes it sound like we can eat grass.
lawless123 10y ago
>For instance, New Zealand lamb flocks are grown high up in the mountains That's such an edge case though.. Burger King and Mcdonalds aren't selling lamb burgers in large quantities. What about all the cattle farmed all over the world? They're not all on a steep mountainside. Most will be on plains or more factory like conditions.
crispyambulance 10y ago
I'm sure the lamb is delicious at the dozen or so restaurants and butchers in which it is sold for a high price. When you're talking about scale, feeding 10's of thousands of people, plant based food sources win out.
- michael_h 10y ago
  'Dozen or so'? You can get a lamb roast at Costco.