4 ms·

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.