4 ms·

I imagine it depends on the vegetarian. And not all meats/animals are the same. I myself eat meat, but do not eat mammals. I am looking forward to the widesp

I imagine it depends on the vegetarian. And not all meats/animals are the same. I myself eat meat, but do not eat mammals. I am looking forward to the widespread availability of safe, delicious, lab-grown meats. > the healthiest way to eat I suspect that, for most people, the best plant-based diet is equal to the best omnivorous diet in terms of nutrition. Admittedly, it can take more effort to get your protein. > meat can be raised in humane ways "Humane" is a vague word. Some will tell you that slaughtering an animal at all in not humane. > can be raised in environmentally-friendly ways This would be really hard for many animals. Show me a carbon-neutral cow. The ones that live in tiny spaces and eat corn have high carbon footprints because of all the farming that has to happen to feed them and all the land that is prevented from being forest to serve that need. We don't spend nearly as much energy feeding the free-range ones, but the land-footprint needed to serve them is even greater.

virtuallynathan 8y ago
> We don't spend nearly as much energy feeding the free-range ones, but the land-footprint needed to serve them is even greater. That land likely can't be used for anything else, only a small % of land can be used for growing crops. > The ones that live in tiny spaces and eat corn have high carbon footprints because of all the farming that has to happen to feed them and all the land that is prevented from being forest to serve that need. Only about 10-15% of US cattle heads are on feedlots at any given time. The food at feedlots doesn't always compete with human edible food, and only represents about 10% of their lifetime food.
ericd 8y ago
>Show me a carbon-neutral cow. Any purely grass fed cow should be close, no? They're part of the normal carbon cycle, and that carbon is pulled back in when the grass regrows. The problem is when you bring sequestered carbon (fossil fuels) into the mix.
- virtuallynathan 8y ago
  Cows can also sequester carbon with their Poo going into the soil.
- mac01021 8y ago
  No, because that land could be be reforested if it weren't kept for the cattle.
  - ericd 8y ago
    A lot of grassland can’t support a forest. Cattle are able to survive on land that is otherwise too marginal to do much of anything but grow grass.
beat 8y ago
Free range cattle are only really a thing in land that isn't good for plant farming, usually because it's too arid. Cattle open up massive amounts of otherwise-unfarmable land to agriculture. The number of cattle in the US has been steady for decades now (suggesting something of a drop in intake). For purely grass-fed cattle, they're carbon-neutral at this point, because the life of methane in the atmosphere is about 9 years, as opposed to CO2, which is 100 years. Corn-feeding is really the only carbon footprint problem associated with beef.

virtuallynathan 8y ago

> We don't spend nearly as much energy feeding the free-range ones, but the land-footprint needed to serve them is even greater. That land likely can't be used for anything else, only a small % of land can be used for growing crops. > The ones that live in tiny spaces and eat corn have high carbon footprints because of all the farming that has to happen to feed them and all the land that is prevented from being forest to serve that need. Only about 10-15% of US cattle heads are on feedlots at any given time. The food at feedlots doesn't always compete with human edible food, and only represents about 10% of their lifetime food.

ericd 8y ago

>Show me a carbon-neutral cow. Any purely grass fed cow should be close, no? They're part of the normal carbon cycle, and that carbon is pulled back in when the grass regrows. The problem is when you bring sequestered carbon (fossil fuels) into the mix.

virtuallynathan 8y ago
Cows can also sequester carbon with their Poo going into the soil.
mac01021 8y ago
No, because that land could be be reforested if it weren't kept for the cattle.
- ericd 8y ago
  A lot of grassland can’t support a forest. Cattle are able to survive on land that is otherwise too marginal to do much of anything but grow grass.

beat 8y ago

Free range cattle are only really a thing in land that isn't good for plant farming, usually because it's too arid. Cattle open up massive amounts of otherwise-unfarmable land to agriculture. The number of cattle in the US has been steady for decades now (suggesting something of a drop in intake). For purely grass-fed cattle, they're carbon-neutral at this point, because the life of methane in the atmosphere is about 9 years, as opposed to CO2, which is 100 years. Corn-feeding is really the only carbon footprint problem associated with beef.