6 ms·

> Reducing one's meat intake is always a good idea Actually, areas used for grazing usually have more diversity, more flowers and thereby more insects, compare

by ahje 7y ago

> Reducing one's meat intake is always a good idea Actually, areas used for grazing usually have more diversity, more flowers and thereby more insects, compared to something like a similarly sized wheat field.

perfunctory 7y ago
Unfortunately most meat does not come from grazing animals. And if we were to convert the whole meat industry into grazing we wouldn't be able to produce meat in the same quantity, which would mean exactly reduced meat intake for everyone.
- ahje 7y ago
  That's definitely true. Factory farming is definitely an issue, and in more ways than one. My point is that we need grazing cattle too, since we (as a species) took the liberty of wiping out most of the naturally occurring grazers and thereby wrecked the balance. The "easy" way would be to limit the spread of humanity in order to reduce the load on the ecosystem, but that would result in numerous demographic issues instead. Fun times ahead!
adrianN 7y ago
Buying meat from animals that actually saw the sun before they were killed is usually a good way of drastically reducing your meat intake because it's much more expensive that what you usually find at your local supermarket.
- q3k 7y ago
  It's not that difficult or expensive in Germany (and most of Europe), though.
plufz 7y ago
Wouldn’t consuming dairy products still be a better choice than meat in that case? (atleast if we are talking about cows and sheep, since I don’t think more climate friendly meat like chickens and pigs adds that much to biodiversity)
- uoylj 7y ago
  Meat from grazing animals has a lot of additional positive effects re. biodiversity, and preventing desertification. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI (How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change | Allan Savory)
usrusr 7y ago
But how much meat comes from grazing? Factory farming livestock is a major consumer of monoculture crops.
- pletnes 7y ago
  A lot. Large parts of the world’s «farm area» is land used for grazing and may not be suitable for monoculture farming. I don’t know if this applies to the meat found in your particular neighbourhood, though.
  - ab71e5 7y ago
    That just means a high percentage of the area is used for grazing, but I believe OP was asking how much of the total meat produced (by weight?) comes from grazing.
esarbe 7y ago
You can feed ten times as many people with the wheat that grows on a similarly sized wheat field. Or keep feeding just one person and turn the rest into a meadow with flowers, bushes, hedges and trees. Imagine that.
- _Microft 7y ago
  For the ones interested, here's something in Wikipedia about this topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_efficiency#Ten_percent_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_efficiency#Ten_perc...
- dTal 7y ago
  You can't, because "man cannot live off bread alone". Wheat lacks many basic nutrients that meat contains. Calories are not fungible - you can live off meat essentially indefinitely (especially if you eat the organ meat), but you'll rapidly a nasty case of iron deficiency and scurvy if you try to live off wheat. I feel this fact is often omitted from naive assessments of food efficiency. It's not nitpicking, it's a fundamental law - bioaccumulating reasonable levels of nutrient density will always take more energy that just building up raw calories. Vegans need to eat fatty, nutrient-dense plants like nuts and avocados to survive - these foods invariably have a much worse environmental footprint to wheat. I'd be interested to see comparative estimates of the impact of a "careless vegan" who eats exotic, problematic foods versus a "conscientious meat eater", who only eats locally sourced pasture-raised livestock.
  - adrianN 7y ago
    Given that chicken is reasonably good from a CO2/calorie viewpoint, my guess is that avocados flown in from the other side of the world are worse, but I'd also be interested in sources.
  - esarbe 7y ago
    I'm very sorry to disagree, in my opinion this is nitpicking. Yes, you cannot live from wheat alone, insofar you are correct. But that was not the point of my reply. The point of my reply - to flesh it out - was that you need only use about 10 percent of the area required for cattle if we instead consume these calories directly. That doesn't have to be wheat, it can be peas, beans, nuts, beets, potatoes, celery and on and on. If you are concerned about nutrients, there's always chickens. Chickens are so vastly more efficient when it comes to land use than cattle, it's not even funny anymore. I hope that we soon have some reasonable supply chain of non-vertebrate protein (i.e. insects) at an affordable price. Thanks for your reply! Edit: I'm not a vegan, by the way. Not even a vegetarian. I enjoy the taste of meat and especially beef. But I'm convinced that the amount of resources we spend on meat - especially on beef - cannot be justified by anyone in good conscience.

by ahje 7y ago

perfunctory 7y ago

Unfortunately most meat does not come from grazing animals. And if we were to convert the whole meat industry into grazing we wouldn't be able to produce meat in the same quantity, which would mean exactly reduced meat intake for everyone.

ahje 7y ago
That's definitely true. Factory farming is definitely an issue, and in more ways than one. My point is that we need grazing cattle too, since we (as a species) took the liberty of wiping out most of the naturally occurring grazers and thereby wrecked the balance. The "easy" way would be to limit the spread of humanity in order to reduce the load on the ecosystem, but that would result in numerous demographic issues instead. Fun times ahead!

adrianN 7y ago

Buying meat from animals that actually saw the sun before they were killed is usually a good way of drastically reducing your meat intake because it's much more expensive that what you usually find at your local supermarket.

q3k 7y ago
It's not that difficult or expensive in Germany (and most of Europe), though.

plufz 7y ago

Wouldn’t consuming dairy products still be a better choice than meat in that case? (atleast if we are talking about cows and sheep, since I don’t think more climate friendly meat like chickens and pigs adds that much to biodiversity)

uoylj 7y ago
Meat from grazing animals has a lot of additional positive effects re. biodiversity, and preventing desertification. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI (How to green the world's deserts and reverse climate change | Allan Savory)

usrusr 7y ago

But how much meat comes from grazing? Factory farming livestock is a major consumer of monoculture crops.

pletnes 7y ago
A lot. Large parts of the world’s «farm area» is land used for grazing and may not be suitable for monoculture farming. I don’t know if this applies to the meat found in your particular neighbourhood, though.
- ab71e5 7y ago
  That just means a high percentage of the area is used for grazing, but I believe OP was asking how much of the total meat produced (by weight?) comes from grazing.

esarbe 7y ago

You can feed ten times as many people with the wheat that grows on a similarly sized wheat field. Or keep feeding just one person and turn the rest into a meadow with flowers, bushes, hedges and trees. Imagine that.

_Microft 7y ago
For the ones interested, here's something in Wikipedia about this topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_efficiency#Ten_percent_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_efficiency#Ten_perc...
dTal 7y ago
You can't, because "man cannot live off bread alone". Wheat lacks many basic nutrients that meat contains. Calories are not fungible - you can live off meat essentially indefinitely (especially if you eat the organ meat), but you'll rapidly a nasty case of iron deficiency and scurvy if you try to live off wheat. I feel this fact is often omitted from naive assessments of food efficiency. It's not nitpicking, it's a fundamental law - bioaccumulating reasonable levels of nutrient density will always take more energy that just building up raw calories. Vegans need to eat fatty, nutrient-dense plants like nuts and avocados to survive - these foods invariably have a much worse environmental footprint to wheat. I'd be interested to see comparative estimates of the impact of a "careless vegan" who eats exotic, problematic foods versus a "conscientious meat eater", who only eats locally sourced pasture-raised livestock.
- adrianN 7y ago
  Given that chicken is reasonably good from a CO2/calorie viewpoint, my guess is that avocados flown in from the other side of the world are worse, but I'd also be interested in sources.
- esarbe 7y ago
  I'm very sorry to disagree, in my opinion this is nitpicking. Yes, you cannot live from wheat alone, insofar you are correct. But that was not the point of my reply. The point of my reply - to flesh it out - was that you need only use about 10 percent of the area required for cattle if we instead consume these calories directly. That doesn't have to be wheat, it can be peas, beans, nuts, beets, potatoes, celery and on and on. If you are concerned about nutrients, there's always chickens. Chickens are so vastly more efficient when it comes to land use than cattle, it's not even funny anymore. I hope that we soon have some reasonable supply chain of non-vertebrate protein (i.e. insects) at an affordable price. Thanks for your reply! Edit: I'm not a vegan, by the way. Not even a vegetarian. I enjoy the taste of meat and especially beef. But I'm convinced that the amount of resources we spend on meat - especially on beef - cannot be justified by anyone in good conscience.