3 ms·
Animal protein-rich diets are also bad for land, water, and energy conservation.
by briantakita 13y ago
Animal protein-rich diets are also bad for land, water, and energy conservation.
- mark_l_watson 13y ago+1 - this is a point a lot of people don't get: it can take roughly 10 times the water and 10 times the energy to produce meat rather than vegetables and grains.
- jasonpeacock 13y agoSources? Otherwise you're no better than the article...
- adamnemecek 13y agoIt's a pretty widely accepted fact google around http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_pr...
- seiferteric 13y agoBIO 101: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level#Biomass_transfer_efficiency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level#Biomass_transfer_... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_efficiency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_efficiency
- bryanlarsen 13y agoThat's because it's a ridiculous statement. Sure, cattle convert grain calories into meat calories fairly inefficiently. But cattle evolved to eat grass, not grain. Grazing cattle on the prairies is far more environmentally friendly than ripping up that prairie to replace it with a wheat monoculture. Animals that evolved to eat grains, such as chickens, convert calories much more efficiently.
- DavidAdams 13y agoIt's true that grass-fed animals don't have the same environmental impact as grain-fed ones. But the problem is that there's no way to produce enough beef to meet worldwide demand other than concentrated feedlots. And certainly no way to produce it at the low cost that the market demands. Unless the cost of beef can be adjusted to include all the negative externalities that its production entails (topsoil loss, water and air pollution from fertilizers, pesticides, manure, and diesel fuel, antibiotic resistant super-bugs, public health threats from unsanitary slaughterhouse practices, etc) then meat producers and consumers will benefit from cheaper prices while the environment suffers.
- briantakita 13y ago"That's because it's a ridiculous statement" Only if you consider the truth ridiculous. It's simple biological physics. There are inefficiencies in energy transfer. Btw, 60% of the Amazon deforestation is caused by cattle ranching.
- cgh 13y agoThe solution is to live in a place of relative ecological abundance where you can buy locally-raised animal products with minimal environmental impact. Hunting your own meat (in my case, deer) is also a good option. I recommend Canada.
- wmboy 13y agoCanada? Try New Zealand, we have the optimum climate for year-round grazing. No grain feeding necessary.
- cgh 13y agoYes, NZ is a great choice too. How's the hunting there?
- wmboy 13y agoI don't hunt, but the fishing's always good (plenty of options, both fresh water and ocean. Though on the hunting angle, deer would probably be the largest animal you can hunt, then there'd be goats, wild pigs and of course rabbits and possums which you can eat (our possums are different from North American ones). Edit: also just thought I'd throw in I've got nothing against Canada, you guys and the US, are to us, like we are to Australia (if that makes sense)
- krautcanman 13y agoTerrible for the planet... until you watch this Ted talk. Then you may reconsider your position. http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world...