Why Eat Less Meat is a site dedicated to changing the conversation on eating meat from a divisive, emotionally-charged debate to a constructive discussion based on scientific evidence. The following pages list the major reasons to eat less meat, with each reason explained and supported by extensive citations.
“For every 100 calories of grain we feed animals, we get only about 40 new calories of milk, 22 calories of eggs, 12 of chicken, 10 of pork, or 3 of beef.”[3] In other words, our food preferences have led us to effectively throw away food on a mass scale.
The first sentence may be a correct observation which may be backed up by the citation (I admittedly haven't checked), but the second sentence is incorrect. The food has not gone to waste, it was converted from one form to a (at least for some people) more desirable form.
Further, the traditional way to feed livestock is with resources we can't use ourselves. Pastures on land that has low yields, rest of food now thrown away being used for animal food, acorns from forests. At least partly those resources are still used.
Many cattle in Iowa are grazed on grass/field waste for most of their lives. They get corn only in the last week of their lives, to put on a little marbling.
This may or may not be true; afaik >50% soy plantation in the world is for cattle, and humans can eat soy; probably don't need that much soy.
Even if we cannot use the resources, the land would be better without pasture for sure. And we don't need to use ALL of the land of pasture for vegetables.
My point wasn't that meat production doesn't stand in competition with plant based food production, but that it doesn't need to (especially with a lower meat consumption, which the website actually advertises)
...that humans cannot consume
...that is produced more efficiently than any other crop
...grown on land in climates that is not suitable for "vegetables"
...that makes the most productive use of the land
...that requires few people and simple mechanization to tend
The entire midwest is just a "solar farm" for our diet using vast amounts of land to sequester energy in arbitrary grains that are used as the fuel for the next level.
"Eating less meat" needs to come from a higher level than the individual. You can't convince millions of people to change their diets based on morality and ethics.
Governments could start by removing subsidies for certain types of animal farming, which would cause consumers to realize the true cost of eating meat. A hamburger costs $1 in some areas. That's ridiculous.
As well, the tax system can be used to leverage behaviours. Maybe grocery stores hand out coupons if you don't purchase meat, which you can send in with your taxes for a rebate? Something like that.
More liberal proscriptive moralizing. You can convince millions of people; the vegetarian/vegan movement is doing just fine thank you. But that's not enough - now we need to force people to think vegan?
And that article - full of vague attributions of harm and second-order effects. More cows means more methane! Just like when a hundred million buffalo roamed the US plains? Like that? But now its a problem? Or 'the US growing grain for meat means we're not giving it away to the 3rd world'. But we did that all the time - the US grows so staggeringly much grain we had to send it away in ocean tanker ships to avoid flooding our own markets. Using some for meat doesn't have to take anything away from giving it to others. What we lack there is simply the will.
And on and on - more vague attributions of meat-eating to theoretical harm. Why this strange argument? Because the author has a not-so-hidden agenda. We should all be vegan just like them. And they'll say any tortuous thing to 'prove' it.
I don't have a link off hand, but I remember from university a professor showed us how many vegetables you would need to eat to get an equivalent amount of protein from a serving of meat (chicken breast or small steak). You literally need a mountain of veggies to equal the protein provided by meat. The thought was that if we wanted to replace meat protein with veggie protein, then we'd need to cover the earth in soy, edamame, and lentils.
That's just not true. I googled for lots of different sites, all of them say that, for example, 100g of beans have around 40g of protein. Then you have other vegetables with lots of protein too. More than the daily recommended dose.
“For every 100 calories of grain we feed animals, we get only about 40 new calories of milk, 22 calories of eggs, 12 of chicken, 10 of pork, or 3 of beef.”[3] In other words, our food preferences have led us to effectively throw away food on a mass scale.
The first sentence may be a correct observation which may be backed up by the citation (I admittedly haven't checked), but the second sentence is incorrect. The food has not gone to waste, it was converted from one form to a (at least for some people) more desirable form.