All of these crops are pretty high water and fertilizer or climate dependent. And concentrating on seeds neglects the 90%+ of biomass of the grass that can be eaten by ruminants.
The nice thing about animals is that they are able to use arid, hilly, or otherwise unsuitable land for the conversion of sunlight to human digestible calories. In traditional agricultural systems, animals like chickens and pigs also are able to take human food wastes and turn them into calories and fertilizer.
Well, no. There’s a reason that a lot of beef cows are called “corn-fed cattle”. Many cows eat a combination diet depending on their age (some eat mostly grass, then are “finished” on corn before slaughter) but it’s absolutely untrue that all beef cows are fed on grass.
Having spent a loooong time vegetarian and vegan (and a chunk of time doing the hippie I’ll-just-eat-raw-grains-and-scrounged-veggies thing), the words I found helpful were from Alice Waters, who made gourmet vegetarianism a possibility in the first place. These days she eats fish and meat on occasion, and when asked why, she basically said “when I started Chez Panisse, factory farming made cooking vegetarian a strong political choice. These days, we have so many options for organically-raised meat that are soft on the environment and better for farmers that people can make conscious decisions.” I still eat vegetarian and vegan when I want to but also can eat meat in a more conscientious manner.
This ignores that we feed factory farm animals 100 servings of feed (corn, wheat) for 1 serving of meat. Any problem with plowing the land is made much worse when you eat meat.
Ignoring the cruelty, eating animals causes far more problems related to plowing and releases methane, in addition to the runoff pollution caused by factory farms.
Agree completely about the equivalents. And I do not know the answer, for sure. But the WRI numbers are very similar to the EPA numbers, and the EPA uses a conversion factor of 25, which is pretty universally accepted.
Now, some are going to argue that the number should be 35 or 80. I think that would be wrong, that this is a ridiculously complicated issue when you get into methane half-lives at different altitudes, and that the climate scientist community itself feels that 25 is the best number. Interestingly, the climate scientists I have read on the topic consider the issue moot, because most CH4 is gone in ten years anyway.
Yes because climate change is going to be great for animals
Well environmentally conscious people encase themselves in carbonite, to keep their emissions trapped.
Popular language is off here. We speak about calories, when the measure is kcal. So we’re not talking about 2,000 calories that you need per day (give or take), but 2,000,000 or 2,000 kcal.
Let’s back up a tiny bit and be realistic. I agree that it’s far more energy-efficient to eat grain than to eat the meat generated by grain. Eating lower on the food pyramid makes sense.
But if you look at actual calculations, the ratio of feed to meat is more like 3:1. Not 100:1.
Some people eat a meat based, keto diet because of gastrointestinal and/or other medical problems.
You are wrong.
Essentially all beef cows are grass-fed. Many are then "“grain”-finished or “corn”-finished. Although what they really are are “feed”-finished, which more accurate, because they are not finished on pure corn or grain. It would be uneconomic otherwise, as finishing feeds and grains are expensive. Beef cows eat mostly grass for most of their lives, and the carbon in that grass is the carbon that makes up 1/2 to 3/4 of their body mass.
Dairy cows eat more combination diets than beef.
Nebraskans are “corn-fed”.
This can’t really be upvoted enough.
The numbers for land usage and water consumption have been around for decades, and environmental specialists keep repeating them: meat production costs more resources than we have.
Just the first article after a quick google is http://www.pnas.org/content/111/33/11996, which is about meat/dairy production, but links to comparable life cycle assessments for crops.
The Knapp example might be great for meat production, but it’s nowhere near good enough.
Ask people that have trouble loosing weight if eating less and moving more, in the general way you present it, works for them.
Going to a paleo, low carb diet isn’t meant as a fad to look good for summer, though some people may do just that. It is a permanent lifestyle change.
You can be empathetic to animals and eat meat. They aren’t exclusive ideas though I get that it might be for you.
I find the argument a little dubious as most animals are fed with plants harvested from cultivated fields. So yeah, backyard vegetables and free range grazers are likely much better than many store bought vegetables but those aren’t the sorts of production models that feed 8 billion people.
Regardless I think the overall data shows that as long as food is cultivated, transported, refrigerated with fossil fuel generated energy the difference between meat and vegetable is not terribly significant when talking about carbon per protein.
But I think the larger point should always be that just 100 companies in the world produce 71% of the carbon emissions and have amasses enough political power to stop any significant restrictions on their output. Simply restricting our personal consumption in one regard only reduces market demands and price which makes it more affordable to use that carbon emitting fuel elsewhere.
I know that you think you’re proving me wrong by saying the same thing I just said, but no. Sorry, friend. Cows are fed various ratios of corn and grain their entire lives depending on the breed and the end result desired. You stated, and I quote, “[grass] is what all beef cows eat to make most of their bodies.” That is incorrect. Some do. Not all. Pretty simple. Seeya.
Veganism is a moral stand that the very poor typically can’t afford to take. I’ve been eating at dollar stores lately, and debating whether the benefit to my wallet outweighs the detriment to my health.
Al_Estok, I was simply taking the opportunity to set up that canaries line. Giggle a litte, already! And of course you are correct that not all calories in an ecosystem are available for human consumption, though humans can consumer those who are. 
As to hillsides…
And that grassland that grows that grass is called “grassland” because it won’t support crop farming.
Not true. The area I’m from is famous for its dairy cows, and 100% of the land they graze on is farmable land suitable for raising crops. They just grow grass there because they can make more money from the milk. Before the dairy industry took off it was mostly cider orchards and potato fields. The same is true across much of the UK. And in other countries millions of hectares is deforested to articifially create grassland.
I are serious cat, no giggles! Cheers for the terracing, though, the Banaue Rice Terraces - Wikipedia are some of my favorites.
Having been a poor at random points in my life, I have made due on rice and beans with some veg oil. A little spice, it’ll do as vegan, maybe $1/day, tops, when bought in bulk. 20lb bag of rice for $8.50, 20lb bag of pintos for $14.50, 128 oz canola oil for $6 @ Derpmart, usually more than enough for 30 days if you supplement with tobacco to cut your appetite. I could pull that much in change from a park fountain. But I usually supplemented with random cuts of cheap meat or wild game, because I carnivore.
