Serious Eats - seriouseats.com

If you don't want to eat a certain amount of meat fine, as for me I will eat what I want, and ignore the bogus "green"movement

Whoa. Three-quarters of a pound of meat per day, every day?

31 Ounces? I'm all right with this suggestion. Thats' almost 2 pounds, right?

my loyalty lies with both. i rarely eat meat at home, and since i bring my lunch to work 75% of the time, i really only eat meat when i eat dinners out. I don't restrict myself when out, and i LOVE a good burger. But with this system, i really only eat meat maybe 2x a week. Easy!

People who suggest we have to choose between meat and the earth don't know much about raising animals for food. Animals are great for taking nutrients from sources undigestible by humans (ie: the hay and grasses ruminants eat) and converting them into a form we can eat - meat.

Well, I've been saying an Almost Meatless diet is the wave of the future for years! I'm with mh330. I cook little meat at home but don't restrict myself at restaurants.

My question is: are all meats equal? It seems to me that it takes a lot longer and a lot more energy to raise a cow than a chicken. I'm all for scaling back on meat, but I think the meat/earth analogy is simplistic.

Can I use one of those huge oversized deck of cards that clowns use?

@mommak75 - The amount of land needed to plant crops is far less than what's needed to raise animals, especially since most animals now eat grain. So we are using land to plant crops for animals - that we then raise on even more land.

I say both. I buy almost 100% of the beef, lamb and pork for our household from local farmers. Doing so preserves local farmland, requires less fuel for shipping, and supports the local economy. It's also tastier and healthier since the animals eat a natural diet and are better cared for.

As far as land usage, that depends where you live. Here in the Northeast we have a short growing season, relatively poor and rocky soil, and hilly topography. Sheep, pigs and cattle flourish in such an environment. Corn and wheat...not so much.

"Um....16 oz is a lb. 12 oz is therefore no where close to a pound and a half. Most burgers are 6 oz or so"

I'm aware of that. I was talking about averages. To get to an average of 12oz it means for every person who eats no meat there is someone who eats 24oz of meat. Which is, I believe, a pound and a half.

I was going to make a joke about how there are plenty of vegetarians where I'm from, so my minimal meat consumption (which HAS been dropping of late, due to rising costs) is easily averaged away probably down to that... but uh, people are taking this conversation so seriously, I think I'll just say ... nothing.

I'm surprised at the people who don't believe there's a connection between raising meat and polluting the earth. Factory farms (which is where your meat is coming from if you buy it at the grocery store) is a big emitor of greenhouse gases, in the form of methane gas. Additionally, we are buying oil from the middle east to produce articifial petroleum-based pesticides & fertilizer in order to grow grain that is then fed to animals that were never meant to eat grain in the first place. Add to that all the antibiotics these animals are fed, which wind up in our groundwater.

Factory farms are not good for the earth. The VAST majority of meat eaten in this country comes from factory farms. Ergo, meat is bad for the earth.

I eat very little meat and I think that it's obvious that eating a diet low in animal protain subsequently lowers your intake of saturated fat. It's good for you, and because not eating eat means you are not supporting animal cruelty on factory farms, your conscience is clear, you save money, and you do the earth a favor as well.

Winners, all around.

I grew up on a small, largely self-sustaining farm - we raised cows and chickens, occaisionally pigs, geese and turkeys. We grew most of our feed for our animals, as well as vegetables and fruits for ourselves. My sister was a dairy farmer until she and her husband converted to beef. Their neighbours are all farmers of various specialties, but mostly beef and dairy. Most are organic, or very close to it, though none are certified organic. I grew up surrounded by farms raising animals such as cows, chickens, geese, hogs, bison, llamas, and even ostrich. There were also farms growing grains, oil seeds, corn and potatoes. Currently, I live in the heart of Canada's beef country, though I'm in the city again.

I know that things are done differently in the US, but the animals that end up on our grocery store shelves are NOT necessarily eating a grain based diet. Especially cows. It is not only rediculously expensive to feed an animal so large a strickly grain based diet, such a limited diet would make them sick. Likewise, the feed for poultry and hogs must have a variety to be nutritionally adequate. Stay far away from any company that claims their poultry, for example, has a vegetable only diet. Their natural diet includes bugs, worms, and sometimes each other (we had free range chickens with plenty of food, but they still killed and cannibalized the weak ones). They require protein for their health, and I'm not sure how those "vegetable only" feeds get adequate protein.

Not eating meat isn't going to magically mean more crop land for people food. Different soil types and local climates are better for different purposes. Some are ideal for growing grain, but would be poor for growing vegetables. Land that's good for pasture or growing hay and other greens for cows is not necessarily going to be good for growing food for human consumption. They also need water and shelter, so there's incentive to keep trees, ponds and watering holes, etc., which adds to the diversity of wildlife.

As for damage to the environment, growing grains, etc. are FAR more damaging than growing grasses or leaving it for pasture. There's a tremendous amount of soil loss from any crop that requires plowing and planting. There's also greater soil nutrient loss, as nutrients are not replaced as easily. Add in increased risks of plant diseases and insect infestations due to such large areas having only 1 or 2 types of plants growing in it, too. Oh, and all the equipment needed for planting, irrigation, and harvesting.

Probably the least amount of effort and intervention is needed for raising cattle. You let them loose on the pasture, rotate the herd to other fields as needed to prevent over grazing, and keep an eye on them for illness. Cows are pretty good at taking care of themselves. It isn't until they head out to market that things get more intense - from what I understand, the US uses feedlots quite a lot. I personally don't know a single beef operatore that uses feedlots, though I can't say what happens after the animals are sold at auction. With the hoops people need to jump through to get organic certification, many don't bother. The meat in your supermarket is as likely to be organically grown as not. The most invasive and destructive practise, IMO, is large scale mono-culture agriculture. Ponds get filled in, trees get bulldozed down, every useable inch gets plowed under, then herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers become increasingly necessary to maintain healthy crops.

From my personal experience, if you want to help the environment, eat a steak.

Mherzog0 means: "Here is a propaganda video created by PETA"