View Single Post
Old 06-02-2006, 12:20 PM   #20
Upon the my oh my
siva_chair's Avatar
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Smith&Wesson: The original point & click interface
Posts: 13,350
Originally Posted by AKid2
I think we've got them packed in as tightly as we can.

The real issue here is meat production itself. Meat consumption parallels economic development, and not necessarily health.
Well, meat is very good for you, so I would say it does have something to do with health.

Meat is terribly inefficient;
No it isn't.

cattle use 70% of US grain and 50% of US water. It'll take 8 pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef. An acre of spinach produces 26 times as much protein as an acre of grazing cattle. Etc.
Not sure about the grain statistic (even though I do know we export lots of our grain anyhow), but I do believe your water statistic is wrong. If I recall correctly, the largest uses of water are for field irrigation and thermoelectric power, not watering livestock. So actually, it is your fields that use more water than cattle.

It's much less resource intensive to eat non meat products, that's why developing countries do it.
Good for them. I will keep eating meat because 1) I like it and 2) it is healthy for you.

Also, it actually kills less animals than farming.
siva_chair is offline