The true cost of beef is staggering. It is, by far, one of our most selfish indulgences the rich have. It's sad that our economic model doesn't adequately capture this.
A lot of numbers get thrown around, but the amount of grain and water you need for 1 pound of beef is enough to feed something like 25 people. Then there's the environmental impact (land, pollution, ....). The more I travel the world, the harder it is for me to eat beef.
Those claims are only valid for feedlot raised cattle which you shouldn't eat anyway if you care about your health. Cows aren't meant to eat grain. Plus, you get to support your local community by buying from local, responsible farmers.
And if you want to be completely honest with yourself, take a good look at industrial agriculture and tell me how self-righteous you feel.
The majority of beef comes from feedlots. 90% of the beef we eat is grain-fed. Also, I can't find any evidence, one way or another, that grass-fed cows take less land or pollute less (in terms of methane).
There's no doubt that it's healthier for us, and better for the cows, but there seems to be plenty of back and forth with respect to which of the two is more sustainable. And I don't see anyone arguing that grass-fed cows are more efficient (or even close to as-efficient) than chicken, pork or plants.
Thanks for the links on agriculture...going through them now!
Free trade would mean less or no grain-fed livestock, hopefully (here in Uruguay we have almost 7 million cows, all of them grass-fed, neighbour Argentina has 40 million cows, also grass-fed, Australia and New Zealand also have similar numbers of grass-fed cows).
In any case, as you argue, cows are not the most efficient means of producing meat, that's why chicken is much cheaper for instance :) .
Grass-fed cows probably take more land, but I suspect they pollute a lot less (for example there's a lot of indirect pollution from the grain produced to feed the grain-fed cattle)
Edit: about free trade - both the U.S. and Europe have trade quotas and subsidies in place to maintain the local agriculture. I understand not wanting to destroy it entirely due to strategic concerns (and excessive dependency on a provider), but I believe it's gotten out of hand.
Edit2: the number of cows in Uruguay was inflated, changed for more reasonable source.
1.3 billion is the total number of cows. Almost 300 million of those are in India, where I doubt very much that they are used for beef. I'm finding it hard to get numbers since it's largely given in metric tons...
Although, I'll agree that looking more into it, grain-fed appears to be a largely North American thing.
The majority of beef comes from feedlots. 90% of the beef we eat is grain-fed.
Depends on what country you're in, I guess. Here in Ireland cattle are predominately grassfed (though usually are fed at least some grain in the winter too).
It isn't one pound of beef = feeding 25 people, it is that 25 units of grain produce one unit of beef. Feeding someone does not just mean giving them two slices of bread.
Food aid is often delivered as grains (corn/rice) and water. I'm not really sure what you are getting at.
I agree that it's a complicated issues involving subsidies, nutrition, shipping, processing. Maybe it was wrong to assign a specific #...maybe I just say "you can feed a lot people from the energy that goes into growing a steak" ?
He/she was pointing out that how many people you can feed is not a sensible statistic. You can feed a lot of people with a single sugar cube. The question is how long can this lot of people survive on the energy that goes into growing a steak.
A lot of numbers get thrown around, but the amount of grain and water you need for 1 pound of beef is enough to feed something like 25 people. Then there's the environmental impact (land, pollution, ....). The more I travel the world, the harder it is for me to eat beef.