Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/660S

Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment1,2,3
David Pimentel and Marcia Pimentel

ABSTRACT:
Worldwide, an estimated 2 billion people live primarily on a meat-based diet, while an estimated 4 billion live primarily on a plant-based diet. The US food production system uses about 50% of the total US land area, 80% of the fresh water, and 17% of the fossil energy used in the country. The heavy dependence on fossil energy suggests that the US food system, whether meat-based or plant-based, is not sustainable. The use of land and energy resources devoted to an average meat-based diet compared with a lactoovovegetarian (plant-based) diet is analyzed in this report. In both diets, the daily quantity of calories consumed are kept constant at about 3533 kcal per person. The meat-based food system requires more energy, land, and water resources than the lactoovovegetarian diet. In this limited sense, the lactoovovegetarian diet is more sustainable than the average American meat-based diet.

SNIP

Seems like the best option overall. Milk and dairy products still come from cows, lots of em. So eliminating the dairy would be even more sustainable. Eggs, I am not so sure of.

Our ancestors did not eat 8 ounces of meat three times a day. They'd get one little piece of salt pork and use it to flavor things for weeks.

I think that Americans would respond favorably if they were just asked to cut meat consumption. Restaurants could serve one or two ounces less per portion (how much gets thrown away, anyway?) People could have two meatless days per week. There are so many options that could make a huge difference. It's this all or nothing mentality that kills movements.

I try to only eat meat three or four days a week. I usually only eat it at one meal per day anyway, and I always give it up for Lent.

in the health of our nation as well...
most of our degenerative illnesses are diet related.
The book "The China Study" has what looks like solid research on this.

"how much gets thrown away, anyway?" Probably not alot, is my guess. When people are paying for meat at that moment, they probably overeat the excessively large serving to "get their money's worth." That's what happens at places like Sirloin Stockade where you eat all you can for about $10.

grazing than is suitable for cropping. Most of Mongolia, for example. And it would be really inefficient to only get milk from animals and not eat meat as well. What are you going to do with old cows and excess male calves? It only takes one bull to service a herd of cows but cows tend to produce male calves just about as readily as female calves. The Pimentels don't make a whole lot of sense sometimes.

comparison a bit. But still, it is likely that too much meat is being consumed overall, and probably more than people really need. Skipping meat a day or two a week would make a big difference.

The problem is growing grain crops to feed animals, a very wasteful and unsustainable thing to do. Animals can be grown and finished off on grass quite well. Furthermore wild animal populations could be managed better to provide some of the meat supply - in some areas this would be more sustainable than raising cattle - particularly areas in Africa which are infested with tsetse flies. On the question of meat consumption, western habits of cooking and eating big slabs of meat is also wasteful - fewer cuts are edible this way and it encourages the use of grain for finishing off cattle, as grass finished cattle tend to be tougher and thus less edible for eating in big slabs. However, Asian methods of cooking meat in smaller pieces mixed in with vegetables not only makes the available meat supply go further, but more parts of the animal can be eaten this way and toughness is not as much of an issue. We could also utilize breeds which are better adapted to arid environments, such as Texas Longhorns, but which do not have the marbled tender quality that many meat eaters prefer.