Isn't it crickets?? Or other insect protein. Surprised that wasn't on the list

That's a good point. While it isn't common in the western hemisphere, insect farming appears to be well established elsewhere. Perhaps there was a lack of studies or the amount of protein produced simply didn't make the cut?

The study authors had this to say about their sources:

>We derived data from a comprehensive meta-analysis, identifying 1530 studies for potential inclusion, which were supplemented with additional data received from 139 authors. Studies were assessed against 11 criteria designed to standardize methodology, resulting in 570 suitable studies with a median reference year of 2010. The data set covers ~38,700 commercially viable farms in 119 countries and 40 products representing ~90% of global protein and calorie consumption.

Eggs, poultry, fish. In that order.

r/SavedYouAClick

Thanks for the info!! It's definitely some cool data regardless. Yeah I could definitely see it not being a primary source of protein yet, I just remembered hearing a ted talk about how insect protein is starting to gain momentum because of how environmentally favorable it is. But eating bugs is a little freaky so here we are.

> According to the analysis, beef generates 49.9kg of  CO2 equivalent, or CO2e, per 100g of protein.

For the Americans, thats 110lbs of CO2 equivalent for every 3.5oz of protein; that's less than a quarter pound. Cheese comes out to about ~24lbs of CO2 equivalent to the same 3.5oz.

Jesus Christ that's a lot. I've always been told animal protein was carbon intensive, but even if the numbers are over estimating by a gigantic amount, like 20%, those numbers are massive.

But it doesn't say that? It's clear that reducing animal protein consumption results in the lowest emissions

You know what, I thought I read the word "meat" in the title. 🤔...not sure why my brain did that.

None of the animal proteins, obviously.

Plant proteins -- beans for instance, or nuts, actively remove carbon from the atmosphere.

There's even a usable amount of protein in rice and other vegetables. One cup of beans, and of rice and of pretty much anything green, plus a handful of nuts, gives you more than enough protein for the day.

Yup. People always overestimate how much protein they actually need.

Factory farming bugs isn't the solution. Plus there are problems with farming bugs. Its going to be novelty, and that will be the end of it.

Is there some reason the graph says "beef" and "lamb" but chooses to refer to pork as "pig meat"?

Possibly because mutton and veal were counted separately? Or not counted.

Many get more protein than the RDA of 0.8 grams per kilo of bodyweight (0.36g per pound of bodyweight). But the RDA can be seen as a minimum.

For people who exercise and try to build/maintain larger muscle mass the need increases. Studies often place their needs around 1.6g per kilo bodyweight, but higher amounts could be marginally useful. Athletes have even higher needs, and can consume 2g-3.5g per kilo bodyweight.

Lets say the average US american consumes 100g of protein per day. One average, that may be unnecessary high, but it all depends on your weight and exercise. I think people overestimate how much they exercise :)

short summary article on protein and exercise

Probably because boar meat is not technically pork.

[deleted]

Thank you for sharing your opinion with absolutely zero information to back it up

[deleted]

Even if it’s better for the environment, getting people to willingly eat bugs is impossible for most people, so it doesn’t seem like a worthwhile avenue to go down for me personally

The bbc's chart shows carbon cost of farmed proteins.... so non-farmed proteins might be considered carbon neutral perhaps. That could be venison from deer herds culled to cut back numbers or other naturally (and sustainably) caught protein. Road-kill might be the lowest carbon :)

[removed]

Yes, and doing so would result in extinction of even more species than we already have caused, so... back to the drawing board?

Rice farming is a major source of greenhouse gas...

Which is still minuscule compared to beef farming.

Nope, rice farming is emitting less than beef, but it's not minuscule, around 4 times less, and it's a major source of emission worldwide. https://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/05/17/cows-rice-and-soil-are-key-to-farming-emissions-cuts/ (Start from here for more academic studies, but in short, rice farming is bad for the planet and so is rice consomption.)

Thing is you also have to grow food for the cow. About 10 times as much as you get out.

It's because on top of rearing the animal you also need to feed it. You can either grow X amount of calories for people to eat, or ten times that to feed a cow and get X amount of cow calories.

Plenty of people around the world already eat bugs, it's a personal stigma/bias at this point. It is way better for the environment than most other protein sources (1% co2 compared to beef, 10% as much water, way less land sacrifice) and are very nutrient dense. If they're blended up and used as a food additive you literally would have no clue

It’s because they assume the most carbon intensive route possible at every step. They grow corn in Texas, ship it to Brazil to raise a cow, import water, and then ship the beef to New York. Of course it comes out to some absurd number.

That isn’t how most people actually get beef though. The beef I get comes from the cow eating grass in the field at the end of my street and the water comes out of the local well.

Oh yeah definition it’s 100 percent social nonsense stopping people from doing it, but either way I have a hard time seeing people changing. Especially since at the moment the people who don’t want to eat bugs the most are usually from western countries and are part of the group that needs to be more mindful the most.

Well rice is not grown for livestock feed.

Now a days hunters, at least in America, are pretty regulated to maintain herd size. I think we learned our lesson, but I don’t know the situation outside of America

I don't see rabbit on this list. Or crickets or grasshoppers, either.

>around 4 times less,

Does that mean 1/4 as much? You're implying that a 75% reduction isn't a HUGE difference? Maybe "minuscule" was a bit of an exaggeration, but not by much.

If we eliminate all rice farming (possibly the most widely consumed food in the world) what do we replace it with? Corn?

From the article: "rice contributes about 10% of emissions from the agriculture sector globally"

That sounds bad, right? But wait... "Rice paddies account for approximately 12% of the global croplands of the planet" -- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255623930_Rice_in_the_Global_Food_Supply#:~:text=Rice%20paddies%20account%20for%20approximately,%5B4%5D.%20...

So, 12% of our food production results in 10% of our emissions. That seems like rice is a below average emitter of carbon.

Check my math please.

>That isn’t how most people actually get beef though. The beef I get comes from the cow eating grass in the field at the end of my street

Rural equivalent of "It's a banana, Michael"

... or feed the cow agricultural waste like cotton seeds and almond husks.

Ground up insects would be perfect to add to protein bars.

Here are some companies related to bugs: https://www.ventureradar.com/keyword/Insect%20Farming