korinth86

korinth86 t1_j1usft2 wrote

I'm dubious to the claim of "most". data I can find suggests about 60%> In the US the standard for grass fed is 50% of their diet to claim "grass fed".

There are days it's too wet to let your cows graze, they'll destroy the field. So you keep them in and have to feed them something. Then there are 3-4mo your fields don't produce grass, which means again, food comes from somewhere.

If the fields are growing enough grass to feed a meaningful amount of cattle, they can grow other crops.

My buddy is a dairy farmer though he calls himself a grass farmer. They only supplement feed probably 10-20% during the growing season as they can grow enough grass. He cannot produce enough extra and has to buy feed for the 3-4mo he can't pasture them.

I'm not against meat. The truth is it takes more everything (water, fertilizer, land, blah) to cultivate rather than plants. I'm all for reducing our meat consumption. It will be interesting to see how lab grown meat changes the equation.

2

korinth86 t1_j1t963g wrote

That is so backwards...

Nutrient density doesn't matter when you consider the amount of resources it takes to get to that point. There are far more nutrients in the years worth of feed a cow eats than the end meat product.

Meat makes it's easier for the consumer to get the nutrients we need. To go more vegetarian you need to eat a variety of foods, rice, beans, lentils, nuts, veggies, leafy greens, fruits, and should supplement with a multivitamin.

It's not hard, it's less convenient.

Fertilizer wise, vegetarian wins hands down. The amount of land necessary to keep humans healthy, without meat, would be less than having to raise animals to ultimately feed a human later.

Lab grown meat changes the equation a bit depending on ultimate cost.

17