Yeah, meat in moderation can actually reduce emissions because animals can use resources that would otherwise just go to waste. It's unfortunate that our meat consumption is so drastically above that threshold that we use giant agricultural areas just to provide feed for our animals.
Why don't we tax meat more given it really should be considered a luxury and that it's so expensive when you consider the damage it inflicts in the form of global warming?
Is it simply that politically it would be extremely controversial to raise taxes on meat? In Europe we have very high taxes on petrol and petrol is universally used. It could also be argued that its use is beneficial to economic productivity too, yet that seems to be accepted by most people. So why can't we do the same for meat?
Imho we just need a carbon tax levied directly where the fuels are dug out of the soil that ramps up for a couple of years until we can make it equal to the price of carbon sequestration. That doesn't account for things like Methane from livestock, but it's a step in the right direction and politically much easier than taking away meat from people.
That absolute statement is absolutely false. Say, I have a chicken that can be feed from left-over bread or wheat. I can store the wheat basically indefinitely, so there is no spoilage. Also, I cannot use wheat directly, so it is unusable calories for me. But I cannot store bread for very long, so there is spoilage. Now, using the chicken, I can convert the spoiled bread into eggs and meat, useful calories for me.
Say 10% of the calories produced for me at a human go to waste. And I can convert them at 25% efficiency to usable calories via a chicken. Then I have just increased the yield of usable calories by 2.5%. In consequence, I need to buy less and thus emissions can be reduced.
Bread typically becomes "stale" (texture change due to internal moisture redistribution) before it spoils (usually by mold growth). Stale bread is still edible, and there are recipes that prefer it over fresh bread, e.g. bread pudding and bread sauce. It does not have to be fed to chickens to avoid wasting it.
And wheat can be converted to pasta, which can be stored for years, and can be easily made edible by brief cooking. You can reduce wastage of wheat to negligible levels, and chicken farming has non-zero overhead, so it seems unlikely that the chickens are an efficiency win if you take reasonable care.
It's pretty reductionist to look at this from a pure calorie input / output point of view. Keeping a few pastured chickens to feed food waste can provide pest control in a garden, an additional source of nutrition for people (which is a complete protein) and a rich fertilizer from their waste.
> In consequence, I need to buy less and thus emissions can be reduced.
You're not taking into account that, by virtue of being an animal taking in oxygen and creating carbon dioxide / other pollutants, the chicken itself is contributing to greenhouse gas emissions.
The question is, in real life, are the bonus calories we get from animal farming efficient enough so as to be worth those greenhouse gases? Given the massive GHG emissions of animal agriculture, it doesn't seem so.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your example, though: feedback appreciated
Of course there is. Keeping a couple of goats that live off a natural pasture provides calories for humans that otherwise would have to be provided by something else. Keeping a pig that mostly lives off food waste has a similar effect.
Planting something that you can eat directly for the calories on that land area would be better (or don't touch it and let it sequester carbon, and plant somewhere else that's more suited).
If you feed the goat 100 calories, there is no way you get back 100 calories.
Many areas can sustain goats but can't sustain agriculture. Goats can also eat stuff that is inedible to humans, for example the parts of wheat an corn that are not the grains. A lot of plant matter that has zero calories for humans has >0 calories for ruminants.
@adrianN: You are talking about what is called marginal land in agriculture and environmental science. Recent research shows that even marginal land has a better GHG balance when left untouched and not grazed by livestock
It's always better plant and eat the food directly than to feed it to an animal.
Of course, if you're in a scenario where you live on a small island with no connection to the outside world, and you only have marginal land, yes, you need might need to have livestock to survive. But that's not what we're talking about here.
Of course marginal land which is left untouched has no monetary or food value. What is the value of the difference between grazed and ungrazed? Is it enough to justify paying people to leave it fallow?
Which do you think affects GHG emission more? A rich grassland with multiple feet of biologically active, carbon rich soil, or a desert? Proper herd grazing is a part of healthy grasslands as the animals trample plants and poop everywhere before moving to a new area to graze, creating plenty of soil.
> When organisms are consumed, approximately 10% of the energy in the food is fixed into their flesh and is available for next trophic level (carnivores or omnivores). When a carnivore or an omnivore in turn consumes that animal, only about 10% of energy is fixed in its flesh for the higher level.
