(February 4, 2014 at 8:19 pm)Aractus Wrote: ly grass. I'm not aware that we have any cattle that is fed grain exclusively.
Quote:Your solution is more factory farming? You can't be serious.
Indeed as this study comparing grass-fed vs feedlot cattle says, grass-fed beef is so much worse for the environment that "increasing proportion of lot-fed beef in Australia is favourable, since this production system generates lower total GHG emissions than grass-fed production; the additional effort in producing and transporting feeds is effectively offset by the increased efficiency of meat production in feedlots."
Cattle in feedlots are still raised on traditional farms before being sent ot the feedlot you know.
No, I don't think they should be more feedlot rather than grass fed. The point is all the studies show that per kg of protein, meat is worse for the environment, producing 11 times as much greenhouse gasses. The measure of how many kg of grain does it take to produce a kg of meat is useful only in so far as it is a measure of inefficiency and harm to the environment. The point is no matter how you raise cattle it is still worse than grain.
Australia is one of the biggest net exporters of grain in the world, mainly because its production of grain per head of population is huge, eg in comparison to the US it has half the total production of wheat, but a tenth of the population. Australia's problems don't stem from a lack of arable land, which it has huge amounts of per head population, but from a lack of water. The best way to deal with that is to increase the efficiency of irrigation, reduce wasteful water use on cattle by stopping eating meat, increase the use of drought resistant crops and reduce global warming.