Reply #18: Perhaps hunting your meat is a better answer.

[SteveM]

Jack Kerasote in his "Bloodties: Nature, Culture and the Hunt" (Random House, 1993) makes the point that pursuing game animals, elk in his instance, can reduce the fossil fuel costs of eating both store-bought meat and vegetables, when measured in kilocalories. He estimated that the 150 pounds of elk meat he used cost "...the planet seventy-nine thousand kilocalories of fossil fuel energy." He includes the energy to produce his vehicle, gas, gun, ammo, electricity for the refrigerator, etc. He compares the caloric value of 150 pounds of elk with the caloric value of eating potatoes (near his residence) and calculates costs of "...151,000 kilocalories of fossil fuel energy." He also calculates a "...calorically equivalent amount of rice and canned pinto beans...imported a thousand miles from California 477,000 kilocalories."
We should reduce the fossil fuel costs by limiting our damage when eating. I hunt and fish locally (within 200 miles) and try to keep commercial food purchases down.