General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Halve meat consumption, scientists urge rich world [View all]FedUpWithIt All
(4,442 posts)Meat raised in commercial farming is all the things you claim.
But that is not the only way and certainly isn't the best way. Livestock typically thrives on somewhat marginal land and with very little, if any, grain input. The animals provide non-petroleum sources of nutrients and fertilizers back into the soils.
The heavy reliance on soy products, which is somewhat necessary to replace meat in a human diet, has increasingly evident drawbacks, physical, environmental and social. First, it is a known endocrine disruptor and the full affects of this are not yet fully known. Second the crops are fairly destructive environmentally as a mono-crop which is how the majority of soy is grown. Mono-crops are also typically grown using petroleum based fertilizers and chemicals which cause broad environmental damage. Most of the soy products that people consume, ie. meat replacers, are also heavily processed which requires a lot of energy and transport.
There is another way and that is a return to the small farm model. In a small farm model, which is what i believe the science in the OP is recommending, livestock is treated humanely and with great care, they in turn provide perfect soil enrichment for the farm. Many heritage breeds, which factory farming has nearly eliminated, are being protected and raised in increasing numbers by small farmers. These breeds, and the valuable qualities specific to them, would be lost to us if it weren't for the efforts being made by these farmers. Lastly, this model lends itself very well to local food markets. Little is required to be shipped in, in most cases, and little needs shipped out.
I have no issue if someone has a preference toward vegetarianism and i admire the conviction and constraint there but i do not see how it could possibly be sustainable as a model for all.