I do. Buy half a grassfed cow a year, frankly the steaks aren't as good as corn finished but everything else is better (roasts gnd beef etc).

I used to do this. Bought from a FOAF and I found that all the meat was better than store bought. But definitely a personal preference!

Whereabouts were you and why did you stop, if I might ask? Or maybe you still do and hedberg lives on.

Minnesota. The FOAF was a retired farmer who still raised a few head of cattle to keep busy. He's only doing it for family now.

Huh. Fascinating, honestly.

> They can eat grass. But they don't. They eat corn that is subsidized by the government

Putting aside the ridiculousness of the Big Agra's bedroom activity with the Government, what's your point? Corn is a type of grass after all. The same rules apply. If there's a problem with how corn in particular is raised and transported for cattle feed, that's really not central to whether raising cattle is bad for the climate in and of itself. Cattle can and are fed on grass all the time, even in cases when the cattle is grain-fed in the months before they are slaughtered.

> It's a fact that Americans eat more meat than they should

According to whom?

> According to whom?

CDC, avg american men eats more than 100gm protein perday, CDC recommends 56.

Then read about blue region people who eats much less meat, in most Blue Zones diets people eat small amounts of pork, chicken, or lamb. https://extension.psu.edu/longevity-tips-from-the-blue-zones

> Putting aside the ridiculousness of the Big Agra's bedroom activity with the Government, what's your point?

How is this ridiculousness? The government heavily subsidizes corn, which makes it cheap to use to fatten up cows. If corn wasn't cheaply produced, it would be used less in beef production.

Government subsidies are why corn is in most products, and why it's being used for a percentage of fuel. The corn being produced is low in nutrients and high in sugar. The subsidies are not a positive thing for the economy or for our health.

Dieticians.

A fact? Really? What is the correct amount of meat that we should eat?

The amount that won't deforest the earth, fill the air with methane, and overflow rivers with cow shit.

Sounds good. So what is that amount exactly? Please give us a specific number, and show your work.

Are you familiar with the recent developments in regenerative agriculture including livestock integration?

https://montanafreepress.org/2021/07/06/regenerative-agricul...

8 billion people on earth, takes 6 months to raise a cow for food. If each person wants ~50 lbs of beef each year that's about 400 million cows assuming a perfect system. That'll require 800 million acres just so people can eat cows. Not to mention the byproducts.

Sustainable livestock sounds great. But it won't scale far enough to meet even the current US demand, at least not if grown domestically. So maybe just subjugate a bunch of other countries, and ensure they do it sustainably! Can't be clear cutting rainforests we might need to breath or anything.

For some perspective, 800 million acres is about 1.25 million square miles, or approximately 1/3 of the land area of the forty eight contiguous states. 900 million acres is approximately the amount of agricultural land in the US. If this estimate were true and would provide meat for the entire world, I think we'd be okay spacewise.

That doesn't account for the byproducts, assumes ideal efficiency, and puts a huge squeeze on other agriculture. Then there are resources consumed by transportation, refrigeration, spoilage, etc.

As we search out the threshold of unsustainable living maybe we could tap the breaks a bit first? Earth is a nearly closed system we must all share, and cows are a terribly inefficient way to produce protein and calories.

Read about blue region people who eats much less meat, in most Blue Zones diets people ate small amounts of pork, chicken, or lamb. https://extension.psu.edu/longevity-tips-from-the-blue-zones

avg american men eats more than 100gm protein perday, CDC recommends 46-56. As you asked, now are you going to follow that? https://www.bluezones.com/2020/07/blue-zones-diet-food-secre...

No the CDC recommendations are based on junk science and fail to account for the latest medical research. Sure you can survive on that much protein, but it's not sufficient for optimal performance. Look at what winning athletes usually eat.

https://peterattiamd.com/category/nutritional-biochemistry/p...

Not everyone can be an athlete and few people exercise enough to justify the same calorie and protein budgets as athletes.

Everyone who isn't severely physically disabled can (and should) be an athlete if they want to have a long healthspan. High protein intake is essential to prevent sarcopenia as we age and our digestive systems become less effective at extracting those nutrients. Please read though the reference I provided above instead of spreading misinformation.

Can you link to an original source? I couldn't find one following that spammy blog.

From what I could find sarcopenia's exact causes aren't fully understood yet.

Regardless of the correct quantities protein does not need to come from animal sources. And if we want to live with less suffering and environmental destruction we'll need to reduce reliance on animal protein.

I agree. The government should not tell people what to eat and should not choose winners and losers, which is why farm subsidies need to be eliminated (or at least drastically reduced).

I didn't say that I would control what people eat. I was just saying that the amount of meat eaten in the west is not normal historically.