For example, let's say we remove cattle from the rolling, rocky hills of Quebec. We let the land go fallow, back to nature.
Ok, now endless deer, bison, moose, groundhogs, and endless other critters do a horrible thing. They eat, and they fart.
When people complain about meat, and carbon, they are complaining about the worst part of it.
Much of the world does not dump fertilizer on land, grow crop, and feed it to cattle.
It is very unfair to lump this all together, especially in a thread about people taking extreme positions.
What's the percentage of grass fed vs grain? From a shallow search it seems like it's low single digits yet I see this argument come up a lot. Do you have different numbers perhaps?
Does the remaining 1% matter all that much in the conversation?
I struggle with the concept of feedlot farming being morally acceptable at all. However, I've been on a number of beef farms in the UK and it's just not representative of how British beef is raised.
> Much of the world does not dump fertilizer on land, grow crop, and feed it to cattle.
Plot twist: the average US/EU diet can't be sustained on free range only meat/animal products.
In the US grass fed beef represent 4% of beef sold, and that's with a very loose definition of "grass fed"