You may be interested in this article:

http://anthonycolpo.com/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-theres-...

Its arguments, in short, are:

Published figures suggest that, in Australia, producing wheat and other grains results in:

–at least 25 times more sentient animals being killed per kilogram of useable protein

–more environmental damage, and

–a great deal more animal cruelty than does farming red meat.

Now I'm not saying it's certainly right or wrong, but it may give a new perspective.

Animals do provide high quality fertilizers and ecosystem services. I'm trying to cut out factory farmed meat. Hence, budgetary constraints cause me to choose less meat and more pastured eggs.

Soy is insanely toxic. Until recently, Asians didn't consider it edible, except for monks who used it to decrease libido.

About the questionable facts: the 25x claim is not substantiated in any way. It doesn't in any way substantiate why use of fertilizers to grow plants for human consumption would be worse than growing grass for the equivalent nutritional value of cows.

Lastly, even if you ignore the irrelevance and the bad claims, it concludes that ethically you should only eat rangeland grown meat and kangaroos, a clear counterargument for the usual meat eater diet!

Yes, though not intentionally - this is just an article I read recently so it came up in my memory. I believe, though, that a lot of small animals die because of farming grains everywhere in the world, not only in Australia. Other factors, indeed, may vary greatly.

Lastly, even if you ignore the irrelevance and the bad claims, it concludes that ethically you should only eat rangeland grown meat and kangaroos, a clear counterargument for the usual meat eater diet!

I agree - if one's aim is to minimize the number of animal deaths or the amount of suffering, that seems to be the answer.

Destroying the planet and suffering of animals are worthy causes, but still unrelated to quality of personal nutrition.