The avergae Indian eats a diet high in carbohydrates (rice, potatoes), with protein provided by beans and lentils. In contrast, American eat a lot of meat and animal proteins (cheese, butter, etc.). If we were to eat an Indian-style diet, we would probably be healthier. In addition, all of the energy we use to raise livestock would be saved.
So, does living “green” involve a change in diet? We we also be less obese on an India-style diet?
It doesn’t actually take all that much extra to raise cows. Most of the land used to raise cows is poorly-suited for any human-edible crop, so without the cattle, that land would just go to waste.
And Indians do eat a lot of dairy; they just don’t eat the cows themselves directly.
True, but a lot of land is used to raise crops used as cattle feed. My relatives, farmers in Oklahoma, mostly grow milo which is used as cattle feed. If there wasn’t as much demand because cattle raised for meat no longer was in the picture, they’d probably partially grow something else.
The Energy and Environment Data Bank estimates India’s per capita overall energy use at somewhere in the 3800-5900 kWh range. The figure for the US is around 90000-100000.
So there’s no question that Indians use way less energy than Americans overall. The question is, how much of this is directly related to differences in diet?
And yes, Indians have zillions of livestock and consume tons of dairy products. Don’t imagine that they’re totally vegetarian, either. Surprisingly, India is the 49th largest consumer of beef and veal in the world, and the 36th largest consumer of poultry; not up there with the US, which ranks third and second in those categories respectively, but not negligible. (Those figures are from 1999, but if anything, Indians on average nowadays eat more meat than ten years ago.)
“Surprisingly”? Umm, there were only 49 and 36 countries in either category, respectively. Out of all the countries they have data for, India was dead last at eating meat. It consumed, per-capita, 30x to 70x less meat than America. That’s surprising. That’s like against human nature…
Well, that does make more sense than my interpretation, considering how much lower the Indian per capita consumption figures are. But where did you get the info that they only had data for those < 50 countries? I didn’t see any information about how the countries were selected, which is what led me to believe that the rankings were worldwide.
The usual estimate is that it takes 10 calorie of feed (which, in practice, is almost entirely corn) to produce 1 calorie of beef. With chicken, that ratio is more like 3 to 1.
How the food is produced also makes a difference. I don’t know if India’s food production is any different, but here in the US and much of the industrial world, agriculture depends on huge inputs of fertilizer. The production of that fertilizer, in turn, requires large amounts of fossil fuel, meaning that agriculture is more energy intensive than you might expect.
Off the top of my head, I don’t know how to assemble that into an estimate… Perhaps there’s a simpler way, from statistics about the total energy and fertilizer inputs for agriculture in each country?
Maybe yes, maybe no. Milo is generally considered by North American farmers to be a dryland crop – you grow it because there’s not enough rain for corn or beans, the climate is too hot for other crops and irrigation is considered too expensive.
Your relatives could probably switch to wheat or barley, but it’s unlikely good conditions for other “human” crops like vegetables or tree crops.
On the other hand, they could go to pastureland, which means they’d be raising livestock.
Feed corn has a yeild well over 10X that of sweet corn. Thus, even though it would seem you lose quite a bit of efficiency fattening up cattle with corn, it’s not that bad. And, cattle are normally grazed on non-arable land for most of their life.
So, as far as “energy” goes, it’s about even. Now, as far as environmental impact goes, that a whole another huge can of worms.
Kimstu “Out of all the countries they have data for, India was dead last at eating meat.” that table seem to measure beef, pork and poulty only, not mutton or goat.
The World Resources Inst seems to indicate that India consumes 5.2 Kg per capita of “meat” in 2002.
This source has some reasons why:
Meat consumption is growing quite fast, as incomes rise.