I eat out a lot, and I guess I always assumed that chicken was the most environmentally responsible meat – 'cause it’s smaller, I guess. But am I right?
I’m talking run-of-the mill food here. I understand that in general, a vegetarian diet is best for the environment, and farm-raised/grass-fed meats are better than factory feed-lot animals, etc. But if I’m at Chipotle, should I get the beef, chicken, or pork burrito?
The fact that you are eating out a lot should be a much greater concern than the type of meat you eat.
All of the meats you mention are fed plants and are essentially equal with regard to their environmental impact. Someone may argue one over the other but within a small margin they are the same.
If you eat fish, read Cecil’s column today.
If you are concerned about the environment, you would purchase locally grown fruits and vegetables and eat them raw or cook them quickly such as with a wok.
Eating out involves so many other points of energy from dishwashing to driving.
Go for long pig.
I’ve heard conflicting things about vegetarianism being better for the environment. A lot of animals (cows and chickens included) eat plant matter that we can’t get adequate nutrition from. So to go to a vegetarian diet for everyone, more and more land will have to be used for plants that we can eat. This could cause all sorts of environmental problems.
I’m not saying I know for sure which one is better, but I don’t think it’s as cut and dry as “meat is always worse, no meat is always better” as PETA and their ilk would have one believe.
According to this article, chicken has less of an environmental impact that even milk and cheese (Table 5). Just one study, but an interesting analysis.
I would also toss in that limiting this to free-range chickens would lessen this impact, and chickens can be raised on land not suitable for growing crops.
It’s much less efficient to grow crops to feed to animals to feed to us than it is to just grow crops we can eat. In the case of beef, much much less efficient. On the other hand, animals can graze on land that can’t (or shouldn’t) be used for crops. Very few animals are raised this way, though. They’re all fed corn, more or less. Your average supermarket chicken isn’t roaming around eating weeds.
A more valid point to raise perhaps is that organic agriculture uses a lot of products from animals – not just manure but blood and bone meal. There are probably ways to eliminate livestock from the system without going over entirely to chemicals, but not too many people are arguing for that. (I don’t take anything PETA says seriously.)
Actually, it’s interesting that you specified Chipotle. They make a point of avoiding factory-farmed meat.
No love for lamb?
I love a little lamb; they eat ivy which grows in places not otherwise suitable for crops. Eating a little lamb has to be better than eating mares or does. They eat oats which could more efficiently be used to feed humans a cholesterol-lowering, heart-healthy grain.
ETA: Young goats would be ok too. They also eat ivy.
According to this guy (and a great many others), Insects and similar tiny livestock are far and away the most environmentally friendly. They don’t take up a lot of land, their waste is negligible and evenly spread over the countryside, and you don’t have to worry about great big pools of leftover body parts and feces.
Good luck trying to get people to eat it, though. And I understand it’s surprisingly high in fat.
If I see what I think I see what you did there, that was fucking brilliant.
Small nitpick: Commercial producers use everything from harvested animals. Meat, bone, feathers, hair, blood, manure, used poultry litter - all there is to get. They just use it in ways that aren’t obvious (and not always food-related). I’ll leave aside discussion as to whether the specifics are optimal when viewed from particular stances. But, the one thing you cannot accuse commercial producers of is neglecting revenue streams.
Otherwise, top notch points 
wild game would have to be the answer. There’s no land dedicated to growing crops for them. From an environmental point of view as long as the numbers allowed to be hunted are controlled there isn’t an issue. (cruelty and suffering obviously still is)
In Australia, Kangaroo is especially environmentally friendly as they eat native scrub which is everywhere and their paws don’t damage the soil causing salination and erosion like Cows and Sheep do. It’s also very low in fat and much healthier than Beef or Lamb.
Tasty with mushrooms and red wine sauce too!
Also, in third world countries Chickens and Pigs are kept living with families and feed on the discarded scraps from their meals, which is food that humans can’t digest, so essentially in that case those animals have zero environmental impact, however those families don’t eat meat every meal, they slaughter them on special occasions for celebrations and festivals.
Can’t argue with this. Not only does it save on the effects of factory farming, it also very effectively addresses the root cause of all of our environmental problems.
My two cents on this subject (which you get for free) are that eating lower on the food chain, while it superficially seems more environmentally sound, actually has the effect of diverting more of the planet’s biomass and resources to human consumption, thereby decreasing total biomass and driving further reduction in biodiversity. Consider how many species of plants and animals live on an acre of cattle pastureland (in the hundreds) versus how many live on an acre of well-managed soybean farm (one). It’s a great idea … as long as humans are the only creatures on the planet that matter. But in the interconnected web that is our biosphere, that is emphatically not the case.
(Just incidentally, the eat-lower-on-the-food-chain model was the underlying premise of Soylent Green: humans had to start eating each other because they’d already burned through their farms and then worked their way down through krill and plankton until there was nothing left.
The argument is also made that eating lower on the food chain enables food production to become more efficient, producing the same amount of total nutrition out of smaller acreage. The problem with this pie-in-the-sky scenario is that it runs foul of Parkinson’s Law (consumption of a resource will generally rise to meet availability); human beings will, as they always have done, respond to increased efficiency of food production by increasing their population.
Wouldn’t you kiddley divey, as well?
Now I’d call that a modest proposal.
If I read them correctly, and I think I did -
Proper free-range grass eating cattle. Maybe chickens following them around, eating the bugs in the dung.
Cites:
Neither one is very big on the idea of human carnivores. I think both grudgingly take the stand that “well, if you must eat meat…”
And the thread below this is: How could/do I tame a feral cat?
Human is currently the most environmentally friendly meat. Humans are the largest cause of ecosystem damage so the more you remove from the planet the better shape the planet will be in. For maximum environmental friendliness eat humans from developed nations. Note: cannibalism is illegal in some areas so check with your local law enforcement agency before consuming human flesh.