> Vegetarian is lower cost and better for the environment
Depends on the biotope. In fertile European fields, less meat is much more efficient. In the arctic steppe or in the Sahel, animals are the more efficient way to extract calories from the land (though it doesn't scale to high population densities...)
In every conversation I've seen, this accurate fact has been the primary counterpoint to the idea that a plant-based diet is more sustainable, but what percent of the world population lives a nomadic lifestyle in the arctic steppes? I don't see even the most hardcore vegans running social media campaigns aimed at coverting remote nomadic cultures to vegetarianism. They tend to focus on middle class white people who have more options available to them. Also, reduced meat and fish consumption by rich people would leave more healthy ecosystems to sustain those who depend on them.
Given the climate of our world, we have a certain amount of arctic tundra etc. The best way to extract nourishment from that is foraging by e.g. reindeer. That holds irrespective of the population density.
Also, reindeer is one of the most ethical ways of modern husbandry. Animals live out in the wild, supported by humans e.g. adding feed when there is little to eat, protecting them from carnivores etc, and then they are slaughtered in a sustainable way after living close to how they do in their natural state.
that is a very long chain of ifs, any of which can evaluate to false
EDIT: there is also no precedent for what you propose and if we go by the partial match of grass-fed beef, the yield will be so small compared to the population as to be pointless
There's almost 2 million domesticated reindeer worldwide, compared to 1.4 billion cattle, so it's tiny for sure. But in most of those regions, it's regulated such that only first people/native inhabitants/etc. are legally allowed to work reindeer.
how do you propose the mindset and techniques behind first people's husbandry sustainability can be scaled and applied to profit seeking "modern" farming?
What is the net total protein yield of sustainable grazing-based non-augmented livestock production in those regions, and the equivalent global daily per-person ration?
"Table crops" (vegetables, fruits) are not dietary staples, that is primary sources of calories.
Grains are.
Rice. Wheat. Maize (corn). Rye. Oats. Barley. Millet. A handful of others.
A 50# bag of rice (22.7kg) costs less than $20, and provides 17,800 calories, or about 900 calories per dollar, or about 0.1 cents/calorie.
I see chicken at about $2/lb, 102cal/3oz, or 544 cal/lb. That's 2.7 cents/calorie, 27 times more expensive than rice.
(And for the nutritionists out there: kilocalories are not all that food provides, but it's the most significant start. Macros and micros as well as other factors do matter. I've been told.)
Oh: There are also root crops, especially potatoes.
Dollars can be a pretty good measure of the 'cost' of something - energy, transportation, land use, labor. If vegetables cost more to deliver to the grocery store, that cost is pretty related to the environmental cost?
Depends on the biotope. In fertile European fields, less meat is much more efficient. In the arctic steppe or in the Sahel, animals are the more efficient way to extract calories from the land (though it doesn't scale to high population densities...)