According to the National Council for Animal Protection, over 99% of beef farmed for meat comes from cows that live in horrific factory farm environments.
Does the remaining 1% matter all that much in the conversation?
Would you expect the National Council for Animal Protection to give you an unbiased figure?
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.
Is that representative, there are areas in California where grazing was eliminated and they are not overrun with other grazing animals and beautiful meadows and creeks have begun to recover.
> only relevant if you grain feed, instead of allowing animals to graze on grass.
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?
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.