Eating larger animals

[miniboes]

I've just heard the argument on a podcast (I think it was orginally made by Bruce Friedrich) that we should advocate that IF people eat meat, they should eat beef rather than poultry, fish or pork. Two reasons were cited:
a) a cow delivers far more meat than the other animals we eat, so fewer animals have to die to meet demand
b) we tend to symphatize more with large mammals than poultry and fish, so they're treated better

Is there any flaw in this line of reasoning I'm not seeing? I love cows, but I can see how advocating for people to eat beef rather than chicken can drastically reduce net animal suffering. There is of course the opportunity cost in that you could be advocating veganism instead, but advocating veg*nism may be less effective because people would presumably be more willing to eat different meat than eat no meat.

[brimstoneSalad]

This is the main danger to the health argument, which primarily targets red meat; it could result in people eating more chicken (which of course isn't healthy, but when skinless is less unhealthy than beef).

Chickens are both more numerous in meat production and treated more cruelly. Cow agriculture, however, is worse for the environment. And pigs are probably the most intelligent. There are issues with any choice of meat aside from rope grown oysters (better on all fronts, since probably not sentient, and better for the environment and health compared to land animal meat).

[miniboes]

Cow agriculture, however, is worse for the environment.

Yes, that is of course a major concern. I suspect that the 'eat less animal products' approach is the best compromise between achievability and effectiveness. That, along with investments in tastier and cheaper plant-based alternatives.

I went back to the original podcast, and Friedrich didn't actually advocate for this approach, but just mentioned it as one amongst many.

There are issues with any choice of meat aside from rope grown oysters (better on all fronts, since probably not sentient, and better for the environment and health compared to land animal meat).

Friedrich said that for every calorie of chicken you need to feed the chicken 9 calories, and that chicken are the most efficient source of meat by that measure. Do you happen to know how oysters compare to that?

[brimstoneSalad]

Friedrich said that for every calorie of chicken you need to feed the chicken 9 calories, and that chicken are the most efficient source of meat by that measure. Do you happen to know how oysters compare to that?

We do not feed oysters, they are filter feeders and consume microscopic matter floating in the oceans. They clean the water and concentrate calories that would otherwise be difficult to harvest or unpalatable into an acceptable food source.

There are ways to harvest scum from the oceans and process it into food, but I don't think any of them are done currently. Pond scum is harvested for Spirulina and Chlorella (watch, those key words will stimulate a spammer to post here). I don't know the FCR, but since oysters are sessile and cold blooded, I suspect it would be much higher than for chickens, and even higher than for insects (which are better than chickens).

Meanwhile the same issue doesn't apply to cows, where the grazing land could usually be farmed, they damage the environment (even the natural one by grazing), and we could even just harvest the grass and juice it, then use the left over cellulose as feed stock for ethanol production.

[DarlBundren]

If I am not mistaken, Vaclav Smil argued in favour of poultry as the most efficient kind of meat. Of course, he didn't take sentience into consideration. I don't have that book with me right now, but here's the chart

[brimstoneSalad]

If I am not mistaken, Vaclav Smil argued in favour of poultry as the most efficient kind of meat. Of course, he didn't take sentience into consideration. I don't have that book with me right now, but here's the chart

I've gotten closer to 1:5 for chicken (protein in meat vs protein in the feed), but these numbers are pretty close; they depend on what you get out of the corpse and consider edible. Anything within that range is plausible.

This is only between three animals, though. Cold blooded animals are more efficient, as well as those animals you can eat more of. Insects tend to outperform chickens on chicken feed. You can also eat more of the body (ground whole into flour, for example). I think FCR for crickets is under 2.

[Waterfowl]

Hm, I've heard this argument being used too by a family member who eats whale meat occasionally (we both live in a coastal city in Norway). Mind you, there are still very few people in favor of whaling still - and the cetaceans deaths can easily become excruciatingly slow and painful. Even as wild deer species such as moose could also hold up to the "large animal" formula and appear less ethically bothersome because they are wild animals and did not grow up on a factory farm, its not so rare to hear about such animals surviving the hunters' attempts to bring them down - at least for a short while. (Anecdotally, some other family members of mine once took part in a "hunt" where they had shot a large bull moose in the chest, but it ran away, they didn't care much for where it went sadly. Absolutely grotesque and careless attitudes.)

While this may not have answered your question, I just wanted to share some thoughts. Apologies for my inadequate English skills haha

[miniboes]

Hm, I've heard this argument being used too by a family member who eats whale meat occasionally (we both live in a coastal city in Norway). Mind you, there are still very few people in favor of whaling still - and the cetaceans deaths can easily become excruciatingly slow and painful. Even as wild deer species such as moose could also hold up to the "large animal" formula and appear less ethically bothersome because they are wild animals and did not grow up on a factory farm, its not so rare to hear about such animals surviving the hunters' attempts to bring them down - at least for a short while. (Anecdotally, some other family members of mine once took part in a "hunt" where they had shot a large bull moose in the chest, but it ran away, they didn't care much for where it went sadly. Absolutely grotesque and careless attitudes.)

While this may not have answered your question, I just wanted to share some thoughts. Apologies for my inadequate English skills haha

Welcome to the forum! Your English is perfectly adequate, don't worry. The fact that people still eat whale meat freaks me out. Whales have intrigued me for a long time, especially since I got to see a humpback whale in person in Iceland.

I think the chances that people are going to switch to any form of more ethical/sustainable meat is very slim. It could only happen if many people started advocating for it, but they would spend their time far better by advocating reduced animal product consumption. It seems to me that advocating for any alternative animal food source has a great opportunity cost plus sustainability, ethical and/or practical* concerns.

*nobody wants to eat insects, for instance, so advocating for people to switch from mammals, fish and poultry to insects is unlikely to be of any use.

[brimstoneSalad]

Welcome Waterfowl! Hope you'll post an intro.

*nobody wants to eat insects, for instance, so advocating for people to switch from mammals, fish and poultry to insects is unlikely to be of any use.

I think we've actually seen growing interest in that, in the past few years with cricket protein. People are starting to get used to the idea, particularly when it's a harmless looking powder incorporated into energy bars etc.