Vastly more animal deaths from vegetarian approach?

[C C]

http://theconversation.com/ordering-the-...hands-4659

EXCERPT: [...] Renowned ethicist Peter Singer says if there is a range of ways of feeding ourselves, we should choose the way that causes the least unnecessary harm to animals. Most animal rights advocates say this means we should eat plants rather than animals.

It takes somewhere between two to ten kilos of plants, depending on the type of plants involved, to produce one kilo of animal. Given the limited amount of productive land in the world, it would seem to some to make more sense to focus our culinary attentions on plants, because we would arguably get more energy per hectare for human consumption. Theoretically this should also mean fewer sentient animals would be killed to feed the ravenous appetites of ever more humans.

But before scratching rangelands-produced red meat off the “good to eat” list for ethical or environmental reasons, let’s test these presumptions. Published figures suggest that, in Australia, producing wheat and other grains results in:

[...] Replacing red meat with grain products leads to many more sentient animal deaths, far greater animal suffering and significantly more environmental degradation. Protein obtained from grazing livestock costs far fewer lives per kilogram: it is a more humane, ethical and environmentally-friendly dietary option.

So, what does a hungry human do? Our teeth and digestive system are adapted for omnivory. But we are now challenged to think about philosophical issues. We worry about the ethics involved in killing grazing animals and wonder if there are other more humane ways of obtaining adequate nutrients.

Relying on grains and pulses brings destruction of native ecosystems, significant threats to native species and at least 25 times more deaths of sentient animals per kilogram of food...

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

A comeback response here: Vegetarians cause environmental damage, but meat eaters aren't off the hook

[stryder]

About 5 years ago it was suggested that Soy farms were replacing rainforest in south America at an alarming rate.  It wasn't the sudden up-surgence of vegetarian diets but the increase in the number of animals needing to be fed, so they could become food.

Any form of farming that removes rainforest or strips the land of nutrients (soy can do that), along with farming animals that produce methane isn't good in the long run. 

Ideally farming requires being done in closed modular systems, where water is recycled and pollutants are monitored.  The problem however with a high tech low ecologically damaging solution is that it does mean it costs, at least initially until it can be mass produced.