I think that people should really eat less meat. We don't have to cut it out completely, but we could be a lot more efficient if we didn't have to feed livestock to feed people, and if we didn't have to feed livestock we could use the land to help feed the hungry, or we could give it back to the environment. Think about it like the food chain, only about 10% of the energy moves up to the next trophic level. 90% of the energy given to livestock is spent, walking around a feild, or pented up in a cage. When our grade made biodomes, we recieved a sheet that stated how much land different animals would take up. 1 cow would take up 2 acres of land. One acre is about three quarters of a football field, or 1.5 football fields per cow. Just imagine if people didn't eat beef? There are 98.4 million cows in the US. That's 147.6 million football fields. That's bigger than Texas. Just let that sink in.

Yes, cows are a big problem. Not only, as you said, do they take up a lot of land and space, they also release methane into the atmosphere, which is a worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Also,  swaths of forest are cut down and burned to be replaced by farm land and area for livestock, making the problem worse. It was very good of you to bring this up.

I completely disagree. Regarding Elise, the two acres of land statistic is a VERY rough estimate. Basically a thought made up by someone who wanted you to a complete a worksheet and do a little math. Also, a very large majority of beef eaten in the United States is consumed at restaurants and fast food which in most cases if they do not advertise free range beef, almost always do not cook free range beef. Non free range beef is something in which is a cow is in a small pen with other cows where the cows stand and eat all day (taking up little space). Also, if you have not noticed there are still many desolate places on earth which makes space not a very big issue. To add, the sun emits enough energy to power 2,880 trillion lightbulbs (https://solarpowerrocks.com/solar-basic … s-the-sun/). In emphasis, the energy the animals "spend" is never really spent, but converted into other actions that set other things in motion which retain the energy "spent" (its a large idea that works in a cycle of motion, but that is a too large of a topic for a discussion board) Regard ing Nick, humans and many other animals release methane into the atmosphere. There are over 7.4 billion human beings which is over 6 times the population of cows suggested by Elise (not sure of the country or the source of this information) (http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/). We should also acknowledge that humans are the largest environmental issue weather we choose to think of that or not it is the truth. Also, not sure where you are getting this idea that "someone" is slaughtering forests daily to throw cows on for livestock because almost all large forests that are large enough to be considered forests are too far from the consumer to have any economic value. This is due to the fact that transporting the cows would be very expansive along with if you were to slaughter the cows on the spot, the meat would most likely be unappetizing or rotten. This is why livestock production has not yet been outsourced to foreign countries. If you are speaking of forests, say in the mid west, a company most likely can not meet the needs of slaughtering and transporting the livestock that is needed to get the livestock to the consumer. Most forests are remote, and the transportation from the food to the market is a large inconvenience versus being off of the side of a highway. Furthermore, "swaths" of forests are not being cut down for livestock on a large scale because the remoteness and the inconvenience of forests is too large of a disadvantage.

I agree completely, Elise, and I also want to bring up the fact that cows release a lot of methane, which is an extremely poisonous greenhouse gas, and on top of that, cows can require anywhere from 3-30 gallons of water a day, and while we're in a severe drought in California we really need to think about how water is being used. This statistic doesn't even take into consideration the amount of water it takes to water the grass where the cows graze. What's more, we're likely to start seeing more extreme weather & climate conditions, like droughts, in the future as climate change persists, and if people started eating a little bit beef now, in future years there won't be a need to raise as many cows as demand would go down.

I feel like it would be a lot healthier for people to eat less meat also.

I agree with Nick H. and Elise C when they state how cows release large amounts of methane. According to The United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization, the meat industry generates about 1/5 of the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing the world to get warmer. It also minimizes water usage as 1,800-2500 gallons of water go into a lb of beef, much more than fruits and vegetables. Regarding Julian, I am assuming that you are saying because these cows are kept in slaughterhouses and small pens, it decreases space and therefore saves land .There are toxic chemicals that leak into rivers and underground, polluting the environment. Slaughterhouses effect nearby towns greatly because of the fumes and unpleasent odors they release along with pollution.The transporting of animals from the farm to the slaughterhouse, from the slaughterhouse to the store, all require energy and thus greenhouse gases are being released which are greatly harmful to the environment. These huge slaughterhouses also require massive tons of energy and release Co2 from the burning of fossil fue ls.  However, if there is a sudden decrease of meat consumption, how will this affect jobs? What problems will it give the economy? How will it affect the fur industry? What will happen to the population of animals?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr … guidelines

http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/lead/x6114e/x6114e03.htm

I agree with you all and I also think that if we change the amount of livestock produced in the world it would cause for more people to be fed and for costs of food to go down since money won't be spent on the upkeep and expenses of livestock. And since livestock is taking up so much space, a lot of deforestation is caused by this. Also, because cows and other livestock animals are being force bred by companies, it begs questions of morality into the question along with animal cruelty. So, because people aren't needed to keep down levels of population in these animals, it would be better to reduce meat AND dairy in the industry. Because, since cows don't produce milk unless they have had a baby recently, more and more cows and other livestock are being bred to make more money for the meat and dairy industry. This makes for more things like veal to go into the meat market, (veal, if you did not know, is male baby cows that are being eaten) and since Scientific Amer ican said that reasonable meat/no meat consumption is not only good for you but is good for the environment, there are no obvious reasons not to reduce meat consumtion.

I completely agree Elise, if you want to help make an impact on the environment, the easiest and cheapest way is to eat less meat. Vegetarianism and veganism are really important for our world because it is saving many lives, helps with your health, and helps the environment. To make meat and dairy products, you are using so many grains and water to feed the animals that are going to end up being killed. By eating vegan, you aren’t just saving money, but you are also reducing your personal carbon footprint. Someone who goes vegan saves over 1,000 gallons of water every day. One hamburger takes 1,300 gallons of water. The meat consumption in our world has doubled in the past 30 years, and with all the animals being bred, they are taking up a vast amount of space and overheating the planet.
Cows also create manure and urine that ruins livestock. Large factories that create meat and dairy products pollute the world with gasses.
http://www.veganoutreach.org/whyvegan/environment.html