Possible Duplicate:
Organic food is worse for the environment because it requires more land than non-organic food

Most meat in developed nations is produced by Industrial agriculture methods, such as factory farming. Free-range meat is an example of an alternative practice.

In the comments for the question Is being a vegan more environmentally friendly than otherwise Flimzy said:

I think it is easier to have an environmentally-friendly diet if you're a vegan, but there are environmentally friendly ways of consuming meat, too. They're just harder to do. If you raise your own free-range chickens or beef (or buy from someone locally who does), it's pretty environmentally friendly, for instance. But this is much harder than having your own local veggie garden, or buying veggies from a local farmer's market.


I also suspect that these numbers are only taking into account "traditional production" means. A graph showing free-range (or other alternative methods) and local poultry, beef, pork, and dairy, would be very interesting as well.

Oddthinking makes a good counterpoint:

You are making some claims there! How about some evidence? My first impression is that free-range is less environmentally-friendly, as more land must be cleared. Morally right is a separate question. And then there is the question of how much land is dedicated to feeding the animals.

My gut feeling tends to agree with Oddthinking, The UN reports "Global meat production is projected to more than double from 229 million tonnes in 1999/2001 to 465 million tonnes in 2050", as more people are becoming more prosperous, their meat consumption increases. These methods would have to scale to fit the increased demand for more meat.

John C weighs in:

"antibiotics and hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and the pesticides used to spray feed crops." Personally, I consider that more an indictment of the industrial livestock industry - cattle that are grass-fed, and not given rBGH and antibiotics, would have none of those problems.

So it seems to be a common belief that there are alternative methods of meat production (possibly free-range meat) that are better than the environment than factory farming. So what is the evidence that free-range, or other alternative methods of meat production actually are better than industrial, factory farmed methods?

I have heard there is some research going on to grow meat in a lab but this method isn't here yet, but it looks very promising from both an environmental as well as ethical prospective.

marked as duplicate by Larian LeQuella Oct 23 '12 at 5:10

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • 2
    Factory farming requires harvesting, processing, and transporting animal feed from farm to factory, then transporting animal waste from factory to somewhere to process it. This contributes, if nothing else, to a carbon footprint that is not present in free range farming. I'll look for studies that compare the two, and provide a full answer. – Flimzy Nov 18 '11 at 22:37
  • This question might do better with a narrower scope than "environmentally better". Are we talking about soil, climate, emissions, power, ecological effects? "All of the above" could fill multiple textbooks. – Dave May 4 '12 at 14:11
  • Maybe it's telling that there hasn't been an answer to this question after nearly a year... – Rei Miyasaka Oct 10 '12 at 1:12

Browse other questions tagged .