Cattle Population Needed To Sustain Meat Eating

Cattle Population Needed To Sustain Meat Eating By Humans

Sanjeev posted this in Environment & Vegetarianism, Reasons for being a Vegetarian on October 6th, 2009

I have been saying all this while that the only reasons why we should not eat meat are natural and environmental. We have already had a fair amount of discussion with reference to the natural reasons – God Made Us Vegetarian, We Made Ourselves Meat Eaters.

Let us now embark on the environmental factor. Before we do so, in my opinion we need to first work out what is the number of animals needed to satisfy the meat eating craving of the man. For the sake of simplicity let us assume that man consumes only beef.

With this assumption, let us try and figure out by first principles, the number of cows, needed to satisfy the meat eating appetite of the human population.

At the time of writing this, as per the World Population Clock maintained by the US Census Bureau, the current human population of the world is 6,773,600,879

It is estimated that about 2.8% of the population in the US is vegetarian. If again for the sake of simplicity I assume that that is true of the world at large, then it would mean that about 97% of the world population eats meat. Furthermore, for the sake of being highly conservative, let us assume that this estimate is 100% in error, then it would mean that 6% of the world population is vegetarian and 94% eats meat.

Also the population of India at the time of writing is 1,142, 727,275

It is estimated that between 20-42% of the Indian population is vegetarian. Again to be highly conservative, let us assume the higher number as the percentage of Indians who are vegetarians – that is 42%.

With the above, the number of meat eaters in the world work out to be 5,955,803,007

The details are as below:

Human Population of the world	6,773,600,879
Population of India	1,142,727,275
Non-Vegetarian Population (%) – (World – India)	94%
Non-Vegetarian Population (%) - India	58%
Total Non-Vegetarian Population – World	5,955,803,007

It is a well known fact that The Recommended Dietary Allowance or RDA (sometimes referred to as Recommended Daily Allowance) is defined as “the average daily dietary intake level that is sufficient to meet the nutrient requirements of nearly all (approximately 98 percent) healthy individuals”.

The RDA can be broadly classified as being applicable into two age categories – new born to 15 years being one and more than 15 years being the other.

For the purpose of arriving at the meat requirement to support the meat consuming population of the world, we assume that the protein requirement for the children (less than 15 years) is 20 gm. And the protein requirement for the adults is 50 grams. This is as per the RDA.

According to the 2006 CIA World Fact book, around 27% of the world’s population is less than 15 years of age. Thus Non Vegetarian population greater than 15 years of age works out to be 4,347,736,195.

It is well known fact that per gram of protein and carbohydrates produce 4 calories each of energy and each gram of fat is equal to 9 calories. Thus RDA requirement of 50 grams protein works out to be equal to 200 calories or 10 percent of the RDA calories. (Most fitness enthusiasts and doctors would tell you that 50 grams of protein is low, but I have still taken a very conservative estimate of 50 gms as per the RDA)

I understand that 4 oz. or 128 grams of beef gives 220 calories. Thus to get 200 calories of energy you therefore require 116 grams of meat.

With the above assumptions and facts, the total requirement of beef to support the non-vegetarians in the world would be 578,308,472 kg! And this number is arrived thus:

Population > 15 years (%)	73%
Non Vegetarian Population > 15 years	4,347,736,195
Min. Calorie Requirement – 2000 RDA	8,695,472,390,600
Assume that 10% comes from meat (50gm Protein)	869,547,239,060
Kg meat needed per day	504,337,399
Non Vegetarian Population < 15 years	1,608,066,812
RDA Requirement 20 gm Protein in Kg Meat	73,971,073
TOTAL MEAT REQUIREMENT (KG)	578,308,472

Now to calculate the number of cattle that will produce this meat, we need to know how much meat is available per beef cattle. This number is 516lbs or 234.55 KG. (The same source also mentions much lower meat per cattle, but I have taken a number which is higher by almost 50% – to be highly conservative in my calculations)

Thus the total number of cattle that is required PER DAY for the meat eating populace would be 2,465,608!

(Two and a Half Million !!)

And assuming that the beef cattle is slaughtered, on an average, at the ripe old age of 2 years, at any given point of time you would require to raise 1,799,894,200 cattle.

That is a staggering 1.8 Billion bovine.

What kind of natural resources will be required to sustain such a large number of ARTIFICAILLY raised cattle – your guess is as good as mine.

But we shall discuss that in the next few days.

If you like the content, please vote for it. Thanks.

Niharika

October 17th, 2009 at 2:50 pm

Excellent analysis

Brown

October 28th, 2009 at 3:21 pm

Interesting and informative. I hope you will write about this one more and quickly too.

Manish Shah

November 11th, 2009 at 6:12 am

This is flawed argument.

We don’t do everything because it makes sense in the global context.

By this logic, Sanjeev, you shouldn’t have a single car. Because, imagine amount of oil needed and pollution created, if everyone in the world had a car.

And I hope your wife didn’t use diapers when your kids were growing up because imagine everyone in India started using diapers (there would be another mountain next to Himalayas)

Sanjeev

November 13th, 2009 at 12:44 am

Hi Manish,

First, thanks for your comments. Now I’ll take your points one by one:

1. You are right – my wife did not use diapers when my kids were growing up. Of course the logic was not that there would be another mountain next to the Himalayas. But simple enough that kids should not be made to stay in their excreta so that parents can have a good time. So we used cloth diapers and changed as soon as they got soiled.
2. Should people have a car? That is like asking if we need to be technologically advanced and make life easier for ourselves. By that token we should also not have computers because they too contribute to pollution, global warming etc. Not to mention unemployment! Further we should not have automation because they rob the ever increasing population of jobs – so we should use shovels to prepare fields for agriculture and continue to use hand based book keeping. The list can be endless. Are these advancements necessary for human happiness? doubtful, but in today’s era and where we have brought ourselves in the last few centuries, inevitable.
3. Is eating meat inevitable or really necessary for human survival even in these technologically, culturally or whatever “ally” times? I think the answer is an emphatic NO. And hence the argument given out in the article. I think we need to first be clear about things that are an absolute must and if they are not then give reasons so that we are able to create a swell of opinion against them and try to minimize their use as far as possible.
4. “We don’t do everything because it make sense”. Precisely my point – that is why we are in the mess we find ourselves in – war, global warming, increasing population and what have you – all because we do things that are not logical.

But remember that the creator breaks the mould once he makes a species. And if we human beings continue to do things that don’t make sense, then a day will come when the human species will be wiped out just as dinosaurs and other got finished then we will not be able to anything – drive cars, use diapers or eat meat. We will all be dust and the mould will not be available to resurrect us.

November 13th, 2009 at 11:06 am

Hi Sanjeev,

I see your argument as at best a selective one. Let me explain.

There are so many things that are wrong in the world today as you listed above. From those, you have decided that it is a pure choice that people are eating meat and people can simply switch off (and that it is too hard for you to give up a car).

Unlike you and me, majority of these people (I am in the US and I mean Americans) have grown up eating meat as a primary food. They enjoy the taste and have built a habit of sharing it with friends and family. They have customs, rituals built around eating meat (e.g. Thanksgiving). Suddenly, someone like you has decided that their food it the problem that needs to be solved first among many world problems that are contending for their attention (world poverty, global warming, drugs, crime, unemployment, pollution …).
Why?

Eating is a very basic, primal human activity. Asking someone to switch to being vegetarian is asking for a huge lifestyle change. Particularly these folks who have never eaten primarily vegetarian food. They even wonder where will they get their protein from if they stopped eating meat, if it is really healthy.

And believe me, doctors here have told my anemic wife (she has minor thalessemia) that she will be healthier if she were to eat meat.

I grew up as a vegetarian, ate meat for sometime and then reverted back to being vegetarian. (By the way, I just wanted to avoid violence, not any other rational ecological motivation). For me, it was an easy thing to switch back. I knew how to survive, what is needed, and there was no doubt about that it is a perfectly healthy choice (I have seen my grand parents and relatives live healthy lives being vegetarians).

It is like asking you to eat gujju food everyday (I don’t know about you but there are north Indians who would shiver at the thought of having sugar in their dal).

And thanks to crooks like Greenspan, an average American is deep in debt, worried about where his next car payment is coming from or how will he guard his job against those Chinese and Indians. You think they want to listen to someone shouting hoarse about their food?

November 13th, 2009 at 1:09 pm

First, the good part – I agree with you on most counts that you have mentioned herein.

Now the bad one – all come with riders (as everything else in the world)!

1. There is a lot that is not right with the world and everyone has to take a stand on something. You cannot take a stand on all and hence have to choose one or two that are close to your heart and which you believe will make a difference. In my case I have chosen the “Be a Vegetarian” stand. Maybe not right for 98% of the world, but the 2% will agree and that is a start – in marketing as you would know they are the early adopters and lead the trend.
2. I do not say that give it up totally. But is there harm in starting small? If people were to cut their meat eating by even 10%, that would be a start.
3. I did not say that I cannot give up my car. I use my car to cover longer distances only (more than a couple of miles on work days and on holidays even longer). Else I prefer to walk or take the metro. I can see you smiling and nodding your head. Yes, I have not changed much in the last 20 years.
4. And since you are in America, I am sure you would have seen firsthand the amount of food that they waste. I have never been to an American home for a meal, but if the servings in the restaurants is any indication, then I am sorry to say this but I firmly believe that the amount of food that is wasted on every day basis in America can feed a third world country’s population.
5. With regard to American customs built around meat eating if they cannot “try” and change them to ensure that the world does not go hungry then what right do they have to preach Indians or for that anyone else to discard our “religious” and “backward” rituals? And mind you Indian rituals are at least 25 times older than theirs – and hence more deeply engrained.
6. Some of the ills of the world that you have listed – world poverty, hunger, global warming, and pollution – are in more ways than one connected with this meat eating. So the call to be a vegetarian is actually striking at the root of all those!
7. From where they will get their protein and if they will remain healthy are questions that can be answered by basic education. You are a vegetarian and you are healthier than many meat eaters that I know of. You said it when you say that you have seen your grandparents and other relatives live a very healthy life on vegetarian stuff alone.
8. Being a vegetarian so that you can avoid violence is not the right reason to be a vegetarian according to me. All eating is based on violence – vegetarians “kill” plants to eat food. There are many articles in this blog itself that spell out my stand on morality and vegetarianism. So if we need to stop violence in our eating habit then we will have to learn from plants and live on water and sunlight!
9. As far as gujju food is concerned I simply love it and make it a point to eat only that whenever I am traveling to Ahmedabad and other places in Gujarat. Even in Mumbai, many a times I only live on that and demolish all the thalis that they can put in front of me.
10. And Manish, I think we should not blame Greenspan for the troubles that Americans face today. If they are in debt it is because they have for too long lived beyond their means – the super large servings in the restaurants is only one example and a very small symptom of the greater malaise. The car payment that he is worried about could have been avoided or smaller if he had not chosen to buy a Hummer or a BMW or a Merc (or some such big car). I did not get to see a small car in the US ever. So you end up paying more when you buy a car and then pay more to run it because they are not fuel efficient. I can list many more examples of the utter waste of money that happens on everyday basis.
11. If they want to guard their jobs against the Indians then they need to learn from the Indians, the virtues of frugality. If they did that, they will eventually also see the virtues of the vegetarian diet.

Amen

PS: I think, I’ll convert this into a full blog post. What do you say?

November 14th, 2009 at 7:50 am

Sanjeev,

One more thing that hasn’t changed in 20 years, and that is Sanjeev will not change his mind.

So, I don’t want to continue much longer. But I find this virtuous frugal Indian thing very lame. Not having enough money/energy (as in gas/petrol etc) to spend has caused Indians to adjust to living frugally in terms of food, energy etc i.e. it is a function of economics, nothing special to their ethos or religion or anything related to being Indian other than being resource deprived. As you know, I was in Mumbai last 3 years (06-09) and I have seen newly affluent Indians buy the biggest vehicles, biggest AC, biggest TVs they could afford (just like here) and consume as much energy as they could afford to.

And I see as many Indians here buying gas guzzlers as any indigenous Americans.

Neither have I heard any American here mentioning Indian rituals (I don’t think most know where India is on the map, except if they call GE Customer service, they know it goes to India).

So please get off that high horse.

This will be my last..you won’t be able to incite me. I will go back to driving, weekend just started!

-Manish

November 16th, 2009 at 12:44 pm

Manish,

Running away?

1. I cannot disagree with you more on the observation that this “virtuous” frugal Indian thing is lame and has nothing to do with the Indian ethos and religion. Frankly I am disappointed. If someone like you can say this then there is no hope for Indian ethos and culture.
2. Heard of Narayan Murthy, Ratan Tata, Azim Premji and the likes. They represent the Indian ethos and culture and epitomize the Indian virtues that I strongly believe in.
3. Mumbai is neither India nor does it represent India. Ask Raj, he’ll tell you that.
4. If anyone in India has money then Gujjus have it. And Gujarat was never a deprived state. And yet they are neither ostentatious nor carnivores. Sure many are but more are not.
5. If most Americans do not know where India is on the map, then they must not try and tell how Indians and the world should live – peacefully, democratically or any which ways.
6. And tell me how much food you, Manish wastes? How much debt do you have? What car do you drive or will be driving this weekend? Your answers will tell you the difference between a lifestyle as a result of Indian ethos and the one that comes from the compulsion of living frugally because of deprivation.
7. The high horse that I am riding on comes from the fact I take pride in being an Indian and believe in the Indian ethos and culture. It comes from the fact that I know that we have survived the last 5000 plus years and we will be there for the next 5000 plus years as well.
8. If the average American is worried about his debt and next car payment it is because for long their savings rate has been close to zero. They have lived from paycheck to paycheck and credit cards.It is only now that they seem to have achieved a 6% savings rate (highest in the last 15 years and in my opinion a flash in the pan which they will not be able to sustain) where as India has a savings rate of over 30%! That is not a function of deprivation, that is the Indian ethos and culture.

You may not like to reply to this but, final shot – what makes you or the Americans think that this blog is aimed only at them. It is on the “world wide” net and America is not the world.

Ash

December 25th, 2009 at 3:39 pm

Hi sanjeev,
U said a few posts back
“Being a vegetarian so that you can avoid violence is not the right reason to be a vegetarian according to me. All eating is based on violence – vegetarians “kill” plants to eat food.”

Lord Buddha explains the difference:
Killing means the intentional destruction of any living being. The wanton destruction of this life force, without allowing it to run its due course, is Panatipata(killing). Pana means which breathes. Hence all animal beings, including animals, are regarded as Pana. But not plants as they possess no mind.
Commentary: In plants , there is no transmission of stimuli by nerves. Nerves are unknown to them as nerve-centres.

So thats the difference between plants and animals. Indeed killing both of them is a bad deed, but killing animals is a deed worse then killing plants.

January 12th, 2010 at 12:05 pm

Hi Ash

Thanks for your comments, but I would beg to disagree. Just because plants have no nerves does not mean that killing them if less of a sin as compared to killing animals.

I would like to invite you to read the following two posts:

http://vegetarianbychoice.com/if-life-that-feels-no-pain-can-be-killed-then-abortion-is-no-big-deal/

http://vegetarianbychoice.com/is-the-value-of-plant-life-less-than-the-value-of-animal-life/

Best regards

Sanjeev Sharma

Vegetarian By Choice

Recent Posts

eBooks at $2.79 Only!!

Other Cool Websites

Recommendations

Web Sites I Follow