Ground beef is generally taken from a tougher cut and older animals while steak is often from younger heifers and steers. So first, it takes a lot of energy to raise a cow or bull and it only follows that raising it longer will take more energy. Second, it takes energy to grind the beef. So I would say based on these facts that steak is less energy-intensive than ground beef, but honestly: neither is eco-friendly. More than 1/3 of fossil fuels produced in the U.S. are related to animal agriculture. One calorie of animal protein requires ten times the amount of energy as one calorie of plant protein. And the cows eat plants as well, so it’s not just a ten-to-one trade-off.
I’d argue ground beef would be better for two reasons. First, as mentioned above it can come from old milk cows that would have to be grown and feed anyway for the dairy industry. Eating them at the end is more efficient than letting their meat go to waste.
Second, ground beef can be made from more parts of the cow than steak. When there is more demand for prime cuts of meat, more total cows must be raised to fulfill that demand. Eating ground beef means you can eat the less desirable parts of those same cows instead of needing to raise even more cows to produce more prime cuts.
I think your argument makes a lot of sense. Although greenjoy makes a good point that neither steak or ground beef are eco-friendly, the fact that ground beef is made from the less desirable portions of a cow is in-line with other “green” ideals of efficiency and avoiding waste.
Click here to cancel reply.
Sorry,At this time user registration is disabled. We will open registration soon!
Don't have an account? Click Here to Signup
© Copyright GreenAnswers.com LLC