The Virtues of Vegetarianism
Clearly, the consumption pattern shift has severe implications for mankind. Fortunately, the large proportion of vegetarians in India has somewhat tempered the growth in consumption of meat in India.
Is man a natural meat eater, or is he a vegetarian? Philosophical and scientific debates may go on, but the evidence of growing economies suggest that non vegetarian food is aspired.
It is well established that as incomes rise, food consumption habits shift dramatically towards meat eating. In India, for the last 10 years consumption of meat, egg and milk are rising fast. In case of poultry meat in particular (where efficiencies have driven down relative prices), there has been a sustained growth of 15 per cent per annum or more.
What does this do to demand for agricultural commodities and the pressure on land? The demand for commodities rises even faster. This is because meat eating is inherently inefficient. We are no longer in the era of poaching meat from nature. The animals we eat have to be fed and for that we need to dedicate farmland to it.
The poultry industry, for example, essentially uses processed soy and corn. The chick is fed on a diet consisting mainly of the above two ingredients. Hog is another relatively efficient converter. Let’s look at some conversion factors:
About 8 kg of grain gets you 1 kg of beef
About 6 kg of grain gets you 1 kg of lamb meat
About 3 kg of grain gets you 1 kg of hog meat
About 2 kg of grain gets you 1 kg of poultry meat
The above comparisons are on live weight basis. In case of chicken, for example, 25 per cent will be lost to feathers and another 25 per cent to bones. Additionally the final meat product will have at least 30 per cent moisture (the initial grain will also have about 15 per cent moisture). So, on a dry basis, you end up with a conversion rate of 1:5 for chicken, i.e., you pay 5 times more (in terms of feed) to get a certain amount of nutrition.
You can arrive at this figure intuitively by simply comparing the market prices of meat products and the basic commodity (adjusted for nutritional value). The conversion rate is more adverse for red meat products. (Is the business community in India inherently smart? Most of them tend to be vegetarian, at least in Northern india.)
What happens when large populations of China and India start consuming more and more meat? China, for example, was a producer of about 6-7 million tonnes of soybean about 20 years ago and it was exporting some. Today, it grows 16=17 million tonnes and imports another 18-20 million tonnes. Vast lands in Brazil grow soy to feed China, a lot of which are former forests. Brazil’s production of soybean has trebled over the last decade and is in the region of 60 million tons today.
Clearly, the consumption pattern shift has severe implications for mankind. Fortunately, the large proportion of vegetarians in India has somewhat tempered the growth in consumption of meat in India. However, the trend for the next 15-20 years is quite clear. Pressure of this magnitude on farmlands will ultimately lead to rising prices of most agricultural commodities.
And President Bush wasn’t too far off the mark when he indicated that the rise of Chindia is impacting commodity prices (he wasn’t blaming Chindia, just pointing out facts. The rest of the world won’t reduce consumption, at least not in a hurry).
At a micro level, vegetarianism makes sound economic sense. It should be the rational choice. But then, whoever called man a rational creature, was way off the mark.
Last 5 posts by Amit Sinha
- The incentives for people to join politics needs to change - March 3rd, 2010
- Reducing Specific emission by 25% over 15 years - December 4th, 2009
- The big impact of NREGA - September 7th, 2009
- Big numbers boggle the mind - August 31st, 2009
- Monsoon has eluded north India - July 24th, 2009
Tags: Commodities, Consumer markets, Mass Markets
November 29th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Amit, nice post..You have avoided all the philosophical parts of the debate but man is a natural meat eater..look at our teeth, we have canines, which herbivores dont have!We are unfortunately omnivores..we eat everything! But your point is very valid, eating meat takes up much more of earth’s resources…
The ecological footprint says that we need 1.8 hectares of land per person to satisfy individual consumption. we currently use 2.2..o clearly we are running a fine line here…but the US uses 9,6 and Bangladesh 0.5….
Bottom line is that there are too many people on this earth and there is too much inequality…we all need to eat less!!and others who dont get to eat need to eat more! Its not just meat, its wheat too..and more..
October 2nd, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Nice post. I live in Sydney and Australia’s environment is fragile, arable land limited. Grazing seems such a waste of resources. Australians will assert they are environmentally concious, but they are so reluctant to give up meat. The contradiction or irony escapes them.