> You need to produce much more plants to feed the animal first instead of directly feeding you.
Yes, but in the case of grazing, it's plant material we cannot eat. That's called nutrient recycling because it converts what cannot be processed by humans into something that is.
In grain diets, a lot of it is produced specifically to feed livestock. This probably at least in part due to the significant subsidies on corn in the United States. Ending corn subsidies would probably be beneficial to American diet both in it'd raise the price of meats and increase the price on HFCS and other corn product.
With that being said, agricultural byproduct can be fed to livestock which can help close nutrient loops. Things like stalks, leaves, husks. Also milling byproducts like wheat and rice bran. soybean and canola meal from oil production. Peels and pulp that are produced from production of juice and other fruit products can be used.
There's a lot of ways to shore up inefficiencies in producing livestock and other agriculture that can help make it more sustainable than it currently is.
> So to stay on topic (unlike your "quality") this process uses more fossil fuels.
Quality is part of the topic because the quality of nutrients is the utility that meat offers and it's from that we need to make judgements on whether or not it's worth producing.
My argument is obviously yes, the increased cost in terms of carbon footprint is worthwhile because meat is such a great source of nutrients that naturally aligns with the nutritional needs of humans in a way that is difficult to do with a solely plant-based diet. There's also not wholly understood benefits of meat, probably because it's become the new boogeyman, like fat was made out to be in the 20th century.
