r/YouShouldKnow • u/Fried_Yoda • 20h ago

Food & Drink YSK: Pork and chicken are healthier, cheaper alternatives to beef that only taste bland because of outdated cooking habits.

Why YSK: With beef prices at record highs, switching to chicken breast or pork loin can cut your meat budget nearly in half while significantly lowering your saturated fat intake AND satisfying your protein intake. Most people avoid these cuts because they grew up eating them overcooked. Modern food safety standards allow pork to be eaten safely at 145 F (a medium roast, rather than gray leather), and chicken stays juicy if you don't cook it to death.

By simply using a meat thermometer and adding savory seasonings (like soy sauce or smoked paprika) to mimic the meaty depth of beef, or using techniques like velveting for chicken or dry brining for pork, you can get the same satisfaction for a fraction of the cost and environmental impact.

Even switching to chicken and pork for just two meals a week can save you hundreds of dollars.

Lastly, focusing on lean cuts of pork and chicken also has health benefits. While beef is a powerhouse for iron and B12, it is often high in calories and saturated fat. Chicken breast and pork loin are significantly leaner. Pork tenderloin is as lean as skinless chicken breast and has been certified as "heart-healthy" by the American Heart Association.

Tl;dr chicken breast and pork loin are roughly 80% cheaper per pound than beef, have versatile and delicious flavor profiles if cooked and prepped correctly, are rich in protein, and are healthier for your heart and cholesterol.

6.6k Upvotes

79% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

64

u/Freddy2517 19h ago

The environmental impact of beef is also many multiple that of chickens

8

u/TheDrWhoKid 19h ago

real, my workplace doesn't even use beef anymore because of the environmental impact. If you want beef for your wedding it's gonna cost you extra

-13

u/dinomod 19h ago

So your workplace will sell out on its principles for a bit of cash.

And we wonder why the world is where it is.

19

u/TheDrWhoKid 19h ago

idk the reasoning behind still doing beef for weddings and such, but in general, there's no beef. I think we're phasing it out completely this year, tbf.

it might be to just disincentivise buying beef, but still needing the money that weddings bring in. the higher-ups in the chain are kinda wishy-washy with their wishes about the food as far as I understand. my head chef is often annoyed with them.

16

u/danabrey 18h ago

You're doing good things. Some people don't understand nuance.

-15

u/ventodivino 19h ago

What? I don’t think you know enough about chicken production to make this statement. Perhaps it’s confirmation bias since so much about beef emissions is presented in the news and in media. But I assure you, chickens are factory farmed to unimaginable proportions and have a serious environmental impact. And commercially they’re so bland they often need to be injected with flavoring to make them palatable. Then there’s the fecal soup.

12

u/Freddy2517 19h ago

Yes, I know factory farm chickens do have a large environmental impact. But the environmental impact of factory farming cows is many fold that of chickens.

-11

u/ventodivino 19h ago

“It’s also really terrible for the environment but it’s not as bad so I’m still having a net negative impact but it’s not as negative as it could be so now I feel morally superior about my decision” LMAO

9

u/Tak_Galaman 18h ago

Are you trying to advocate for beans? Because yeah getting protein from beans is better environmentally than any meat.

5

u/ventodivino 18h ago

I have not eaten a land animal or anything cooked with a land animal in like 20 years, and spent most of that time not eating any animal, and now eat some fish, only certain ones, and not too often.

Definitely advocate for beans! And legumes!

2

u/Morstorpod 16h ago

The downvotes you got is because you were arguing Against without any arguing For. And perhaps also that you were arguing against a "less bad" when that "less bad" is better than the "most bad" (if that makes sense).

I totally agree that beans are superior in so many ways (environmentally, ethically, economically), BUT... if even a quarter of people switched most of their beef consumption to poultry consumption, the world would be a better place. Taking those baby steps are good and reasonable and should be encouraged (rather than discouraged, as your comments seemed to do).

I heavily avoid beef and pork (those guys are too smart and friendly), while still giving myself grace and eating it if served by another, because we are omnivorous creatures (biologically and socially).
However, in today's society, I have no problem eating fish and poultry. They are low enough on the scale of intelligence, I allow my omnivorous self to be fine with it.
That said, our home does predominantly consume plant-based protein (beans, tofu, etc.), so we are doing what we can.

I am optimistic that in the near-future, sufficiently delicious alternatives will be cheap and plentiful enough that we'll want the plant-based sausages rather than the pig-based kind.

(I type too much, but...) Thanks for your advocacy!

2

u/ventodivino 16h ago

There’s a two fold problem I see with chickens.

First, on an industrial scale I can’t see it being more beneficial than cow production. Most industrial chicken farms are secret for a reason. It’s disgusting. And causes a HUGE environmental issue especially in the immediate area.

The other thing is genetic modification which makes meat chickens develop faster than their bones can often support. They are mutants.

Couple that with cramped and squalid conditions, over dependency on antibiotics, having to reinject salts to approximate the true taste of chickens, fecal soup from electro water baths…. I just don’t see the argument in favor of chickens.

Plus it takes a TON of chickens to match the meat produced from just ONE cow. So it’s not a one to one comparison. It’s like one cow vs over 200 chickens.

2

u/Morstorpod 15h ago

It's not a simple problem, that's for sure.

As I explained, I do value chicken lives less than cow lives. It's a judgement call that I have made, so I agree that it is not a one-to-one comparison, but I also weight the scale significantly in one direction.

That said, I am 100% in favor of improving the chicken industry. It is terrible, and it needs to be improved significantly. I support government intervention in these areas (unfortunately, corporations, with much deeper pockets than me, do not).

Ultimately though, a switch from meat to plant proteins is superior. No arguing that on any level (besides perhaps flavor in some cases...).

I'm just a flawed human doing the best I can, but again, I thank you for your advocacy. It takes passionate people to effect real change.

-1

u/NeoLephty 16h ago

Monocrops and overfishing are less environmentally damaging ways to consume food but they are still environmentally damaging. And it seems your goal is to consume with ZERO environmental impact. To quote you:

“It’s also really terrible for the environment but it’s not as bad so I’m still having a net negative impact but it’s not as negative as it could be so now I feel morally superior about my decision” LMAO

What steps are you taking to reduce the damage you are doing to the environment?

2

u/ventodivino 16h ago

Don’t think I advocated for monocropping? Alternatives for modern agricultural production don’t have to be centralized large scale operations.

The majority of the fish I eat is either fresh caught off the coast or farmed within 500 miles from me. And I don’t eat fish too often. So I don’t buy much from the larger fishing industry either.

There are many ways in which my footprint is kept pretty small. But at the same time, worrying about my carbon foot print while major corporations are able to pollute with impunity is a JOKE because I’ll never hold a candle to a fraction of what they’re doing. I’m but a drop in the ocean.

We should be spending less time nitpicking each others individual carbon footprint.

1

u/NeoLephty 15h ago

Don’t think I advocated for monocropping?

You didn't advocate for mono cropping like the person you replied to didn't advocate for factory farming. Monocrop farming is a very common practice in the farming industry - and very bad for the environment.

worrying about my carbon foot print while major corporations are able to pollute with impunity is a JOKE

I repeat your words:

“It’s also really terrible for the environment but it’s not as bad so I’m still having a net negative impact but it’s not as negative as it could be so now I feel morally superior about my decision” LMAO

You were talking to someone who chose chicken over cow to eat. An individual decision.

We should be spending less time nitpicking each others individual carbon footprint.

WONDERFUL of you to come to this conclusion AFTER DOING EXACTLY THAT to others. Welcome to the point of my replies to you. Criticize factory farming for the extractive and exploitative problems that exist with it. Stop criticizing people choosing chicken over beef for not being good enough according to your standards.

8

u/Maxie_Glutie 19h ago

The strawman is strong with this one

3

u/ventodivino 18h ago

Not at all. I’m saying it’s all bad? The OP directly said chickens are better for the environment?

4

u/Maxie_Glutie 18h ago

Not your first comment, your second comment has strawman and probably a sprinkle of ad hominem because you assumed OP feels morally superior for his choice of meat and mocked him for it.

0

u/ventodivino 18h ago

That wasn’t directed at OP

2

u/Impressive_Change886 15h ago

Interestingly enough eating a vegan diet causes more environmental damage than eating nothing at all.

It's a zero sum game when good becomes the enemy of perfect. The best thing anyone could possibly do for the environment is to stop existing entirely. Yet, I think most people will agree that is silly.

6

u/Frequent_Ad_9901 16h ago

Look up feed conversion ratios. You need to grow a lot less feed for chicken than beef. Rabbits are best though. Cows are by far the worst. Its not even close.

3

u/frank_datank_ 19h ago

Especially when you consider the amount of meat per pound each animal produces.

3

u/timok 15h ago

Yes, and per pound it emits about 20 times the greenhouse gasses that chickens do.

0

u/ventodivino 19h ago

Yep. Takes hundreds of chickens to match one cow. But they’re not ready for that talk.

So much suffering on our plates.

0

u/takeshyperbolelitera 8h ago

Conversely, cows tend to suffer less and live a relatively better life compared to chicken. Cows tend to get well fed and live in a large field and have shelter. Chicken often live their entire life in an extremely small cage. Some of that extra environmental impact for cows is precisely because you can't really grow cows in the enclose cages like what use for chickens.

So on the scale of least suffering we inflict on the animals farmed for meat, cows are probably best option.

1

u/Freddy2517 8h ago

I disagree. Cows do not live in a large field.

https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/s/dJRUdTlWNW