Lamb for example is one of the worst and it only comes from Wales!
Cannot understand logic behind this. Sheep arguably have lowest inputs of any livestock. Essentially in most areas, particularly Wales and other upland regions, sheep are hardy grazers of marginal land on which other animals would starve.
Fossil fuel inputs must be very low. Using expensive fertiliser (derived from fossil fuels or from finite natural resources in fossil fuel-intensive processes) to try to improve poor land on slopes a human can hardly walk across neither possible nor desirable.
Tractors hardly used, unlike in (very intensive) arable farming, except possibly for towing trailer on final trip to market. Farmer probably most often seen riding quad bike, one of most economical vehicles you can buy. Sheep seldom indoors (farmer who rents my land leaves his outdoors 365 days a year, even at lambing time) so electricity usage tiny compared to other livestock.
Sheep managed on the ground primarily by means of highly sophisticated, semi-autonomous canine assistant that uses no fossil fuels. After being butchered, transport no different to any other meat. All in all, sounds like anti-sheep industry propaganda, possibly from somebody like Monbiot.
Willing to be persuaded otherwise, but assumptions that underpin this argument deserve to be scrutinised, not accepted at face value.
Own view: nothing wrong with high-quality meat reared locally on grass and produced to high standards. My butcher knows the farms from which he buys his animals. This system has worked well for many hundreds of years in UK & Ireland - what better proof of sustainability can there be?
Beef from cattle from feedlots in Midwest, forced to eat feed derived from corn, with corn itself grown in huge monocultural plantings using massive fossil-fuel inputs and water from rapidly depleting aquifers? Different thing altogether.