Mongolia, Kyrgyzstan, and apparently Paraguay are areas where pastoralism is more efficient than vegetable agriculture, and for a sparse population meat is cheap and vegetable foods are expensive.

Areas with very low rainfall are unproductive per acre, and can only be exploited by aggregating the products of the land (very extensive agriculture). Sheep, etc. do this just by wandering over large areas and taking what they get -- a flock of Mongolian sheep gathered together in a small space represents many square miles of land it has harvested. Oases use rivers to aggregate water from an enormous area into one small intensely cultivated area, so a small oasis also represents an enormous uncultivated area.

ARGH! Razib, this reminds me of a data set I've been struggling to find for a long time now. Some time back, I found some place online that had much more detailed data than this post, but I have never been able to find it again. Not only did it list per capita meat consumption, but it also listed per capita caloric intake. More than that, it actually broke down the source of the calories into separate categories. You could compare how much chicken a person in the US ate to how much chicken a person in Canada ate. It wasn't only chicken too, it broke down meat consumption into pretty much all major subcategories including chicken, beef, pork, mutton, and seafood. Not only this, but it also listed the consumption of oils, sugars, starches, etc. and how much they contributed to individuals' diets. All of this was packaged and available in an easy to read radial chart that (drum roll please) allowed you to compare food consumption trends of one country to another or groups. How much seafood does Italy consume compared to the OECD average? It was all there.

Unfortunately I've never been able to find this data again, but I know it's out there somewhere. My agony is nigh biblical, having tasted from the tree of knowledge only to be cast out and denied it forever. I would appreciate if anyone else could manage to locate it.

Just visit China, you will know quality of life in China is way better than PPP GDP indicated. Meat consumption is pretty good indicator.

Mongolian or eskimo are true carnivores in human kind. Only food on Monglian steppe is meat (there is little farming)

Some of these figures are hard to understand. Samoa is +51.48 while American Samoa is -19.22. Danes are the only big meat-eaters in Scandinavia. And what's with Papua New Guinea?

And what's with Papua New Guinea?

two-legged ox?

Bryan Caplan doesn't quite buy the PPP figures either. In this podcast he claims, partly on the basis of meat, that America leads Europe in living standards by more than the figures say.

http://www.econtalk.org/ archives...n_on_discr.html

two-legged ox?

So funny. lol.

I thought consumption of this kind of meat have been banned due to Kuru.

Of course it's perfectly legal if you're USDA-guaranteed kuru-free.

This doesn't look at seafood, right? Otherwise I can't image how the Scandinavian countries other than Denmark could be so low.

Muffy: Right. Notice how negative deviant Japan is (48 kg below prediction). Argentina is another country with lots of cheap meat, so deviant high. I believe that's also true of Uruguay. And New Zealand has sheep.

Brazil? Idunno about actual consumption, but there was a fad for Brazilian barbecue restaurants where one gorged on meat. All you can eat, they bring 8 or 10 kinds to your table on skewers until you make them stop. If that's the national cuisine, the numbers fit.

Cyprus? Cyprus???