Prior to 2026, we relied on data from other countries to quantify the water, land, energy and emissions saved by the groups we work with through changing the food they serve. We now use Australian data to give our most accurate estimation possible, based on Australian grown animals, versus Australian grown plant protein.
Our estimates are likely understated, relying on animal industry data that may include conflicts of interest.

Try our impact calculator below to see how you are, or could be, helping to save our planet by what you eat.

Meal impact calculator | Give a Fork

Give a Fork · Impact calculator

Your Plate, Your Planet, Your Choice.

Enter the number of meat meals you've swapped for plant-based ones. Each swap is measured against an Australian beef meal of nutritionally equivalent size, using Australian production data.

Meat meals replaced

meals swapped for plant-based

Tap the number to type your own

60 showers

Water not drawn from rivers, dams and groundwater. A shower is 72 litres: eight minutes at a water-efficient nine litres a minute.

Blue water moderate confidence

1,045 km

Driving avoided in an average Australian car, at 191 g CO₂ per kilometre.

Greenhouse gas high confidence

28 hours

Energy equivalent to running an average Australian home, at 15.3 kWh a day converted to primary energy.

Fossil energy moderate confidence

6.8 courts

Grazing and cropping land freed up, as full basketball courts of 420 m².

Total land occupation method contested, see below

How this is calculated

What counts as one meal

One swapped meal is two standard serves under the Australian Dietary Guidelines, which treat 65 g of cooked lean red meat and 150 g of cooked legumes as nutritionally equivalent serves of 500–600 kJ. So a meal here is 130 g cooked beef compared against 300 g cooked legumes, such as lentils, chickpeas or split peas. Using the national guidelines rather than a like-for-like weight avoids the common error of comparing portions that deliver very different amounts of protein.

Savings per meal

Measure	Beef meal	Legume meal	Saving	Range
Greenhouse gas	4.0 kg CO₂e	0.15 kg CO₂e	3.8 kg	3.0–5.1
Blue water	95 L	12 L	83 L	60–110
Fossil energy	5.7 MJ	2.0 MJ	3.7 MJ	2.4–5.2
Total land	56 m²·yr-e	0.7 m²·yr-e	55 m²·yr-e	37–74

Where the numbers come from

Beef: Wiedemann et al. (2015), Journal of Cleaner Production. Australian retail-ready beef, averaged across grass- and grain-finished systems. Cross-checked against Wiedemann et al. (2015) in Animal Production Science. These studies were funded by Meat & Livestock Australia.
Legumes: Australian pulse yields from ABARES, with production largely rainfed in southern Australia, cross-checked against the Poore & Nemecek (2018) global meta-analysis.
Total land: Ridoutt et al. (2013), Journal of Cleaner Production. Six southern Australian beef systems, 86 to 172 m²·yr-e per kg liveweight, weighted for land quality using net primary productivity.
Car emissions: National Transport Commission. 191 g CO₂/km across all registered Australian light vehicles.
Household energy: Australian Energy Regulator benchmarks, 15.3 kWh a day.
Shower volume: 72 L, being eight minutes at nine litres a minute, the maximum flow for a 3-star WELS showerhead.
Basketball court: 420 m², a full FIBA court of 28 × 15 m.

What we're confident about, and what we're not

Greenhouse gas is the solid number. Independent Australian studies broadly agree on beef emissions intensity, and the gap between beef and legumes is large enough that no reasonable choice of method closes it.

Water and energy are reasonable, with real uncertainty. Australian pulses are mostly rainfed, which keeps their water footprint low, but no Australian legume life-cycle assessment exists at the detail available for beef. Treat these as indicative.

How to read the land figure. This is total land occupation, not cropping land. Most Australian cattle graze rangeland that could not grow crops, and the beef industry argues that occupying rangeland is not equivalent to occupying farmland. We use a measure that adjusts for land quality to address this, but the counter-argument still stands that grazing land is not simply interchangeable with cropland. If we counted cropping land alone, the figure would be roughly sixty times smaller. Both numbers are real; they answer different questions. We report total land because grazing land carries genuine biodiversity and carbon opportunity cost, and we state the alternative here so you can judge for yourself.

How to read the result

These are modelled estimates for an average meal, not measurements of a specific one. Actual savings depend on the cut of beef, how the cattle were finished, where the legumes were grown and how the food was cooked. Figures are best treated as an order of magnitude, and we publish our ranges rather than a single confident number.