user5315: Is greed over meat is more unwholesome compare to greed over non-meat dishes? Meat is non-living thing, greed is greed, they're the same. Many studies have shown that meat consumption involve in far greater number of killing compare to non-meat diet. More meat means more supply therefore more killing. So is it true greed over meat is more unwholesome? 

user111: It's a highly subjective question. Someone might desire the taste of a vegetable curry more than a meat curry. Someone might desire the taste of chocolate or ice-cream more than the taste of meat. Someone might desire liquor consumption more than meat. It has nothing to do with the number of animals killed.
On the other hand, eating meat does not require desire. Even enlightened beings consume meat. Unwholesomeness comes when you desire or dislike the taste or start worrying about whether you are responsible for the dead animal.

user10304: Non-Theravada answer -
Greed is unwholesome. Meat dish is more unwholesome than non-meat, simply, meat dish involved killing. Where can the meat be coming from without killing? "Meat is non-living thing...", a well-developed mind might be able to tell you this is not really true... at least meat is coming from once living being, right? [Hey, do you ever wonder why meat spelled as me + eat?? In Chinese it's written as 肉, a combination of two characters, 人(human/man) + 內(inside)?!]. 
You are right, meat consumption means more killing. A person who cultivates compassion will feel saddened when passing by the market at the butcher's stall, those meats hanging on hooks in blood red, the sharp knife cutting across the tissues... for this very realization the meat no long taste the same. 
How do you feel when a Bhante after chewing the chicken breast tearing the flesh from the legs, with this very same hands and mouth, gives talk to the lay-people, flipping the Sutta, quoting, 

One is not called noble who harms living beings. By not harming living
  beings one is called noble. -- Dhammapada, verse 270
All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place
  of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill. --
  Dhammapada, verse 129

In non-Theravada tradition, non-meat dish is praised; all the Chinese Mahayana monasteries served only vegetarian dishes. Detailed explanation in this post. If lay-people taking a Bhiksu out for meal, automatically we will go to vegetarian restaurant, to show him respect. 
There are sayings of the Buddha eating meat, or his last meal was pork therefore due to food poisoning he died. One should understand its only the Theravadin interpretation. In Mahayana Sutra, the Chinese translation of Sukara-maddava is 樹耳 (tree mushroom/ truffle) since antiquity, the food in the last meal of the Buddha. 

5315: <p>Is greed over meat is more unwholesome compare to greed over non-meat dishes? Meat is non-living thing, greed is greed, they're the same. Many studies have shown that meat consumption involve in far greater number of killing compare to non-meat diet. More meat means more supply therefore more killing. So is it true greed over meat is more unwholesome? </p>
 111: <p>It's a highly subjective question. Someone might desire the taste of a vegetable curry more than a meat curry. Someone might desire the taste of chocolate or ice-cream more than the taste of meat. Someone might desire liquor consumption more than meat. It has nothing to do with the number of animals killed.</p>

<p>On the other hand, eating meat does not require desire. Even enlightened beings consume meat. Unwholesomeness comes when you desire or dislike the taste or start worrying about whether you are responsible for the dead animal.</p>
 10304: <p><em>Non-Theravada answer -</em></p>

<p>Greed is unwholesome. Meat dish is more unwholesome than non-meat, simply, meat dish involved killing. Where can the meat be coming from without killing? "<code>Meat is non-living thing...</code>", a well-developed mind might be able to tell you this is not really true... at least meat is coming from once living being, right? [Hey, do you ever wonder why meat spelled as <em>me + eat</em>?? In Chinese it's written as 肉, a combination of two characters, 人(human/man) + 內(inside)?!]. </p>

<p>You are right, meat consumption means more killing. A person who cultivates compassion will feel saddened when passing by the market at the butcher's stall, those meats hanging on hooks in blood red, the sharp knife cutting across the tissues... for this very realization the meat no long taste the same. </p>

<p>How do you feel when a Bhante after chewing the chicken breast tearing the flesh from the legs, with this very same hands and mouth, gives talk to the lay-people, flipping the Sutta, quoting, </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>One is not called noble who harms living beings. By not harming living
  beings one is called noble. -- Dhammapada, verse 270</p>
  
  <p>All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place
  of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill. --
  Dhammapada, verse 129</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In non-Theravada tradition, non-meat dish is praised; all the Chinese Mahayana monasteries served only vegetarian dishes. Detailed explanation in <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/20720">this post</a>. If lay-people taking a Bhiksu out for meal, automatically we will go to vegetarian restaurant, to show him respect. </p>

<p><em>There are sayings of the Buddha eating meat, or his last meal was pork therefore due to food poisoning he died</em>. One should understand its <strong><em>only</strong> the Theravadin interpretation</em>. In Mahayana Sutra, the Chinese translation of Sukara-maddava is 樹耳 (tree mushroom/ truffle) since antiquity, the food in the last meal of the Buddha. </p>
