Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Enviornmental Impact of Raising Livestock
Replies
-
French_Peasant wrote: »As stated above, I have less concern about US (or, say, Argentine)-raised beeves than I do about meats coming from delicate ecosystems like the Amazon. The US and Canada, after all, supported a herd of 60,000,000 buffalo on our vast grasslands; we still support a large herd of beeves (including some buffalo), some of whom are directly grass-fed, but all of whom are still supported by the produce from the grasslands, just in the format of one particular super-grass, corn (both grain and silage).
It is kind of eye-opening to think that actually, as this article notes, industrially-raised feedlot/dairy herds might be the more efficient environmental option, especially as there is a push to capture and re-use the methane produced from the waste process (bio-gas recovery has the potential to provide additional income streams for farmers). It also makes me sad, as I like to support the farms with the cows relaxing in the fields and the pigs running through the woods. Although the article is highlighting first world industrial results with the results of cows attempting to scrounge for sustenance in fairly brutal conditions; proper high-quality temperate pasturage likely puts things on a more even footing.
It is also interesting that the article blames *meat* for heart issues and fatness, which is just ridiculous. That part to me feels like propaganda and ties in with the articles I see my more aggressive vegan acquaintances posting to the facebooks and infused throughout the media, and even here--I am thinking particularly of one of the dairy threads where a link was posted to a sciency-appearing site with a scary study saying we're all going to die from dairy and meat, when it was actually a very slick vegan propaganda group. (Not to pick on vegans, many of whom I admire! Some can just be somewhat shrill--and hence less than persuasive--in their educational efforts.)
I'm going to preface this by saying that I hope I've posted here enough for people to know I'm not into demonizing any specific food, and I don't believe specific foods are responsible for our health or our waistlines. That said, Americans consume an astounding amount of fatty meat, and I don't think it's a stretch to say reducing how much meat, especially beef, Americans consume can contribute to improving our health. I didn't interpret the article as blaming meat for health issues...more like acknowledging our high consumption is a contributing factor to our current state.
This is an article/video about the impact the number of hamburgers - 50 billion hamburgers - Americans consume per year has on the environment. It feels a little more like propaganda, but sources are cited in the transcript if anyone wants to dig deeper. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/the-hidden-costs-of-hamburgers/
My personal view: I believe the article. These are stats I've heard for years. However, I struggle with what's good for the environment vs. what's healthy for me personally, and during the periods where I've eaten vegetarian, I've had an extremely difficult time getting adequate protein while staying at my calorie goal. I know it's possible with planning and practice, but I'm not there yet. So for now, I don't consume much red meat, though I'll have a burger or a lamb chop from time to time. Chicken and pork are more affordable and give me more protein for the calories than beef or lamb. I think more people, at least from my generation, are choosing to eat this way due to environmental concerns, and while I hope it makes a difference, we may have already done too much damage. Time will tell.0 -
Interesting topic!lemurcat12 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »I have read similar before but in my opinion bacon is worth it.
Do you believe the article?
I like bacon as well though I don't eat it often so environmentally speaking it does not bother me to buy it. But for other animal products that I eat every day I am starting to question...
I've read stuff like that enough from a variety of sources that I do believe it, but the question is what it means. For example, if you are buying food in the US (or a specific location), what really does minimize carbon footprint in terms of actions -- just reducing meat alone might not do it, as it depends on what it's replaced with (for me eating less meat tends to be a positive goal, though, although I've found that's a trade-off in some ways, at least so far).
I keep meaning to actually figure out the environmental affects of the various choices available to me, but admittedly haven't really done that yet.
If I'm understanding the article, replacing red meat (cattle-larger animals) with pork and chicken (smaller animals) would help since it requires less energy to make them grow...
But how many chickens would it take to equal one cow, in terms of pounds of meat produced? And if compared on that basis is one *still* significantly less impactful than the other? It's all very convoluted and open to biased interpretation by evangelists on either side, which is why I'm currently in the middle. I haven't had access to enough unbiased material to make an educated personal decision one way or the other, and quite frankly, the minutiae of it all is, for now at least, above my interest level and attention span.
I do limit the amount of red meat I eat, but that's more of a conscious decision based on cost than a morally-driven one. Especially since I can get my lean protein from chicken which I love. But there's nothing in the world that compares to the occasional broiled steak. Especially if wrapped in bacon.
On a different but related topic that will often go hand-in-hand with this one, is the mind-boggling amount of material available on both sides of the "organic versus traditional" produce farming conundrum. Is one clearly better for the environment than the other? How important is crop yield in the overall picture, one that includes feeding the world and not just those who can afford organic produce? Is all organic produce really 'better' for you, or are some more likely to be of benefit than others?
These are things that don't currently keep me up at night, but perhaps they should.
3 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »Interesting topic!lemurcat12 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »I have read similar before but in my opinion bacon is worth it.
Do you believe the article?
I like bacon as well though I don't eat it often so environmentally speaking it does not bother me to buy it. But for other animal products that I eat every day I am starting to question...
I've read stuff like that enough from a variety of sources that I do believe it, but the question is what it means. For example, if you are buying food in the US (or a specific location), what really does minimize carbon footprint in terms of actions -- just reducing meat alone might not do it, as it depends on what it's replaced with (for me eating less meat tends to be a positive goal, though, although I've found that's a trade-off in some ways, at least so far).
I keep meaning to actually figure out the environmental affects of the various choices available to me, but admittedly haven't really done that yet.
If I'm understanding the article, replacing red meat (cattle-larger animals) with pork and chicken (smaller animals) would help since it requires less energy to make them grow...
But how many chickens would it take to equal one cow, in terms of pounds of meat produced? And if compared on that basis is one *still* significantly less impactful than the other? It's all very convoluted and open to biased interpretation by evangelists on either side.
Which is why I'm currently in the middle, because I haven't had access to enough unbiased material to make an educated personal decision one way or the other, and quite frankly, the minutiae of it all is, for now at least, above my interest level and attention span.
I do limit the amount of red meat I eat, but that's more of a conscious decision based on cost than a morally-driven one. Especially since I can get my lean protein from chicken which I love. But there's nothing in the world that compares to the occasional broiled steak. Especially if wrapped in bacon.
On a different but related topic that will often go hand-in-hand with this one, is the mind-boggling amount of material available on both sides of the "organic versus traditional" produce farming conundrum. Is one clearly better for the environment than the other? How important is crop yield in the overall picture, one that includes feeding the world and not just those who can afford organic produce? Is all organic produce really 'better' for you, or are some more likely to be of benefit than others?
These are things that don't currently keep me up at night, but perhaps they should.
To the bolded: http://www.pnas.org/content/111/33/11996.abstract
Per kg of protein, beef production uses 28 times more land, 11 times more water, emits 5 times more greenhouse gas, and produces 6 times more reactive nitrogen.0 -
chocolate_owl wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Interesting topic!lemurcat12 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »I have read similar before but in my opinion bacon is worth it.
Do you believe the article?
I like bacon as well though I don't eat it often so environmentally speaking it does not bother me to buy it. But for other animal products that I eat every day I am starting to question...
I've read stuff like that enough from a variety of sources that I do believe it, but the question is what it means. For example, if you are buying food in the US (or a specific location), what really does minimize carbon footprint in terms of actions -- just reducing meat alone might not do it, as it depends on what it's replaced with (for me eating less meat tends to be a positive goal, though, although I've found that's a trade-off in some ways, at least so far).
I keep meaning to actually figure out the environmental affects of the various choices available to me, but admittedly haven't really done that yet.
If I'm understanding the article, replacing red meat (cattle-larger animals) with pork and chicken (smaller animals) would help since it requires less energy to make them grow...
But how many chickens would it take to equal one cow, in terms of pounds of meat produced? And if compared on that basis is one *still* significantly less impactful than the other? It's all very convoluted and open to biased interpretation by evangelists on either side.
Which is why I'm currently in the middle, because I haven't had access to enough unbiased material to make an educated personal decision one way or the other, and quite frankly, the minutiae of it all is, for now at least, above my interest level and attention span.
I do limit the amount of red meat I eat, but that's more of a conscious decision based on cost than a morally-driven one. Especially since I can get my lean protein from chicken which I love. But there's nothing in the world that compares to the occasional broiled steak. Especially if wrapped in bacon.
On a different but related topic that will often go hand-in-hand with this one, is the mind-boggling amount of material available on both sides of the "organic versus traditional" produce farming conundrum. Is one clearly better for the environment than the other? How important is crop yield in the overall picture, one that includes feeding the world and not just those who can afford organic produce? Is all organic produce really 'better' for you, or are some more likely to be of benefit than others?
These are things that don't currently keep me up at night, but perhaps they should.
To the bolded: http://www.pnas.org/content/111/33/11996.abstract
Per kg of protein, beef production uses 28 times more land, 11 times more water, emits 5 times more greenhouse gas, and produces 6 times more reactive nitrogen.
Thanks, @chocolate_owl.
Wonder how that would net out if protein wasn't the only benchmark used for comparison, though? How would the number differ if based solely on kg (or pound) of comparable meat produced?
In my way of thinking, comparing them solely by protein/kg will skew these number in chicken's 'favour' by the mere fact that chicken has more protein per kg than beef does, which doesn't necessarily encompass the full picture, here.0 -
chocolate_owl wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »As stated above, I have less concern about US (or, say, Argentine)-raised beeves than I do about meats coming from delicate ecosystems like the Amazon. The US and Canada, after all, supported a herd of 60,000,000 buffalo on our vast grasslands; we still support a large herd of beeves (including some buffalo), some of whom are directly grass-fed, but all of whom are still supported by the produce from the grasslands, just in the format of one particular super-grass, corn (both grain and silage).
It is kind of eye-opening to think that actually, as this article notes, industrially-raised feedlot/dairy herds might be the more efficient environmental option, especially as there is a push to capture and re-use the methane produced from the waste process (bio-gas recovery has the potential to provide additional income streams for farmers). It also makes me sad, as I like to support the farms with the cows relaxing in the fields and the pigs running through the woods. Although the article is highlighting first world industrial results with the results of cows attempting to scrounge for sustenance in fairly brutal conditions; proper high-quality temperate pasturage likely puts things on a more even footing.
It is also interesting that the article blames *meat* for heart issues and fatness, which is just ridiculous. That part to me feels like propaganda and ties in with the articles I see my more aggressive vegan acquaintances posting to the facebooks and infused throughout the media, and even here--I am thinking particularly of one of the dairy threads where a link was posted to a sciency-appearing site with a scary study saying we're all going to die from dairy and meat, when it was actually a very slick vegan propaganda group. (Not to pick on vegans, many of whom I admire! Some can just be somewhat shrill--and hence less than persuasive--in their educational efforts.)
I'm going to preface this by saying that I hope I've posted here enough for people to know I'm not into demonizing any specific food, and I don't believe specific foods are responsible for our health or our waistlines. That said, Americans consume an astounding amount of fatty meat, and I don't think it's a stretch to say reducing how much meat, especially beef, Americans consume can contribute to improving our health. I didn't interpret the article as blaming meat for health issues...more like acknowledging our high consumption is a contributing factor to our current state.
This is an article/video about the impact the number of hamburgers - 50 billion hamburgers - Americans consume per year has on the environment. It feels a little more like propaganda, but sources are cited in the transcript if anyone wants to dig deeper. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/the-hidden-costs-of-hamburgers/
My personal view: I believe the article. These are stats I've heard for years. However, I struggle with what's good for the environment vs. what's healthy for me personally, and during the periods where I've eaten vegetarian, I've had an extremely difficult time getting adequate protein while staying at my calorie goal. I know it's possible with planning and practice, but I'm not there yet. So for now, I don't consume much red meat, though I'll have a burger or a lamb chop from time to time. Chicken and pork are more affordable and give me more protein for the calories than beef or lamb. I think more people, at least from my generation, are choosing to eat this way due to environmental concerns, and while I hope it makes a difference, we may have already done too much damage. Time will tell.
I know you wouldn't demonize any specific food...but that is exactly my point with the article. One can't plausibly isolate and blame just the burger, or any other cut of meat, or the slice of cheese, for fat Americans--it's also the bun, the fries, the large shake, and the "apple pie" that contribute to an insane number of calories that lead to so many fat Americans and weight problems. In that list, the ground beef probably has the *best* nutritional profile. All things being equal, if people are getting the full fast food meal deal, replacing the burger with the chicken sammich isn't going to make much of an improvement.
There is of course a grain of truth that fatty low quality meat may be contributing some problems, but to isolate that outside of the context of ALL the calories is what I am scoffing at, especially as the article is lamenting that such a small percentage of food-producing land is dedicated to "grains, fruits and vegetables that are directly fed to human beings" i.e, all the ingredients that comprise the bun, fries, and apple pie, from cellulose to HFCS to crappy fats (when the vision that phrase instills is lovely plots of kale, broccoli, and picturesque apple trees...and doesn't account for the fat that a huge swath of food-producing land is scrubby desert supporting goats*). I think consuming less of EVERYTHING (except veggies) would be the greatest contributor to Americans' health in general.
I think it was actually kind of a throwaway line at the end, but it is, as they say in poker, a "tell" as to the article's and author's bias and beliefs. To me, it starts to become propaganda, or at least suspicious, when one food is demonized, and other equally-if-not-more problematic foods given a halo.
*Another tell is the odd fascination with cows in Africa rather than goats. It takes a special breed of cow to prosper in Africa, and it ain't Holsteins and Angus. Also, and maybe I'm going out on a limb here, when you kill off or drive out all of your farmers in the "breadbasket of Africa," production rates might get a little shaky. So, the closer I look, the more squirrelly the comparisons between Africa and the US become. Facts are facts, but shenanigans can happen in how you highlight, compare, and suppress the different facts.3 -
chocolate_owl wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Interesting topic!lemurcat12 wrote: »trigden1991 wrote: »I have read similar before but in my opinion bacon is worth it.
Do you believe the article?
I like bacon as well though I don't eat it often so environmentally speaking it does not bother me to buy it. But for other animal products that I eat every day I am starting to question...
I've read stuff like that enough from a variety of sources that I do believe it, but the question is what it means. For example, if you are buying food in the US (or a specific location), what really does minimize carbon footprint in terms of actions -- just reducing meat alone might not do it, as it depends on what it's replaced with (for me eating less meat tends to be a positive goal, though, although I've found that's a trade-off in some ways, at least so far).
I keep meaning to actually figure out the environmental affects of the various choices available to me, but admittedly haven't really done that yet.
If I'm understanding the article, replacing red meat (cattle-larger animals) with pork and chicken (smaller animals) would help since it requires less energy to make them grow...
But how many chickens would it take to equal one cow, in terms of pounds of meat produced? And if compared on that basis is one *still* significantly less impactful than the other? It's all very convoluted and open to biased interpretation by evangelists on either side.
Which is why I'm currently in the middle, because I haven't had access to enough unbiased material to make an educated personal decision one way or the other, and quite frankly, the minutiae of it all is, for now at least, above my interest level and attention span.
I do limit the amount of red meat I eat, but that's more of a conscious decision based on cost than a morally-driven one. Especially since I can get my lean protein from chicken which I love. But there's nothing in the world that compares to the occasional broiled steak. Especially if wrapped in bacon.
On a different but related topic that will often go hand-in-hand with this one, is the mind-boggling amount of material available on both sides of the "organic versus traditional" produce farming conundrum. Is one clearly better for the environment than the other? How important is crop yield in the overall picture, one that includes feeding the world and not just those who can afford organic produce? Is all organic produce really 'better' for you, or are some more likely to be of benefit than others?
These are things that don't currently keep me up at night, but perhaps they should.
To the bolded: http://www.pnas.org/content/111/33/11996.abstract
Per kg of protein, beef production uses 28 times more land, 11 times more water, emits 5 times more greenhouse gas, and produces 6 times more reactive nitrogen.
The problem with this comparison is that at least some of it presumes things about the manner in which the animals are raised. For example, a huge portion of it relates to the cost of feed, but the cost of feed varies a lot based on how the animals are raised and fed. I think there's no question that raising cattle takes more land, but then the question is whether the use of that land is inherently a negative environmental cost -- depends where it is, what's done to it, and the opportunity cost based on other uses for the land.
I'm not making an argument (if I were I'd think the ideal for both environmental reasons and certainty that the animals are treated humanely would be to raise one's own chickens and eat the eggs and sometimes the chicken, but for me that's not a possibility). I'm more saying that I think the issues are complicated.1 -
business will make more then they can sell, so they will advertise more, they will donate to campaigns to lobby for agencys to advocate that we all can eat more and still be healthy, all so there is more profits, the feds that regulate are bought and paid for by the business, the envoirnment is not a priority nor important, not only the envoirnment is being destroyed but more or equally our health as people is terrible most people over weight and reaking havoc on the health/medical system is bankrupt as well. all because we are told by bussineses to eat more unhealthy stuff that wrecks the envoirnment and our health so they can make more money and our society can continue to roll on.
i have read that people could live many years longer if they eat less calories such as 1000 a day and no animals stuff, if living longer where a bussiness then there would be money invested in it then we would all be living to be 150 years old and we would not be eating animals or probably most of what is normal in the USA currently, but living long is not a biz so diabetes is soon to be a comon thing for young kids in USA. just in case someone wants to hate my post i eat doritos and cheeseburgers and bacon & eggs etc. but i have been conditioned this way so its hard to break the cycle alone.0 -
^^^"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery/None but ourselves can free our minds..." Bob Marley2
-
Jules_farmgirl wrote: »To anyone that reads this that is a vegetarian or vegan... this one is for you (oh and this is just a very SMALL list)
http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/9-everyday-products-you-didnt-know-had-animal-ingredients.htmlJules_farmgirl wrote: »**Please note that I have no issue with those who don't eat meat, that is a personal choice. My issue comes when someone tries to lecture without knowing the facts.
As an aside, I think you're making an assumption about the motivations of vegetarians & vegans. I suspect you're correct for many cases, but - just like omnivores - we do lack universal hive-mind. Heck, I was happily married to an omnivore/hunter for 20+ years (widowed, not divorced ).
My original motivations for vegetarianism - 43 years ago - had more to do with adolescent whim, coupled with a concern about consuming meat grown in a system that had the animals eating much more protein than they produced, in a world that was then pretty short on the stuff. In that context - which I wouldn't try to fully defend as a decision framework today, BTW - the idea that animal byproducts are used in many ways, minimizing waste & inefficiency - that would be a plus, not a cause for alarm. And I wouldn't go out of my way to avoid those products.
But eat meat? After this many years, it just sounds kinda yucky, I don't have a clue how to store and cook it, and occasional unintentional consumption suggests that my microflora and/or enzyme complement would require some rehab in order for it to digest well. Nowadays, it's a habit, not a religion. If it has environmental benefits, so much the better.
The only eaters I view with some disdain are some who think hunters are all brutish louts, but simultaneously that "300 trillion served" (or whatever McD's is up to these days) is a fine thing indeed . . . sooo much more civilized to have under-compensated immigrants and less-educated folks do their killing for them.
But I'm drifting the thread - apologies.
Locavore-ism may be environmentally indefensible - or not, I have no idea - but dang, the produce is so much better . . . even in Michigan in mid-Winter.0 -
I've read similar articles enough to believe it's true. I can't remember the last time I ate beef or drank milk, but I do a good deal of damage with my love of cheese.
0 -
So I am going to officially hit my mid 40's next week and lately, maybe by total coincidence, I have started to reflect on some of my past beliefs. Came across this article the other day and it made me stop for a moment and reflect. Honestly though, I am never sure if I am reading propaganda or truth. What are everyones thoughts on this...
http://science.time.com/2013/12/16/the-triple-whopper-environmental-impact-of-global-meat-production/
I haven't read the article. It's pretty well known that industrial meat production is environmentally harmful. I don't know if this article does a good job of explaining why or not.
I'm a hiker, climber, and enjoy being outdoors, especially in the mountains. There's a lot to love, but, sadly, I'm watching the glaciers vanish, and other things.
This thread made me very happy. Just the fact that other regular people care about their environmental impact is music to my ears.3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions