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.
Meat only diet
Options
Replies
-
This discussion was created from replies split from: No carb diet.
If you want to debate the pros or cons of a meat only diet this is the place.
I accidentally deleted a few comments related to eating raw organs for vitamin C. Sorry about that. To those who wanted to pursue that train of thought you will have to start that part over again.
4legs
MFP mod
I think you can achieve good results and remain healthy if you were to only eat meat, you’d probably become constipated at some point but other than that I can’t see how it would be bad for you4 -
Mandylou19912014 wrote: »This discussion was created from replies split from: No carb diet.
If you want to debate the pros or cons of a meat only diet this is the place.
I accidentally deleted a few comments related to eating raw organs for vitamin C. Sorry about that. To those who wanted to pursue that train of thought you will have to start that part over again.
4legs
MFP mod
I think you can achieve good results and remain healthy if you were to only eat meat, you’d probably become constipated at some point but other than that I can’t see how it would be bad for you
You don’t see how missing out on the micronutrients inherent in fruits and vegetables could be bad for a person?14 -
Mandylou19912014 wrote: »This discussion was created from replies split from: No carb diet.
If you want to debate the pros or cons of a meat only diet this is the place.
I accidentally deleted a few comments related to eating raw organs for vitamin C. Sorry about that. To those who wanted to pursue that train of thought you will have to start that part over again.
4legs
MFP mod
I think you can achieve good results and remain healthy if you were to only eat meat, you’d probably become constipated at some point but other than that I can’t see how it would be bad for you
Let's see, you get no fiber, constipation, probably hard stool that makes you *kitten* bricks and leaves your *kitten* bleeding on the rare occasion that you do go in the bathroom, no micronutrients therefore all hell breaks loose with your immune system....tell me how great that diet will make you feel?6 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »This discussion was created from replies split from: No carb diet.
If you want to debate the pros or cons of a meat only diet this is the place.
I accidentally deleted a few comments related to eating raw organs for vitamin C. Sorry about that. To those who wanted to pursue that train of thought you will have to start that part over again.
4legs
MFP mod
I think you can achieve good results and remain healthy if you were to only eat meat, you’d probably become constipated at some point but other than that I can’t see how it would be bad for you
You don’t see how missing out on the micronutrients inherent in fruits and vegetables could be bad for a person?
Not really no, meat itself does contain a wide variety of minerals, I don’t think it would have a negative impact on someone’s health to only eat meat. Meat itself contains b complex vitamins, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, vitamin B6 and B1213 -
Mandylou19912014 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »This discussion was created from replies split from: No carb diet.
If you want to debate the pros or cons of a meat only diet this is the place.
I accidentally deleted a few comments related to eating raw organs for vitamin C. Sorry about that. To those who wanted to pursue that train of thought you will have to start that part over again.
4legs
MFP mod
I think you can achieve good results and remain healthy if you were to only eat meat, you’d probably become constipated at some point but other than that I can’t see how it would be bad for you
You don’t see how missing out on the micronutrients inherent in fruits and vegetables could be bad for a person?
Not really no, meat itself does contain a wide variety of minerals, I don’t think it would have a negative impact on someone’s health to only eat meat. Meat itself contains b complex vitamins, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, vitamin B6 and B12
What about the two important ones A and C??? You're missing out on a lot of key vitamins and minerals...even if you do supplement it with a multi vitamin, they are no substitute to the real thing.8 -
Mandylou19912014 wrote: »This discussion was created from replies split from: No carb diet.
If you want to debate the pros or cons of a meat only diet this is the place.
I accidentally deleted a few comments related to eating raw organs for vitamin C. Sorry about that. To those who wanted to pursue that train of thought you will have to start that part over again.
4legs
MFP mod
I think you can achieve good results and remain healthy if you were to only eat meat, you’d probably become constipated at some point but other than that I can’t see how it would be bad for you
Let's see, you get no fiber, constipation, probably hard stool that makes you *kitten* bricks and leaves your *kitten* bleeding on the rare occasion that you do go in the bathroom, no micronutrients therefore all hell breaks loose with your immune system....tell me how great that diet will make you feel?
Go look up most meat products in the USDA database - the micronutrients are there - they just don't show up on most food labels. As for constipation - not an issue, fat works the same way as fiber in moving things along and keeping things 'softened'.
ETA - a person on an all meat diet also requires much less vitamin C than a person who eats carbs because glucose and vitamin C compete for the same metabolic pathways - i.e. less glucose makes consumed vitamin C more bio-available to the body.14 -
Mandylou19912014 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »This discussion was created from replies split from: No carb diet.
If you want to debate the pros or cons of a meat only diet this is the place.
I accidentally deleted a few comments related to eating raw organs for vitamin C. Sorry about that. To those who wanted to pursue that train of thought you will have to start that part over again.
4legs
MFP mod
I think you can achieve good results and remain healthy if you were to only eat meat, you’d probably become constipated at some point but other than that I can’t see how it would be bad for you
You don’t see how missing out on the micronutrients inherent in fruits and vegetables could be bad for a person?
Not really no, meat itself does contain a wide variety of minerals, I don’t think it would have a negative impact on someone’s health to only eat meat. Meat itself contains b complex vitamins, thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, vitamin B6 and B12
What about the two important ones A and C??? You're missing out on a lot of key vitamins and minerals...even if you do supplement it with a multi vitamin, they are no substitute to the real thing.
Organ meat. Liver, kidney, brains7 -
Mandylou19912014 wrote: »This discussion was created from replies split from: No carb diet.
If you want to debate the pros or cons of a meat only diet this is the place.
I accidentally deleted a few comments related to eating raw organs for vitamin C. Sorry about that. To those who wanted to pursue that train of thought you will have to start that part over again.
4legs
MFP mod
I think you can achieve good results and remain healthy if you were to only eat meat, you’d probably become constipated at some point but other than that I can’t see how it would be bad for you
Let's see, you get no fiber, constipation, probably hard stool that makes you *kitten* bricks and leaves your *kitten* bleeding on the rare occasion that you do go in the bathroom, no micronutrients therefore all hell breaks loose with your immune system....tell me how great that diet will make you feel?
Go look up most meat products in the USDA database - the micronutrients are there - they just don't show up on most food labels. As for constipation - not an issue, fat works the same way as fiber in moving things along and keeping things 'softened'.
ETA - a person on an all meat diet also requires much less vitamin C than a person who eats carbs because glucose and vitamin C compete for the same metabolic pathways - i.e. less glucose makes consumed vitamin C more bio-available to the body.
You're right about that, I just read more on it. I'll give you that, but consuming meat every day also increases your risk of colon cancer. I mean if that's the only way a person can stick to a caloric deficit and does this diet short term, I don't see the issue apart from constipation, but long term, I am not that convinced that it has any major benefits.1 -
I have tried this carnivore diet for the last month. Only as an experiment for the month of June. Keto before and will be again after. For what it is worth, no scurvy, no problems with regularity, no hair loss, minor difference in energy levels [ but still able to ride a bicycle 45 miles in a fasted state ], average weight loss over the past month about 2+ lbs per week. Overall I have enjoyed it, but would not choose this as a permanent way of eating for myself. I do attribute some of my lack of the issues with the variety of meats I consume, sardines, pork, duck, beef, chicken etc. It may also make a difference that I have no problems eating the non-muscle meat. Liver at least twice a week. I do supplement with a basic multi, salt, magnesium, and potassium.
For anyone concerned with the carbon footprint of the diet, I commute on my bicycle to work, so my van stays parked in the driveway other than about 1-2 times a week when I need to move something, or it is pouring rain. There are other choices you could make if your concerned about the planet, rather than a judgement on beef farming practices, and those who choose to eat it.8 -
happytree923 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »Considering how resource intensive beef production is, I think this is an extremely irresponsible way of eating.
For factory farming, I completely agree.
If one converted all those corn and soy farms into pasture, with perennial grasses instead of agricultural monocrop farms, then beef would be more sustainable. Better yet, farm bison and other grazer's which are easier on the grass (nibble off the tops rather than rip the grass out) and let the pigs and chicken roam with them.
This is a myth. Yes, ruminants are a natural part of certain ecosystems but we cannot graze enough cattle to match current beef production without a massive environmental toll. Cows create lots of greenhouse gas just by existing.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2149220-grass-fed-beef-is-bad-for-the-planet-and-causes-climate-change/
ETA plus grass fed cattle and game like bison are much lower in fat than corn-fed cattle. I’m curious, how does promoting grass fed mesh with very high fat diets?
So are you saying that if all the farms that grow the corn and crops were converted to grazing land, that there wouldn't be enough food for all the cattle that live off of that same land right now? I don't quite agree with that, but if you have something to share that shows a perennial field of grasses like rye, Timothy or alfalfa could not support the same amount of cattle that a monocrop of corn, which is turned over every year with water and soil preserving deep roots lost, as well as numerous natural organisms plowed under or sprayed with pesticides, then I'd be happy to look at it. I could be wrong, but I doubt grazing animals would have any greater environmental impact than the same number of factory farmed animals.
To your question, leaner animals are not a problem in a low carb diet. These diets can go from low to high protein. It is not unusual to see fat and protein grams set the same. If one really needs more fat, they can add a pat of garlic butter to their steak. I still eat lean chicken breast, I just prefer salmon and beef.
I said the environmental impact would be huge, not that there wouldn't be enough land. I have no idea if there would be enough land in that situation, and your hypothetical also presupposes that everyone would be ok giving up all 'crops' (a term that includes broccoli, berries, and spinach) so they can exclusively eat beef. I definitely would not want that!
If you look at the link I posted before, it explains that grass-fed beef has a larger carbon footprint than grain-fed. This is not the same as saying there isn't enough space to feed them all (although my instinct as someone with an academic background in environmental studies says that this is also the case). This is because grass diets promote more methane production and because grass fed animals live longer, the cows have more time to emit their turbo-powered greenhouse gas farts into the atmosphere. Carbon sequestration does not do enough to bring the footprint of grass-fed cows down to the foot-print of grain-fed cows.
Here are a couple more articles that discuss the impact of grass-fed beef on the environment-
https://fcrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/project-files/fcrn_gnc_summary.pdf
http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2010/04/08/grass-fed-beef-packs-a-punch-to-environment/
I'm not saying that CAFOs are a great way to produce beef. I think ultimately the solution to the environmental impact of livestock will be lab-grown meat. But until then, I think the most responsible thing to do is to limit meat consumption and treat beef and lamb like the luxuries they are.
As an aside, alfalfa is one of the most water intensive crops there is. It's not a less resource intensive food source for cows.
We're getting off topic, but it is interesting.
I looked at the articles you mentioned. I absolutely agree that their farts are methane sources. No argument there.
My disagreement came from when you said " we cannot graze enough cattle to match current beef production without a massive environmental toll". Did you mean that continuing the current production will lead to an environmental toll (methane farts)? Because I think grazing cattle, or other animals would be of a similar, or slightly reduced, environmental impact.
I could be approaching this from too much of my local perspective. I live at the edge of the semi arid foothills of the Rockies. Growing much beyond canola or hay requires some sort of water system. On government land there are cattle leases where the cows wander through the foothills, eat, get fat, and occasionally eaten by wolves. Once you go east, its canola, hay then feed lots. We have a lot of beef here. I think more of it could be wandering and pasture fed. I'm not talking about clear cutting a pasture ( or for a corn crop), but having them in the grasslands and foothills works here. In other places, I imagine it would be more of an impact.
Most of the beef we've eaten we've butchered at a family member's farm. The cows wandered the pastures and were given hay bales in the winter. The field had multiple types of grasses in it ( not monocrop). Their pasture did not take away from other food crops.
IDK. I eat meat. I'm meant to eat meat. I am healthiest when meat makes up a large portion of my diet. I'll eat other meats if they are available and affordable. I am not going to stop eating meat to save the environment but if I could purchase more sustainable meats I would do so. My family of 5 typically eats about one cow and one pig a year. Sometimes there is deer on top of that as well as the salmon we've caught.
On the bright side, my family helps the environment by not consuming grains and sugar.
I don't think everyone should eat meat heavy (never mind only meat) but some people do better that way, just like I don't think everyone should be vegetarian but some do better that way.
I firmly believe dietary guidelines should be for creating good health and not due to environmental concerns.
My point, as shown by the studies in the articles I linked to, is that even when taking carbon sequestration and the footprint of feed into account, grass-fed cattle create higher levels of greenhouse emissions than grain-fed cattle do over their lifetimes.
Let's say that grass-fed cattle make 3 tons of methane a year, and grain-fed make 2 tons (made up numbers to illustrate point). Farmer Joe has a herd of 100 grain-fed cattle and he decides to start grass-feeding his cattle so they get to roam and graze the natural grasslands and get hay in the winter. That same 100 cow herd that was making 200 tons of methane a year is now making 300 tons of methane a year because of his decision.
I know it's not intuitive because small scale pasture farming like what you are describing is much nicer to look at and far less cruel to the cow. But carbon emissions are invisible, and they cause major problems whether or not you can see them.
I'm not saying anyone must change their diet. I eat poultry and cheese several times a week, I eat yogurt, heck, I still eat beef! But beef occupies the same space in my diet that lobster and chanterelle mushrooms do. Everyone makes these types of tradeoffs every single day. But it's important to be educated on what science shows is legitimately the lower impact option so your choice is informed.
I did not get the bolded from those articles. They discussed how clear cutting to get a pasture is hard on the environment, but the places where cattle should roam don't need to be clear cut. It mentioned how the cattle would hurt the water supply but I have a hard time imagining how ponds and streams would be that affected, plus I imagine most farms would have to make a pond or provide water as most would not have a stream running through them.
I did not see where it said a grass fed/grazing cow makes more methane than one who eats grains or corn. If I missed it, I'll re read it - I did read it quickly. I assume that if grain fed, feedlot cow makes 3 tons methane, then the grazing cow would also make 3 tons methane.
Read them again. The process of rumination makes more methane when cows eat grass rather than grain. Plus grass fed cows live longer before slaughter so there is more time for them to make methane. If you are very interested in this topic, here is a short, thorough report comparing pasture and grain-feeding production methods. They go over greenhouse gas emissions for both and conclude that raising animals on land that cannot be cultivated for crops is best, but meat demand must go down to do that. Ie, no carnivore dieting, which was my point in the first place.
https://fcrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/FCRN_int_vs_ext_livestock.pdf
You initially agreed that feedlot cattle are unsustainable so I’m not sure why grass fed being just equally as unsustainable is ok.1 -
Apart the original poster is anyone in this thread actually suggesting eating a diet of only meat?0
-
Personally I would be bored to tears, to each his or her own...1
-
happytree923 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »Considering how resource intensive beef production is, I think this is an extremely irresponsible way of eating.
For factory farming, I completely agree.
If one converted all those corn and soy farms into pasture, with perennial grasses instead of agricultural monocrop farms, then beef would be more sustainable. Better yet, farm bison and other grazer's which are easier on the grass (nibble off the tops rather than rip the grass out) and let the pigs and chicken roam with them.
This is a myth. Yes, ruminants are a natural part of certain ecosystems but we cannot graze enough cattle to match current beef production without a massive environmental toll. Cows create lots of greenhouse gas just by existing.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2149220-grass-fed-beef-is-bad-for-the-planet-and-causes-climate-change/
ETA plus grass fed cattle and game like bison are much lower in fat than corn-fed cattle. I’m curious, how does promoting grass fed mesh with very high fat diets?
So are you saying that if all the farms that grow the corn and crops were converted to grazing land, that there wouldn't be enough food for all the cattle that live off of that same land right now? I don't quite agree with that, but if you have something to share that shows a perennial field of grasses like rye, Timothy or alfalfa could not support the same amount of cattle that a monocrop of corn, which is turned over every year with water and soil preserving deep roots lost, as well as numerous natural organisms plowed under or sprayed with pesticides, then I'd be happy to look at it. I could be wrong, but I doubt grazing animals would have any greater environmental impact than the same number of factory farmed animals.
To your question, leaner animals are not a problem in a low carb diet. These diets can go from low to high protein. It is not unusual to see fat and protein grams set the same. If one really needs more fat, they can add a pat of garlic butter to their steak. I still eat lean chicken breast, I just prefer salmon and beef.
I said the environmental impact would be huge, not that there wouldn't be enough land. I have no idea if there would be enough land in that situation, and your hypothetical also presupposes that everyone would be ok giving up all 'crops' (a term that includes broccoli, berries, and spinach) so they can exclusively eat beef. I definitely would not want that!
If you look at the link I posted before, it explains that grass-fed beef has a larger carbon footprint than grain-fed. This is not the same as saying there isn't enough space to feed them all (although my instinct as someone with an academic background in environmental studies says that this is also the case). This is because grass diets promote more methane production and because grass fed animals live longer, the cows have more time to emit their turbo-powered greenhouse gas farts into the atmosphere. Carbon sequestration does not do enough to bring the footprint of grass-fed cows down to the foot-print of grain-fed cows.
Here are a couple more articles that discuss the impact of grass-fed beef on the environment-
https://fcrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/project-files/fcrn_gnc_summary.pdf
http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2010/04/08/grass-fed-beef-packs-a-punch-to-environment/
I'm not saying that CAFOs are a great way to produce beef. I think ultimately the solution to the environmental impact of livestock will be lab-grown meat. But until then, I think the most responsible thing to do is to limit meat consumption and treat beef and lamb like the luxuries they are.
As an aside, alfalfa is one of the most water intensive crops there is. It's not a less resource intensive food source for cows.
We're getting off topic, but it is interesting.
I looked at the articles you mentioned. I absolutely agree that their farts are methane sources. No argument there.
My disagreement came from when you said " we cannot graze enough cattle to match current beef production without a massive environmental toll". Did you mean that continuing the current production will lead to an environmental toll (methane farts)? Because I think grazing cattle, or other animals would be of a similar, or slightly reduced, environmental impact.
I could be approaching this from too much of my local perspective. I live at the edge of the semi arid foothills of the Rockies. Growing much beyond canola or hay requires some sort of water system. On government land there are cattle leases where the cows wander through the foothills, eat, get fat, and occasionally eaten by wolves. Once you go east, its canola, hay then feed lots. We have a lot of beef here. I think more of it could be wandering and pasture fed. I'm not talking about clear cutting a pasture ( or for a corn crop), but having them in the grasslands and foothills works here. In other places, I imagine it would be more of an impact.
Most of the beef we've eaten we've butchered at a family member's farm. The cows wandered the pastures and were given hay bales in the winter. The field had multiple types of grasses in it ( not monocrop). Their pasture did not take away from other food crops.
IDK. I eat meat. I'm meant to eat meat. I am healthiest when meat makes up a large portion of my diet. I'll eat other meats if they are available and affordable. I am not going to stop eating meat to save the environment but if I could purchase more sustainable meats I would do so. My family of 5 typically eats about one cow and one pig a year. Sometimes there is deer on top of that as well as the salmon we've caught.
On the bright side, my family helps the environment by not consuming grains and sugar.
I don't think everyone should eat meat heavy (never mind only meat) but some people do better that way, just like I don't think everyone should be vegetarian but some do better that way.
I firmly believe dietary guidelines should be for creating good health and not due to environmental concerns.
My point, as shown by the studies in the articles I linked to, is that even when taking carbon sequestration and the footprint of feed into account, grass-fed cattle create higher levels of greenhouse emissions than grain-fed cattle do over their lifetimes.
Let's say that grass-fed cattle make 3 tons of methane a year, and grain-fed make 2 tons (made up numbers to illustrate point). Farmer Joe has a herd of 100 grain-fed cattle and he decides to start grass-feeding his cattle so they get to roam and graze the natural grasslands and get hay in the winter. That same 100 cow herd that was making 200 tons of methane a year is now making 300 tons of methane a year because of his decision.
I know it's not intuitive because small scale pasture farming like what you are describing is much nicer to look at and far less cruel to the cow. But carbon emissions are invisible, and they cause major problems whether or not you can see them.
I'm not saying anyone must change their diet. I eat poultry and cheese several times a week, I eat yogurt, heck, I still eat beef! But beef occupies the same space in my diet that lobster and chanterelle mushrooms do. Everyone makes these types of tradeoffs every single day. But it's important to be educated on what science shows is legitimately the lower impact option so your choice is informed.
I did not get the bolded from those articles. They discussed how clear cutting to get a pasture is hard on the environment, but the places where cattle should roam don't need to be clear cut. It mentioned how the cattle would hurt the water supply but I have a hard time imagining how ponds and streams would be that affected, plus I imagine most farms would have to make a pond or provide water as most would not have a stream running through them.
I did not see where it said a grass fed/grazing cow makes more methane than one who eats grains or corn. If I missed it, I'll re read it - I did read it quickly. I assume that if grain fed, feedlot cow makes 3 tons methane, then the grazing cow would also make 3 tons methane.
Read them again. The process of rumination makes more methane when cows eat grass rather than grain. Plus grass fed cows live longer before slaughter so there is more time for them to make methane. If you are very interested in this topic, here is a short, thorough report comparing pasture and grain-feeding production methods. They go over greenhouse gas emissions for both and conclude that raising animals on land that cannot be cultivated for crops is best, but meat demand must go down to do that. Ie, no carnivore dieting, which was my point in the first place.
https://fcrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/FCRN_int_vs_ext_livestock.pdf
You initially agreed that feedlot cattle are unsustainable so I’m not sure why grass fed being just equally as unsustainable is ok.
I don't want to go back and read them so I'll take your word for it that grass fed cows have more farts or farting opportunities.
I don't believe I said that cows are unsustainable. I agreed that their Methane can have a big impact on the environment. I'm still going to eat beef though because I believe eating read meat is good for me. I will eat other red meats when I can afford them. I'm not willing to go back to a diet that will negatively, and noticeably, impact my health, for the sake of possibly helping reduce environmental impact to the Earth.5 -
happytree923 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »Considering how resource intensive beef production is, I think this is an extremely irresponsible way of eating.
For factory farming, I completely agree.
If one converted all those corn and soy farms into pasture, with perennial grasses instead of agricultural monocrop farms, then beef would be more sustainable. Better yet, farm bison and other grazer's which are easier on the grass (nibble off the tops rather than rip the grass out) and let the pigs and chicken roam with them.
This is a myth. Yes, ruminants are a natural part of certain ecosystems but we cannot graze enough cattle to match current beef production without a massive environmental toll. Cows create lots of greenhouse gas just by existing.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2149220-grass-fed-beef-is-bad-for-the-planet-and-causes-climate-change/
ETA plus grass fed cattle and game like bison are much lower in fat than corn-fed cattle. I’m curious, how does promoting grass fed mesh with very high fat diets?
So are you saying that if all the farms that grow the corn and crops were converted to grazing land, that there wouldn't be enough food for all the cattle that live off of that same land right now? I don't quite agree with that, but if you have something to share that shows a perennial field of grasses like rye, Timothy or alfalfa could not support the same amount of cattle that a monocrop of corn, which is turned over every year with water and soil preserving deep roots lost, as well as numerous natural organisms plowed under or sprayed with pesticides, then I'd be happy to look at it. I could be wrong, but I doubt grazing animals would have any greater environmental impact than the same number of factory farmed animals.
To your question, leaner animals are not a problem in a low carb diet. These diets can go from low to high protein. It is not unusual to see fat and protein grams set the same. If one really needs more fat, they can add a pat of garlic butter to their steak. I still eat lean chicken breast, I just prefer salmon and beef.
I said the environmental impact would be huge, not that there wouldn't be enough land. I have no idea if there would be enough land in that situation, and your hypothetical also presupposes that everyone would be ok giving up all 'crops' (a term that includes broccoli, berries, and spinach) so they can exclusively eat beef. I definitely would not want that!
If you look at the link I posted before, it explains that grass-fed beef has a larger carbon footprint than grain-fed. This is not the same as saying there isn't enough space to feed them all (although my instinct as someone with an academic background in environmental studies says that this is also the case). This is because grass diets promote more methane production and because grass fed animals live longer, the cows have more time to emit their turbo-powered greenhouse gas farts into the atmosphere. Carbon sequestration does not do enough to bring the footprint of grass-fed cows down to the foot-print of grain-fed cows.
Here are a couple more articles that discuss the impact of grass-fed beef on the environment-
https://fcrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/project-files/fcrn_gnc_summary.pdf
http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2010/04/08/grass-fed-beef-packs-a-punch-to-environment/
I'm not saying that CAFOs are a great way to produce beef. I think ultimately the solution to the environmental impact of livestock will be lab-grown meat. But until then, I think the most responsible thing to do is to limit meat consumption and treat beef and lamb like the luxuries they are.
As an aside, alfalfa is one of the most water intensive crops there is. It's not a less resource intensive food source for cows.
We're getting off topic, but it is interesting.
I looked at the articles you mentioned. I absolutely agree that their farts are methane sources. No argument there.
My disagreement came from when you said " we cannot graze enough cattle to match current beef production without a massive environmental toll". Did you mean that continuing the current production will lead to an environmental toll (methane farts)? Because I think grazing cattle, or other animals would be of a similar, or slightly reduced, environmental impact.
I could be approaching this from too much of my local perspective. I live at the edge of the semi arid foothills of the Rockies. Growing much beyond canola or hay requires some sort of water system. On government land there are cattle leases where the cows wander through the foothills, eat, get fat, and occasionally eaten by wolves. Once you go east, its canola, hay then feed lots. We have a lot of beef here. I think more of it could be wandering and pasture fed. I'm not talking about clear cutting a pasture ( or for a corn crop), but having them in the grasslands and foothills works here. In other places, I imagine it would be more of an impact.
Most of the beef we've eaten we've butchered at a family member's farm. The cows wandered the pastures and were given hay bales in the winter. The field had multiple types of grasses in it ( not monocrop). Their pasture did not take away from other food crops.
IDK. I eat meat. I'm meant to eat meat. I am healthiest when meat makes up a large portion of my diet. I'll eat other meats if they are available and affordable. I am not going to stop eating meat to save the environment but if I could purchase more sustainable meats I would do so. My family of 5 typically eats about one cow and one pig a year. Sometimes there is deer on top of that as well as the salmon we've caught.
On the bright side, my family helps the environment by not consuming grains and sugar.
I don't think everyone should eat meat heavy (never mind only meat) but some people do better that way, just like I don't think everyone should be vegetarian but some do better that way.
I firmly believe dietary guidelines should be for creating good health and not due to environmental concerns.
My point, as shown by the studies in the articles I linked to, is that even when taking carbon sequestration and the footprint of feed into account, grass-fed cattle create higher levels of greenhouse emissions than grain-fed cattle do over their lifetimes.
Let's say that grass-fed cattle make 3 tons of methane a year, and grain-fed make 2 tons (made up numbers to illustrate point). Farmer Joe has a herd of 100 grain-fed cattle and he decides to start grass-feeding his cattle so they get to roam and graze the natural grasslands and get hay in the winter. That same 100 cow herd that was making 200 tons of methane a year is now making 300 tons of methane a year because of his decision.
I know it's not intuitive because small scale pasture farming like what you are describing is much nicer to look at and far less cruel to the cow. But carbon emissions are invisible, and they cause major problems whether or not you can see them.
I'm not saying anyone must change their diet. I eat poultry and cheese several times a week, I eat yogurt, heck, I still eat beef! But beef occupies the same space in my diet that lobster and chanterelle mushrooms do. Everyone makes these types of tradeoffs every single day. But it's important to be educated on what science shows is legitimately the lower impact option so your choice is informed.
I did not get the bolded from those articles. They discussed how clear cutting to get a pasture is hard on the environment, but the places where cattle should roam don't need to be clear cut. It mentioned how the cattle would hurt the water supply but I have a hard time imagining how ponds and streams would be that affected, plus I imagine most farms would have to make a pond or provide water as most would not have a stream running through them.
I did not see where it said a grass fed/grazing cow makes more methane than one who eats grains or corn. If I missed it, I'll re read it - I did read it quickly. I assume that if grain fed, feedlot cow makes 3 tons methane, then the grazing cow would also make 3 tons methane.
Read them again. The process of rumination makes more methane when cows eat grass rather than grain. Plus grass fed cows live longer before slaughter so there is more time for them to make methane. If you are very interested in this topic, here is a short, thorough report comparing pasture and grain-feeding production methods. They go over greenhouse gas emissions for both and conclude that raising animals on land that cannot be cultivated for crops is best, but meat demand must go down to do that. Ie, no carnivore dieting, which was my point in the first place.
https://fcrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/FCRN_int_vs_ext_livestock.pdf
You initially agreed that feedlot cattle are unsustainable so I’m not sure why grass fed being just equally as unsustainable is ok.
I don't want to go back and read them so I'll take your word for it that grass fed cows have more farts or farting opportunities.
I don't believe I said that cows are unsustainable. I agreed that their Methane can have a big impact on the environment. I'm still going to eat beef though because I believe eating read meat is good for me. I will eat other red meats when I can afford them. I'm not willing to go back to a diet that will negatively, and noticeably, impact my health, for the sake of possibly helping reduce environmental impact to the Earth.
I have heard anecdotally that vegetarians fart more than cranivores - so it’s not all pro’s not eating beef
6 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »Considering how resource intensive beef production is, I think this is an extremely irresponsible way of eating.
For factory farming, I completely agree.
If one converted all those corn and soy farms into pasture, with perennial grasses instead of agricultural monocrop farms, then beef would be more sustainable. Better yet, farm bison and other grazer's which are easier on the grass (nibble off the tops rather than rip the grass out) and let the pigs and chicken roam with them.
This is a myth. Yes, ruminants are a natural part of certain ecosystems but we cannot graze enough cattle to match current beef production without a massive environmental toll. Cows create lots of greenhouse gas just by existing.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2149220-grass-fed-beef-is-bad-for-the-planet-and-causes-climate-change/
ETA plus grass fed cattle and game like bison are much lower in fat than corn-fed cattle. I’m curious, how does promoting grass fed mesh with very high fat diets?
So are you saying that if all the farms that grow the corn and crops were converted to grazing land, that there wouldn't be enough food for all the cattle that live off of that same land right now? I don't quite agree with that, but if you have something to share that shows a perennial field of grasses like rye, Timothy or alfalfa could not support the same amount of cattle that a monocrop of corn, which is turned over every year with water and soil preserving deep roots lost, as well as numerous natural organisms plowed under or sprayed with pesticides, then I'd be happy to look at it. I could be wrong, but I doubt grazing animals would have any greater environmental impact than the same number of factory farmed animals.
To your question, leaner animals are not a problem in a low carb diet. These diets can go from low to high protein. It is not unusual to see fat and protein grams set the same. If one really needs more fat, they can add a pat of garlic butter to their steak. I still eat lean chicken breast, I just prefer salmon and beef.
I said the environmental impact would be huge, not that there wouldn't be enough land. I have no idea if there would be enough land in that situation, and your hypothetical also presupposes that everyone would be ok giving up all 'crops' (a term that includes broccoli, berries, and spinach) so they can exclusively eat beef. I definitely would not want that!
If you look at the link I posted before, it explains that grass-fed beef has a larger carbon footprint than grain-fed. This is not the same as saying there isn't enough space to feed them all (although my instinct as someone with an academic background in environmental studies says that this is also the case). This is because grass diets promote more methane production and because grass fed animals live longer, the cows have more time to emit their turbo-powered greenhouse gas farts into the atmosphere. Carbon sequestration does not do enough to bring the footprint of grass-fed cows down to the foot-print of grain-fed cows.
Here are a couple more articles that discuss the impact of grass-fed beef on the environment-
https://fcrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/project-files/fcrn_gnc_summary.pdf
http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2010/04/08/grass-fed-beef-packs-a-punch-to-environment/
I'm not saying that CAFOs are a great way to produce beef. I think ultimately the solution to the environmental impact of livestock will be lab-grown meat. But until then, I think the most responsible thing to do is to limit meat consumption and treat beef and lamb like the luxuries they are.
As an aside, alfalfa is one of the most water intensive crops there is. It's not a less resource intensive food source for cows.
We're getting off topic, but it is interesting.
I looked at the articles you mentioned. I absolutely agree that their farts are methane sources. No argument there.
My disagreement came from when you said " we cannot graze enough cattle to match current beef production without a massive environmental toll". Did you mean that continuing the current production will lead to an environmental toll (methane farts)? Because I think grazing cattle, or other animals would be of a similar, or slightly reduced, environmental impact.
I could be approaching this from too much of my local perspective. I live at the edge of the semi arid foothills of the Rockies. Growing much beyond canola or hay requires some sort of water system. On government land there are cattle leases where the cows wander through the foothills, eat, get fat, and occasionally eaten by wolves. Once you go east, its canola, hay then feed lots. We have a lot of beef here. I think more of it could be wandering and pasture fed. I'm not talking about clear cutting a pasture ( or for a corn crop), but having them in the grasslands and foothills works here. In other places, I imagine it would be more of an impact.
Most of the beef we've eaten we've butchered at a family member's farm. The cows wandered the pastures and were given hay bales in the winter. The field had multiple types of grasses in it ( not monocrop). Their pasture did not take away from other food crops.
IDK. I eat meat. I'm meant to eat meat. I am healthiest when meat makes up a large portion of my diet. I'll eat other meats if they are available and affordable. I am not going to stop eating meat to save the environment but if I could purchase more sustainable meats I would do so. My family of 5 typically eats about one cow and one pig a year. Sometimes there is deer on top of that as well as the salmon we've caught.
On the bright side, my family helps the environment by not consuming grains and sugar.
I don't think everyone should eat meat heavy (never mind only meat) but some people do better that way, just like I don't think everyone should be vegetarian but some do better that way.
I firmly believe dietary guidelines should be for creating good health and not due to environmental concerns.
My point, as shown by the studies in the articles I linked to, is that even when taking carbon sequestration and the footprint of feed into account, grass-fed cattle create higher levels of greenhouse emissions than grain-fed cattle do over their lifetimes.
Let's say that grass-fed cattle make 3 tons of methane a year, and grain-fed make 2 tons (made up numbers to illustrate point). Farmer Joe has a herd of 100 grain-fed cattle and he decides to start grass-feeding his cattle so they get to roam and graze the natural grasslands and get hay in the winter. That same 100 cow herd that was making 200 tons of methane a year is now making 300 tons of methane a year because of his decision.
I know it's not intuitive because small scale pasture farming like what you are describing is much nicer to look at and far less cruel to the cow. But carbon emissions are invisible, and they cause major problems whether or not you can see them.
I'm not saying anyone must change their diet. I eat poultry and cheese several times a week, I eat yogurt, heck, I still eat beef! But beef occupies the same space in my diet that lobster and chanterelle mushrooms do. Everyone makes these types of tradeoffs every single day. But it's important to be educated on what science shows is legitimately the lower impact option so your choice is informed.
I did not get the bolded from those articles. They discussed how clear cutting to get a pasture is hard on the environment, but the places where cattle should roam don't need to be clear cut. It mentioned how the cattle would hurt the water supply but I have a hard time imagining how ponds and streams would be that affected, plus I imagine most farms would have to make a pond or provide water as most would not have a stream running through them.
I did not see where it said a grass fed/grazing cow makes more methane than one who eats grains or corn. If I missed it, I'll re read it - I did read it quickly. I assume that if grain fed, feedlot cow makes 3 tons methane, then the grazing cow would also make 3 tons methane.
Read them again. The process of rumination makes more methane when cows eat grass rather than grain. Plus grass fed cows live longer before slaughter so there is more time for them to make methane. If you are very interested in this topic, here is a short, thorough report comparing pasture and grain-feeding production methods. They go over greenhouse gas emissions for both and conclude that raising animals on land that cannot be cultivated for crops is best, but meat demand must go down to do that. Ie, no carnivore dieting, which was my point in the first place.
https://fcrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/FCRN_int_vs_ext_livestock.pdf
You initially agreed that feedlot cattle are unsustainable so I’m not sure why grass fed being just equally as unsustainable is ok.
I don't want to go back and read them so I'll take your word for it that grass fed cows have more farts or farting opportunities.
I don't believe I said that cows are unsustainable. I agreed that their Methane can have a big impact on the environment. I'm still going to eat beef though because I believe eating read meat is good for me. I will eat other red meats when I can afford them. I'm not willing to go back to a diet that will negatively, and noticeably, impact my health, for the sake of possibly helping reduce environmental impact to the Earth.
I have heard anecdotally that vegetarians fart more than cranivores - so it’s not all pro’s not eating beef
LOL It's true! Fibre = farts.
7 -
Mandylou19912014 wrote: »This discussion was created from replies split from: No carb diet.
If you want to debate the pros or cons of a meat only diet this is the place.
I accidentally deleted a few comments related to eating raw organs for vitamin C. Sorry about that. To those who wanted to pursue that train of thought you will have to start that part over again.
4legs
MFP mod
I think you can achieve good results and remain healthy if you were to only eat meat, you’d probably become constipated at some point but other than that I can’t see how it would be bad for you
Let's see, you get no fiber, constipation, probably hard stool that makes you *kitten* bricks and leaves your *kitten* bleeding on the rare occasion that you do go in the bathroom, no micronutrients therefore all hell breaks loose with your immune system....tell me how great that diet will make you feel?
Go look up most meat products in the USDA database - the micronutrients are there - they just don't show up on most food labels. As for constipation - not an issue, fat works the same way as fiber in moving things along and keeping things 'softened'.
ETA - a person on an all meat diet also requires much less vitamin C than a person who eats carbs because glucose and vitamin C compete for the same metabolic pathways - i.e. less glucose makes consumed vitamin C more bio-available to the body.
You're right about that, I just read more on it. I'll give you that, but consuming meat every day also increases your risk of colon cancer. I mean if that's the only way a person can stick to a caloric deficit and does this diet short term, I don't see the issue apart from constipation, but long term, I am not that convinced that it has any major benefits.
I think that statistic, that processed meats raises your risk of colon cancer from 5-6%, is for processed meats. Red meats are basically just suspected of having an effect, and that's it at this point (as I understand it as a group 2A). The are unsure if it is the meat of the food prep and cooking techniques that could possibly have an effect, if it does have an effect.
Eating red meat has not yet been established as a cause of cancer. However, if the reported associations were proven to be causal, the Global Burden of Disease Project has estimated that diets high in red meat could be responsible for 50 000 cancer deaths per year worldwide.
http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/1 -
-
tennisdude2004 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »Considering how resource intensive beef production is, I think this is an extremely irresponsible way of eating.
For factory farming, I completely agree.
If one converted all those corn and soy farms into pasture, with perennial grasses instead of agricultural monocrop farms, then beef would be more sustainable. Better yet, farm bison and other grazer's which are easier on the grass (nibble off the tops rather than rip the grass out) and let the pigs and chicken roam with them.
This is a myth. Yes, ruminants are a natural part of certain ecosystems but we cannot graze enough cattle to match current beef production without a massive environmental toll. Cows create lots of greenhouse gas just by existing.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2149220-grass-fed-beef-is-bad-for-the-planet-and-causes-climate-change/
ETA plus grass fed cattle and game like bison are much lower in fat than corn-fed cattle. I’m curious, how does promoting grass fed mesh with very high fat diets?
So are you saying that if all the farms that grow the corn and crops were converted to grazing land, that there wouldn't be enough food for all the cattle that live off of that same land right now? I don't quite agree with that, but if you have something to share that shows a perennial field of grasses like rye, Timothy or alfalfa could not support the same amount of cattle that a monocrop of corn, which is turned over every year with water and soil preserving deep roots lost, as well as numerous natural organisms plowed under or sprayed with pesticides, then I'd be happy to look at it. I could be wrong, but I doubt grazing animals would have any greater environmental impact than the same number of factory farmed animals.
To your question, leaner animals are not a problem in a low carb diet. These diets can go from low to high protein. It is not unusual to see fat and protein grams set the same. If one really needs more fat, they can add a pat of garlic butter to their steak. I still eat lean chicken breast, I just prefer salmon and beef.
I said the environmental impact would be huge, not that there wouldn't be enough land. I have no idea if there would be enough land in that situation, and your hypothetical also presupposes that everyone would be ok giving up all 'crops' (a term that includes broccoli, berries, and spinach) so they can exclusively eat beef. I definitely would not want that!
If you look at the link I posted before, it explains that grass-fed beef has a larger carbon footprint than grain-fed. This is not the same as saying there isn't enough space to feed them all (although my instinct as someone with an academic background in environmental studies says that this is also the case). This is because grass diets promote more methane production and because grass fed animals live longer, the cows have more time to emit their turbo-powered greenhouse gas farts into the atmosphere. Carbon sequestration does not do enough to bring the footprint of grass-fed cows down to the foot-print of grain-fed cows.
Here are a couple more articles that discuss the impact of grass-fed beef on the environment-
https://fcrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/project-files/fcrn_gnc_summary.pdf
http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2010/04/08/grass-fed-beef-packs-a-punch-to-environment/
I'm not saying that CAFOs are a great way to produce beef. I think ultimately the solution to the environmental impact of livestock will be lab-grown meat. But until then, I think the most responsible thing to do is to limit meat consumption and treat beef and lamb like the luxuries they are.
As an aside, alfalfa is one of the most water intensive crops there is. It's not a less resource intensive food source for cows.
We're getting off topic, but it is interesting.
I looked at the articles you mentioned. I absolutely agree that their farts are methane sources. No argument there.
My disagreement came from when you said " we cannot graze enough cattle to match current beef production without a massive environmental toll". Did you mean that continuing the current production will lead to an environmental toll (methane farts)? Because I think grazing cattle, or other animals would be of a similar, or slightly reduced, environmental impact.
I could be approaching this from too much of my local perspective. I live at the edge of the semi arid foothills of the Rockies. Growing much beyond canola or hay requires some sort of water system. On government land there are cattle leases where the cows wander through the foothills, eat, get fat, and occasionally eaten by wolves. Once you go east, its canola, hay then feed lots. We have a lot of beef here. I think more of it could be wandering and pasture fed. I'm not talking about clear cutting a pasture ( or for a corn crop), but having them in the grasslands and foothills works here. In other places, I imagine it would be more of an impact.
Most of the beef we've eaten we've butchered at a family member's farm. The cows wandered the pastures and were given hay bales in the winter. The field had multiple types of grasses in it ( not monocrop). Their pasture did not take away from other food crops.
IDK. I eat meat. I'm meant to eat meat. I am healthiest when meat makes up a large portion of my diet. I'll eat other meats if they are available and affordable. I am not going to stop eating meat to save the environment but if I could purchase more sustainable meats I would do so. My family of 5 typically eats about one cow and one pig a year. Sometimes there is deer on top of that as well as the salmon we've caught.
On the bright side, my family helps the environment by not consuming grains and sugar.
I don't think everyone should eat meat heavy (never mind only meat) but some people do better that way, just like I don't think everyone should be vegetarian but some do better that way.
I firmly believe dietary guidelines should be for creating good health and not due to environmental concerns.
My point, as shown by the studies in the articles I linked to, is that even when taking carbon sequestration and the footprint of feed into account, grass-fed cattle create higher levels of greenhouse emissions than grain-fed cattle do over their lifetimes.
Let's say that grass-fed cattle make 3 tons of methane a year, and grain-fed make 2 tons (made up numbers to illustrate point). Farmer Joe has a herd of 100 grain-fed cattle and he decides to start grass-feeding his cattle so they get to roam and graze the natural grasslands and get hay in the winter. That same 100 cow herd that was making 200 tons of methane a year is now making 300 tons of methane a year because of his decision.
I know it's not intuitive because small scale pasture farming like what you are describing is much nicer to look at and far less cruel to the cow. But carbon emissions are invisible, and they cause major problems whether or not you can see them.
I'm not saying anyone must change their diet. I eat poultry and cheese several times a week, I eat yogurt, heck, I still eat beef! But beef occupies the same space in my diet that lobster and chanterelle mushrooms do. Everyone makes these types of tradeoffs every single day. But it's important to be educated on what science shows is legitimately the lower impact option so your choice is informed.
I did not get the bolded from those articles. They discussed how clear cutting to get a pasture is hard on the environment, but the places where cattle should roam don't need to be clear cut. It mentioned how the cattle would hurt the water supply but I have a hard time imagining how ponds and streams would be that affected, plus I imagine most farms would have to make a pond or provide water as most would not have a stream running through them.
I did not see where it said a grass fed/grazing cow makes more methane than one who eats grains or corn. If I missed it, I'll re read it - I did read it quickly. I assume that if grain fed, feedlot cow makes 3 tons methane, then the grazing cow would also make 3 tons methane.
Read them again. The process of rumination makes more methane when cows eat grass rather than grain. Plus grass fed cows live longer before slaughter so there is more time for them to make methane. If you are very interested in this topic, here is a short, thorough report comparing pasture and grain-feeding production methods. They go over greenhouse gas emissions for both and conclude that raising animals on land that cannot be cultivated for crops is best, but meat demand must go down to do that. Ie, no carnivore dieting, which was my point in the first place.
https://fcrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/FCRN_int_vs_ext_livestock.pdf
You initially agreed that feedlot cattle are unsustainable so I’m not sure why grass fed being just equally as unsustainable is ok.
I don't want to go back and read them so I'll take your word for it that grass fed cows have more farts or farting opportunities.
I don't believe I said that cows are unsustainable. I agreed that their Methane can have a big impact on the environment. I'm still going to eat beef though because I believe eating read meat is good for me. I will eat other red meats when I can afford them. I'm not willing to go back to a diet that will negatively, and noticeably, impact my health, for the sake of possibly helping reduce environmental impact to the Earth.
I have heard anecdotally that vegetarians fart more than cranivores - so it’s not all pro’s not eating beef
I know we shouldn't laugh at typos - but "cranivores" made me think there are people out there eating nothing but cranberries and I wondered if they would ruin Thanksgiving by hording all the cranberries. 8 -
otennisdude2004 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »Considering how resource intensive beef production is, I think this is an extremely irresponsible way of eating.
For factory farming, I completely agree.
If one converted all those corn and soy farms into pasture, with perennial grasses instead of agricultural monocrop farms, then beef would be more sustainable. Better yet, farm bison and other grazer's which are easier on the grass (nibble off the tops rather than rip the grass out) and let the pigs and chicken roam with them.
This is a myth. Yes, ruminants are a natural part of certain ecosystems but we cannot graze enough cattle to match current beef production without a massive environmental toll. Cows create lots of greenhouse gas just by existing.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2149220-grass-fed-beef-is-bad-for-the-planet-and-causes-climate-change/
ETA plus grass fed cattle and game like bison are much lower in fat than corn-fed cattle. I’m curious, how does promoting grass fed mesh with very high fat diets?
So are you saying that if all the farms that grow the corn and crops were converted to grazing land, that there wouldn't be enough food for all the cattle that live off of that same land right now? I don't quite agree with that, but if you have something to share that shows a perennial field of grasses like rye, Timothy or alfalfa could not support the same amount of cattle that a monocrop of corn, which is turned over every year with water and soil preserving deep roots lost, as well as numerous natural organisms plowed under or sprayed with pesticides, then I'd be happy to look at it. I could be wrong, but I doubt grazing animals would have any greater environmental impact than the same number of factory farmed animals.
To your question, leaner animals are not a problem in a low carb diet. These diets can go from low to high protein. It is not unusual to see fat and protein grams set the same. If one really needs more fat, they can add a pat of garlic butter to their steak. I still eat lean chicken breast, I just prefer salmon and beef.
I said the environmental impact would be huge, not that there wouldn't be enough land. I have no idea if there would be enough land in that situation, and your hypothetical also presupposes that everyone would be ok giving up all 'crops' (a term that includes broccoli, berries, and spinach) so they can exclusively eat beef. I definitely would not want that!
If you look at the link I posted before, it explains that grass-fed beef has a larger carbon footprint than grain-fed. This is not the same as saying there isn't enough space to feed them all (although my instinct as someone with an academic background in environmental studies says that this is also the case). This is because grass diets promote more methane production and because grass fed animals live longer, the cows have more time to emit their turbo-powered greenhouse gas farts into the atmosphere. Carbon sequestration does not do enough to bring the footprint of grass-fed cows down to the foot-print of grain-fed cows.
Here are a couple more articles that discuss the impact of grass-fed beef on the environment-
https://fcrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/project-files/fcrn_gnc_summary.pdf
http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2010/04/08/grass-fed-beef-packs-a-punch-to-environment/
I'm not saying that CAFOs are a great way to produce beef. I think ultimately the solution to the environmental impact of livestock will be lab-grown meat. But until then, I think the most responsible thing to do is to limit meat consumption and treat beef and lamb like the luxuries they are.
As an aside, alfalfa is one of the most water intensive crops there is. It's not a less resource intensive food source for cows.
We're getting off topic, but it is interesting.
I looked at the articles you mentioned. I absolutely agree that their farts are methane sources. No argument there.
My disagreement came from when you said " we cannot graze enough cattle to match current beef production without a massive environmental toll". Did you mean that continuing the current production will lead to an environmental toll (methane farts)? Because I think grazing cattle, or other animals would be of a similar, or slightly reduced, environmental impact.
I could be approaching this from too much of my local perspective. I live at the edge of the semi arid foothills of the Rockies. Growing much beyond canola or hay requires some sort of water system. On government land there are cattle leases where the cows wander through the foothills, eat, get fat, and occasionally eaten by wolves. Once you go east, its canola, hay then feed lots. We have a lot of beef here. I think more of it could be wandering and pasture fed. I'm not talking about clear cutting a pasture ( or for a corn crop), but having them in the grasslands and foothills works here. In other places, I imagine it would be more of an impact.
Most of the beef we've eaten we've butchered at a family member's farm. The cows wandered the pastures and were given hay bales in the winter. The field had multiple types of grasses in it ( not monocrop). Their pasture did not take away from other food crops.
IDK. I eat meat. I'm meant to eat meat. I am healthiest when meat makes up a large portion of my diet. I'll eat other meats if they are available and affordable. I am not going to stop eating meat to save the environment but if I could purchase more sustainable meats I would do so. My family of 5 typically eats about one cow and one pig a year. Sometimes there is deer on top of that as well as the salmon we've caught.
On the bright side, my family helps the environment by not consuming grains and sugar.
I don't think everyone should eat meat heavy (never mind only meat) but some people do better that way, just like I don't think everyone should be vegetarian but some do better that way.
I firmly believe dietary guidelines should be for creating good health and not due to environmental concerns.
My point, as shown by the studies in the articles I linked to, is that even when taking carbon sequestration and the footprint of feed into account, grass-fed cattle create higher levels of greenhouse emissions than grain-fed cattle do over their lifetimes.
Let's say that grass-fed cattle make 3 tons of methane a year, and grain-fed make 2 tons (made up numbers to illustrate point). Farmer Joe has a herd of 100 grain-fed cattle and he decides to start grass-feeding his cattle so they get to roam and graze the natural grasslands and get hay in the winter. That same 100 cow herd that was making 200 tons of methane a year is now making 300 tons of methane a year because of his decision.
I know it's not intuitive because small scale pasture farming like what you are describing is much nicer to look at and far less cruel to the cow. But carbon emissions are invisible, and they cause major problems whether or not you can see them.
I'm not saying anyone must change their diet. I eat poultry and cheese several times a week, I eat yogurt, heck, I still eat beef! But beef occupies the same space in my diet that lobster and chanterelle mushrooms do. Everyone makes these types of tradeoffs every single day. But it's important to be educated on what science shows is legitimately the lower impact option so your choice is informed.
I did not get the bolded from those articles. They discussed how clear cutting to get a pasture is hard on the environment, but the places where cattle should roam don't need to be clear cut. It mentioned how the cattle would hurt the water supply but I have a hard time imagining how ponds and streams would be that affected, plus I imagine most farms would have to make a pond or provide water as most would not have a stream running through them.
I did not see where it said a grass fed/grazing cow makes more methane than one who eats grains or corn. If I missed it, I'll re read it - I did read it quickly. I assume that if grain fed, feedlot cow makes 3 tons methane, then the grazing cow would also make 3 tons methane.
Read them again. The process of rumination makes more methane when cows eat grass rather than grain. Plus grass fed cows live longer before slaughter so there is more time for them to make methane. If you are very interested in this topic, here is a short, thorough report comparing pasture and grain-feeding production methods. They go over greenhouse gas emissions for both and conclude that raising animals on land that cannot be cultivated for crops is best, but meat demand must go down to do that. Ie, no carnivore dieting, which was my point in the first place.
https://fcrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/FCRN_int_vs_ext_livestock.pdf
You initially agreed that feedlot cattle are unsustainable so I’m not sure why grass fed being just equally as unsustainable is ok.
I don't want to go back and read them so I'll take your word for it that grass fed cows have more farts or farting opportunities.
I don't believe I said that cows are unsustainable. I agreed that their Methane can have a big impact on the environment. I'm still going to eat beef though because I believe eating read meat is good for me. I will eat other red meats when I can afford them. I'm not willing to go back to a diet that will negatively, and noticeably, impact my health, for the sake of possibly helping reduce environmental impact to the Earth.
I have heard anecdotally that vegetarians fart more than cranivores - so it’s not all pro’s not eating beef
I know we shouldn't laugh at typos - but "cranivores" made me think there are people out there eating nothing but cranberries and I wondered if they would ruin Thanksgiving by hording all the cranberries.
well spotted.
I wonder how long someone would live on a diet of just cranberries?
1 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »
otennisdude2004 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »Considering how resource intensive beef production is, I think this is an extremely irresponsible way of eating.
For factory farming, I completely agree.
If one converted all those corn and soy farms into pasture, with perennial grasses instead of agricultural monocrop farms, then beef would be more sustainable. Better yet, farm bison and other grazer's which are easier on the grass (nibble off the tops rather than rip the grass out) and let the pigs and chicken roam with them.
This is a myth. Yes, ruminants are a natural part of certain ecosystems but we cannot graze enough cattle to match current beef production without a massive environmental toll. Cows create lots of greenhouse gas just by existing.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2149220-grass-fed-beef-is-bad-for-the-planet-and-causes-climate-change/
ETA plus grass fed cattle and game like bison are much lower in fat than corn-fed cattle. I’m curious, how does promoting grass fed mesh with very high fat diets?
So are you saying that if all the farms that grow the corn and crops were converted to grazing land, that there wouldn't be enough food for all the cattle that live off of that same land right now? I don't quite agree with that, but if you have something to share that shows a perennial field of grasses like rye, Timothy or alfalfa could not support the same amount of cattle that a monocrop of corn, which is turned over every year with water and soil preserving deep roots lost, as well as numerous natural organisms plowed under or sprayed with pesticides, then I'd be happy to look at it. I could be wrong, but I doubt grazing animals would have any greater environmental impact than the same number of factory farmed animals.
To your question, leaner animals are not a problem in a low carb diet. These diets can go from low to high protein. It is not unusual to see fat and protein grams set the same. If one really needs more fat, they can add a pat of garlic butter to their steak. I still eat lean chicken breast, I just prefer salmon and beef.
I said the environmental impact would be huge, not that there wouldn't be enough land. I have no idea if there would be enough land in that situation, and your hypothetical also presupposes that everyone would be ok giving up all 'crops' (a term that includes broccoli, berries, and spinach) so they can exclusively eat beef. I definitely would not want that!
If you look at the link I posted before, it explains that grass-fed beef has a larger carbon footprint than grain-fed. This is not the same as saying there isn't enough space to feed them all (although my instinct as someone with an academic background in environmental studies says that this is also the case). This is because grass diets promote more methane production and because grass fed animals live longer, the cows have more time to emit their turbo-powered greenhouse gas farts into the atmosphere. Carbon sequestration does not do enough to bring the footprint of grass-fed cows down to the foot-print of grain-fed cows.
Here are a couple more articles that discuss the impact of grass-fed beef on the environment-
https://fcrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/project-files/fcrn_gnc_summary.pdf
http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2010/04/08/grass-fed-beef-packs-a-punch-to-environment/
I'm not saying that CAFOs are a great way to produce beef. I think ultimately the solution to the environmental impact of livestock will be lab-grown meat. But until then, I think the most responsible thing to do is to limit meat consumption and treat beef and lamb like the luxuries they are.
As an aside, alfalfa is one of the most water intensive crops there is. It's not a less resource intensive food source for cows.
We're getting off topic, but it is interesting.
I looked at the articles you mentioned. I absolutely agree that their farts are methane sources. No argument there.
My disagreement came from when you said " we cannot graze enough cattle to match current beef production without a massive environmental toll". Did you mean that continuing the current production will lead to an environmental toll (methane farts)? Because I think grazing cattle, or other animals would be of a similar, or slightly reduced, environmental impact.
I could be approaching this from too much of my local perspective. I live at the edge of the semi arid foothills of the Rockies. Growing much beyond canola or hay requires some sort of water system. On government land there are cattle leases where the cows wander through the foothills, eat, get fat, and occasionally eaten by wolves. Once you go east, its canola, hay then feed lots. We have a lot of beef here. I think more of it could be wandering and pasture fed. I'm not talking about clear cutting a pasture ( or for a corn crop), but having them in the grasslands and foothills works here. In other places, I imagine it would be more of an impact.
Most of the beef we've eaten we've butchered at a family member's farm. The cows wandered the pastures and were given hay bales in the winter. The field had multiple types of grasses in it ( not monocrop). Their pasture did not take away from other food crops.
IDK. I eat meat. I'm meant to eat meat. I am healthiest when meat makes up a large portion of my diet. I'll eat other meats if they are available and affordable. I am not going to stop eating meat to save the environment but if I could purchase more sustainable meats I would do so. My family of 5 typically eats about one cow and one pig a year. Sometimes there is deer on top of that as well as the salmon we've caught.
On the bright side, my family helps the environment by not consuming grains and sugar.
I don't think everyone should eat meat heavy (never mind only meat) but some people do better that way, just like I don't think everyone should be vegetarian but some do better that way.
I firmly believe dietary guidelines should be for creating good health and not due to environmental concerns.
My point, as shown by the studies in the articles I linked to, is that even when taking carbon sequestration and the footprint of feed into account, grass-fed cattle create higher levels of greenhouse emissions than grain-fed cattle do over their lifetimes.
Let's say that grass-fed cattle make 3 tons of methane a year, and grain-fed make 2 tons (made up numbers to illustrate point). Farmer Joe has a herd of 100 grain-fed cattle and he decides to start grass-feeding his cattle so they get to roam and graze the natural grasslands and get hay in the winter. That same 100 cow herd that was making 200 tons of methane a year is now making 300 tons of methane a year because of his decision.
I know it's not intuitive because small scale pasture farming like what you are describing is much nicer to look at and far less cruel to the cow. But carbon emissions are invisible, and they cause major problems whether or not you can see them.
I'm not saying anyone must change their diet. I eat poultry and cheese several times a week, I eat yogurt, heck, I still eat beef! But beef occupies the same space in my diet that lobster and chanterelle mushrooms do. Everyone makes these types of tradeoffs every single day. But it's important to be educated on what science shows is legitimately the lower impact option so your choice is informed.
I did not get the bolded from those articles. They discussed how clear cutting to get a pasture is hard on the environment, but the places where cattle should roam don't need to be clear cut. It mentioned how the cattle would hurt the water supply but I have a hard time imagining how ponds and streams would be that affected, plus I imagine most farms would have to make a pond or provide water as most would not have a stream running through them.
I did not see where it said a grass fed/grazing cow makes more methane than one who eats grains or corn. If I missed it, I'll re read it - I did read it quickly. I assume that if grain fed, feedlot cow makes 3 tons methane, then the grazing cow would also make 3 tons methane.
Read them again. The process of rumination makes more methane when cows eat grass rather than grain. Plus grass fed cows live longer before slaughter so there is more time for them to make methane. If you are very interested in this topic, here is a short, thorough report comparing pasture and grain-feeding production methods. They go over greenhouse gas emissions for both and conclude that raising animals on land that cannot be cultivated for crops is best, but meat demand must go down to do that. Ie, no carnivore dieting, which was my point in the first place.
https://fcrn.org.uk/sites/default/files/FCRN_int_vs_ext_livestock.pdf
You initially agreed that feedlot cattle are unsustainable so I’m not sure why grass fed being just equally as unsustainable is ok.
I don't want to go back and read them so I'll take your word for it that grass fed cows have more farts or farting opportunities.
I don't believe I said that cows are unsustainable. I agreed that their Methane can have a big impact on the environment. I'm still going to eat beef though because I believe eating read meat is good for me. I will eat other red meats when I can afford them. I'm not willing to go back to a diet that will negatively, and noticeably, impact my health, for the sake of possibly helping reduce environmental impact to the Earth.
I have heard anecdotally that vegetarians fart more than cranivores - so it’s not all pro’s not eating beef
I know we shouldn't laugh at typos - but "cranivores" made me think there are people out there eating nothing but cranberries and I wondered if they would ruin Thanksgiving by hording all the cranberries. well spotted.
I wonder how long someone would live on a diet of just cranberries?
No Vitamin D or B12. Very low on protein. 29 cups of fresh cranberries = 1334 calories (obviously if you are trying to maintain, you would need to eat more).
6
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0O_VYcsIk8
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 914 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions