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
-
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.
Maybe it's actually short for cranium. Zombies!6 -
I was lurking this thread last night and then this came across my Facebook feed last night. I then thought of this thread and was hoping JP would make an appearance. I was not disappointed.
While I like meat of many kinds, I would honestly get really bored eating a meat only diet. Although with the nutrients present in bones, organs, and the like I could see how one could be sustained off of a meat only diet.. Bone broth and organ meat stew?... I guess??? That would be a sad stew with no veggies, legumes, or grains present though.
Since I have little to contribute in means of anecdotal evidence or scientific evidence pertaining to the thread I'm going back to lurking now. It has been an interesting read.
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
But no proof? I'm doubtful, speaking as a long-term (44 years) vegetarian.
Adaptation to more fiber involves more farting . . . adapted, not so much. Anecdotally.
Theory: It's the microbiome. Feed too much fiber to too few bugs, they get all over-fed and start micro-tooting. It builds up, so the human host starts tooting, too. Keep up the fiber consumption, then the happy bugs breed lots more fiber lovin' bugs, their food supply evens out, and all is well. 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
But no proof? I'm doubtful, speaking as a long-term (44 years) vegetarian.
Adaptation to more fiber involves more farting . . . adapted, not so much. Anecdotally.
Theory: It's the microbiome. Feed too much fiber to too few bugs, they get all over-fed and start micro-tooting. It builds up, so the human host starts tooting, too. Keep up the fiber consumption, then the happy bugs breed lots more fiber lovin' bugs, their food supply evens out, and all is well.
I was being tongue in cheek with my comment.
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »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
But no proof? I'm doubtful, speaking as a long-term (44 years) vegetarian.
Adaptation to more fiber involves more farting . . . adapted, not so much. Anecdotally.
Theory: It's the microbiome. Feed too much fiber to too few bugs, they get all over-fed and start micro-tooting. It builds up, so the human host starts tooting, too. Keep up the fiber consumption, then the happy bugs breed lots more fiber lovin' bugs, their food supply evens out, and all is well.
I was being tongue in cheek with my comment.
Ditto! 2 -
I personally would find it pretty gross and excessive. I do find it fascinating too. One guy I know of in the indoor rowing community is mentioned in this article. One of the better articles I've seen on it related to the topic of a meat only diet.
https://optimisingnutrition.com/2018/03/14/dr-shawn-bakers-carnivore-diet-a-review/0 -
I do wonder how many people who would attempt a meat only diet would actually eat organ meat and brains. Most Americans I know kinda shy away from offal. In my experience most meat lovers love prime cuts of meat and wouldn't touch something like lung or brains with a ten foot pole. Heck, most people won't even eat bone marrow let alone a nice grainy chunk of nickle flavored spleen.
2 -
Serious question: for those who consider themselves to be on a meat only diet, is that also excluding herbs and spices? Even the biggest meat eaters I know enjoy seasoning their meat and many of them appreciate sauces too.0
-
jseams1234 wrote: »I do wonder how many people who would attempt a meat only diet would actually eat organ meat and brains. Most Americans I know kinda shy away from offal. In my experience most meat lovers love prime cuts of meat and wouldn't touch something like lung or brains with a ten foot pole. Heck, most people won't even eat bone marrow let alone a nice grainy chunk of nickle flavored spleen.
I'm NOT on a meat only diet, but I eat organ meat - Liver, Kidneys, Heart. (Tripe but only in soup and when drunk).
Apparently bone marrow is supposed to be nice.0 -
Actually, you don't have to eat the organ meat separately - most commercial sausage is made from the left-over bits and pieces of the animal which includes the organs (unless you are eating small-batch specialized sausages).2
-
MikePfirrman wrote: »I personally would find it pretty gross and excessive. I do find it fascinating too. One guy I know of in the indoor rowing community is mentioned in this article. One of the better articles I've seen on it related to the topic of a meat only diet.
https://optimisingnutrition.com/2018/03/14/dr-shawn-bakers-carnivore-diet-a-review/
Really interesting article! Thanks for posting it. I want to check out all of those links later today - there's a few I haven't seen.
Shawn Baker is a machine. I used to row, but what he can do is amazing.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Serious question: for those who consider themselves to be on a meat only diet, is that also excluding herbs and spices? Even the biggest meat eaters I know enjoy seasoning their meat and many of them appreciate sauces too.
Some do. Some don't. I think it varies. I know a few who don't even add salt.
I'm of the opinion that spices are probably fine. It's such small amounts. Most people who do carnivore do it for health or weight loss, and not because plants are "bad", so if some spices work for them, then they use it. If it doesn't work, then they skip it.
I am not 100% carnivore. Just mostly carnivore. For example, the last half of last week was carnivore but on Saturday I made cheeseburger pie/eggs which had ketchup in it, as well as a 1/3 of a cup of nuts. Yesterday was Canada Day and the house I was at served food that was carby. I took full advantage of the meat and cheese tray and had small helping of lasagne and salad, as well as a small serving of angel food cake with whipped cream and berries. My highest carb meal in months. I feel fine today, if not thirstier and hungrier than usual. Today will be back to basic carnivore - probably taco fillings.
Many carnivores will still drink tea and coffee, but there are some who skip even that.
3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Serious question: for those who consider themselves to be on a meat only diet, is that also excluding herbs and spices? Even the biggest meat eaters I know enjoy seasoning their meat and many of them appreciate sauces too.
Some do. Some don't. I think it varies. I know a few who don't even add salt.
I'm of the opinion that spices are probably fine. It's such small amounts. Most people who do carnivore do it for health or weight loss, and not because plants are "bad", so if some spices work for them, then they use it. If it doesn't work, then they skip it.
I am not 100% carnivore. Just mostly carnivore. For example, the last half of last week was carnivore but on Saturday I made cheeseburger pie/eggs which had ketchup in it, as well as a 1/3 of a cup of nuts. Yesterday was Canada Day and the house I was at served food that was carby. I took full advantage of the meat and cheese tray and had small helping of lasagne and salad, as well as a small serving of angel food cake with whipped cream and berries. My highest carb meal in months. I feel fine today, if not thirstier and hungrier than usual. Today will be back to basic carnivore - probably taco fillings.
Many carnivores will still drink tea and coffee, but there are some who skip even that.
Thanks for the context!
0 -
Pet peeve of mine; single answer solutions. I once argued volubly (on a TED discussion board no less) that the world's food shortage would NOT be solved by planting the world with hemp.
No doubt monoculture is harsh on the environment.
But ask a farmer, for goodness' sake! There's land ideally suited to grazing, other to crops. But to suggest that too much grazing land is polluting our planet with methane? Give me a break. The land/ruminant/predator cycle has been a highly successful and SUSTAINING ecosystem long before we started messing with it.17 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Serious question: for those who consider themselves to be on a meat only diet, is that also excluding herbs and spices? Even the biggest meat eaters I know enjoy seasoning their meat and many of them appreciate sauces too.
I use some spices, but try to keep it to a minimum. I add salt and pepper several times per week.
For sauces, I rarely use sauces and avoid anything sweetened when I do (i.e. none of that sugary ketchup or sugary BBQ sauce). Since returning to carnivore (Jan. 15, 2018), I have had:
-mayo once,
-twice have scraped off sauce left on burger patties by inattentive fast food workers (so there would have been small amounts that I couldn't scrape off)
-steak sauce (labeled as 0g carbs and main ingredient I believe is habanero) - I've gone through 1 full and a partial small bottle in the last few months. I don't eat it often, but add quite a bit when I do.4 -
Pet peeve of mine; single answer solutions. I once argued volubly (on a TED discussion board no less) that the world's food shortage would NOT be solved by planting the world with hemp.
No doubt monoculture is harsh on the environment.
But ask a farmer, for goodness' sake! There's land ideally suited to grazing, other to crops. But to suggest that too much grazing land is polluting our planet with methane? Give me a break. The land/ruminant/predator cycle has been a highly successful and SUSTAINING ecosystem long before we started messing with it.
Pffffffft. What do farmers know about farming? :laugh:
I grew up on a mixed farm. Cattle were rotated through different pastures. Type of crop was changed from one year to the next. The issues were more about financial feasibility rather than sustainability. The cost of land, the cost of equipment, the cost of supplies all make it very difficult for small farmers. You really need to be able to go big, which comes with a lot of debt and financial insecurity. At least that was the world I grew up in.
ETA: adding the "s" because I have no idea what a "mall" farmer would be.4 -
In my experience good management is also sustainable.
I consider farmers to be the biggest gamblers on the planet.2 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Serious question: for those who consider themselves to be on a meat only diet, is that also excluding herbs and spices? Even the biggest meat eaters I know enjoy seasoning their meat and many of them appreciate sauces too.
I use some spices, but try to keep it to a minimum. I add salt and pepper several times per week.
For sauces, I rarely use sauces and avoid anything sweetened when I do (i.e. none of that sugary ketchup or sugary BBQ sauce). Since returning to carnivore (Jan. 15, 2018), I have had:
-mayo once,
-twice have scraped off sauce left on burger patties by inattentive fast food workers (so there would have been small amounts that I couldn't scrape off)
-steak sauce (labeled as 0g carbs and main ingredient I believe is habanero) - I've gone through 1 full and a partial small bottle in the last few months. I don't eat it often, but add quite a bit when I do.
Thanks! It's very interesting to me, as I can't imagine eating this way (not that the limits of my imagination are particularly relevant here).0 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »I personally would find it pretty gross and excessive. I do find it fascinating too. One guy I know of in the indoor rowing community is mentioned in this article. One of the better articles I've seen on it related to the topic of a meat only diet.
https://optimisingnutrition.com/2018/03/14/dr-shawn-bakers-carnivore-diet-a-review/
Really interesting article! Thanks for posting it. I want to check out all of those links later today - there's a few I haven't seen.
Shawn Baker is a machine. I used to row, but what he can do is amazing.
No problem. One thing (though for me personally eating a lot of meat isn't my diet) I respect a lot about Shawn is that he's not over the top saying, "this is the right way"... Actually, quite the opposite. He says, and I hate to misquote him, but many of us on the C2 forums used to ask him a lot about his diet, that going nearly all animal products seemed to fly in the face of everything he learned as a doctor, but anecdotally, it works for him. He has improved performance, less inflammation and his ability to recover faster has gone through the roof.
Now, you could say that Shawn was a world class athlete before going all meat (he played professional rugby and also was a WR powerlifter years ago) but you can't argue that he's not doing bad going on all meat.
To me, people all get too dogmatic with what's THE right diet. I'm not sure anyone knows yet.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0O_VYcsIk8
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K 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
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions