Enviornmental Impact of Raising Livestock

I work in the environmental field, albeit industrial focused. I consider it to be likely. What do I do? I eat less meat in general, and most of my meat consumption is poultry. This benefits me either way, since poultry is leaner and less expensive than beef. Will that really help, environmentally? Maybe.

French_Peasant wrote: »

It is also interesting that the article blames *meat* for heart issues and fatness, which is just ridiculous. That part to me feels like propaganda and ties in with the articles I see my more aggressive vegan acquaintances posting to the facebooks and infused throughout the media, and even here--I am thinking particularly of one of the dairy threads where a link was posted to a sciency-appearing site with a scary study saying we're all going to die from dairy and meat, when it was actually a very slick vegan propaganda group. (Not to pick on vegans, many of whom I admire! Some can just be somewhat shrill--and hence less than persuasive--in their educational efforts.)

This is true, although as I noted above I don't see it with vegans I know personally, but people on the internet.

I think it's unfortunate, as that kind of things loses credibility and as a result I tend to take everything from certain sources with extreme skepticism.

(Although in the current world starting with skepticism probably isn't a bad idea.)

Jules_farmgirl wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

OP isn't a vegan, so I'm curious as to why you've decided to direct your comments to vegetarians and vegans here.

That said, one reason why so many products have animal byproducts is that those who raise animals for money often offer the byproducts at a cheap price in order to maximize profit by selling every part of the animal. In a world where byproducts were not so prevalent, we might easily develop alternatives to using animal products for things like fabric softener and shampoo (which are both relatively easy to source animal product-free versions of, by the way -- vegans are already aware of how prevalent byproducts are in everyday products).

There may be legitimate arguments against veganism, but "shampoo often has animal products in it" isn't one of them.

OP asked for thoughts. I said my thoughts. In my life, where I live and what I do, the arguments on the environment and meat production always revolves around either GMO-free or Vegans/vegetarians. We sell our byproducts not only as a way to maximize profit, but to reduce waste. 100 years ago, all parts of the animals were still used, just like today. the difference? How those byproducts are now manufactured. Instead of using whale oil to put in a lamp, we are using pig fats to create our beauty products. They have always been used in one way or another.

This is a debate forum. So "debate and debunk". Don't simply say I have no legit ground, as I have done my research for my job.

I didn't say *you* had no legitimate ground, I said I didn't think the article you presented was a legitimate argument against veganism.

The fact that animal byproduct use is prevalent isn't a reason to not do what we can to avoid unnecessary animal exploitation (if it is something that we don't feel is appropriate). It simply means that those who oppose such exploitation may have to be more vigilant than they initially thought they would.

Maximizing profit and reducing waste go hand-in-hand in business. Anything you can't sell, you will have to dispose of (and disposing often carries additional costs). I understand that animal byproducts have always been used -- the question is whether or not there is an environmental impact to eating as much meat as we do. I think the whole "shampoo often has animal products in it" argument isn't really relevant to the conversation and your (apparent) belief that vegans aren't aware of the widespread use of animal byproducts doesn't match my own experiences or what I've observed in vegans I know.

I agree with @janejellyroll that every vegan I have known has had a minute, detailed, encyclopedic knowledge of which products do and do not contain animal products.

French_Peasant wrote: »

As stated above, I have less concern about US (or, say, Argentine)-raised beeves than I do about meats coming from delicate ecosystems like the Amazon. The US and Canada, after all, supported a herd of 60,000,000 buffalo on our vast grasslands; we still support a large herd of beeves (including some buffalo), some of whom are directly grass-fed, but all of whom are still supported by the produce from the grasslands, just in the format of one particular super-grass, corn (both grain and silage).

It is kind of eye-opening to think that actually, as this article notes, industrially-raised feedlot/dairy herds might be the more efficient environmental option, especially as there is a push to capture and re-use the methane produced from the waste process (bio-gas recovery has the potential to provide additional income streams for farmers). It also makes me sad, as I like to support the farms with the cows relaxing in the fields and the pigs running through the woods. Although the article is highlighting first world industrial results with the results of cows attempting to scrounge for sustenance in fairly brutal conditions; proper high-quality temperate pasturage likely puts things on a more even footing.

It is also interesting that the article blames *meat* for heart issues and fatness, which is just ridiculous. That part to me feels like propaganda and ties in with the articles I see my more aggressive vegan acquaintances posting to the facebooks and infused throughout the media, and even here--I am thinking particularly of one of the dairy threads where a link was posted to a sciency-appearing site with a scary study saying we're all going to die from dairy and meat, when it was actually a very slick vegan propaganda group. (Not to pick on vegans, many of whom I admire! Some can just be somewhat shrill--and hence less than persuasive--in their educational efforts.)

I'm going to preface this by saying that I hope I've posted here enough for people to know I'm not into demonizing any specific food, and I don't believe specific foods are responsible for our health or our waistlines. That said, Americans consume an astounding amount of fatty meat, and I don't think it's a stretch to say reducing how much meat, especially beef, Americans consume can contribute to improving our health. I didn't interpret the article as blaming meat for health issues...more like acknowledging our high consumption is a contributing factor to our current state.

This is an article/video about the impact the number of hamburgers - 50 billion hamburgers - Americans consume per year has on the environment. It feels a little more like propaganda, but sources are cited in the transcript if anyone wants to dig deeper. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/the-hidden-costs-of-hamburgers/

My personal view: I believe the article. These are stats I've heard for years. However, I struggle with what's good for the environment vs. what's healthy for me personally, and during the periods where I've eaten vegetarian, I've had an extremely difficult time getting adequate protein while staying at my calorie goal. I know it's possible with planning and practice, but I'm not there yet. So for now, I don't consume much red meat, though I'll have a burger or a lamb chop from time to time. Chicken and pork are more affordable and give me more protein for the calories than beef or lamb. I think more people, at least from my generation, are choosing to eat this way due to environmental concerns, and while I hope it makes a difference, we may have already done too much damage. Time will tell.

snickerscharlie wrote: »

Interesting topic!

J72FIT wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

J72FIT wrote: »

trigden1991 wrote: »

I have read similar before but in my opinion bacon is worth it.

Do you believe the article?

I like bacon as well though I don't eat it often so environmentally speaking it does not bother me to buy it. But for other animal products that I eat every day I am starting to question...

I've read stuff like that enough from a variety of sources that I do believe it, but the question is what it means. For example, if you are buying food in the US (or a specific location), what really does minimize carbon footprint in terms of actions -- just reducing meat alone might not do it, as it depends on what it's replaced with (for me eating less meat tends to be a positive goal, though, although I've found that's a trade-off in some ways, at least so far).

I keep meaning to actually figure out the environmental affects of the various choices available to me, but admittedly haven't really done that yet.

If I'm understanding the article, replacing red meat (cattle-larger animals) with pork and chicken (smaller animals) would help since it requires less energy to make them grow...

But how many chickens would it take to equal one cow, in terms of pounds of meat produced? And if compared on that basis is one *still* significantly less impactful than the other? It's all very convoluted and open to biased interpretation by evangelists on either side.

Which is why I'm currently in the middle, because I haven't had access to enough unbiased material to make an educated personal decision one way or the other, and quite frankly, the minutiae of it all is, for now at least, above my interest level and attention span.

I do limit the amount of red meat I eat, but that's more of a conscious decision based on cost than a morally-driven one. Especially since I can get my lean protein from chicken which I love. But there's nothing in the world that compares to the occasional broiled steak. Especially if wrapped in bacon.

On a different but related topic that will often go hand-in-hand with this one, is the mind-boggling amount of material available on both sides of the "organic versus traditional" produce farming conundrum. Is one clearly better for the environment than the other? How important is crop yield in the overall picture, one that includes feeding the world and not just those who can afford organic produce? Is all organic produce really 'better' for you, or are some more likely to be of benefit than others?

These are things that don't currently keep me up at night, but perhaps they should.

To the bolded: http://www.pnas.org/content/111/33/11996.abstract
Per kg of protein, beef production uses 28 times more land, 11 times more water, emits 5 times more greenhouse gas, and produces 6 times more reactive nitrogen.

chocolate_owl wrote: »

French_Peasant wrote: »

As stated above, I have less concern about US (or, say, Argentine)-raised beeves than I do about meats coming from delicate ecosystems like the Amazon. The US and Canada, after all, supported a herd of 60,000,000 buffalo on our vast grasslands; we still support a large herd of beeves (including some buffalo), some of whom are directly grass-fed, but all of whom are still supported by the produce from the grasslands, just in the format of one particular super-grass, corn (both grain and silage).

It is kind of eye-opening to think that actually, as this article notes, industrially-raised feedlot/dairy herds might be the more efficient environmental option, especially as there is a push to capture and re-use the methane produced from the waste process (bio-gas recovery has the potential to provide additional income streams for farmers). It also makes me sad, as I like to support the farms with the cows relaxing in the fields and the pigs running through the woods. Although the article is highlighting first world industrial results with the results of cows attempting to scrounge for sustenance in fairly brutal conditions; proper high-quality temperate pasturage likely puts things on a more even footing.

It is also interesting that the article blames *meat* for heart issues and fatness, which is just ridiculous. That part to me feels like propaganda and ties in with the articles I see my more aggressive vegan acquaintances posting to the facebooks and infused throughout the media, and even here--I am thinking particularly of one of the dairy threads where a link was posted to a sciency-appearing site with a scary study saying we're all going to die from dairy and meat, when it was actually a very slick vegan propaganda group. (Not to pick on vegans, many of whom I admire! Some can just be somewhat shrill--and hence less than persuasive--in their educational efforts.)

I'm going to preface this by saying that I hope I've posted here enough for people to know I'm not into demonizing any specific food, and I don't believe specific foods are responsible for our health or our waistlines. That said, Americans consume an astounding amount of fatty meat, and I don't think it's a stretch to say reducing how much meat, especially beef, Americans consume can contribute to improving our health. I didn't interpret the article as blaming meat for health issues...more like acknowledging our high consumption is a contributing factor to our current state.

This is an article/video about the impact the number of hamburgers - 50 billion hamburgers - Americans consume per year has on the environment. It feels a little more like propaganda, but sources are cited in the transcript if anyone wants to dig deeper. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/the-hidden-costs-of-hamburgers/

My personal view: I believe the article. These are stats I've heard for years. However, I struggle with what's good for the environment vs. what's healthy for me personally, and during the periods where I've eaten vegetarian, I've had an extremely difficult time getting adequate protein while staying at my calorie goal. I know it's possible with planning and practice, but I'm not there yet. So for now, I don't consume much red meat, though I'll have a burger or a lamb chop from time to time. Chicken and pork are more affordable and give me more protein for the calories than beef or lamb. I think more people, at least from my generation, are choosing to eat this way due to environmental concerns, and while I hope it makes a difference, we may have already done too much damage. Time will tell.

I know you wouldn't demonize any specific food...but that is exactly my point with the article. One can't plausibly isolate and blame just the burger, or any other cut of meat, or the slice of cheese, for fat Americans--it's also the bun, the fries, the large shake, and the "apple pie" that contribute to an insane number of calories that lead to so many fat Americans and weight problems. In that list, the ground beef probably has the *best* nutritional profile. All things being equal, if people are getting the full fast food meal deal, replacing the burger with the chicken sammich isn't going to make much of an improvement.

There is of course a grain of truth that fatty low quality meat may be contributing some problems, but to isolate that outside of the context of ALL the calories is what I am scoffing at, especially as the article is lamenting that such a small percentage of food-producing land is dedicated to "grains, fruits and vegetables that are directly fed to human beings" i.e, all the ingredients that comprise the bun, fries, and apple pie, from cellulose to HFCS to crappy fats (when the vision that phrase instills is lovely plots of kale, broccoli, and picturesque apple trees...and doesn't account for the fat that a huge swath of food-producing land is scrubby desert supporting goats*). I think consuming less of EVERYTHING (except veggies) would be the greatest contributor to Americans' health in general.

I think it was actually kind of a throwaway line at the end, but it is, as they say in poker, a "tell" as to the article's and author's bias and beliefs. To me, it starts to become propaganda, or at least suspicious, when one food is demonized, and other equally-if-not-more problematic foods given a halo.

*Another tell is the odd fascination with cows in Africa rather than goats. It takes a special breed of cow to prosper in Africa, and it ain't Holsteins and Angus. Also, and maybe I'm going out on a limb here, when you kill off or drive out all of your farmers in the "breadbasket of Africa," production rates might get a little shaky. So, the closer I look, the more squirrelly the comparisons between Africa and the US become. Facts are facts, but shenanigans can happen in how you highlight, compare, and suppress the different facts.

business will make more then they can sell, so they will advertise more, they will donate to campaigns to lobby for agencys to advocate that we all can eat more and still be healthy, all so there is more profits, the feds that regulate are bought and paid for by the business, the envoirnment is not a priority nor important, not only the envoirnment is being destroyed but more or equally our health as people is terrible most people over weight and reaking havoc on the health/medical system is bankrupt as well. all because we are told by bussineses to eat more unhealthy stuff that wrecks the envoirnment and our health so they can make more money and our society can continue to roll on.
i have read that people could live many years longer if they eat less calories such as 1000 a day and no animals stuff, if living longer where a bussiness then there would be money invested in it then we would all be living to be 150 years old and we would not be eating animals or probably most of what is normal in the USA currently, but living long is not a biz so diabetes is soon to be a comon thing for young kids in USA. just in case someone wants to hate my post i eat doritos and cheeseburgers and bacon & eggs etc. but i have been conditioned this way so its hard to break the cycle alone.

Jules_farmgirl wrote: »

To anyone that reads this that is a vegetarian or vegan... this one is for you (oh and this is just a very SMALL list)

http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/9-everyday-products-you-didnt-know-had-animal-ingredients.html

Jules_farmgirl wrote: »

**Please note that I have no issue with those who don't eat meat, that is a personal choice. My issue comes when someone tries to lecture without knowing the facts.

As an aside, I think you're making an assumption about the motivations of vegetarians & vegans. I suspect you're correct for many cases, but - just like omnivores - we do lack universal hive-mind. Heck, I was happily married to an omnivore/hunter for 20+ years (widowed, not divorced ).

My original motivations for vegetarianism - 43 years ago - had more to do with adolescent whim, coupled with a concern about consuming meat grown in a system that had the animals eating much more protein than they produced, in a world that was then pretty short on the stuff. In that context - which I wouldn't try to fully defend as a decision framework today, BTW - the idea that animal byproducts are used in many ways, minimizing waste & inefficiency - that would be a plus, not a cause for alarm. And I wouldn't go out of my way to avoid those products.

But eat meat? After this many years, it just sounds kinda yucky, I don't have a clue how to store and cook it, and occasional unintentional consumption suggests that my microflora and/or enzyme complement would require some rehab in order for it to digest well. Nowadays, it's a habit, not a religion. If it has environmental benefits, so much the better.

The only eaters I view with some disdain are some who think hunters are all brutish louts, but simultaneously that "300 trillion served" (or whatever McD's is up to these days) is a fine thing indeed . . . sooo much more civilized to have under-compensated immigrants and less-educated folks do their killing for them.

But I'm drifting the thread - apologies.

Locavore-ism may be environmentally indefensible - or not, I have no idea - but dang, the produce is so much better . . . even in Michigan in mid-Winter.