In defense of grass-fed livestock

[eridani]

http://www.alternet.org/environment/141898/eating_meat_isn%27t_bad_for_the_planet%2C_it%27s_our_system_of_raising_the_animals_that%27s_wrong/?page=entire

If I butcher a steer for my food, and that steer has been raised on grass on my farm, I am not responsible for any increased CO2. The pasture-raised animal eating grass in my field is not producing CO2, merely recycling it (short term carbon cycle) as grazing animals (and human beings) have since they evolved. It is not meat eating that is responsible for increased greenhouse gasses; it is the corn/ soybean/ chemical fertilizer/ feedlot/ transportation system under which industrial animals are raised. When I think about the challenge of feeding northern New England, where I live, from our own resources, I cannot imagine being able to do that successfully without ruminant livestock able to convert the pasture grasses into food. It would not be either easy or wise to grow arable crops on the stony and/or hilly land that has served us for so long as productive pasture. By comparison with my grass fed steer, the soybeans cultivated for a vegetarian’s dinner, if done with motorized equipment, are responsible for increased CO2.

But, what about the methane in all that cattle flatulence? Excess flatulence is also a function of an unnatural diet. If cattle flatulence on a natural grazing diet were a problem, heat would have been trapped a 1000 years ago when, for example, there were 70 million buffalo in North America not to mention innumerable deer, antelope, moose, elk, caribou, and so on all eating vegetation and in turn being eaten by native Americans, wolves, mountain lions, etc. Did the methane from their digestion and the nitrous oxide from their manure cause temperatures to rise then? Or could there be other contributing factors today resulting from industrial agriculture, factors that change natural processes, which are not being taken into account?

[Xipe Totec]

1. And it tastes better too

and has less fat.

[paulsby]

2. it's also much more nutritious

cattle raised on their natural diet have a MUCH better fat profile (efa's, etc.)

now, generally speaking, i think a lot of the hysteria about red meat is crap, but it IS true that modern farming practices decrease the nutritional profile of most meats because of what the animals are fed.

this goes for farm raised salmon too. farm raised salmon does NOT have the healthy fat profile of wild salmon. heck, it's not even pink. they have to die it. the natural salmon gets it's pink hue from eating krill.

this is why wild game, generally speaking is more nutritious than farm raised animals.

also, farm raised tilapia has higher arachidonoic acid levels than beef, which is hilarious.

i am, fwiw, NOT a believer in organics. i agree with the research that claims it has no signfiicant nutritional benefit. otoh, i am a firm believer in free range and meats that are subjected to natural diets. the science is there, and so is the taste.

[excess_3]

3. is there really a taste difference? corn fed, grass fed

is there really a taste difference?

people advocating grass fed, are going to say
about corn fed, 'I can taste the corn, yuk'.

people advocating corn fed, are going to say
about grass fed, 'I can taste the grass, yuk'.

who is right?

[eilen]

4. Precisely

My husband states he does not like the taste of grass fed beef. I don't know if is merely knowing the price per pound ($13.00-$16.00) that puts his stomach off though.

[eridani]

6. Both me and hubby prefer it

We order from a family ranch. That it's more expensive is an incentive not to overdo meat consumption.

[PetrusMonsFormicarum]

8. Commercially raised beef

may sell for several dollars less a pound, but that fails to factor in the hidden costs of environmental destruction, inhumane treatment of the animals, government subsidies that your taxes pay for, etc.

[TexasProgresive]

5. There certainly is a difference

The whole beef eating thing came out of Texas after the Civil War. There were cattle running loose in the state and enterprising men rounding them up and drove them north to the rail heads. These "wild" cattle were then fed out on corn. Before that time the eating of beef was minimal.

What an animal eats has a definite effect on the taste, texture and general appearance of the meat, eggs and milk. We have become accustom to eating food that has been manipulated genetically, chemically, hormonally and then is often processed beyond recognition.

The whole CO2 and methane thing with cattle is a bit false. Grazing animals produce both and if all the cattle were eliminated the range would be replaced by deer and antelope who would continue the carbon cycle. The same is true throughout nature. Green plants take up CO2 from the air, when the die and decay the carbon is released back into the atmosphere. It is the unnatural carbon that we are releasing out of tailpipes and smokestacks that is unbalancing the system

[eridani]

7. Barbara Kingsolver describe the re-vegetation of desolate drylands--

--by Heifer International's donation of goats. A leguminous shrub does very well if eaten by goats, who provide the seeds with natural fertilizer. The land is in no way suited for grain crops.

[excess_3]

9. is any commercial beef, not 'finished in a feedlot' ? .n/t

[eridani]

12. Presumably they don't use hormones or antibiotics either

I'm sure it pays to ask the rancher, though.

[safeinOhio]

10. Come to think of it

I have never heard a buffalo fart.

[AwakeAtLast]

11. My dad still has a little bit of pasture ground left

I feel fortunate to have access to grass fed beef. The issue now is finding good butchers who are still in business.

Lots of good points, TY.

:hi:

[eridani]

13. Some smaller operations have gotten together and funded a travelling

--slaughter station.

[XemaSab]

14. Seriously

I think the stimulus money should have been used towards building a hardwood mill and a small slaughterhouse in every county in the state.

[wtmusic]

15. More steer on the planet means more CO2 in the atmosphere. Period.

Call it "short term carbon cycle" or whatever you want.

"Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars, UN report warns

"Cattle-rearing generates more global warming greenhouse gases, as measured in CO2 equivalent, than transportation, and smarter production methods, including improved animal diets to reduce enteric fermentation and consequent methane emissions, are urgently needed, according to a new United Nations report released today.

“Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems,” senior UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) official Henning Steinfeld said. “Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.”

Cattle-rearing is also a major source of land and water degradation, according to the FAO report, Livestock’s Long Shadow–Environmental Issues and Options, of which Mr. Steinfeld is the senior author."

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20772&Cr=global&Cr1=warming