meat and the environment

[ursusarctos]

Not sure where to put this, decided on this board since it's about food choices... feel free to move it if it's in the wrong place

I was reading an interview today with a local activist who insists that eating ANY animal products (including dairy) is ecologically unsustainable. I know that the meat and dairy industries as they are now produce a huge amount of waste and pollution (not to mention low-quality food), take a huge amount of energy, and doom intelligent animals to miserable lives, but I was always under the impression that organic, small-scale farming did a better job of caring for animals and was more sustainable... and I was also under the impression that limited meat/dairy consumption is at least potentially sustainable.
Anybody have information on this? I am not about to cut out animal products altogether, because I feel much healthier when I eat small amounts of meat and butter as opposed to margarine (was raised almost vegan), and it's available... but I really am curious about just how sustainable it actually is/is not. It's not an issue that people usually want to talk or even think about, and there is such a variation in claims - those who say no meat consumption is sustainable, those who say limited is, and those who say things are fine as they are now (though I'm quite skeptical of that last one).
I feel that meat is almost not worth eating if it is low quality/industrially produced, but that high quality meat/dairy/animal fat are beneficial to many people's health (some people seem to do well on a vegan diet, many don't; depends on the person I think). For sure the processed vegetable fat/low quality meat/pasteurized homogenized dairy-based diets of the people around me are doing very little good for anyone's health.
I also notice a huge amount of waste at the store. Every day, in hundreds of stores all around the country, there are huge coolers full of fresh, highly perishable meat. How much of it goes to waste? I'm willing to bet more than just a tiny fraction. Would meat production be more sustainable if everything was used, like in the past? Surely a "family pig" raised in the yard on the scraps from the table, with every part being eaten, preserved or otherwise used after slaughter, would have a smaller environmental impact than factory raised pigs fed soybeans and kept in air-conditioned cages and then turned into packaged lunch meat?
Is meat itself unsustainable, or just the way meat is currently produced and consumed? Would love to hear people's ideas on this and how it affects your food choices. Currently I usually eat about half a pound of beef per week, chicken maybe once a week if that, and fish several times. I use butter and eggs and limited yogurt/buttermilk/cheese. We don't drink milk as an everyday beverage. I get organic/local whenever I can. But is what I described actually wildly abusive to the environment? It seems some would say so... ?

BTW: I know that there are also a lot of ethical issues involved with any meat consumption, and I haven't worked those all out for myself yet. But it's such a huge discussion of its own that I'd like it if we could keep this discussion to mostly the environmental aspects of meat consumption.

[cristeen]

Originally Posted by ursusarctos

Is meat itself unsustainable, or just the way meat is currently produced and consumed? Would love to hear people's ideas on this and how it affects your food choices.

The way it's currently produced is what makes it unsustainable. From the feeding of corn and soy, to the CAFO, to the shipping cross-country to the large amount of waste which is then fed back to the animals again. And it's not just land animals - the farming of fish is also unsustainable for the same reasons... not that the over-fishing of the oceans is sustainable. Ultimately, the departure from the land, and the building up of the cities is what contributed to the unsustainability. In a city high-rise apt, you can't raise chickens or hogs or grow your own garden, nor can any of your neighbors (not enough to be sustainable). Pack hundreds of thousands or millions of people into these situations, and you have a recipe for ecological problems - from waste management of all those people in such a small space, to water supply, to food. It's just that the food happens to be the one that gets the attention.

For my own sake (both environmental and health reasons) I buy locally grown, pastured meat and animal products - beef, pork, chicken, lamb, eggs, raw milk. The meat is all from "heirloom" breeds of animals that were originally bred for practical things like hardiness. The things I struggle with are butter and cheese - I can get (but not afford) local raw pastured butter. My compromise is to buy pastured cheese and butter, even though it may not be raw, and it's definitely not local (I can get some local cheeses, but again they're expensive). Ultimately I'd like to be able to raise my own goats (or maybe strike a deal with my cousin who now has 7), so that milk, butter and cheese wouldn't be such an issue.

[katiesk]

i think ideally, if people wanted to eat meat and animal products, they would raise and make their own.

where i live, the majority of meat we eat is game. and we eat alot of fish that we catch.

obviously, these options are not possible for everyone, but the good alternative is to buy from local farmers, etc.

much much more sustainable.

also - to eat less meat and animal products....it seems like people a giant excess of these things.

[Alyantavid]

The way it's currently produced is what makes it unsustainable. From the feeding of corn and soy, to the CAFO, to the shipping cross-country to the large amount of waste which is then fed back to the animals again. And it's not just land animals - the farming of fish is also unsustainable for the same reasons... not that the over-fishing of the oceans is sustainable. Ultimately, the departure from the land, and the building up of the cities is what contributed to the unsustainability. In a city high-rise apt, you can't raise chickens or hogs or grow your own garden, nor can any of your neighbors (not enough to be sustainable). Pack hundreds of thousands or millions of people into these situations, and you have a recipe for ecological problems - from waste management of all those people in such a small space, to water supply, to food. It's just that the food happens to be the one that gets the attention.

Yeah that.

We try to eat meat sustainably. We have a cow, her baby and a steer. They live in our pasture, fertilizing away. We feed them any waste from our trees and garden and they eat grass or hay the rest of the time. I think its much better for the environment to have a cow or two on a few acres than turn that land into lots for houses. We do the same with pigs to get pork products.

The dairy products we buy, we get from a small organic dairy where the cows are pastured the majority of the time. They are fed some grain but its from a local mill where most of the ingredients come from local farmers.

I won't support the mass feedlots and dairies here, although I do indirectly because of my job.

[reeseccup]

Originally Posted by katiesk

i think ideally, if people wanted to eat meat and animal products, they would raise and make their own.

where i live, the majority of meat we eat is game. and we eat alot of fish that we catch.

obviously, these options are not possible for everyone, but the good alternative is to buy from local farmers, etc.

much much more sustainable.

also - to eat less meat and animal products....it seems like people a giant excess of these things.

I totally agree with you!! We raise our own heritage breeds and hunt for our meat, grow or barter for some of our in season produce and dairy. We also don't eat a ton of meat daily, depending on the person anywhere from 2 oz. to 7 oz. of protein (not all flesh based).

[AJP]

I think the practices of conventional modern meat production are indefensible on every level. However, I believe that animals on an integrated farm actually make it more sustainable than farms growing only plant foods. There needs to be as complete a food chain on a farm as possible. Manure is vital to soil fertility, for pastures or other crops. Properly-managed grazing on pastures can make a huge difference to the amount of food it can grow and to the water- and nutrient-holding capacity of the soil. The degree of sustainability depends in large part on the amount of feed brought in from off the farm, the manure management practices and how nutrients are returned to the soil. It takes the right kind of land, the right species of animals for that land and the right management practices to approach sustainability, not to mention a wise farmer, but interest seems to be growing in this type of agriculture, and products from these types of farms are becoming more available. It costs more, it has to for it to be financially feasible for the farmer, because it's not propped up with subsidies like conventional meat production. I personally would rather have a smaller amount of meat that is produced under a system I'm comfortable with than a larger amount of something less sustainable because it's cheaper. "Organic" meat shipped all over the place, from animals fed on feed shipped across the country and whose manure is not composted and returned to the land, is barely any more sustainable than conventional factory farmed meat. An integrated farm on which meat animals are fed largely from the produce of that farm (be it grazing or grains, veggies and fruits grown on the farm) actually enrich the whole ecosystem of the farm and do not produce any true waste or pollution (the issue of methane from cow belches is a red herring, IMO, but I'm out of time and can't elaborate right now, it's the whole carbon cycle thing).

[cristeen]

Originally Posted by AJP

(the issue of methane from cow belches is a red herring, IMO, but I'm out of time and can't elaborate right now, it's the whole carbon cycle thing).

Isn't it Stoneyfield farm that is studying this right now and has discovered that the methane is caused by the feeding of grain, and that pastured cattle don't have that effect?

Gee, duh. You feed me a food that I can't digest, and I'm going to have some stomach issues.

[ursusarctos]

Thanks for all the interesting responses.
DP and I recently decided that we would only eat game and organic meat and dairy. Since organic meat is such a small industry in Finland, most of it (beef at least) is still produced on smaller farms and as far as I know pastured as long as there is grass (even conventional dairy cows are pastured in summer here).
I totally agree though that the most ethical and healthiest meat is game that you kill yourself, with animals that you raise and kill humanely yourself coming in a close second. If everyone only ate a little bit of meat (in comparison to the average western person) then game and locally/self-raised animals would be sustainable, right?
I am still interested to hear if there are any people who don't eat meat for environmental reasons and why. I know there is a camp that says that there are too many people for meat to be eaten environmentally (though I don't know if they are just referring to the meat industry as it is now)... I just usually don't hear what they have to say because mostly people cite ethical or health reasons for not eating meat.

[cristeen]

Originally Posted by ursusarctos

I am still interested to hear if there are any people who don't eat meat for environmental reasons and why. I know there is a camp that says that there are too many people for meat to be eaten environmentally (though I don't know if they are just referring to the meat industry as it is now)...

There are those people... but chances are good you're not going to find many in this section of the board - check out the veg section though, and you'll probably find several.

And that camp doesn't seem to differentiate between meat (as a whole) and the current state of the large-producer meat company (or CAFO). From what I've seen they lump all meat under the CAFO heading and label it "bad"... which damages their credibility in my mind.

[ursusarctos]

Originally Posted by cristeen

There are those people... but chances are good you're not going to find many in this section of the board - check out the veg section though, and you'll probably find several.

And that camp doesn't seem to differentiate between meat (as a whole) and the current state of the large-producer meat company (or CAFO). From what I've seen they lump all meat under the CAFO heading and label it "bad"... which damages their credibility in my mind.

Hmm, perhaps I will. I was thinking that since this is the general nutrition section people from both camps might answer, but apparently not.
And yes, that's the impression I've gotten too (about lumping all meat production under CAFOs).

[loveandgarbage]

well i'm a vegetarian for all of the reasons one can be, so i'll pop into this thread. i think it's rare to be a vegetarian for only environmental reasons. i have known several people who stopped eating meat because of the environmental impact of meat processing, but they have all eventually gone back to meat, albeit with diet consisting of less of it. the lifelong vegetarians i know are either "grossed out" by meat, intolerant of it, or are animal right activists/lovers.

it's my assumption that buying locally raised (humane/organic/etc) meat and dairy is sustainable. that's logical, right? OP, i would be curious to read the interview if you have a link to it. or if not, what were the interviewee's points? if the entire USA were to magically transform into many small societies of farming communities, i would imagine mother earth would weep with joy. there would probably still be some environmental impact, though. humankind has been affecting the environment throughout it's history. i'm curious of the environmental impact of hunter/gatherer societies. anyone have any ideas on this? i would assume that negative environmental impact began when irrigation became widespread.

i am a vegetarian who believes most people need some sort of animal protein to be in optimal health. i didn't always feel this way, and even had a stint of veganism, but i've come around. i would be incredibly happy if local meat production replaced factory farms, no doubt!

[ursusarctos]

Thanks for your pov, loveandgarbage. I don't have a link to the interview as it was a print interview in a local paper. Plus it was in Finnish
If I recall correctly, the woman referred to the massive air, soil and water pollution caused by factory farming of animals as well as the huge amount of arable land taken up by gmo soybeans and corn used to feed meat animals when the same land could be used for growing vegetarian food for many more people. She also thinks that since the dairy and beef industries are so closely intertwined it's just as bad to be veggie and also eat dairy. She didn't actually provide a grand scheme for fixing these problems apart from everyone becoming vegan, but I think she was just explaining her own food choices.
I've known these problems exist for a long time, but I always thought they were problems of factory farming, not meat/dairy production itself.
Of course, some people will point out the population issue - that it wouldn't be sustainable for everyone in the world to be non-veggie. But again, I always thought that was talking about the outrageous consumption of factory meat by people in affluent countries, not the backyard pig/goats/chicken that have traditionally provided meat and dairy. But are there just too many people for everyone to live in small sustainable communities (even if such a huge shift would theoretically be possible)?

[Ianthe]

Originally Posted by AJP

However, I believe that animals on an integrated farm actually make it more sustainable than farms growing only plant foods.

There needs to be as complete a food chain on a farm as possible. Manure is vital to soil fertility, for pastures or other crops. Properly-managed grazing on pastures can make a huge difference to the amount of food it can grow and to the water- and nutrient-holding capacity of the soil.

It takes 4 lbs of plant foods to equal 1 lb of beef.. I don't see how that is more sustainable.

My dh works for the BLM and sees first hand how destructive pasture fed cows are to the environment. There are places that have to be protected for over a decade to recover from the destruction to the land and water.

[cristeen]

Originally Posted by LizzyQ

It takes 4 lbs of plant foods to equal 1 lb of beef.. I don't see how that is more sustainable.

I believe what she was referring to was the cycle of life. Agriculture (particularly mono-culture) alone cannot sustain the soil long-term, some sort of amendment is needed to prevent stripping and sterility - in nature this occurs naturally between bio-diversity, humus and animal castings, in large-scale ag, this occurs with chemical additives. On a bio-dynamic farm, that amendment generally comes from animal manure, compost and bio-diversity, which is the closest humans can come to nature's perfection.

[AJP]

Originally Posted by LizzyQ

It takes 4 lbs of plant foods to equal 1 lb of beef.. I don't see how that is more sustainable.

My dh works for the BLM and sees first hand how destructive pasture fed cows are to the environment. There are places that have to be protected for over a decade to recover from the destruction to the land and water.

4 lbs. of what? Corn and soybeans? IMO, cows should hardly be eating any of those foods. Cows (and other ruminants) can (and should) eat grass, which humans cannot digest, and turn it into milk and meat in a highly efficient manner (honestly, the rumen is a miracle of nature), grass growing on land not suited to row crops for a variety of reasons. The destruction of rangeland because of unrestricted grazing by cattle and sheep is obviously real, but it is a management problem. There are ways of utilizing even arid range of the western US in a manner which can preserve and improve the land (I have seen this first hand). Ranchers for too long have been allowed to abuse the land made available to them by the cheap government grazing leases, with no incentive to change their ways to preserve the land in perpetuity, or learn about managed grazing using pulsed stocking rates in harmony with growing seasons that imitate natural cycles. The BLM could make an enormous impact in this respect by providing education and placing certain restrictions on land use, with the practical and scientific knowledge available now regarding different grazing techniques.

Vast herds of millions of American bison did not destroy the prairie, they enhanced it. Vast herds of millions of African wildebeest do not destroy the savannah, they enhance it. There are so many different management methods that can be utilized by farmers and ranchers that do not have the effect of soil and waterway destruction that has resulted from the poor management of the recent past, that to say grazing = destruction is way too simplistic to apply to the viable alternatives that exist.

And back to the methane issue - the methane excreted by cattle and other ruminants eating grass is short-cycle, meaning it comes from the fermentation of the grass they just ate. It's a different kettle of fish than fossil-source pollution, which releases substances that have been underground for millions of years, which in a "natural" cycle would stay underground and not get into the atmosphere (short of geologic upheaval). Methane and carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide are not one and the same, but it's all linked in the incredibly complex atmospheric interactions that govern our climate. Now, cattle eating feed grown using petroleum-based fertilizers and transported using petroleum fuel tip things towards the fossil end of the spectrum, but cows eating only pasture and hay grown without petroleum inputs are part of a different cycle. Even with all the ruminants humans raise for food that exist today, there are not more ruminants in total on the face of the earth than there have been in the past. The earth can sustain enormous numbers of ruminants belching methane, and has done so. Again, ruminants themselves are not the problem, their management and how they are fed are what create the problems.

[EnviroBecca]

I am mostly vegetarian for environmental reasons #1 and health reasons #2. My family eats fish(choosing low-mercury, not-overfished species) once a week or less, we eat meat once in a while when it would otherwise be thrown away, and when I've been sick or overworked and feel particularly run-down and shakey I will eat one turkey sandwich. We believe that a LOW-meat diet is sustainable; worldwide vegetarianism is not necessary, but it is not feasible for 6 billion people to eat half a pound of meat a day each.

Local meat from animals who ate an appropriate diet certainly is better for the environment and human health than the typical mass-produced meat. The reasons we decided to opt out of meat almost entirely, rather than switch to better meat, are:

1. Better meat is inconvenient to get. Fewer stores and restaurants have it. We'd have to spend extra time going out of our way and doing research. To eat better meat every day, we'd have to drive to the far-away stores a couple times a week instead of once a month like we do, and it would be more important to take the car instead of the bus (to get home promptly before the meat spoils), so we'd burn more gas. We don't like meat enough to make the inconvenience worthwhile.

2. Better meat is more expensive, whereas vegetarian food is cheaper than any meat.

3. Our digestion has improved so much since we cut back on meat! I think this is mainly because most vegetarian protein sources are high in fiber and we have more room for vegetables.

I recently read The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan, which includes excellent, detailed explanations of what's wrong with American meat production and how it can be done right.

[ursusarctos]

I read this book recently. It describes how a small family/group farm can be practically self sufficient with animals. The cow/pigs/goats/chickens produce dung which makes a fantastic fertilizer/enrichment for the field(s)/garden as well as consuming excess produce that would otherwise go to waste. The key is rotation of pasture and crop land: one year the cow/goats grazes half your land and fertilizes it with her dung, the next year she grazes the other side and you grow food in the soil that she enriched. Pigs eat your kitchen waste as well as help plow your fields for you. Chickens control bugs. You get prime quality animal products, give your animals a prime quality life, and keep your land fertile and organic at the same time.
Of course, would it be feasible for everyone in the world to live this way? I don't know. Is there enough land?
As for grazing, I'm sure there's a better way to do it than the abusive way it has been done in this century. Also, often land is used for grazing that was never intended to support that kind of use. Perhaps working with the land instead of just using it up is what is really needed.

[EnviroBecca]

Of course, would it be feasible for everyone in the world to live this way? I don't know. Is there enough land?

According to The Omnivore's Dilemma, the well-managed farm with lots of crop rotation (the one profiled) gets more food per acre per year than the average large-scale corporate single-species farm. Therefore, if all our farmland currently used for growing various crops were turned to that kind of farming, it ought to be possible to feed everyone...though not necessarily on a high-meat diet.

[chiromamma]

I eat only locally raised grass fed meats. I'm blessed to live in an area where this type of farming is present.
There are sustainable, environmentally responsible ways to eat animal products without having to raise your own.

The Omnivore's Dilemma

http://amzn.com/0143038583

Oops. Looks like a PP already referenced this brilliant piece of writing.

[Ianthe]

Here's a good article about the subject in today's washington post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...072800390.html