sustainability of a nationwide meat and dairy based diet??? - Page 2

[fresh_veggie]

Originally Posted by alireb

Ditto. Also, you might want to read The Vegetarian Myth by Lierre Kieth since she talks about the fact that a vegetarian diet is not necessarily best for the environment b/c of the heavy use of agriculture and the destruction these monocrops have on our land and soil. She's a former vegan for 20 years.

A bit confused by this. A much larger portion of agriculture in the world is used to grow animal feed than human feed. So we can then eat the animals. Growing corn and soy non-stop (monocrops) to feed animals is what causes the degradation of the land, as the animals eat much more than us. I just gave a speech and quoted a study that found that for every pound of beef raised, it takes 55 bowls of cooked grain to grow it (assuming you are feeding cows grain, which is what happens more than 95% of the time) and many, many gallons of water. That's 55 people getting a bowl of rice to fill their bellies, vs. 2 people eating a steak for dinner. (not talking about nutritional content, but just keeping people from starving)

Could you explain more? (Feel free to PM me! )

[Theia]

Originally Posted by cristeen

~snip
As for the question of sustainability - pp have pretty much covered it. As meat production currently stands (CAFO) - no, it's not sustainable. But, traditionally raised meat, raised on a farm in symbiosis with the rest of the farming operation, that is sustainable. It is also a much better use of that land than monocropping, or allowing it to lay fallow like happens so often. Animals can also be raised in many regions that are unsuitable for farming, but part of making any change like that would require some serious changes in the expectations of the public. Expectations on everything from the appearance of beef, the cost of meat, to the unwillingness to try more "unusual" meats like goat or mutton (both of which require less land and can survive on less choice foods). And considering how unwilling the US public is to accept something as natural as BF, I don't really see any of that happening any time soon.

Bolding mine... I'd just like to add that all agricultural land needs to rest. It doesn't matter if you have cattle, or crops... it needs to rest. Part of that rest is naturally built into natures cycles of the seasons. But not always and sometimes it still needs short breaks within the growing season. On our farm we frequently had large tracts of land (taken in the perspective that this was a small family farm of 40 acres of trees, pasture, hay and alfalfa) that had no cattle using it. We would rotate the animals between different pastures, we had to have room for the bull to keep him from the cows for part of the year, and when it came time that the calves started weaning, we would have to have the cows and calves in different parts of the farm. You also need to allow the grass to replenish itself or you end up with really bad erosion. Rotating pastures was always a fun event herding the cattle around. So land lying fallow is necessary and good. Land lying fallow because you are mono-cropping and it would cost you more to plant and grow a crop than you would receive in selling it... that's a different story.

And don't make the mistake of seeing undeveloped land and not seeing all of it's environmental benefits from providing habitat to insects, reptiles and mammals, to slowing down the runoff after rain, the tree's storing carbon, and doing photosynthesis... fallow land that is only occasionally grazed or entered upon is a necessary part of the ecosystem. And we don't want it to only exist in our national, state and local park systems.

I also agree that eating meat is much more sustainable if it is treated as a side dish rather than the main course. I think more Americans would eat goat or lamb except it is so expensive. I don't think I've ever seen goat in a store, and most lamb has been more expensive than beef, pork or chicken. The perspective I have seen most is that lamb is an expensive treat rather than an everyday meat. I'm not sure if that is related to not enough demand or what. But if you see lamb in a store, there is usually only a small space allotted for it, maybe 1/4 the space (or less) that is provided for each beef, pork and chicken. I love to eat lamb/goat though. I prefer it much over beef.

I wish more Americans really understood and saw what life on a farm is like and where the foods come from. Everyone should spend time on a farm working it. Educating yourself about farming by reading books, watching films and visiting working farms is nice, but actually living it, doing it, well that is only when you truly understand it.

[rayo de sol]

Originally Posted by fresh_veggie

An all meat diet would be terribly unhealthy, but for some people it is impossible to eliminate it health-wise.

An all-meat diet is actually quite healthful, especially if the meat is grass-fed. There have been thriving, healthy traditional cultures that ate practically nothing but animal foods.


I also want to second the recommendation for The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice, and Sustainability. It's an excellent book. And the author explains all about how a diet of grains and beans is destroying the planet and making wildlife go extinct. The answer is grass-fed animals.

[alireb]

Originally Posted by fresh_veggie

A bit confused by this. A much larger portion of agriculture in the world is used to grow animal feed than human feed. So we can then eat the animals. Growing corn and soy non-stop (monocrops) to feed animals is what causes the degradation of the land, as the animals eat much more than us. I just gave a speech and quoted a study that found that for every pound of beef raised, it takes 55 bowls of cooked grain to grow it (assuming you are feeding cows grain, which is what happens more than 95% of the time) and many, many gallons of water. That's 55 people getting a bowl of rice to fill their bellies, vs. 2 people eating a steak for dinner. (not talking about nutritional content, but just keeping people from starving)

Could you explain more? (Feel free to PM me! )

Agreed. Grain fed animals are the reason for a lot of the corn and soy grown in the world but most vegetarians seem to quote this statistic in saving the world from hunger. The answer is part not feeding animals a diet not native to them (grain) and also realizing that you can't just take that same grain and feed the world. You need animals for the land - as fertilizer and agriculture eventually ruins our land and soil. The answer is grassfed animals that work in symbiosis with the land (ie Polyface) and limiting these monocrops like soy and corn which are destroying our land and the animals whose natural habitats have been taken away.

I'm still reading the book and since my brain is only half working these days from lack of sleep, I'm sure I'm not doing a great job of explaining. She does dispel these environmental myths in her book though.

[JMJ]

Originally Posted by fresh_veggie

A bit confused by this. A much larger portion of agriculture in the world is used to grow animal feed than human feed. So we can then eat the animals. Growing corn and soy non-stop (monocrops) to feed animals is what causes the degradation of the land, as the animals eat much more than us. I just gave a speech and quoted a study that found that for every pound of beef raised, it takes 55 bowls of cooked grain to grow it (assuming you are feeding cows grain, which is what happens more than 95% of the time) and many, many gallons of water. That's 55 people getting a bowl of rice to fill their bellies, vs. 2 people eating a steak for dinner. (not talking about nutritional content, but just keeping people from starving)

Could you explain more? (Feel free to PM me! )

Thanks for joining the conversation. It's great to have the vegetarian perspective with us! I think that your strongest argument is the one I made bold above. The sad fact is that the way that almost all meat in our country is produced is through feeding cows grain and then feeding us the cow's muscle meat and throwing away the bones and organs. If this is your only option for meat, then you're right, we'd probably all be better off being vegetarian. Corn-fed beef isn't that healthy anyway. It isn't a sustainable model, especially for a growing population or even for feeding the people we already have.

My grandfather spent a large portion of his life working with farmers in developing countries, and my grandmother worked studying and teaching how to get nutrition from plants and animals that can be grown and raised locally. The problem that we're having with getting everyone in the world fed has nothing to do with how much meat is eaten in the US. It has everything to do with politics. According to my grandpa (who was in as good a position as anybody to know), every country in the world (even China) has enough farm land to feed its own people. It is distribution that is the problem. Food sits and rots on farms, trucks, and ships while people starve. Dictators know that people who are hungry and denied their most basic needs won't be raising a rebellion any time soon. It's not so easy as 2 people giving up their steak so that 55 people can have a meal for the day.

It is true, though, that the population of the world is still rising, and even if we fix the politics in developing countries so that food is distributed to all, we still have a lot of inefficiencies in our own system that need to be addressed, ironically also having largely to do with politics. We can't let 95% of our meat be raised on corn and soy. We can't ship our raw foods to processing plants where all the nutrition is removed and replaced by chemicals and then ship it to warehouses and then to supermarkets where everyone drives their own cars to get groceries.

I think that going vegetarian certainly provides a better alternative to how most Americans eat, but I also think of it as a band-aid approach. The normal way vegetables and grains are produced can feed more people than the normal way meat is produced, so if we don't change anything else and just eat vegetables and grains, more people can eat. Most of us TFers are calling for a whole different way of working our food system.

I have 3 main meat suppliers. 2 live and work in close proximity on hilly grasslands and take turns manning their 1 booth at the farmers' market and supply local shops that I can bike to with their frozen meat. The third is a little further away and comes through town once a month, encouraging people to stock up on their grassfed meat when it's available. They sell as many parts of the animal as they can. They set up a table at a local market (also that I can bike to or take easy public transportation) and sell to people directly. They also take orders ahead of time and work out details so that customers can be certain that they are going to get what they are looking for and not making a worthless trip.

[snowbunny]

Originally Posted by mamadelbosque

Maybe 'sustainable/humane' foie grass/veal exist. I don't know. What I *do* know is that you can *NOT* buy it in a store, and you can *NOT* order it at a restaurant without supporting the force feeding of geese, and the crating of calves, both of which are cruel, inhumane and just plain wrong. So saying 'oh, but some foie grass/veal is ok' is a bit disingeneous. Maybe it exists. But not as it is currently thought of by 99% of the population of the world. Therefor to recommend it be eaten on any sort of regular basis, is simply wrong.

First, they do exist. No maybes or questions about it. Saying "Maybe sustainable/humane foie gras and veal exist" is like saying, "Maybe grass-fed beef exists." Of course it does.

And, yes, you can buy these from stores, restaurants and farmers, I do. I can order the same pasture-raised veal at my local restaurant that I can buy at the locally owned health food store and receive through my CSA - and I've been to the farm to see the calves in the fields.

The key is, as with everything, that it is the consumers' responsibility to make the effort to know where their food comes from and to source it ethically. That is, in many ways, what the heart of traditional foods is - knowing your food, sourcing it ethically and preparing it through traditional methods that maximize nutrient density.

Refusing to even entertain the concept of traditionally raised foie gras or veal, is deeply close-minded; moreover, it's ineffective. Maybe 99% of the veal and foie gras isn't sourced ethically, but that leaves 1% that is. And consumers deserve to be educated about that 1% so they can also make an honorable and ethical choice in their purchases;moreover, the farmers actually producing such traditional foods responsibly and naturally deserve to have their businesses supported so they can grow. With enough education for consumers and support for farmers, that 1% will eventually overtake the 99% and traditional practices will become preferred.

You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone more opposed to inhumanely raised animal foods than me, and that's exactly why I lend my support to farmers practicing humane techniques as well as the stores and restaurants that support them.

[ema-adama]

I had the beginning of a discussion with a good friend of mine who is vegan. He refused to acknowledge that the error in consuming meat lies in the method of production of the meat. In his mind it does not matter whether the meat is raised polyface style or CAFO style. It's meat and it is not sustainable or ethical or healthy.

I was very inspired reading about polyface farm. That model seems to be the most sustainable in terms of keeping the land fertile and biodiversity thriving on the land. I do not see how that model could sustain a city like New York or London. I have not looked into food production models that can sustain large cities.

[skyerae]

To oppose something is to balance it out. With balance comes equilbrium. My vote would be to find something better and change the problem rather than just be it's foil.

The answer to inhumane animal treatment is not speaking out against it. It's finding different ways to do things. We need to support the positive rather than speak against the negative.

As for sustainability of meat I would say that not only is politics behind much of it as a PP mentioned, but laziness and greed. People want easy, simple, cheap. It's being given to them. When more people ask for change, then change will happen. When people fight the system all we do is balance the system out.

IMHO, community is the answer to so many of the worlds problems, and this is no different.

[fruitfulmomma]

I have lots of thoughts but not enough time to get into all the points. Some of them have already been said (ruminants belong on ranges, not in feedlots, etc...) Everyone's worldview is going to color the issue of meat vs. no meat, so without delving into that I will just say I think our whole food economy is unsustainable, period.

Everything about our food economy needs to change, whether we are omni, veg, or vegan. Thankfully there are some families, like the Salatin's (Polyface), which are speaking up and making a difference. Another family I would like to point out the Dervais @ http://urbanhomestead.org. They are very inspiring and I really hope to have our lot of land running in a similar manner in the years to come. (Minus the animals, because at this moment in time they are illegal here.)

[ltlmrs]

Many great responses here!

One of the things that often goes unmentioned in the official TF sources is that not everyone ate meat as a primary food. Animal products, yes, but not necessarily meat. The Northern peoples ate a lot of meat and few vegetables, but that's because they had the natural preservative and hindrance of snow. People in coastal areas ate more fish than meat. And then there were people in the South, in Europe, Central Asia and Middle East, who ate primarily vegetables but cooked with butter (or lard, for those who were not Muslim), drank plenty of milk and ate cheese and eggs and made meat stretch by putting it in stews or pilafs on feast days when the whole community would slaughter a calf and eat it. Just look at Italian cuisine, definitely a diet based more on starches and veggies than meats! I don't know much about people of Africa, so I can't comment here.

DH's family is from rural America for several generations back and didn't get electricity until the early 50s. The stories they tell indicate eating corn bread (made with lard) and beans (made with lard) for 90% of their meals and having either salt pork (usually for breakfast) or chicken on Sundays and special occasions.

We don't eat a lot of meat because it is just too expensive for us. I can, however, use 1 lb of ground meat to make a meat sauce, pelmeni or chilli to feed 4-5 people. 1 lb of ground meat is definitely a lot less meat than an 8 oz steak per person!

[Shyentist]

I try to be mindful of my food choices and to vote with my pocketbook.

Meat -- real meat, not CAFO meat -- is time-consuming to produce (read, more $). You also don't get the density you get with a CAFO operation (animals raised per square mile). Also, subsidies make grain feeding cheaper than grass feeding.

This leads to humanely raised meat being more expensive. As long as there are people who don't care where their food comes from and just want to pay as little as possible, there will be CAFO operations. But, as long as there are conscientious people who choose their meat suppliers carefully, there's hope for omnivores everywhere. There's a false dichotomy between conscientious omnivore and veggie/vegan anyway.

...and I can't say I don't feel good knowing that the extra $ I spend on locally, humanly raised meat goes to a farmer (and not a corporation).

I see that many of the women on this thread are well-read and informed on this issue. Gives me the warm fuzzies!

P.S. My husband's from a developing country, and meat's not the focus of any meal, unless it's a special occasion. That's usually how we eat it, so even though we're not rich, we can buy more sustainable pastured meat. We eat a lot of plant protein, but that little bit of meat makes it taste great.