6 ms·

I think you overgeneralize industrial meat production to all forms of ranching. There are huge areas of the USA that are not amenable to farming but which can

I think you overgeneralize industrial meat production to all forms of ranching. There are huge areas of the USA that are not amenable to farming but which can be ranched. Raising cattle on these lands does not necessarily consume any water, food, or arable land that would be productively used otherwise. This form of ranching serves many purposes, one of which is to simulate the effect of millions of grazing animals roaming free over the prairies as they did for millennia until about 150 years ago. Another is to eliminate the need for antibiotics, which are not required when grazing animals are not confined and fed a corn diet, and when sick animals are much more easily culled. There is such a thing as sustainable ranching, just as there is such a thing as sustainable farming. The trick is to incentivize the right kind of ranching. Unfortunately, your suggestion would probably produce more unsustainable ranching, as it would lower margins across the board such that only the industrialists could turn a profit.

latch 10y ago
I think you've missed my main point: reduced consumption is an increase in sustainability [1]. And it's not clear to me that grass-fed beef is sustainable [2] (especially not at the current scale of consumption [3]) Farmers are critical, underpaid, and deal with a lot of risk. There must be some insurance. But consumers should pay the real price for their goods at the counter. 1 - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/07/tax-meat-and-dairy-to-cut-emissions-and-save-lives-study-urges https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/07/tax-meat... 2 - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/13/opinion/the-myth-of-sustainable-meat.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/13/opinion/the-myth-of-sustai... 3 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_meat_consumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_meat_cons...
- riprowan 10y ago
  I agree with you on most of your points including that grass-fed beef is not sustainable at the current rate of consumption, but that does not mean that it isn't sustainable at a lower rate of consumption / higher price.
- bad_user 10y ago
  On one hand I agree with what you're saying, biggest problem is that the price isn't fair, as it is subsidized, either by the government directly (corn subsidies, etc.) or by the damage to the environment and our health that we keep ignoring. However you cannot introduce a tax on all produce, when clearly some practices are more sustainable than others. At the current rate of consumption, grass fed cattle might not be enough to satisfy the demand, but if a farm doesn't pollute the environment, then it does not deserve a tax. In nature there's symbiosis in the food chain, there's symbiosis between predator, cattle and grass, with grass being evolved for grazing, which in turn helps to offset the CO2 emissions of the cattle consuming it, with predators playing an important role in trimming the herd, which would otherwise go out of control. This obviously doesn't have to be a zero-sum game and by the looks of it nature has been way more effective at converting sun's energy into organic matter than we have. Surely meat is too cheap compared to what it actually costs to produce, but I fear that many people identify meat consumption as this big evil, but without identifying the source of the problem. The problem is with all industrial farming, because we've accelerated farming by burning fossil fuels, turning forests into corn fields and polluting everything in the process. Without cheap fossil fuels or government subsidies, industrial farming practices wouldn't be possible. And it's not sustainable because there is no symbiosis in anything we are doing. And the other problem is over-population, with capitalism and poverty encouraging continuous growth. You now hear on the news that the population in Europe is aging, which should actually be a great piece of news, except that our current economic climate doesn't cope well with a diminished fertility rate, capitalism relies on constant growth, hence we actually rely on other nations remaining poor and producing imigrants ;-) And we should be ending the global poverty, which I'm fairly certain that we can, which should flatten that growth curve, but we should also impose a maximum fertility rate of 2 and stop doing commerce with the countries that don't do that. Because we wouldn't need industrial-scale farming, if we wouldn't have 7 billion mouths to feed and Earth is limited.
specialist 10y ago
"There is such a thing as sustainable ranching..." Give two examples (in the USA).
- riprowan 10y ago
  I don't understand the question. Can you help me understand why the idea that raising animals cannot be sustainable, when clearly grazing animals can live perfectly well on their own with no care whatsoever from humans (as they have for millennia) on areas of land that are not suitable for farming? I think the direct answer to your question is that clearly carnivorism is environmentally sustainable, as it has been practiced by millions of various species for hundreds of millions of years. Maybe your greater question is, "is a constantly growing human population sustainable?" which is outside the scope of this discussion.
  - specialist 10y ago
    Name two examples of sustainable ranching. In the USA. If it's hypothetically possible, surely someone somewhere is doing it. What I like to call an existence proof.
    - Noseshine 10y ago
      Try the one made famous through "The Omnivores Dilemma": http://www.polyfacefarms.com/ http://www.polyfacefarms.com/ But apart from that, just read the comment you replied to. Human history as well as nature itself are the examples. There used to be millions of grazing animals (probably even an understatement).
      - specialist 10y ago
        Ranching. Not farming. Hope beyond hope, I attempted the Socratic method on riprowan, willing him to attempt a quick google before his concern trolling. Top hit: http://www.worldwildlife.org/projects/sustainable-ranching-initiative http://www.worldwildlife.org/projects/sustainable-ranching-i... There. Was that so hard? Buried lead: Once you learn anything about current ranching practices, you realize its at least as bad as current farming practices. Totally unsustainable. Edit: Hey! Looks like riprowan found google!

latch 10y ago

I think you've missed my main point: reduced consumption is an increase in sustainability [1]. And it's not clear to me that grass-fed beef is sustainable [2] (especially not at the current scale of consumption [3]) Farmers are critical, underpaid, and deal with a lot of risk. There must be some insurance. But consumers should pay the real price for their goods at the counter. 1 - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/07/tax-meat-and-dairy-to-cut-emissions-and-save-lives-study-urges https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/07/tax-meat... 2 - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/13/opinion/the-myth-of-sustainable-meat.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/13/opinion/the-myth-of-sustai... 3 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_meat_consumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_meat_cons...

riprowan 10y ago
I agree with you on most of your points including that grass-fed beef is not sustainable at the current rate of consumption, but that does not mean that it isn't sustainable at a lower rate of consumption / higher price.
bad_user 10y ago
On one hand I agree with what you're saying, biggest problem is that the price isn't fair, as it is subsidized, either by the government directly (corn subsidies, etc.) or by the damage to the environment and our health that we keep ignoring. However you cannot introduce a tax on all produce, when clearly some practices are more sustainable than others. At the current rate of consumption, grass fed cattle might not be enough to satisfy the demand, but if a farm doesn't pollute the environment, then it does not deserve a tax. In nature there's symbiosis in the food chain, there's symbiosis between predator, cattle and grass, with grass being evolved for grazing, which in turn helps to offset the CO2 emissions of the cattle consuming it, with predators playing an important role in trimming the herd, which would otherwise go out of control. This obviously doesn't have to be a zero-sum game and by the looks of it nature has been way more effective at converting sun's energy into organic matter than we have. Surely meat is too cheap compared to what it actually costs to produce, but I fear that many people identify meat consumption as this big evil, but without identifying the source of the problem. The problem is with all industrial farming, because we've accelerated farming by burning fossil fuels, turning forests into corn fields and polluting everything in the process. Without cheap fossil fuels or government subsidies, industrial farming practices wouldn't be possible. And it's not sustainable because there is no symbiosis in anything we are doing. And the other problem is over-population, with capitalism and poverty encouraging continuous growth. You now hear on the news that the population in Europe is aging, which should actually be a great piece of news, except that our current economic climate doesn't cope well with a diminished fertility rate, capitalism relies on constant growth, hence we actually rely on other nations remaining poor and producing imigrants ;-) And we should be ending the global poverty, which I'm fairly certain that we can, which should flatten that growth curve, but we should also impose a maximum fertility rate of 2 and stop doing commerce with the countries that don't do that. Because we wouldn't need industrial-scale farming, if we wouldn't have 7 billion mouths to feed and Earth is limited.

specialist 10y ago

"There is such a thing as sustainable ranching..." Give two examples (in the USA).

riprowan 10y ago
I don't understand the question. Can you help me understand why the idea that raising animals cannot be sustainable, when clearly grazing animals can live perfectly well on their own with no care whatsoever from humans (as they have for millennia) on areas of land that are not suitable for farming? I think the direct answer to your question is that clearly carnivorism is environmentally sustainable, as it has been practiced by millions of various species for hundreds of millions of years. Maybe your greater question is, "is a constantly growing human population sustainable?" which is outside the scope of this discussion.
- specialist 10y ago
  Name two examples of sustainable ranching. In the USA. If it's hypothetically possible, surely someone somewhere is doing it. What I like to call an existence proof.
  - Noseshine 10y ago
    Try the one made famous through "The Omnivores Dilemma": http://www.polyfacefarms.com/ http://www.polyfacefarms.com/ But apart from that, just read the comment you replied to. Human history as well as nature itself are the examples. There used to be millions of grazing animals (probably even an understatement).
    - specialist 10y ago
      Ranching. Not farming. Hope beyond hope, I attempted the Socratic method on riprowan, willing him to attempt a quick google before his concern trolling. Top hit: http://www.worldwildlife.org/projects/sustainable-ranching-initiative http://www.worldwildlife.org/projects/sustainable-ranching-i... There. Was that so hard? Buried lead: Once you learn anything about current ranching practices, you realize its at least as bad as current farming practices. Totally unsustainable. Edit: Hey! Looks like riprowan found google!