5 ms·
Not sure a pig farmer has the best perspective on this. I've been on farms in my area, that have land that is not usable for farming, too many rocks, too hilly,
by windlep 5y ago
Not sure a pig farmer has the best perspective on this. I've been on farms in my area, that have land that is not usable for farming, too many rocks, too hilly, etc. The land has enough natural rain-fall and grasses that grow on it to sustain sheep/cattle where there would otherwise be nothing but a fire hazard come the dry season (California).
In this one and perhaps not common scenario, I think eating meat from these sources, slaughtered humanely, is reasonable. This obviously is not enough meat even for locals in my area to be having burgers daily, so a huge reduction in meat consumption is needed even if one wants to continue eating meat 'responsibly'.
This article unfortunately does not mention that grass-fed meat has different omega-3/omega-6 ratios than factory farmed, and eating smaller quantities of grass-fed meat is healthier than larger quantities of factory farmed. Not sure any meat industry person, even sustainable, is going to mention that cutting back from typical American consumption is a good thing.
- canadianfella 5y ago> This article unfortunately does not mention that grass-fed meat has different omega-3/omega-6 ratios than factory farmed How is that relevant to climate change?
- loceng 5y agoEating higher quality meat will always be healthier than factory farmed lower quality, quantity needn't be part of that statement; it's what else you eat that causes problems, not unprocessed, high quality meat.
- edoceo 5y agoQuantity is important (according to my food scientist friend, so I don't have a cite-able source). Only four/five generations ago we (humans) weren't having 120g of meat every day.
- a_bonobo 5y ago> I've been on farms in my area, that have land that is not usable for farming, too many rocks, too hilly, etc. The land has enough natural rain-fall and grasses that grow on it to sustain sheep/cattle where there would otherwise be nothing but a fire hazard come the dry season (California). Australia has a huge cattle industry for similar reasons, lots and lots of space, but much of the land is not suitable for crops. Cattle will survive, but not many. Anna Creek Station in South Australia is the size of Israel (!!!), and the land can only support like 10,000 to 20,000 cattle. If you look at photos of Anna Creek Station you'll know why, it's mostly arid, almost desert-like. You can't grow any crops there.
- throw0101a 5y ago> Australia has a huge cattle industry for similar reasons, lots and lots of space, but much of the land is not suitable for crops. Cattle will survive, but not many. Is the amount of water that cattle consume a consideration?
- a_bonobo 5y agoOh definitely! During drought times it's cheaper to shoot the cows on the field than to feed them. Here's a good article around water-costs for cattle farmers in Australia: https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2017-08-21/feedlot-restricted-by-wa-water-price/8813800 https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2017-08-21/feedlot-restric... Lot of dodgy things are happening, it's a political scandal pretty much ignored because it's so complex https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-23/water-buybacks-everything-we-know/11037798 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-23/water-buybacks-everyt...
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- pl-94 5y agoI am not sure the fire hazard argument hold. Would you remove any Californian forest for that reason? Only a very small portion of earth is not able to generate a forest when left alone
- frabbit 5y agoSheep in hills cause erosion. It seems like quite a big problem. A lot of the land that is unusable for farming should probably be left alone. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/meet-the-greatest-threat-to-our-countryside-sheep https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/meet-the-greatest-threat...