5 ms·

The majority of beef comes from feedlots. 90% of the beef we eat is grain-fed. Also, I can't find any evidence, one way or another, that grass-fed cows take les

by latch 15y ago

The majority of beef comes from feedlots. 90% of the beef we eat is grain-fed. Also, I can't find any evidence, one way or another, that grass-fed cows take less land or pollute less (in terms of methane). There's no doubt that it's healthier for us, and better for the cows, but there seems to be plenty of back and forth with respect to which of the two is more sustainable. And I don't see anyone arguing that grass-fed cows are more efficient (or even close to as-efficient) than chicken, pork or plants. Thanks for the links on agriculture...going through them now!

dkersten 15y ago
The majority of beef comes from feedlots. 90% of the beef we eat is grain-fed. Depends on what country you're in, I guess. Here in Ireland cattle are predominately grassfed (though usually are fed at least some grain in the winter too).
GFischer 15y ago
The majority of beef comes from grass-fed cows. Of the about 1.3 billion cows, only 100 million are fed grain (those in industrialized countries). According to a quick googling, it seems that grass is more sustainable but lower output. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/207/4433/843.abstract http://www.sciencemag.org/content/207/4433/843.abstract Free trade would mean less or no grain-fed livestock, hopefully (here in Uruguay we have almost 7 million cows, all of them grass-fed, neighbour Argentina has 40 million cows, also grass-fed, Australia and New Zealand also have similar numbers of grass-fed cows). In any case, as you argue, cows are not the most efficient means of producing meat, that's why chicken is much cheaper for instance :) . Grass-fed cows probably take more land, but I suspect they pollute a lot less (for example there's a lot of indirect pollution from the grain produced to feed the grain-fed cattle) Edit: about free trade - both the U.S. and Europe have trade quotas and subsidies in place to maintain the local agriculture. I understand not wanting to destroy it entirely due to strategic concerns (and excessive dependency on a provider), but I believe it's gotten out of hand. Edit2: the number of cows in Uruguay was inflated, changed for more reasonable source.
- latch 15y ago
  1.3 billion is the total number of cows. Almost 300 million of those are in India, where I doubt very much that they are used for beef. I'm finding it hard to get numbers since it's largely given in metric tons... Although, I'll agree that looking more into it, grain-fed appears to be a largely North American thing.
crististm 15y ago
Don't tell me you too bought into the "cows pollute" BS? That's how farting is called now?
- latch 15y ago
  I didn't study this stuff, so I have to go by what informed sources, such as the EPA (1) and the UN (2), conclude. (1) http://www.epa.gov/rlep/faq.html http://www.epa.gov/rlep/faq.html (2) http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM

by latch 15y ago

dkersten 15y ago

The majority of beef comes from feedlots. 90% of the beef we eat is grain-fed. Depends on what country you're in, I guess. Here in Ireland cattle are predominately grassfed (though usually are fed at least some grain in the winter too).

GFischer 15y ago

The majority of beef comes from grass-fed cows. Of the about 1.3 billion cows, only 100 million are fed grain (those in industrialized countries). According to a quick googling, it seems that grass is more sustainable but lower output. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/207/4433/843.abstract http://www.sciencemag.org/content/207/4433/843.abstract Free trade would mean less or no grain-fed livestock, hopefully (here in Uruguay we have almost 7 million cows, all of them grass-fed, neighbour Argentina has 40 million cows, also grass-fed, Australia and New Zealand also have similar numbers of grass-fed cows). In any case, as you argue, cows are not the most efficient means of producing meat, that's why chicken is much cheaper for instance :) . Grass-fed cows probably take more land, but I suspect they pollute a lot less (for example there's a lot of indirect pollution from the grain produced to feed the grain-fed cattle) Edit: about free trade - both the U.S. and Europe have trade quotas and subsidies in place to maintain the local agriculture. I understand not wanting to destroy it entirely due to strategic concerns (and excessive dependency on a provider), but I believe it's gotten out of hand. Edit2: the number of cows in Uruguay was inflated, changed for more reasonable source.

latch 15y ago
1.3 billion is the total number of cows. Almost 300 million of those are in India, where I doubt very much that they are used for beef. I'm finding it hard to get numbers since it's largely given in metric tons... Although, I'll agree that looking more into it, grain-fed appears to be a largely North American thing.

crististm 15y ago

Don't tell me you too bought into the "cows pollute" BS? That's how farting is called now?

latch 15y ago
I didn't study this stuff, so I have to go by what informed sources, such as the EPA (1) and the UN (2), conclude. (1) http://www.epa.gov/rlep/faq.html http://www.epa.gov/rlep/faq.html (2) http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM