3 ms·

The anti-meat take is always lacking in nuance Any of these types of things said about factory farmed meat is correct. For free-range meat, some of the product

The anti-meat take is always lacking in nuance Any of these types of things said about factory farmed meat is correct. For free-range meat, some of the production does cause habitat destruction. However, most animals are raised on land that is not highly productive for crop agriculture. For example dry areas where most crops will deplete water resources or very hilly areas that are more prone to erosion and harder to operate tractors on, etc (this is even mentioned in the our world in data link). So meat and crop production are not a zero sum game and can even be complementary (crop farmers used to always have chickens, etc). In a grassland environment one can maintain a close to natural environment with the birds and bees with the difference being that cattle are the only megafauna and cattle predators will be killed. Raising crops means completely altering the environment to an unnatural state that then this report tries to amend and killing all the gophers and other pests along with using pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and other chemicals (yes organic farming can reduce this harm).

myshpa 3y ago
> The anti-meat take is always lacking in nuance The pro-meat take is (as always) lacking scientific basis for their claims, and ignores the biggest problems of the field, like biodiversity loss, deforestation, eutrophication/pollution, pesticide/herbicide use, ethical concerns etc. All science points in opposite direction from yours, no science exists supporting your claims. For scientific rebutal of your opinion see relevant part of the debate "Is livestock grazing essential to mitigating climate change?" between Alan Savory (a big proponent of rotational "regenerative" grazing) and George Monbiot. I watched it all, but am linking directly to the most relevant part. https://youtu.be/rhwEaCmQ2XE?t=1235 https://youtu.be/rhwEaCmQ2XE?t=1235 --- few links --- If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/ Meat eating could lead to habitat loss for 17,000 species by 2050 https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22287498/meat-wildlife-biodiversity-species-plantbased https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22287498/meat-wildlife-bi... Our global food system is the primary driver of biodiversity loss https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/our-global-food-system-primary-driver-biodiversity-loss https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/our-glob... How Compatible Are Western European Dietary Patterns to Climate Targets? Accounting for Uncertainty of Life Cycle Assessments by Applying a Probabilistic Approach https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14449 https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14449 Which Diet Has the Least Environmental Impact on Our Planet? A Systematic Review of Vegan, Vegetarian and Omnivorous Diets https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4110/htm https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4110/htm Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2°C climate change targets https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357 Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding...
- j_heffe 3y ago
  Coming from farm country in Iowa, I'm glad to see Allan Savory's work getting more publicity. Regenerative grazing definitely works. The problem is restoring a distressed ecosystem (typically soils) back to its natural state after desertification has already occurred in an area that livestock continually grazes. There are a few agTech companies looking at doing just that via different GMO seeding products of native grasses and plants, but the cost is still far too high economically coming in at around $50/acre. I don't think any farmer or rancher would argue that we need more free-range livestock and less confinements/stockyards, but it's a slow process.
- DarkNova6 3y ago
  It strikes me that this post is opinionated and exactly lacking the nuance described in the previous post. Nobody argues in favor of the meat industry at large. This is about the difference between localized, grass-fed beef which can be raised where crops cannot. The single largest issue with industrialized meat production is the environmental impact of the feed, which is a non issue if it is provided locally and organic. In fact, organically raised meat and animal products provide benefits to the local biodiversity. Note: I’m from the EU where you have strict laws on organic production and farm animals have to be almost exclusively fed with grass.
  - dmbche 3y ago
    Please look into the effects of manure on the environnement - like the death zone in the Gulf of mexico. Everyone is arguing for the industrial meat industry at large. Free range meat will not produce anywhere near the same amount as the industrial industry. Please go look into L214 and 269 if you want to see how regulation is not respected in farms in the EU.
    - hosh 3y ago
      Manure produced by pasture-raised livestock is great! When the herd moves across the grasslands, it is similar to how the vast bison herds contribute back to the grasslands. That manure gets trampled back down into the grassland, where it helps restore the soil. When the grassy area is eaten to a certain point, you move the herd to a new area and let the old one rest. The problem with feedlots is that the manure accumulates. The ground is eaten until it is nothing (because you have the feed), and then the grass dies. Then the soil gets compacted. Meanwhile, since there is nowhere for the manure to go, and it is not being consumed by the grasses, it ends up become sludge, a source of health problems. > Everyone is arguing for the industrial meat industry at large. Free range meat will not produce anywhere near the same amount as the industrial industry. If the meat supply is reduced then so be it. And remember, the higher the quality of the meat, the less of it you need in your diet. But that's far different from a policy stance of zero-tolerance for meat, anywhere and everywhere.
voisin 3y ago
[flagged]
CaptainNegative 3y ago
This reply feels a bit tangential. The amount of land taken to raise livestock is a small fraction of the land used to grow their feed. You discuss the lack of nuance with respect to the former, but OP was talking about the latter. The land taken for raising animals hadn't even entered OP's equation yet, and can only strengthen their point. I think the confusion comes from the term free-range meat, which (at least in the US) is a marketing term far removed from what any normal person would consider "free range". It could be -- and often is -- just a barn with a fenced outdoor opening small enough that it amortizes to a few square inches of "free range" land per animal. Many of whom will never get there because they die of various kinds of nastiness before they make it to the opening. The percentage of human-raised animals who are truly "free range" and roam grasslands in any meaningful sense begins with a decimal point. Cut the per-head subsidies and you cut the incentive to singularly maximize body count at the expense of all potential benefits of free-roaming animals.
dmbche 3y ago
Just for context for the reader, "free range meat" costs orders of magnitude more to make and takes so much more room that if industrial farming had to move to free range, I doubt most people could afford it more than once in a blue moon.
abeppu 3y ago
> However, most animals are raised on land that is not highly productive for crop agriculture. For example dry areas where most crops will deplete water resources or very hilly areas that are more prone to erosion and harder to operate tractors on But a key point is around crop diversity, and the monoculture mode of production. From the original page: > The world has over 50,000 edible plants. However, just three of them, rice, maize, and wheat, provide over 50 per cent of the world's food energy intake. So for any dry hilly area being used as pasture, and which is sufficient to support grazing animals _without additional feed_, is it really the case that there are _no_ crops, or combinations of crops which could work there? Or is it just that we should do a better job of supporting farmers discovering other ways of making their land productive? > Raising crops means completely altering the environment to an unnatural state Raising crops _can_ mean that, but regenerative agriculture can instead focus on working with the environment. Certainly beyond organic, no-till methods, permaculture, "natural farming" are on a spectrum that can deliberately involve and support more complex ecosystems. I think it's in kind of bad faith to respond with "but agriculture as most commonly practiced can be harmful and ineffective on some pasture land" in the context of an article arguing that we should radically shift how we practice agriculture.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
hosh 3y ago
> So meat and crop production are not a zero sum game and can even be complementary (crop farmers used to always have chickens, etc). 100%. And, based on the design, it can not only be complementary, there can be synesthetic effects that end up making even better use of the land. Another example besides chickens might be, adding water-harvesting features on hilly uplands (that livestock grazes), which replenishes the ground water that are made available to the crop lands.
triceratops 3y ago
What percentage of meat and dairy is free-range vs industrial feedlot-raised?

myshpa 3y ago

> The anti-meat take is always lacking in nuance The pro-meat take is (as always) lacking scientific basis for their claims, and ignores the biggest problems of the field, like biodiversity loss, deforestation, eutrophication/pollution, pesticide/herbicide use, ethical concerns etc. All science points in opposite direction from yours, no science exists supporting your claims. For scientific rebutal of your opinion see relevant part of the debate "Is livestock grazing essential to mitigating climate change?" between Alan Savory (a big proponent of rotational "regenerative" grazing) and George Monbiot. I watched it all, but am linking directly to the most relevant part. https://youtu.be/rhwEaCmQ2XE?t=1235 https://youtu.be/rhwEaCmQ2XE?t=1235 --- few links --- If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/ Meat eating could lead to habitat loss for 17,000 species by 2050 https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22287498/meat-wildlife-biodiversity-species-plantbased https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/22287498/meat-wildlife-bi... Our global food system is the primary driver of biodiversity loss https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/our-global-food-system-primary-driver-biodiversity-loss https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/our-glob... How Compatible Are Western European Dietary Patterns to Climate Targets? Accounting for Uncertainty of Life Cycle Assessments by Applying a Probabilistic Approach https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14449 https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14449 Which Diet Has the Least Environmental Impact on Our Planet? A Systematic Review of Vegan, Vegetarian and Omnivorous Diets https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4110/htm https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/15/4110/htm Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2°C climate change targets https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357 Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding...

j_heffe 3y ago
Coming from farm country in Iowa, I'm glad to see Allan Savory's work getting more publicity. Regenerative grazing definitely works. The problem is restoring a distressed ecosystem (typically soils) back to its natural state after desertification has already occurred in an area that livestock continually grazes. There are a few agTech companies looking at doing just that via different GMO seeding products of native grasses and plants, but the cost is still far too high economically coming in at around $50/acre. I don't think any farmer or rancher would argue that we need more free-range livestock and less confinements/stockyards, but it's a slow process.
DarkNova6 3y ago
It strikes me that this post is opinionated and exactly lacking the nuance described in the previous post. Nobody argues in favor of the meat industry at large. This is about the difference between localized, grass-fed beef which can be raised where crops cannot. The single largest issue with industrialized meat production is the environmental impact of the feed, which is a non issue if it is provided locally and organic. In fact, organically raised meat and animal products provide benefits to the local biodiversity. Note: I’m from the EU where you have strict laws on organic production and farm animals have to be almost exclusively fed with grass.
- dmbche 3y ago
  Please look into the effects of manure on the environnement - like the death zone in the Gulf of mexico. Everyone is arguing for the industrial meat industry at large. Free range meat will not produce anywhere near the same amount as the industrial industry. Please go look into L214 and 269 if you want to see how regulation is not respected in farms in the EU.
  - hosh 3y ago
    Manure produced by pasture-raised livestock is great! When the herd moves across the grasslands, it is similar to how the vast bison herds contribute back to the grasslands. That manure gets trampled back down into the grassland, where it helps restore the soil. When the grassy area is eaten to a certain point, you move the herd to a new area and let the old one rest. The problem with feedlots is that the manure accumulates. The ground is eaten until it is nothing (because you have the feed), and then the grass dies. Then the soil gets compacted. Meanwhile, since there is nowhere for the manure to go, and it is not being consumed by the grasses, it ends up become sludge, a source of health problems. > Everyone is arguing for the industrial meat industry at large. Free range meat will not produce anywhere near the same amount as the industrial industry. If the meat supply is reduced then so be it. And remember, the higher the quality of the meat, the less of it you need in your diet. But that's far different from a policy stance of zero-tolerance for meat, anywhere and everywhere.

voisin 3y ago

[flagged]

CaptainNegative 3y ago

This reply feels a bit tangential. The amount of land taken to raise livestock is a small fraction of the land used to grow their feed. You discuss the lack of nuance with respect to the former, but OP was talking about the latter. The land taken for raising animals hadn't even entered OP's equation yet, and can only strengthen their point. I think the confusion comes from the term free-range meat, which (at least in the US) is a marketing term far removed from what any normal person would consider "free range". It could be -- and often is -- just a barn with a fenced outdoor opening small enough that it amortizes to a few square inches of "free range" land per animal. Many of whom will never get there because they die of various kinds of nastiness before they make it to the opening. The percentage of human-raised animals who are truly "free range" and roam grasslands in any meaningful sense begins with a decimal point. Cut the per-head subsidies and you cut the incentive to singularly maximize body count at the expense of all potential benefits of free-roaming animals.

dmbche 3y ago

Just for context for the reader, "free range meat" costs orders of magnitude more to make and takes so much more room that if industrial farming had to move to free range, I doubt most people could afford it more than once in a blue moon.

abeppu 3y ago

> However, most animals are raised on land that is not highly productive for crop agriculture. For example dry areas where most crops will deplete water resources or very hilly areas that are more prone to erosion and harder to operate tractors on But a key point is around crop diversity, and the monoculture mode of production. From the original page: > The world has over 50,000 edible plants. However, just three of them, rice, maize, and wheat, provide over 50 per cent of the world's food energy intake. So for any dry hilly area being used as pasture, and which is sufficient to support grazing animals _without additional feed_, is it really the case that there are _no_ crops, or combinations of crops which could work there? Or is it just that we should do a better job of supporting farmers discovering other ways of making their land productive? > Raising crops means completely altering the environment to an unnatural state Raising crops _can_ mean that, but regenerative agriculture can instead focus on working with the environment. Certainly beyond organic, no-till methods, permaculture, "natural farming" are on a spectrum that can deliberately involve and support more complex ecosystems. I think it's in kind of bad faith to respond with "but agriculture as most commonly practiced can be harmful and ineffective on some pasture land" in the context of an article arguing that we should radically shift how we practice agriculture.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

hosh 3y ago

> So meat and crop production are not a zero sum game and can even be complementary (crop farmers used to always have chickens, etc). 100%. And, based on the design, it can not only be complementary, there can be synesthetic effects that end up making even better use of the land. Another example besides chickens might be, adding water-harvesting features on hilly uplands (that livestock grazes), which replenishes the ground water that are made available to the crop lands.

triceratops 3y ago

What percentage of meat and dairy is free-range vs industrial feedlot-raised?