4 ms·

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

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.
myshpa 3y ago
> this is about the difference between localized, grass-fed beef which can be raised where crops cannot Sure, that's obvious. But we don't need those calories to sustain ourselves. > 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. Sources? > strict laws on organic production and farm animals have to be almost exclusively fed with grass EU is one of the largest importers of soy from deforested Amazon. What part of EU grown beef is organic & exclusively fed with grass?
- DarkNova6 3y ago
  > Sure, that's obvious. But we don't need those calories to sustain ourselves. This is completely different topic. You won't change people's habits. I for one would be in great favour of large-scale insect farming as they are way more efficient sources of protein but you are not going to change anybody's habit just by arguing from such a perspective. > Sources? On the one hand, most models fail to capture carbon sequestration and purely assess carbon exhaust. This is a fair approximation if your source of feed is based upon the deforestation of the Amazon. However, for grazing animals decomposing gras will just emit the carbon it has captured throughout its lifetime. And most of all, it will regrow rather swiftly. A recent paper which I could find that took this into account is here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095965262203356X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095965262... Quote: "However, although the environmental impacts are well defined in LCAs, most of them do not include carbon sequestration, which is an important limitation when studying real emissions in more sustainable animal production systems. In this context, compensated CF -including carbon sequestration-implies a greater reduction in those systems that are more linked to the territory." > EU is one of the largest importers of soy from deforested Amazon. Again, there is a categoric difference between typical highly processed industrial agriculture and organic. Especially Spain has a powerful agriculture lobby with vast lands which only produce crops and meat. Certainly, a lot of things are going wrong and due to subsidies there is so much overproduction that European products are dumping the African market. Destroying the local competition. On the other hand, the US loves to make people fat by subsidising big Corn. In fact, it is subsidised so much that creating high fructose corn syrup is cheaper than buying sugar canes from abroad. Too bad that the sugar in corn is fructose, which promotes fatty liver disease. > What part of EU grown beef is organic & exclusively fed with grass? There is the official EU organic label, which has hard criteria. However, there are many other labels which go even further. Base EU guidelines: https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/farming/organic-farming/organic-production-and-products_en https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/farming/organic-farming/org...

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.

myshpa 3y ago

> this is about the difference between localized, grass-fed beef which can be raised where crops cannot Sure, that's obvious. But we don't need those calories to sustain ourselves. > 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. Sources? > strict laws on organic production and farm animals have to be almost exclusively fed with grass EU is one of the largest importers of soy from deforested Amazon. What part of EU grown beef is organic & exclusively fed with grass?

DarkNova6 3y ago
> Sure, that's obvious. But we don't need those calories to sustain ourselves. This is completely different topic. You won't change people's habits. I for one would be in great favour of large-scale insect farming as they are way more efficient sources of protein but you are not going to change anybody's habit just by arguing from such a perspective. > Sources? On the one hand, most models fail to capture carbon sequestration and purely assess carbon exhaust. This is a fair approximation if your source of feed is based upon the deforestation of the Amazon. However, for grazing animals decomposing gras will just emit the carbon it has captured throughout its lifetime. And most of all, it will regrow rather swiftly. A recent paper which I could find that took this into account is here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095965262203356X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095965262... Quote: "However, although the environmental impacts are well defined in LCAs, most of them do not include carbon sequestration, which is an important limitation when studying real emissions in more sustainable animal production systems. In this context, compensated CF -including carbon sequestration-implies a greater reduction in those systems that are more linked to the territory." > EU is one of the largest importers of soy from deforested Amazon. Again, there is a categoric difference between typical highly processed industrial agriculture and organic. Especially Spain has a powerful agriculture lobby with vast lands which only produce crops and meat. Certainly, a lot of things are going wrong and due to subsidies there is so much overproduction that European products are dumping the African market. Destroying the local competition. On the other hand, the US loves to make people fat by subsidising big Corn. In fact, it is subsidised so much that creating high fructose corn syrup is cheaper than buying sugar canes from abroad. Too bad that the sugar in corn is fructose, which promotes fatty liver disease. > What part of EU grown beef is organic & exclusively fed with grass? There is the official EU organic label, which has hard criteria. However, there are many other labels which go even further. Base EU guidelines: https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/farming/organic-farming/organic-production-and-products_en https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/farming/organic-farming/org...