3 ms·

> “These factory farms operate like sewerless cities,” Does anyone want to tell them how septic systems work? > generate nearly 2.5 billion pounds of waste ev

> “These factory farms operate like sewerless cities,” Does anyone want to tell them how septic systems work? > generate nearly 2.5 billion pounds of waste every day [...] or spread onto crop fields as fertilizer Vox is mad that they're essentially recycling? > “a comprehensive evaluation is essential before determining whether any regulatory revisions are necessary or appropriate.” I guess reason is no longer a virtue, at least to Vox, who would prefer a fully reactionary government that operates from the same level of ignorance as their writing pool.

CuriouslyC 3y ago
The problem is that you have uncomposted manure in large quantities that can runoff leading to water supply contamination. Feedlots are destructive to the environment in a way that rotational grazing is not. Grass fed beef with rotational grazing is good for the environment, reducing fertilizer requirements without causing food contamination or wasting resources trucking cows and grain around. It's not good for big-ag, because they need a market for their subsidized corn/soybeans and it's not good for national beef producers because they want to co-locate and integrate everything for cost savings, but it'd be good for the cows, the environment and local businesses that are being undercut by the national players.
- myshpa 3y ago
  > Grass fed beef with rotational grazing is good for the environment Grass-fed beef isn't necessarily better for the environment than beef from CAFOs. While grass-fed systems offer benefits like soil health, they often require more land, potentially leading to deforestation. They can also be less efficient in terms of resource use and have variable effects on carbon sequestration. A comprehensive assessment considering land use efficiency, resource consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions is essential to fully understand the environmental impact of different beef production methods. https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/publications/grazed-and-confused/ https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/publications/grazed-and-co... "About 75% to 80% of grass-fed beef sold in the U.S. is grown abroad, from Australia, New Zealand and parts of South America ..." "Many U.S. customers who want to support local food are likely unaware of the foreign origin of most grass-fed beef. By law, if meat is "processed," or passes through a USDA-inspected plant (a requirement for all imported beef), it can be labeled as a product of the U.S. " https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/13/746576239/is-grass-fed-beef-really-better-for-the-planet-heres-the-science https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/13/746576239/is... "This report concludes that grass-fed livestock are not a climate solution. Grazing livestock are net contributors to the climate problem, as are all livestock. Rising animal production and consumption, whatever the farming system and animal type, is causing damaging greenhouse gas release and contributing to changes in land use. 'Ultimately, if high consuming individuals and countries want to do something positive for the climate, maintaining their current consumption levels but simply switching to grass-fed beef is not a solution. Eating less meat, of all types, is.’" https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-10-03-grass-fed-beef-good-or-bad-climate https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-10-03-grass-fed-beef-good-or-...
  - hebrox 3y ago
    So less and local and grass-fed?
    - myshpa 3y ago
      Less absolutely (none is best) [0], local isn't that much better [1], grass-fed has its cons and pros [2]. [0] https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/917471 https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/917471 [1] https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local Transport typically accounts for less than 1% of beef’s GHG emissions: choosing to eat local has very minimal effects on its total footprint [2] https://foodrevolution.org/blog/grass-fed-beef-2021-update/ https://foodrevolution.org/blog/grass-fed-beef-2021-update/
  - CuriouslyC 3y ago
    It is better if part of an integrated system. Grass fed beef consumed locally/regionally reduces fertilizer use and transportation costs (fuel use, number of trucks required, road wear). Deforestation is only a problem if you have a corrupt government that doesn't manage its land and gives carte blanche for destructive behavior. People will naturally eat less meat at a higher price point. Currently the externalities of industrial meat production aren't priced into the cost of factory meat, which is why it's artificially cheap. If you were to price those things into it, it'd be more expensive than (or at least at parity with) sustainably raised animals.
    - myshpa 3y ago
      > Grass fed beef consumed locally/regionally reduces fertilizer use and transportation costs > Deforestation is only a problem if you have a corrupt government that doesn't manage its land While governance plays a role in deforestation, these pastures are often already deforested areas. Producing beef there still demands a significant amount of agricultural land for a minor share of our caloric intake. Reforesting could offer greater benefits like carbon storage and biodiversity restoration. > People will naturally eat less meat at a higher price point. Currently the externalities of industrial meat production aren't priced into the cost of factory meat, which is why it's artificially cheap Exactly, and that's why I believe that subsidies for polluting and destructive sectors should be abolished, and these sectors should be appropriately taxed. Doing so could make the price of meat prohibitive for most, which aligns with your point about higher prices reducing consumption. It's uncertain how many animals could be raised sustainably, and how many people would be able to afford meat from such sources. The number for both is likely low. I also worry about biodiversity. If we've managed to reduce animal populations by 70% in the last 50 years, how long will it be until they collapse completely? Agriculture is the main culprit, with animal agriculture making up 80% of it. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/13/almost-70-of-animal-populations-wiped-out-since-1970-report-reveals-aoe https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/13/almost-7...
- kolanos 3y ago
  > The problem is that you have uncomposted manure in large quantities that can runoff leading to water supply contamination. Where do you think a city's sewage goes? In LA, for example: > The treated wastewater (effluent) that is not reclaimed is piped into the Los Angeles River, Santa Monica Bay, or Los Angeles Harbor to name a few. Most cities don't recycle their poop. They just dump it into the nearest body of water after processing it. [0]: https://dpw.lacounty.gov/landing/wr/sewer/wwTreatment.cfm#:~:text=The%20treated%20wastewater%20(effluent)%20that,compatible%20with%20these%20aquatic%20environments https://dpw.lacounty.gov/landing/wr/sewer/wwTreatment.cfm#:~....
  - ianburrell 3y ago
    Treated wastewater is very different than raw sewage. It is cleaner than the river or ocean. Reclaimed water is used for non-potable uses like watering plants. LA is working on recycling all wastewater as potable water.
    - kolanos 3y ago
      We're not talking about the waste water, we are talking about the solid matter, which as per the link I provided is dumped into the nearest body of water.
      - IcyWindows 3y ago
        The part you quoted didn't say that, and the page you linked isn't loading for me.

CuriouslyC 3y ago

The problem is that you have uncomposted manure in large quantities that can runoff leading to water supply contamination. Feedlots are destructive to the environment in a way that rotational grazing is not. Grass fed beef with rotational grazing is good for the environment, reducing fertilizer requirements without causing food contamination or wasting resources trucking cows and grain around. It's not good for big-ag, because they need a market for their subsidized corn/soybeans and it's not good for national beef producers because they want to co-locate and integrate everything for cost savings, but it'd be good for the cows, the environment and local businesses that are being undercut by the national players.

myshpa 3y ago
> Grass fed beef with rotational grazing is good for the environment Grass-fed beef isn't necessarily better for the environment than beef from CAFOs. While grass-fed systems offer benefits like soil health, they often require more land, potentially leading to deforestation. They can also be less efficient in terms of resource use and have variable effects on carbon sequestration. A comprehensive assessment considering land use efficiency, resource consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions is essential to fully understand the environmental impact of different beef production methods. https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/publications/grazed-and-confused/ https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/publications/grazed-and-co... "About 75% to 80% of grass-fed beef sold in the U.S. is grown abroad, from Australia, New Zealand and parts of South America ..." "Many U.S. customers who want to support local food are likely unaware of the foreign origin of most grass-fed beef. By law, if meat is "processed," or passes through a USDA-inspected plant (a requirement for all imported beef), it can be labeled as a product of the U.S. " https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/13/746576239/is-grass-fed-beef-really-better-for-the-planet-heres-the-science https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/13/746576239/is... "This report concludes that grass-fed livestock are not a climate solution. Grazing livestock are net contributors to the climate problem, as are all livestock. Rising animal production and consumption, whatever the farming system and animal type, is causing damaging greenhouse gas release and contributing to changes in land use. 'Ultimately, if high consuming individuals and countries want to do something positive for the climate, maintaining their current consumption levels but simply switching to grass-fed beef is not a solution. Eating less meat, of all types, is.’" https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-10-03-grass-fed-beef-good-or-bad-climate https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-10-03-grass-fed-beef-good-or-...
- hebrox 3y ago
  So less and local and grass-fed?
  - myshpa 3y ago
    Less absolutely (none is best) [0], local isn't that much better [1], grass-fed has its cons and pros [2]. [0] https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/917471 https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/917471 [1] https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local Transport typically accounts for less than 1% of beef’s GHG emissions: choosing to eat local has very minimal effects on its total footprint [2] https://foodrevolution.org/blog/grass-fed-beef-2021-update/ https://foodrevolution.org/blog/grass-fed-beef-2021-update/
- CuriouslyC 3y ago
  It is better if part of an integrated system. Grass fed beef consumed locally/regionally reduces fertilizer use and transportation costs (fuel use, number of trucks required, road wear). Deforestation is only a problem if you have a corrupt government that doesn't manage its land and gives carte blanche for destructive behavior. People will naturally eat less meat at a higher price point. Currently the externalities of industrial meat production aren't priced into the cost of factory meat, which is why it's artificially cheap. If you were to price those things into it, it'd be more expensive than (or at least at parity with) sustainably raised animals.
  - myshpa 3y ago
    > Grass fed beef consumed locally/regionally reduces fertilizer use and transportation costs > Deforestation is only a problem if you have a corrupt government that doesn't manage its land While governance plays a role in deforestation, these pastures are often already deforested areas. Producing beef there still demands a significant amount of agricultural land for a minor share of our caloric intake. Reforesting could offer greater benefits like carbon storage and biodiversity restoration. > People will naturally eat less meat at a higher price point. Currently the externalities of industrial meat production aren't priced into the cost of factory meat, which is why it's artificially cheap Exactly, and that's why I believe that subsidies for polluting and destructive sectors should be abolished, and these sectors should be appropriately taxed. Doing so could make the price of meat prohibitive for most, which aligns with your point about higher prices reducing consumption. It's uncertain how many animals could be raised sustainably, and how many people would be able to afford meat from such sources. The number for both is likely low. I also worry about biodiversity. If we've managed to reduce animal populations by 70% in the last 50 years, how long will it be until they collapse completely? Agriculture is the main culprit, with animal agriculture making up 80% of it. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/13/almost-70-of-animal-populations-wiped-out-since-1970-report-reveals-aoe https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/13/almost-7...
kolanos 3y ago
> The problem is that you have uncomposted manure in large quantities that can runoff leading to water supply contamination. Where do you think a city's sewage goes? In LA, for example: > The treated wastewater (effluent) that is not reclaimed is piped into the Los Angeles River, Santa Monica Bay, or Los Angeles Harbor to name a few. Most cities don't recycle their poop. They just dump it into the nearest body of water after processing it. [0]: https://dpw.lacounty.gov/landing/wr/sewer/wwTreatment.cfm#:~:text=The%20treated%20wastewater%20(effluent)%20that,compatible%20with%20these%20aquatic%20environments https://dpw.lacounty.gov/landing/wr/sewer/wwTreatment.cfm#:~....
- ianburrell 3y ago
  Treated wastewater is very different than raw sewage. It is cleaner than the river or ocean. Reclaimed water is used for non-potable uses like watering plants. LA is working on recycling all wastewater as potable water.
  - kolanos 3y ago
    We're not talking about the waste water, we are talking about the solid matter, which as per the link I provided is dumped into the nearest body of water.
    - IcyWindows 3y ago
      The part you quoted didn't say that, and the page you linked isn't loading for me.