3 ms·

Industrial feed lots are the problem to be more specific. We can't lump together all ways animals can be raised and say cows are the problem when the real culpr

Industrial feed lots are the problem to be more specific. We can't lump together all ways animals can be raised and say cows are the problem when the real culprit is one method of raising cattle. I raise cattle on pasture and 95% of the time they're drinking from our ponds that are filled by a combination of rainwater and natural springs. Cows aren't the problem. Industrial cattle production based on feedlots and an insanely centralized infrastructure is.

kristjansson 2y ago
The stat GP is alluding to isn’t even about drinking water, it’s mostly about the water required to grow feed.
- _heimdall 2y ago
  Thanks, I may have just misread that. I have the same argument though. For our cattle we give very little feed, depending on the time of year their diet will only have 5-10% supplemental feed, and that's just enough to keep them trained to come when called. We've kept stock density at a rate that our cattle can eat almost entirely from our pastures and woods. If we absolutely do have to buy hay, we buy it from a local guy who has a field he doesn't spray or irrigate. Its effectively a field behind his house that he otherwise doesn't use for hay, most people around here want sprayed and fertilized fields that are monocropped fescue or bahia. We aren't doing everything right by any means, but cows absolutely can be raised without causing so many of the problems that industrial lots cause. Its too easy to see those problems and demonize everything about raising cattle.
  - kristjansson 2y ago
    Totally, I think we're making the same point. The average water intensity of livestock does not matter; what does matter is how much of that demand is met by water that could otherwise be withdrawn for human use.
  - dgacmu 2y ago
    Analyzing the industry is tricky, though - do you sell to a feedlot, or raise on pasture to slaughter? (Most cow/calf operations sell to a feedlot, but you sound like you may be keeping them all the way?) The drawback to fully pasture-raised is more methane, of course, but.. I've got no idea how to put that on a reasonable comparison to water use.
    - _heimdall 2y ago
      That's correct, we raise them here from breeding to slaughter. In an ideal world we would slaughter and process on site as well, more for animal welfare and quality of the final meat. Today that is only possible when selling cow shares though, we can't legally process on site and sell cuts of meat locally. The methane question has always been an interesting one to me. I've honestly never been able to fin compelling research that I felt confident in the unbiased approach to both the study itself and the interpretation of results. Climate change has been a political debate for so long that I really don't know what studies there to trust. St the end of the day cows do in fact fart. Is that a problem? Is it a problem only under certain conditions, like high stock density? Is the problem that we have outgrown our cage and the planet can't sustain 8 billion humans, regardless of what they eat? I don't know the answer there and doubt anyone who claims to, but I do know that our cattle and pastures are extremely healthy with very little input.
      - dgacmu 2y ago
        That's cool and rare. (And yes, the centralization of meatpacking is a big challenge. It makes sense economically and simultaneously has some bad effects.) I think the amount of methane produced on forage is reasonably well-quantified, though there's definitely a question of how you "bill" the methane in terms of contribution to climate change in terms of CO2e given the different breakdown times. In general, it's probably a problem -- but other ruminants burp as well, and if it's not cattle grazing, it was bison. Arguably, we'd be much better off if we reduced our beef consumption to the level we could manage pasture-raised, which would hold pasture methane constant and reduce the feedlot co2 (and nitrogen runoff).

kristjansson 2y ago

The stat GP is alluding to isn’t even about drinking water, it’s mostly about the water required to grow feed.

_heimdall 2y ago
Thanks, I may have just misread that. I have the same argument though. For our cattle we give very little feed, depending on the time of year their diet will only have 5-10% supplemental feed, and that's just enough to keep them trained to come when called. We've kept stock density at a rate that our cattle can eat almost entirely from our pastures and woods. If we absolutely do have to buy hay, we buy it from a local guy who has a field he doesn't spray or irrigate. Its effectively a field behind his house that he otherwise doesn't use for hay, most people around here want sprayed and fertilized fields that are monocropped fescue or bahia. We aren't doing everything right by any means, but cows absolutely can be raised without causing so many of the problems that industrial lots cause. Its too easy to see those problems and demonize everything about raising cattle.
- kristjansson 2y ago
  Totally, I think we're making the same point. The average water intensity of livestock does not matter; what does matter is how much of that demand is met by water that could otherwise be withdrawn for human use.
- dgacmu 2y ago
  Analyzing the industry is tricky, though - do you sell to a feedlot, or raise on pasture to slaughter? (Most cow/calf operations sell to a feedlot, but you sound like you may be keeping them all the way?) The drawback to fully pasture-raised is more methane, of course, but.. I've got no idea how to put that on a reasonable comparison to water use.
  - _heimdall 2y ago
    That's correct, we raise them here from breeding to slaughter. In an ideal world we would slaughter and process on site as well, more for animal welfare and quality of the final meat. Today that is only possible when selling cow shares though, we can't legally process on site and sell cuts of meat locally. The methane question has always been an interesting one to me. I've honestly never been able to fin compelling research that I felt confident in the unbiased approach to both the study itself and the interpretation of results. Climate change has been a political debate for so long that I really don't know what studies there to trust. St the end of the day cows do in fact fart. Is that a problem? Is it a problem only under certain conditions, like high stock density? Is the problem that we have outgrown our cage and the planet can't sustain 8 billion humans, regardless of what they eat? I don't know the answer there and doubt anyone who claims to, but I do know that our cattle and pastures are extremely healthy with very little input.
    - dgacmu 2y ago
      That's cool and rare. (And yes, the centralization of meatpacking is a big challenge. It makes sense economically and simultaneously has some bad effects.) I think the amount of methane produced on forage is reasonably well-quantified, though there's definitely a question of how you "bill" the methane in terms of contribution to climate change in terms of CO2e given the different breakdown times. In general, it's probably a problem -- but other ruminants burp as well, and if it's not cattle grazing, it was bison. Arguably, we'd be much better off if we reduced our beef consumption to the level we could manage pasture-raised, which would hold pasture methane constant and reduce the feedlot co2 (and nitrogen runoff).