Bone of Contention

Ask Umbra on meating your needs 9

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Hi Umbra,

I was shopping in the commissary (our lovely military grocery store) this afternoon when I noticed the “reduced for quick sale” meat section. [As a former vegetarian], I literally feel the weight of the world when I buy meat ... but when I saw this meat, it occurred to me that it was going to be thrown away within the next day or two if someone did not purchase it. To me, this is a worse crime: To have had that animal suffer a cruel factory farm existence only to have its meat completely wasted.

What do you think? I ended up buying some pork chops. Am I rationalizing my purchase? Am I fueling the factory farm that raised that pig? Or were they already paid when the commissary bought the meat and I just ensured the meat didn’t go to waste? What’s the best choice, to waste it or use it?

Megan S.
Fort Hood, Tex.

A. Dearest Megan,

Waste it. The lowered price does not change the essential character of the product. And if demand starts to dwindle, then ideally fewer animals will be sent to slaughter.

meatmouthYou have probably already resolved this waste-or-not dilemma in other situations. What do you do when given meat for dinner at a friend’s house? The friends already bought it, so the factory farm has already been paid. The meat is cooked, and if you don’t eat it, it may be wasted. Or what about attending a State Fair? At the food stands, hamburger has already been purchased and prepared for your dining pleasure.

There are many ways to protest conventional meat production—whose problems my fellow columnist Lou Bendrick has recently covered in gory detail—and I wager the most common is non-participation.

Well, no, probably omnivores sitting around and talking about disgusting factory farms is the most common (and least effective). Second most common protest is to eat less or no factory-produced meat. Avoiding meat affects multiple links in the food chain. Vendors sell less meat, hence buy less from producers, who purchase fewer calves/ chicks/ piglets/ bags of grain, and on down the line. Not that we see the impact of vegetarianism on the consumption numbers, alas: since the 1950s, the only meats we Americans have begun to eat less of are veal, eggs (nascent meat), and lamb. Our total annual poundage of meat consumption has gone from 138 pounds in the ‘50s to around 220 pounds in the ‘00s. I feel full.

A more promising trend is the obvious growing preference among affluent consumers for non-industrial meats. Organic certified livestock numbered about 11,000 in 1992, and in ‘05 was up to 196,000; broiler chickens (aka dinner) went from 17,000 to more than 10 million. Organic and other “naturally” raised meats are better for all concerned, and I include your wallet here as a player. If you persist in eating meat (which, after all, is tasty, easy to prepare, and popular), two key habits are to eat it infrequently and buy it locally/free range-raised. These two habits dovetail nicely. Non-industrial meat is more expensive than conventional meat, hence we can afford to purchase less total poundage. But that’s OK, because we wish to eat meat less often anyway—but when we do, we wish to send a message.

Just for kicks, I tried to find out how much it costs a conventional meat farmer to raise beef. It depends on equipment and feed costs, as well as economies of scale, but the ballpark number I found was $0.658 per pound. As you note, the producer has been paid by the time the meat hits the store, so this factoid has little relevance to your purchasing decisions. But what great cocktail party conversation. Right up there with reciting the Gallic Wars.

Gallia est omnis divisaly,
Umbra

 

 

 

Yours is to wonder why, hers is to answer (or try). Send your green-living questions to Umbra.

Umbra Fisk is Grist Research Associate II, Hardcover and Periodicals Unit, floors 2B-4B.

Related Stories

Advertisement
Advertisement

  1. veritone Posted 4:37 am
    24 Jun 2009

    I became a Vegan after watching the documentary: A Delicate Balance, which I'd highly recommend. Or if you really want to scare the bejesus out of yourself, watch Earthlings, narrated by Joachim Phoenix. I found I couldn't make it all the way through and have redoubled my commitment to veganism. As George Monbiot remarked, and I'm paraphrasing from memory: we can afford to feed ourselves or our livestock, not both. In the end it is mathematical, if the morality doesn't sway you beforehand.

    Permalink

  2. johnnyredpocket Posted 6:49 am
    24 Jun 2009

    i love meat

    Permalink

  3. Clifford Wells's avatar

    Clifford Wells Posted 8:43 am
    24 Jun 2009

    I don't feel anyone should buy meat just because it's about to "go," so as to prevent waste.  But the argument that not buying such meat does any good, or lowers demand somehow, seems specious.  All you're doing is hurting your grovery store, or in theis case, the BX. I see similar arguments when folks say we should boycott a certain brand of gasoline.  A popular urban myth is that if we boycott a company like Exxon, we can really hurt them.  Not true.  All you're doing is hurting the retailer or convenience store - because they already paid for thousands of gallons of fuel.  Gasoline is fungible and there is no such thing as "Exxon" gasoline versus another brand.  Exxon continues laughing all the way to the bank!It's a similar story with beef.  Buyers purchase half-cows that have been processed, and there is little brand allegiance unless you're in the organic or grass fed specialty markets - a side of beef is a side of beef that can be graded Choice through Prime.  It too is fungible, and the retailer buys sides of beef and pays cash before selling it.  The grower, feedlot, slaughter house, and truckers have already made their money. Digging further, if demand does in fact fall, which can at times, the market corrects itself by lowering the price of beef ... which in turn can cause consumers to buy more of it!  But there actually is a shortage of good beef now, and meat prices have shot through the roof.  The economics is quite puzzling and what seems like a simple solution just doesn't work. Which is why I say in answer to the question - do what you want to do, and if beef isn't on your personal menu, avoid the stuff like the plague. 

    Permalink

  4. achoirguy Posted 10:09 am
    24 Jun 2009

    Go Umbra!!! When I read the question I was worried you might give some softline answer, but you came right out and said it. WASTE IT!!! When we buy meat in any form, we support meat and all of the attendant evils. If that vendor saw the meat go "to waste", that is a clear indication of diminishing demand. You go girl.

    Permalink

  5. Former Ag Teacher Posted 9:58 pm
    24 Jun 2009

    Megan from Fort Hood may have a good question.  But the premise she provided with the question is errant.Food animals typically do not suffer a "cruel factory farm existence" when raised in modern livestock confinement operations. Such animals are well fed and watered, protected from extreme weather conditions and provided with veterinary care when needed.  They also aren't subjected to traumatic death by predatory animals.In the case of pigs, modern harvest plants use stunning methods, including carbon dioxide stunning, to put the animal into deep unconsiousness before they are killed.Producing pork and poultry in modern confinement units actually has less impact on the natural environment than open lot raised animals. In a confinement unit, feed efficiency (pound of feed it takes to make a pound of meat) is considerably higher than that of open lot animals, thus fewer resources are used to feed the animal to market weight.  In addition, manure is contained until the opportune time for the farmer to apply it to fertilize crops.  Conversely, manure from animals on open lots typically washes down gradient with each rain and ends up where gravity dictates, rather than where it will do the most good.Although you need to be an informed and smart consumer, your conscience need not be burdened when you buy meat at the grocery store.  In general, the animals are well treated and the United States has plenty of grain to feed animals with the goal of producing nutrient dense food for hungry people.

    Permalink

    1. splashy's avatar

      splashy Posted 1:35 am
      26 Jun 2009

      As someone that was around when the transition was made from pasturing to feedlots, the animals do suffer from not being allowed to go out in a pasture most of the day. There are more foot problems, they can't spread out the way they want to, and they wade in feces all day, no matter how clean you try to keep it.Can you imagine standing on concrete all day rather than the ground and grass your feet are designed no stand on? That's the life of feedlot cattle.

      Permalink

      1. Former Ag Teacher Posted 6:46 am
        26 Jun 2009

        I was mainly talking about hogs and poultry.  You don't see a lot of feet and leg problems in poultry.  Concrete doesn't cause much more problem for hogs than does dirt.  Feet and leg trouble in hogs are more a function of age and breeding.  Hogs and poultry on dirt lots spend much more time in their own manure than similar animals raised in.  I've raised hogs on dirt and in buildings.  The buildings are far superior.I don't doubt that you were around when the move to confinement systems accelerated.  But how much time did you spend on a farm?  Cattle, hogs and poultry are all gregarious animals.  They don't spread out a whole lot.  In fact, during the winter, you have to watch out for hogs piling up in shelters and crushing each other in pastured pork and open lot systems.Dairy cattle on concrete? Yes, in the Midwest, East, and Southeast where there is a lot of rain. And the concrete is kept pretty clean by scraping or flushing.  And the cows are usually bedded down in free stalls that are clean.   In the West, a lot fewer dairy cattle are on concrete because of the drier climate.As far as wading feces, based on my experience growing up on a 35 cow dairy farm I can tell that dairy most cattle in pasture based systems spend 3 to 4 months a year wading mud\manure.  Many small dairy farms moved to confinement systems for a large part of the year due to mud problems.Beef cattle on concrete? Not very much.  Most are fed in dirt lots.

        Permalink

  6. achoirguy Posted 11:48 pm
    24 Jun 2009

    Hmm... sounds like the meat industry discovered our hippie tree huggin' web site. LOL. Despite what the previous post says, meat is still quite harmful.

    Permalink

  7. gouletdrg's avatar

    gouletdrg Posted 8:11 am
    30 Jun 2009

    Myself, I would of used it.  The Commissary's are adding a lot of organic and natural selections (at least the ones in my area are), so I want to support the commissary (and use my benefits) to support their move.  The reason is also for the people.  Someone mentioned the BX.  The PX/BX (or AAFES depending upon what branch you are in) is not paid for by tax dollars.  The Exchanges, along with other Morale, Welfare, Recreation (MWR) facilities are paid by service members by our use.  The Commissary is paid by tax dollars, partially controlled by Congress, and paid for by the tax payer.  As the American people support the Armed Forces (maybe not all the missions but the service members and familiies), I would not want the food to be wasted.  Since I eat mostly organic/natural foods when I can, and I try to eat vegan at least once a week, I would "buy it" in good conscience.  Then I would either use it for a meal when I have guests (sometimes I have to mix-up natural and not due to price or availablitity anyway) or donate it/prepare it for a soup kitchen.  If I choose "buy-it", I would try to attempt to purchase what I could not find in organic/natural and only what is a need.  Just my thought!

    Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Viewed
More
Commented
More
Advertisement