New Union of Concerned Scientists report finds grass-raised beef healthier 11

Comments View as Threaded

1. 

   jdhlax Posted 7:27 am
   08 Mar 2006

   Animal Rights/Human Health v. EcosystemsWhile everything said here is correct, you left out the most ecologically important point: cattle & sheep grazing in the western U.S. is extremely ecologically destructive.  These animals are not native, nor anything like the native ungulates in either behavior or population, and have turned our western grasslands into deserts.  At least cattle kept indoors won't do this, nor will their "constant shuffling of hooves raise[] a bacteria-laden dust cloud that's carried by the prevailing winds."  The best solution is to completely remove cattle and domestic sheep from the west.  As consumers, we should all boycott beef and lamb, two totally unnecessary foods that Americans eat way too much of anyway, until those animals are raised in ways that are not ecologically destructive AND are humane.
   
   Jeff Hoffman

   Permalink

2. 

   Tom Philpott Posted 8:34 am
   08 Mar 2006

   Cattle and the US westJeff,
   
   I think what you're talking about is intensive over-grazing. Cattle given plenty of room to graze actually keep pastures from becoming deserts. Granted that cattle thus raised can't supply beef or milk at present rates of consumption.

   Permalink

3. 

   CowsEatGrass Posted 9:53 am
   08 Mar 2006

   Thanks for this!Great Post!
   I just wanted to add that even some large portion of those cattle who start their life in the pasture end up at a feedlot for "finishing."
   While to some this may be slight more karmically appealing, this doesn't change the fact that it's inhumane, ecologically destructive, and economically degrading (for rural communities of course, not the owners).
   One hurdle to overcome here is that the average palate is accustomed to corn-fed beef.  Grass fed and finished beef just tastes different.  The growing popularity and refinement of grazing techniques has done away with the consistency problems (in a marketing sense) that grass fed beef had no so long ago, but it just tastes different, I think better, but different nonetheless.  On-farm grain finishing by local producers may still be a viable and sane option, and cows can remain healthy while eating some(!) grain.
   To follow up on the other posts, the other (possibly larger) hurdle to overcome is the fact that per capita beef consumption will need to drop pretty dramatically for feedlots to disappear.
   Anyway, thanks for the post.
   
   Go meet a farmer and shake her/his hand, then put some money directly in it!  Thank your farmer and respect your dinner.

   Permalink

4. 

   birdboy Posted 10:26 am
   08 Mar 2006

   tell it on the mountain!!Man, I wish this story would appear on prime-time TV. I have a hard time convincing people that this is really happening, and I find that most people really don't want to know where their food comes from (so they don't have to feel guilty, I guess).
   I would add a couple things- first, eating meat 2-3 times a day is something only Americans do, and is likely to blame for many of our health problems (aside from those caused by antibiotics and hormones). It takes far more resources per calorie to produce meat than it does to eat the food being fed to cattle. We could feed a lot of starving humans with the grain being wasted on meat production, without causing further damage to our ecosystems.
   Second, the reduced prices that feedlots offer America (at great cost to the environment AND world hunger) are making it impossible for small farmers to survive. Their land is being sold off for development (most of it speculative) because they can't compete with feedlots.
   It's easy for us to help improve this situation- eat less meat and either find a farmer's market or join a CSA. That also reduces the fuel used to bring the food to your kitchen.
   
   a liberal in redsville

   Permalink

5. 

   jdhlax Posted 1:23 pm
   08 Mar 2006

   OvergrazingTom,
   
   No, I was referring to all cattle and sheep in the west.  See "Sacred Cows at the Public Trough" by Nancy Ferguson and/or "Welfare Ranching" by George Wuerthner and/or "The Western Range Revisited"
   
   by Debra L. Donahue.  As I said, cattle are not native, and the western grasses cannot tolerate being grazed much, nor being tromped on by such heavy animals.  Ranchers also employ some very anti-environmental tactics, like killing predators that would normally keep ungulates from lounging by creeks or streams, erecting fences, etc.  All of this contributes to the harm, but there is no more ecologically correct number of cattle per acre than there is nuclear bombs per city.  Your statement sounds like cattle industry propaganda.  What is your source?
   
   Jeff Hoffman

   Permalink

6. 

   amazingdrx Posted 11:32 pm
   08 Mar 2006

   Rotational grazinghttp://cecommerce.uwex.edu/pdfs/A3529.PDF  (beware PDF, takes time to load)
   "In Wisconsin, graziers averaged about $200 more per cow net farm income than confinement dairy farms..."
   A program on Wisconsin Public Television about the new wave of farmers using toyayional grazing was an eye opener.  It was about a gamily actually going back into the family business of dairy farming, rather than the trend of farms selling out to corporate farming.
   What nade it possible?  No huge overhead in the form of loans for chemical fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides, farm equipment, huge buildings, heating costs, feed costs..and on and on.  This farm featured rotational grazing and a winter break from milking, giving the family a much needed vacation every year.
   The gap in production didn't hurt the economics, because the lower costs all around more than made up for it.  The only expensive part of the operation was a modern two stall milking parlour.
   Manure was recycled right in the field where the cows spread it.
   And the best part for the economics? After a few years of clean, chemical free operation these farms can sell organic dairy products, claiming a premium price.  With organic cheese making added, as some family farms have gone to, the economics beat agribizz farming by 10 miles.
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

   Permalink

7. 

   accel2 Posted 12:04 am
   09 Mar 2006

   Useful linksGRACE Factory Farm Project
   
   Sustainable Table
   
   The Meatrix (the original)
   
   The Meatrix 2
   -Mike

   Permalink

8. 

   Biodiversivist Posted 12:45 am
   09 Mar 2006

   Now that the world is flat,things get more complicated. For example, Argentina has the highest consumption of beef per capita in the world. My daughter spent last summer in Paraguay. The family she stayed with ate beef three times a day. She hardly saw a vegetable. Here is a link describing what is happening in the beef and milk world from a global perspective. The average American consumes 10 pounds of coffee, 70 pounds of beef ,and 4000 pounds of gasoline annually.
   That difference in price you noted is astounding. That is almost double the cost. Imagine doubling the cost of all food. It would hardly make a dent in our budget, but because all human societies have a wealth gradient, it would nail those at the low-end big time, as usual. Now, lets assume everyone buys shade grown coffee as well and pays the real unsubsidized price for biofuels. Not pretty. Grass fed beef is essentially a compromise between one form of beef production and just swearing off beef. I wonder which is easier to accomplish, convince people to buy grass fed beef or convince them to eat less beef? Maybe a combination. American consumption of beef is way down from twenty years ago.
   
   
   
   In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Help acquire and protect ecological hotspots, give to a conservation organization: http://www.saveourbiodiversity.com

   Permalink

9. 

   Tom Philpott Posted 1:33 am
   09 Mar 2006

   Shill for the cattle industryJeff Hoffman wrote: "Your statement sounds like cattle industry propaganda."
   Yeah, I'm a shill for the cattle industry. Trouble is, where's my paycheck?
   
   More soon.
   
   Tom

   Permalink

10. 

    jdhlax Posted 2:36 am
    10 Mar 2006

    ClarificationTom,
    
    I didn't mean to imply you're a shill for the cattle industry.  What I meant was that you seem to have been misled by its propaganda.  This is a very powerful and wealthy industry that hires "scientists" to convince people that cattle grazing is good for the land, just as the Bush administration uses "scientists" to convince people that global warming doesn't exist or, if it does, that it's natural and not human-caused.
    The harms caused to the western U.S. by cattle and sheep grazing are massive and extensive, but also require a good amount of research in order to understand them.  If your sources come from those who support or are supported by the industry, you have no way to know what's really going on.  The only native ungulates similar to cattle were bison, and their habitat was east of the Rocky Mountains, with a few rare exceptions of very small herds.
    
    Jeff Hoffman

    Permalink

11. 

    CowsEatGrass Posted 7:13 am
    10 Mar 2006

    SarcasmYeah, Tom, you're just not smart enough to know when you're being fooled.  Some day you'll learn...

    Permalink