So we either all become vegan or there really needs to be a plague to wipe out 3/4 of the world's population.

I am hoping for a plague.

It leans heavily vegetarian, and doesn't really provide any answers.  But I thought it was interesting.

The kids and I are veggies but I struggle with where/from whom to purchase meat for DH.  He only eats chicken at home, but I can't/won't deal with whole birds.  So that limits my options somewhat.

majorwife:

So we either all become vegan or there really needs to be a plague to wipe out 3/4 of the world's population.

I am hoping for a plague.

Ditto.

DH has slowly eaten less meat in the 10 yrs we have been together, but he won't eat beans or tofu or eggs, so unless/until he becomes less picky about those, I do think he "needs" it for the protein.  

We do chicken only at home mostly bc it is cheap and lean.  He will usually get a burger at a restaurant though.

I call bullsh!t on this article.

Also, it did not discuss rabbits, which are a very eco-friendly, and delicious, food source.

mxolisi:

This is a good read. I think one of the side benefits of "sustainable" meats is their expense. Most people can't afford to eat them in the same volume as factory farmed meat. Most of my friends only cook meat once a week at the most and maybe eat it out at a restaurant once or twice more. 

Very good point!  I think one is also more likely to use every scrap- make soup stock from the bones, etc, when they are paying that much for it.

We cook half to 1 chicken a week, typically.  And maybe eat out once a week.  That is for DH only though, which still seems like a lot.  Off to look up stats on average meat consumption. 

According to the google, USA was 89 kg per person in 1961, and 124 kg per person in 2002.

Using the 2002 number, that is about 273 lbs of meat so 0.74 lbs a day.

So for us, if an average chicken weighs 5 lbs, and half is meat (again according to google) then DH eats about 0.35 lbs of meat a day. 

Alisha_A:

I call bullsh!t on this article.

Also, it did not discuss rabbits, which are a very eco-friendly, and delicious, food source.

What do you disagree with?  I don't know much about meat production as a vegetarian (other than that I think the whole thing is yucky, lol) so I genuinely want to know. 

suzymarie:

Alisha_A:

I call bullsh!t on this article.

Also, it did not discuss rabbits, which are a very eco-friendly, and delicious, food source.

What do you disagree with?  I don't know much about meat production as a vegetarian (other than that I think the whole thing is yucky, lol) so I genuinely want to know. 

Specifically, the allegations that pastured cattle emit more methane, and that pastured chickens have a higher effect on global warming by 20%. I see no sources or facts to back this up, its illogical, and the chicken allegation seems rather ridiculous. Global warming is a very big, complicated topic. How did anyone come up with this 20% number?

In general, I think its an article that takes a very limited view and is geared towards a specific conclusion.

One of the biggest problems with our current system is the mindset of the American consumer: wanting copious amounts of animal products in their diet, and expecting it to be 'cheap'. Without changing this, we can't achieve a sustainable animal product system.

I haven't been around much but many know I'm very passionate about sustainable and better foods.

This article would have been a great opportunity to address the cheap food myth. Sure, you may get .50 a carton eggs on sale, but you're paying for that with expensive fish as we decimate local waters with the run off from factory farms, you're paying for it in tax dollars that subsidize mass agriculture and that pay for environmental cleanup of sites (some of which are 'dirty' due to agriculture, like the Potomac), we pay for it in our health and health care, and so on. Cheap food, isn't cheap.

It would've been great to see 'alternative' meats like goat and rabbit addressed. For some reason Americans are squeamish about eating goat, but its a very sustainable meat and has been a staple of several cultures, including Greek and Jamaican diets. Rabbit is effing delicious, and very easy to raise, very easy on the environment, take up less room than chicken, healthy lean meat, etc.

I just think the article, beyond not backing up its claims, just took a 'here's why it can't work, we shouldn't do anything' stance, and that's lame, and pointless.

Now this post has potential!!

 I think the biggest problem, aside from wether sustainable vs. industrial is 'better' for the environment, is simply that North Americans consume FAR to much meat in general. It is NOT healthy for the environment (or our diets) to consume meat the way we do. I grew up in a house that ate meat at almost every meal - thats totally overboard. Now, we actually did it because as farmers (dairy) it was the cheapest option for us to just slaughter a cow from time to time.

I always try to eat less meat at home and for whatever reason, it never happens. 

duplicate, sorry!

triplicate, jeez!!

ringstrue:

The bad breeding is a stupid argument. There are less than a handful of "industrial" breeds and plenty more un-industrial breeds that don't suffer from shitty genes that give them things like leg pains when they actual walk.

The methane thing is also a silly argument, imo. The dang globe isn't going to be ruined by COWS. Hi?!

The issue the author is confronting is about providing enough meat for our shitty American diets. What about a diet where people actually did only eat red meat 2-3 times a week? What about looking into animals that are simply better suited to sustainable farming - like cat fish. There is a huge difference between providing the level and type of meat people have/want now and just giving it all up to go vegan.

Do you know anything at all about the methane cycle enough to support this "opinion" or are you just dismissing it because it sounds silly to you?

ChiChimi:

ringstrue:

The bad breeding is a stupid argument. There are less than a handful of "industrial" breeds and plenty more un-industrial breeds that don't suffer from shitty genes that give them things like leg pains when they actual walk.

The methane thing is also a silly argument, imo. The dang globe isn't going to be ruined by COWS. Hi?!

The issue the author is confronting is about providing enough meat for our shitty American diets. What about a diet where people actually did only eat red meat 2-3 times a week? What about looking into animals that are simply better suited to sustainable farming - like cat fish. There is a huge difference between providing the level and type of meat people have/want now and just giving it all up to go vegan.

Do you know anything at all about the methane cycle enough to support this "opinion" or are you just dismissing it because it sounds silly to you?

Do you really think our climate problems are due mostly to cows?

ringstrue:

Do you really think our climate problems are due mostly to cows?

Er, yes.

I think you're thinking:

 When reality is more:

"Globally, ruminant livestock produce about 80 million metric tons of methane annually, accounting for about 28% of global methane emissions from human-related activities. An adult cow may be a very small source by itself, emitting only 80-110 kgs of methane, but with about 100 million cattle in the U.S. and 1.2 billion large ruminants in the world, ruminants are one of the largest methane sources. In the U.S., cattle emit about 5.5 million metric tons of methane per year into the atmosphere, accounting for 20% of U.S. methane emissions." http://www.epa.gov/rlep/faq.html

ringstrue:

ChiChimi:

ringstrue:

The bad breeding is a stupid argument. There are less than a handful of "industrial" breeds and plenty more un-industrial breeds that don't suffer from shitty genes that give them things like leg pains when they actual walk.

The methane thing is also a silly argument, imo. The dang globe isn't going to be ruined by COWS. Hi?!

The issue the author is confronting is about providing enough meat for our shitty American diets. What about a diet where people actually did only eat red meat 2-3 times a week? What about looking into animals that are simply better suited to sustainable farming - like cat fish. There is a huge difference between providing the level and type of meat people have/want now and just giving it all up to go vegan.

Do you know anything at all about the methane cycle enough to support this "opinion" or are you just dismissing it because it sounds silly to you?

Do you really think our climate problems are due mostly to cows?

Oh, its because it sounds silly to you. That's what I thought.

Livestock Enteric Fermentation can be attributed as the largest human related source of methane.

http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html

I suggest you read up on methane as it relates to global warming.

http://www.epa.gov/methane/

Dup post?!

Dup post again?!

ChiChimi:

ringstrue:

ChiChimi:

ringstrue:

The bad breeding is a stupid argument. There are less than a handful of "industrial" breeds and plenty more un-industrial breeds that don't suffer from shitty genes that give them things like leg pains when they actual walk.

The methane thing is also a silly argument, imo. The dang globe isn't going to be ruined by COWS. Hi?!

The issue the author is confronting is about providing enough meat for our shitty American diets. What about a diet where people actually did only eat red meat 2-3 times a week? What about looking into animals that are simply better suited to sustainable farming - like cat fish. There is a huge difference between providing the level and type of meat people have/want now and just giving it all up to go vegan.

Do you know anything at all about the methane cycle enough to support this "opinion" or are you just dismissing it because it sounds silly to you?

Do you really think our climate problems are due mostly to cows?

Oh, its because it sounds silly to you. That's what I thought.

Livestock Enteric Fermentation can be attributed as the largest human related source of methane.

http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html

I suggest you read up on methane as it relates to global warming.

http://www.epa.gov/methane/

Wow this chart is pretty interesting...cows are just after natural gas:

Table 1 U.S. Methane Emissions by Source (TgCO₂ Equivalents)

However, does that methane production for cows also include transport to market and then transport to your table?  Is it all from the animals themselves or the process from breeding to feeding to our tables?

ETA - Nevermind...I looked at some of the EPA links and I think it's just cows, not the transport or anything else. 

The article has some valid arguments, but as mentioned, it is saying sustainable isn't really sustainable based on what typical Americans eat. Those us who avoid factory produced meat are willing to pay more (in some cases a lot more) for our meat and as a result, we buy much less.

Last night DH and I had a small $25 chicken from a local farm for dinner. It's the first time I've had chicken since the fall. It was awesome. But we won't likely eat another for months. We could afford it more often (though not as often as grocery store meat), we have just learned to live without out and partake as a treat. The higher price--aka "true" price--will generally keep people from eating as much.

DownToEarthGirl:

ETA - Nevermind...I looked at some of the EPA links and I think it's just cows, not the transport or anything else. 

 

Read the table: Enteric Fermentation

That's not fancy lingo for cows. Its the digestive process. Basically, this stat is for cow farts.

Alisha_A:

Specifically, the allegations that pastured cattle emit more methane.... I see no sources or facts to back this up....

Grass-fed beef have higher carbon footprint than corn fed

It's not a new nor novel idea. I can dig up other sources than this simplified one.

ugh. My point is that animal methane production, while significant, especially when these animals are not part of a habitat that can absorb it, but in farms, is still natural. Sustainable farming practices can reduce these emissions a lot. I don't think its practical to just have cows or all methane producing life forms be removed from the planet, while we could much more easily stop our unnatural pollution-causing ways and fix/help the problem that way. 

The planet really is made to be able to handle and process a certain level of methane. The issue is do we need to produce methane in soooo many different areas in our life.

So that's why I think throwing in that argument (espeically about food) is stupid. It's sorta like saying it's ok to have gasoline-run cars to smog up the atmosphere since volcanoes can pollute your atmosphere when they go off too. A natural thing having a con doesn't mean it needs to go just as much if not more than that unnatural thing.

ETA: Do I really think we need THAT many cows in the US? No, I think the beef industry should be a lot smaller than it is today. But I'm not going to be naive enough to say that if we remove the cows that some other animal or farmable life form wont take its place that will have it's own emissions/elimination issues.

Yep, my ETA was that I got that it was the animal's digestion and not their market transportation or anything.  I just simplified my words to "cows" instead.

Here is the main problem with talking about sustainable meat - at a certain point you have to talk about cow farts. That shits is funny and you end up being for or against cow farts.

Talk all we want about diet and changes but one mention of cow farts ruins the whole thing.

majorwife:

Here is the main problem with talking about sustainable meat - at a certain point you have to talk about cow farts. That shits is funny and you end up being for or against cow farts.

Talk all we want about diet and changes but one mention of cow farts ruins the whole thing.

I knew a horse that farted ALL the time - loudly and while you were riding. He farted while jogging a lot. I don't understand how horses aren't embarrassed by loud farting like that.