After reading a diary about aquaculture a couple of weeks ago, I made a comment noting with some pride that I had joined a local Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) co-op. I must admit I had no idea at the time that comment would turn me into a full-time diarist on food issues, and specifically those surrounding the production of beef, nor that it would make me a full-throated defender of cattle ranching.
Funny how life throws you little curve balls sometimes.
Here's the thing: Yes, I like beef. I also like vegetables and fruits (especially tropical fruits like pineapples, oranges, mangoes, bananas and key limes), herbs and spices. I like all of those things a lot.
I also like pork, lamb, chicken, eggs, cheese, milk and a wide variety of seafood.
In short, I like a diet with variety. I guess you could call me a foodie. Sometimes I even take a chance and experiment with new ingredients and new methods, developing my own dishes. This week, I'm going to be trying out my own variation on cooking yellowtail snapper with a tropical flair.
As I mentioned in a past diary, I've become concerned with sustainability and am getting into the "Locavore" movement - the idea that the bulk of the food we eat should originate within 100 miles of our homes. I'm not 100 percent there yet (and may never entirely get there), but I'm definitely working on it.
I'm also fortunate to live on a half-acre of land, and I'm going to start planting some of my favorite vegetables and fruits, which I will cultivate organically. We'll see if my less-than-green thumb can keep that going. So yes, I'm trying to reduce the impact the food I eat has on the world.
But the fact that I still eat some beef (quite a bit less than the average American, by the way) has some here convinced I'm not going anywhere near far enough. Follow me below the fold for the latest in what is becoming, for me, a regular "in defense of a bit of beef" series.
Apparently telling a Vegan you eat beef is akin to a woman telling a rabid fundamentalist Christian she just aborted her pregnancy and is now preparing to marry her gay partner. It tends to get them, shall we say, riled. Although they despise all meat-eating, the consumption of beef in any amount seems to be a particular irritant.
I know this because beginning with one comment in one diary, I've sparked a strong negative reaction to my admission that I'm a part-time beef-eater.
The first flames were on the issue of sustainability - I addressed that in my first diary last Tuesday. Then the attacks shifted to the health issue, to wit, vegetarianism is the healthiest lifestyle. I took that one on in a diary last Saturday. And while I did get an argument on my health assertions, the ground quickly shifted once again to an environmental - specifically global warming - argument. So, here comes another diary.
I've tried to avoid arguing absolutes in these diaries: Is a vegetarian diet the "most" sustainable diet? It doesn't matter. The point I made was that cattle ranching can be done sustainably. Is a vegetarian diet the "healthiest" diet? It doesn't matter. The point I made was that beef can be part of a healthy diet. Today the question is, does grass-fed cattle ranching contribute more than feedlot beef production to global warming? The point I plan to make today is that it does not.
By the way, the reason I don't believe the absolutes - "most" sustainable or "most" healthy - matter is not that I don't care about sustainability or health. I do. But once you begin arguing from an absolute position, you get yourself onto shaky ground. The most sustainable solution for planet Earth would be the extermination of the human race entirely. I'm pretty sure no one here would argue for that. And while statistically, you can show that a certain diet reduces the risk of dying from certain diseases, every individual is different. Perhaps you could sit down and calculate exactly what you would need to do to extend your life to the maximum number of years your particular body will last. Then you could walk outside and get run over by a bus. My all-time favorite bumper sticker is "Eat Healthy, Stay Fit and Die Anyway." Something's going to kill every one of us. You can try to pick what won't kill you by adjusting your diet, but in the end, no matter how careful you are, something's going to kill you. So my concern is maintaining my health for as long as whatever's going to kill me doesn't do so.
For the record, Vegans (and I know some of you will read this and flame me - I'm getting used to it), I have nothing against your lifestyle. But just as I will fight hard against fundamentalists trying to force their religious beliefs upon me, so will I fight any attempts by Vegans to force - or even just shame - me into adopting their lifestyle. I love fruits and vegetables. I eat vegetarian dishes all the time. But I'm not giving up on meat. I want variety in my diet. And I've become even more convinced based on the reading I've done in the past couple of weeks that there is no valid reason based upon concerns about sustainability, health or the environment for me to relinquish that variety.
I've been accused in the past couple of weeks of not letting facts get in the way of my "bad habit" - the bad habit being that I eat the occasional steak or roast or rib, or use some beef in a stew or stir-fry. I reject both the notion that eating beef is a "bad habit" and that I'm close-minded. I've gone to the links you've given me, and read the studies and reports saying beef production is a dire threat to the planet. This includes - in fact it apparently especially includes - grass-fed beef production. It especially includes grass-fed beef production so much that advocates of eliminating beef from our diets altogether would still apparently rather see feedlot beef production continue than allow grass-fed beef more than its current toe-hold in the marketplace.
I happen to think the reason is that it's easier to shock people into becoming Vegans with images of the hideous conditions at feedlots, but that's just me. The reason they give for opposing the grass-fed revolution is methane, and in this they do have some valid points. Methane is a more destructive greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide for two reasons - (1) It traps more heat than carbon dioxide; and (2) Unlike carbon dioxide, it cannot be trapped and sequestered in the ground. Depending upon which study you read, cattle contribute anywhere from about 16 to 28 percent of the methane concentrated in our atmosphere. And it turns out that grass-fed cattle produce more methane - again, depending upon which study you read, four to five times more methane - than cattle fed on corn in feedlots.
Yes, I've read all those studies, and I'm not disputing any of the facts I've shared above. But one thing spending 20-odd years as a journalist teaches is you is that many times, answers to certain questions lead to more questions. So I kept digging, and I found some interesting facts. Keep in mind I don't expect to convince the doubters. But I think more information needs to be presented, so I'm presenting it here.
Let me state clearly where I'm coming from - cattle, in some form, have been around since at least the Pliocene era, which ended 2.5 million years ago. They were first domesticated for their food, milk and hides during the Neolithic period, about 8,000 B.C. Their four-chamber stomach, which is what causes them to produce methane as a byproduct of their diet, evolved during those 2.5 million years. In other words, cows evolved to emit methane as part of the natural balance of Earth's ecosystem. They've been domesticated and used by man for at least 10,000 years, and have presumably been belching and farting (to put it indelicately) methane for all those centuries. Why now has it become a major threat to the planet?
Before you start flaming me, let me give you the answer: There are a lot more cows and a lot more people on the planet today than there were 10,000 years ago. I'll stipulate that fact and concede that argument to you. And while another part of the equation is that there are also more man-made sources of methane, I am more than willing to agree that we can make the world a better place by reducing the number of cattle. I also happen to think it wouldn't hurt to reduce the number of people through voluntary family planning, and I personally am trying to contribute to both goals. I'm eating quite a bit less beef than I used to, and at age 52, I've never had children, and at this point, I don't think I'm going to have any.
According to most sources I've found, Americans consumed just over 67 pounds of beef on average last year. In Argentina, the beef consumption is even higher, on the order of 100 pounds per person last year. Those numbers absolutely need to be reduced.
And that leads me to the first revelation of this diary. We are, in fact, reducing our beef consumption. According to figures from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (compiled by the Daily Livestock Report), beef consumption in the U.S. peaked at more than 95 pounds per person in 1976. And while the numbers have rebounded since 2010, when Americans consumed an average of 59.7 pounds per person, that 2010 number represented the lowest beef consumption per capita since at least the 1950s (the data I've found goes back to 1955, and the previous low of 59.8 pounds per person was set in 1958). The total number of cattle in the U.S. has also fallen steadily since peaking around 1995. The Jan. 1, 2012 estimate by the USDA puts the count at 90.8 million head, down 2 percent from last year, and the lowest Jan. 1 estimate since 1952.
Daily Livestock Report speculates that the cost of grain, which in turn has driven up the cost of meat, probably has a lot to do with that reduction (they note that the last precipitous drop in beef consumption occurred during the Russian grain embargo of the 1970s). No doubt the economic downturn is a contributing factor as well. But whatever the cause, this reduction in both the number of cattle and the consumption of beef to 1950s levels does represent an opportunity for those of us (yes, I agree with those who have been arguing with me on this point) who believe Americans need to eat less beef.
I happen to think grass-fed beef can help continue that downward trend for reasons I'll get to at the end of this diary. But for now I want to re-focus on the main question. Is grass-fed beef a greater contributor to greenhouse gasses than feedlot beef?
There are two factors opponents of grass-fed beef ignore when answering "yes" to that question - the number of grass-fed cattle compared to the number of feedlot cattle, and the myriad ways besides methane production in which feedlots contribute to environmental degradation compared to pastured beef ranches.
First, let's look at the numbers. According to the January 2012 USDA estimate linked above, there are 29.9 million head of beef cattle in the U.S. The USDA doesn't break that number down to show the number of grass-fed beef cattle, and the best number I've been able to find isn't perfect, but it's all I've got to work with. According to the Agricultural Marketing Resource Center, there were 43,782 certified organic head of beef cattle in the U.S. as of Dec. 31, 2008. The number is problematic for three reasons - (1) It's two years behind the USDA total estimate; (2) "Certified organic" does not necessarily mean purely grass-fed - cattle can be finished on feedlots and still be certified as organic; and (3) The number of certified organic cattle has fluctuated in recent years, so we can't be sure if the current number is higher or lower. In light of those facts, I've decided to be generous to the critics and put the number of grass-fed cattle in the U.S. at a nice, round 50,000. That's probably higher than the actual number.
Even with that admittedly generous estimate, the number of grass-fed beef cattle in the U.S. represents about one-fifth of 1 percent of the total head of beef cattle. Now, let's assume another high estimate, and agree that a grass-fed cow produces five times as much methane as a feedlot cow. That means the 50,000 grass-fed cows are equivalent to 250,000 feedlot cows. That's still less than four-fifths of 1 percent of the total number of beef cattle in the U.S.
So, are you ready for the reductio ad absurdum here? The world cattle population (about 1.3 billion head) contributes (again, taking the high estimate) 28% of the methane concentrated in the atmosphere. The U.S. cattle population represents about 7 percent of the world total. The U.S. beef cattle population represents about 33 percent of the U.S. cattle population. And the U.S. grass-fed beef cattle population contributes the equivalent amount of methane of four-fifths of one percent of the U.S. beef-cattle population. That means that the entire U.S. grass-fed beef industry's contribution to the Earth's methane budget is 0.005 percent. Hardly an existential threat.
Here's a more sobering number. According to the USDA's monthly Cattle on Feed Survey for February, 2012, there were 77,120 feedlots in the United States as of Feb. 1 (down 20 from Jan. 1, 2012, by the way). Of those, most - 75,000 - house less than 1,000 head of cattle at any one time. But 64 of those feedlots are capable of maintaining 50,000 or more head of cattle. You read that right - there are 64 feedlots scattered throughout the country right now, each of which can house more than the entire U.S. population of grass-fed beef cattle.
In addition to the horrible conditions in which those cattle are kept, there are environmental impacts which go far beyond methane. It takes a great deal of fossil fuel to grow and harvest the corn (almost all of which is genetically modified, by the way) and other grains needed to feed the cows. More fossil fuels are expended trucking those grains to a processing plant and processing them into feed. And yet more fossil fuels are expended trucking the feed to the feedlots.
The feedlots themselves are environmental disasters. The cattle there belch less methane, but they still belch methane, and because there are so many cattle packed into a small space, the methane is highly concentrated. In addition, the cattle's manure is allowed to pile up around them, stressing them and releasing tremendous amounts of ammonia - another greenhouse gas - into the air. The land upon which feedlots are built must be denuded of most vegetation, meaning they contribute to soil erosion and pollution runoff (mostly nitrogen and phosphorous from all that piled up manure) into the surrounding watershed.
In contrast, the main negative environmental impact of a grass-fed beef operation is methane, which given the current scale of grass-fed beef operations is not significant. Ammonia is not a problem because the cattle's droppings are devoured by earthworms before a significant amount of ammonia is released, and those earthworms process that manure into a soil-enriching totally organic fertilizer. Because grass-fed cattle pastures are maintained in a largely natural state, soil erosion and pollution runoff are not an issue. Very little fossil fuel is required to maintain the ranch compared to the amounts used in growing, processing and transporting grain-based cattle feed. And carbon dioxide produced by the cows is sequestered in the surrounding soil and plant life.
That's why organizations such as the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Sierra Club advocate grass-fed over feedlot beef.
The UCS report is definitely worth reading - it confronts the methane problem head-on, and outlines best management practices which, if implemented worldwide, could reduce methane emissions from beef without reducing the number of cattle. To their credit, grass-fed beef ranchers understand the methane problem and are dedicated to implementing those practices to reduce their greenhouse gas footprint. (I found the link to the UCS report at Eat Wild, a web site dedicated to the grass-fed movement.
Finally, I want to explain my earlier statement that grass-fed beef ranchers can contribute the reduction in both the number of cattle in the United States and the amount of beef consumed by the average American.
At first that seems counterintuitive - after all, grass-fed beef ranchers are still business people, and presumably want to expand their market, not limit it. But remember, grass-fed cattle account for less than one-fifth of 1 percent of all the beef cattle in the country. That leaves a lot of room for greatly expanding the grass-fed market while still greatly reducing the overall number of cattle bred here.
As for consumption, shifting more of the market to grass-fed beef would likely result in reduced consumption for two reasons, and to understand them, we need a historical perspective.
Although there have been advocates for feeding cattle corn and other grains since at least the early 1800s, the mass shift to grain-feeding cattle on feedlots didn't take place until after World War II. The feedlot method had two benefits from a marketing point of view: Because feedlot cattle fatten up much faster than those grazing on pasture, much more beef could be produced in a much shorter period of time, which in turn drove the cost down. Before the 1950s, beef was a luxury few families could afford to eat on a regular basis. Since then, hamburgers have become the staple of the dollar value menu.
The second marketing benefit of feedlot beef is less obvious to anyone who hasn't eaten grass-fed. The beef from feedlot cattle has a different appearance, texture and flavor than pastured beef. The familiar bright red color, the delicate marbling of fat and the mild flavor most of us are familiar with are all the result of that corn and grain diet. So, by the way, are the excessive amounts of saturated fat and cholesterol.
Grass-fed beef is an acquired taste. It is a much darker color, is not as marbled, and has a stronger (and I think better) flavor. Because it is leaner, it is easier to overcook, and if overcooked, it becomes tough. When cooking grass-fed beef, you cook by internal temperature, not by time. In other words, grass-fed beef is more demanding of the cook than is feedlot beef. The reward in taste and nutrition is definite, but not everyone - even some dedicated beef eaters - would be willing to go there.
I'm under no illusions that feedlots are going to disappear any time soon. But people are becoming more aware both of their own health and that of the environment. Hopefully, that will mean a continuing decline both in beef consumption and the overall number of cattle, and I hope the bulk of that decline will continue to show up in reductions in the number of feedlots (if we continue to lose 20 a month, that would be a good thing, right?).
I realize only a few people here at Daily Kos are interested enough in this topic to wade through the three long diaries (as well as linked material) I've presented, but for those of us who do care, let the discussion begin.