One major thing missed in this article & in most defending or attacking beef (in particular) is that the production of methane - which happens in a cow's stomach - is going to happen on the ground anyway. Any plant matter that decays over winter (which is the majority of plants on grasslands & in forests where trees drop their leaves to the ground) will be decomposed by bacteria in the soil which will result in the production of methane. In reality, a cow (or any other herbivore) eating said plant matter will probably reduce the overall methane 'emissions' from a given area of land as much of the carbon is now locked up in the flesh of the animal.
The other thing that could reduce methane 'emissions' from an area of land is using it to grow a crop plant using pesticides to kill off the soil bacteria (no bacteria, no methane) & complete removal of all decomposable matter to leave bare soil. Of course then you need artificial fertilisers & you can only hope that rain water doesn't wash away all the top soil...
Everyone knows that a tree (or any plant) is a net carbon sink in that as it grows it removes carbon from the atmosphere through photosynthesis. We also know that in doing so the tree releases oxygen into the atmosphere. But trees release CO2 as well so maybe we should chop them all down? No, we understand that remove more carbon than they release, hence they are a net sink. Cows (all herbivores) are much the same. A large proportion of a cow is carbon & all that carbon came from a plant which obtained all its carbon from the atmosphere. A cow is walking carbon sink but because it 'emits' a tiny, tiny amount of carbon back into the atmosphere in the form of methane we say they are destroying the planet. Make it make sense...
Love to know what cars/SUVs the quoted drive and what size homes they live in.
My carbon footprint is small, I live in a large east coast city, never had a car, and my home is in a 75 unit 95-year old apartment building, so my heating/cooling costs are low. I replace things when they wear out, not when they become unfashionable.
I eat low carb/keto, but I think my other habits balance it out.
Transportation and home heating/cooling need to be evaluated.
As a family doctor I know, as does pharma, that there is money to be made through the promotion of insulin resistance/diabetes/cardiovascular disease. Us eating meat and animal fat instead of processed carbs (plant-based food is relatively deficient in protein and fat) could be a threat to some folks financial health. If pharma is a trillion dollar industry earning hugely from chronic diseases it is not beyond the realm of possibility pharma also would be happy if we move away from what our bodies seem made to eat.
I’m curious, how would you react to an agri economist commenting on cardiology, do you not think that the issue is a lot more complicated than the depth to which you’ve covered it?
I wish people would stay in their fields of competence.
Interesting. I'm a meat-eater, but in moderation. I'm fortunate to live near a proper abattoir, where a few local cattle are processed after a short journey from a pasture or barn. I also have access to fresh seafood, although much of the affordable salmon is just some sort of farmed swimming-in-a-circle trash
But I'm more interested in keto. I suffer from FH, so my liver makes cholesterol from carbs. When first diagnosed, my ApoB was off the charts (literally). These days, a couple of OTC statins keep that in check, and I keep the carb count down. I've learned to love broccoli and cauliflower
But I don't strive for keto as I did when first diagnosed. It's difficult and boring and my weight is not an issue (BMI 19). BP is low. No pre-diabetes indicators. Cholesterol and ApoB both low normal now. I enjoy the odd craft beer (20 carbs) and eat whatever hosts prepare when invited to dinner (within reason) and that seems a good balance
I am probably in the keto range many days, but without trying. I wonder if keto and its cardiovascular effects get confused between either-or or lower-is-better?
I gotta say, these days, before I put much stock in expert opinions that seem too one-sided (on any issue), I’d almost want to see a forensic accountant’s assessment of who that person is shilling for, first.
That’s not reserved for people who push keto or vegan diets. I feel the same way about guideline writers who publish in JACC.
Nice to read such a well written overview by someone “outside” of agriculture. (None of us are really outside of agriculture). When Aggies write this way we are accused of being bought and sold by “big” agri-food. The U.C. Davis Clear Center web site is solid information. Nothing against vegan diets, just make sure you get all your micronutrients.
This is always going to be a difficult thing to pin down because it depends on how you draw your system boundaries and what the "functional unit" comparison is to do a proper life cycle assessment. Is it GHG emissions per calorie of human food produced? Is it GHG emissions per acre of ranch/farm land? How do you account for animal feed co-products (the example is corn grown to produce both ethanol and distillers grains), and if not animal feed what else is that acre used for? Do farmers still plant corn, or perhaps an alternate crop that requires less fertilizer and irrigation? What if we switched from cattle to bison and restored native grassland? Etc. etc. Competing business interests and government subsidies aside, even those trying to find fair answers face myriad tough decisions in even properly defining the problem.
thanks for the thoughts.... I have dug deep into both issues and in my view, man-made climate change is a completely bogus issue which should be completely dismissed. It may or may not be happening but the effects are negligible (even the UN IPCC used to say this). Deaths from climate are down 90% in the past decades, so even if it is happening, we are more adept at dealing with it than ever. But it's not (hurricaine intensity and severity is down past 2 decades)
I am vegetarian b/c industrialized factory farming (IMO) is very cruel, I have seen it myself. I do eat family farm meet and eggs on occasion and agree that can be humane ( I actually really like meat)
The idea that eating plants is harming anyone seems far fetched, as eating plants is about 60%+ more efficient than feeding it to a cow and eating the cow, b/c only a % of the protein from the plant goes to biomass growth of the cow. So not following that argument.
Cows aren't eating human food nearly as much as many think. The protein that a cow consumes is protein that we can't consume often grown on land that we can't grow edible crops on. Anywhere in the world the huge majority (often nearly 100% & it easily could be 100% virtually everywhere) of the food eaten by cows is grass & other non-humanly digestible plants. Even where soya meal is fed to cows (which we can theoretically eat but not without adverse consequences - read the 'Whole Soy Story' by Kaayla Daniel) it is a byproduct of soy oil production not something that was ever destined for human consumption.
Can & should conventional farming methods be improved? Oh yes, in so many ways & across all sectors. But I've lived my entire life near to or on sheep & cattle farms & I've never seen or suspected the cruelty that some people claim exists as a matter of course. We all know that some humans are cruel, vicious & evil but they are truly the rare minority in most places.
One major thing missed in this article & in most defending or attacking beef (in particular) is that the production of methane - which happens in a cow's stomach - is going to happen on the ground anyway. Any plant matter that decays over winter (which is the majority of plants on grasslands & in forests where trees drop their leaves to the ground) will be decomposed by bacteria in the soil which will result in the production of methane. In reality, a cow (or any other herbivore) eating said plant matter will probably reduce the overall methane 'emissions' from a given area of land as much of the carbon is now locked up in the flesh of the animal.
The other thing that could reduce methane 'emissions' from an area of land is using it to grow a crop plant using pesticides to kill off the soil bacteria (no bacteria, no methane) & complete removal of all decomposable matter to leave bare soil. Of course then you need artificial fertilisers & you can only hope that rain water doesn't wash away all the top soil...
Everyone knows that a tree (or any plant) is a net carbon sink in that as it grows it removes carbon from the atmosphere through photosynthesis. We also know that in doing so the tree releases oxygen into the atmosphere. But trees release CO2 as well so maybe we should chop them all down? No, we understand that remove more carbon than they release, hence they are a net sink. Cows (all herbivores) are much the same. A large proportion of a cow is carbon & all that carbon came from a plant which obtained all its carbon from the atmosphere. A cow is walking carbon sink but because it 'emits' a tiny, tiny amount of carbon back into the atmosphere in the form of methane we say they are destroying the planet. Make it make sense...
Love to know what cars/SUVs the quoted drive and what size homes they live in.
My carbon footprint is small, I live in a large east coast city, never had a car, and my home is in a 75 unit 95-year old apartment building, so my heating/cooling costs are low. I replace things when they wear out, not when they become unfashionable.
I eat low carb/keto, but I think my other habits balance it out.
Transportation and home heating/cooling need to be evaluated.
https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local
just as a starting point. many reports available on OWID.
This is also interesting, how the food is raised. CAFO vrs "free range" trade offs in animal welfare vr Greenhouse gases. https://ourworldindata.org/what-are-the-trade-offs-between-animal-welfare-and-the-environmental-impact-of-meat
from a few years back, another cardiologist. https://youtu.be/SsSHzTsG4wY?feature=shared and https://youtu.be/wxaDaSARCPU?feature=shared
As a family doctor I know, as does pharma, that there is money to be made through the promotion of insulin resistance/diabetes/cardiovascular disease. Us eating meat and animal fat instead of processed carbs (plant-based food is relatively deficient in protein and fat) could be a threat to some folks financial health. If pharma is a trillion dollar industry earning hugely from chronic diseases it is not beyond the realm of possibility pharma also would be happy if we move away from what our bodies seem made to eat.
I’m curious, how would you react to an agri economist commenting on cardiology, do you not think that the issue is a lot more complicated than the depth to which you’ve covered it?
I wish people would stay in their fields of competence.
Absolutely, next thing we could have the USDA dominate nutrition advice.
thanks for this review
Interesting. I'm a meat-eater, but in moderation. I'm fortunate to live near a proper abattoir, where a few local cattle are processed after a short journey from a pasture or barn. I also have access to fresh seafood, although much of the affordable salmon is just some sort of farmed swimming-in-a-circle trash
But I'm more interested in keto. I suffer from FH, so my liver makes cholesterol from carbs. When first diagnosed, my ApoB was off the charts (literally). These days, a couple of OTC statins keep that in check, and I keep the carb count down. I've learned to love broccoli and cauliflower
But I don't strive for keto as I did when first diagnosed. It's difficult and boring and my weight is not an issue (BMI 19). BP is low. No pre-diabetes indicators. Cholesterol and ApoB both low normal now. I enjoy the odd craft beer (20 carbs) and eat whatever hosts prepare when invited to dinner (within reason) and that seems a good balance
I am probably in the keto range many days, but without trying. I wonder if keto and its cardiovascular effects get confused between either-or or lower-is-better?
Interesting summary.
I gotta say, these days, before I put much stock in expert opinions that seem too one-sided (on any issue), I’d almost want to see a forensic accountant’s assessment of who that person is shilling for, first.
That’s not reserved for people who push keto or vegan diets. I feel the same way about guideline writers who publish in JACC.
Nice to read such a well written overview by someone “outside” of agriculture. (None of us are really outside of agriculture). When Aggies write this way we are accused of being bought and sold by “big” agri-food. The U.C. Davis Clear Center web site is solid information. Nothing against vegan diets, just make sure you get all your micronutrients.
Chemist here: what is meant by a çomplex matrix’?
This is always going to be a difficult thing to pin down because it depends on how you draw your system boundaries and what the "functional unit" comparison is to do a proper life cycle assessment. Is it GHG emissions per calorie of human food produced? Is it GHG emissions per acre of ranch/farm land? How do you account for animal feed co-products (the example is corn grown to produce both ethanol and distillers grains), and if not animal feed what else is that acre used for? Do farmers still plant corn, or perhaps an alternate crop that requires less fertilizer and irrigation? What if we switched from cattle to bison and restored native grassland? Etc. etc. Competing business interests and government subsidies aside, even those trying to find fair answers face myriad tough decisions in even properly defining the problem.
thanks for the thoughts.... I have dug deep into both issues and in my view, man-made climate change is a completely bogus issue which should be completely dismissed. It may or may not be happening but the effects are negligible (even the UN IPCC used to say this). Deaths from climate are down 90% in the past decades, so even if it is happening, we are more adept at dealing with it than ever. But it's not (hurricaine intensity and severity is down past 2 decades)
I am vegetarian b/c industrialized factory farming (IMO) is very cruel, I have seen it myself. I do eat family farm meet and eggs on occasion and agree that can be humane ( I actually really like meat)
The idea that eating plants is harming anyone seems far fetched, as eating plants is about 60%+ more efficient than feeding it to a cow and eating the cow, b/c only a % of the protein from the plant goes to biomass growth of the cow. So not following that argument.
Cows aren't eating human food nearly as much as many think. The protein that a cow consumes is protein that we can't consume often grown on land that we can't grow edible crops on. Anywhere in the world the huge majority (often nearly 100% & it easily could be 100% virtually everywhere) of the food eaten by cows is grass & other non-humanly digestible plants. Even where soya meal is fed to cows (which we can theoretically eat but not without adverse consequences - read the 'Whole Soy Story' by Kaayla Daniel) it is a byproduct of soy oil production not something that was ever destined for human consumption.
Can & should conventional farming methods be improved? Oh yes, in so many ways & across all sectors. But I've lived my entire life near to or on sheep & cattle farms & I've never seen or suspected the cruelty that some people claim exists as a matter of course. We all know that some humans are cruel, vicious & evil but they are truly the rare minority in most places.