Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OK I moved to NE partly because I wanted to be near where the real food was.
In my county there are "more cows than people" - good Angus grass-fed beef, wandering around in herds on the open plains. These babies are grass-fed, and their meat is fork-tender when they are butchered right off of the ranch. Yummmmmmers. All of those ropers and tyers you see on rodeos are only doing what they do every day in real life; they rope the calves, tie their feet, and give them the necessary inoculations to keep them healthy. Many bulls are castrated because it makes for a bigger beefier steer. Otherwise the little darlins pretty much wander the range. In the winter they are fed hay when the grass is covered with snow. However, when these beef are sold to processors, they are taken to feedlots where they are given all of the additives and hormones and grain and antibiotics for a number of weeks before they are slaughtered... to meet government regulations. If you buy a grass-fed steer right off of the ranch, it is far far cheaper than if you wait til he is cut up and packaged in cellophane and laid on a foam plate. It is also far more healthy. "Organic" beef is the beef that they sell for higher prices and do less to. The "whole Foods" people crack me up with how they separate their organic beef - non-stressed (non castrated, non-branded, non-dehorned) cattle, organically raised cattle (not Monsanto-genetically-altered-corn-fed) and grass-fed cattle, with variations on the themes. "Organic" beef is a business that is regulated by government no matter how much you want to deny it. The only way that you can ensure that your cattle are truly grass fed is to know the farmer or rancher who raises them, and to buy from him. Since danged few people in the East coast cities know any ranchers - and since there are so many prohibitions against shipping cattle across State lines without government supervision - you never really know WHAT you are buying, unless you get it from the source.
I think SCGranny hit it right on the head. Sourcing it or growing it yourself is really the only way to know for sure what goes into what. The unfortunate thing is as well, is that Government regulations that oversee meat production are not in the same ballpark as those who want organic, greener, and minimally processed beef. They're all about chemically-laden, super-industrialized agri-beef, and it's really hard to get around them.
I read a really good blog on meat production in the US. Honest Meat I recommend it if you want to get a closer look at some of the meat issues we face as a nation.
Organic beef has many problems due to the grain they are allowed to eat. Grassfinished is the way to go, low in cholesterol, fat, high in Omega 3's, DHA, Vitamin E, Beta Carotene and CLA.
There are very visual ways of knowing if it is true grassfed
1 the fat is very yellow, if white been fed grain
2 the steaks are a reder type of meat
3 have to cook the steaks slow, can't sear them
4 grassfinished is allows NONE of the following, hormones, anitbiotics, chemicals, insecticides, GMO's, Nitrates, Preservatives, GRAIN and I only found one to actually meet these chriteria RustysGrassFinishedFoods.com
Have had their beef sausage and steaks and jerky and was awesome!! You can actually, really see the difference, after cooking some of theirs.
Thanks for the tips. But they gas the meat to turn and keep it red so you can't tell if it is even old by the color. From what I've read, it is better to not go by the color because it is so often artificial.
NPR's Science Friday talked about this yesterday. Cutting out red meat and dairy from our diets would have a greater impact on our carbon footprint than adhering to the 100 Mile Diet. The suggestion was to eat more white meats, chicken, pork and fish.
I seriously doubt that the longterm figures have been taken into account. Of course, if we continue to raise ows and pigs the way we are now... packing them into feed lots and "convenient" stall systems, and force feeding-them bad food and antibiotics and growth hormones... then, yes, it probably does contribute to your carbon footprint. However, naturally raised animals that are allowed to eat their evolutionary correct diet and allowed to range in a bio-diverse farm system are CARBON NEUTRAL.
While it does take more land and time to raise a cow to slaughter than it takes to raise a chicken, you get much more food from that cow (both in meat and dairy, than in meat and eggs). Plus, the food that the cows are eating is plain old ordinary grass, not some hard to grow F1-hybridized crop that is genetically prone to all sorts of diseases and pests. Chickens get fed this crop, too... and their waste is really high in nitrogen which can be poisonous in large quantities. Etc. Etc.
Eating natural beef and dairy doesn't increase anyone's carbon footprint. Eating the commercially raised, improperly-fed and transported-all-across-the country beef and dairy does. Eating natural beef and dairy isn't unhealthy and doesn't cause cancer. Eating commercially raised, improperly-fed, hormone-laden, antibiotic-soaked and transported-all-across-the-country beef and dairy does.
I'd be willing to bet my last dollar that, if all the factors were taken into account, eating ethically and appropriately raised beef, dairy or pork from your local farmer would barely register on your carbon footprint. Getting ethically grown/raised/caught foods from a local source will win all those environmental & health arguments hands-down... but you have to do your homework. It's good to have a varied diet that includes beef, dairy, pork, lamb/mutton, chavre (goat), chicken, eggs, fish and shellfish (as well as supplementing ocassionally with vegetable proteins and wild game/fowl) is a good thing because it means that no one single species gets depleted by our consumption. Humans evolved to be omnivores with natural requirements for a varied diet to meet our nutritional needs since we were initially foragers and ate whatever we could find... one could argue that supermarket abundance is unethical and unnatural for us
I seriously doubt that the longterm figures have been taken into account. Of course, if we continue to raise ows and pigs the way we are now... packing them into feed lots and "convenient" stall systems, and force feeding-them bad food and antibiotics and growth hormones... then, yes, it probably does contribute to your carbon footprint. However, naturally raised animals that are allowed to eat their evolutionary correct diet and allowed to range in a bio-diverse farm system are CARBON NEUTRAL.
While it does take more land and time to raise a cow to slaughter than it takes to raise a chicken, you get much more food from that cow (both in meat and dairy, than in meat and eggs). Plus, the food that the cows are eating is plain old ordinary grass, not some hard to grow F1-hybridized crop that is genetically prone to all sorts of diseases and pests. Chickens get fed this crop, too... and their waste is really high in nitrogen which can be poisonous in large quantities. Etc. Etc.
Eating natural beef and dairy doesn't increase anyone's carbon footprint. Eating the commercially raised, improperly-fed and transported-all-across-the country beef and dairy does. Eating natural beef and dairy isn't unhealthy and doesn't cause cancer. Eating commercially raised, improperly-fed, hormone-laden, antibiotic-soaked and transported-all-across-the-country beef and dairy does.
I'd be willing to bet my last dollar that, if all the factors were taken into account, eating ethically and appropriately raised beef, dairy or pork from your local farmer would barely register on your carbon footprint. Getting ethically grown/raised/caught foods from a local source will win all those environmental & health arguments hands-down... but you have to do your homework. It's good to have a varied diet that includes beef, dairy, pork, lamb/mutton, chavre (goat), chicken, eggs, fish and shellfish (as well as supplementing ocassionally with vegetable proteins and wild game/fowl) is a good thing because it means that no one single species gets depleted by our consumption. Humans evolved to be omnivores with natural requirements for a varied diet to meet our nutritional needs since we were initially foragers and ate whatever we could find... one could argue that supermarket abundance is unethical and unnatural for us
I'm skeptical that there is a significant difference in carbon footprints based upon the feed of the animal. Do you have any studies for reference?
There are lots of studies cited in "The Omnivore's Dilemma". However, my conclusion is based on having lived and worked on a ranch. Grass pretty much grows for free and cow poop makes great natural compost/fertilizer. The only carbon-raising things we did were 1) mow one pasture for hay while the cows were grazing the other pasture; 2) harvesting our grain field (wheat, oats, barley) for winter supplement feed and straw; 3) transport the cows to our local butcher for slaughter; 4) use antibiotics when an animal was sick; and 5) transport a stud bull to our ranch twice a year for servicing (we could have gone the AI route, or bred all our cows at once, but chose not to). Our customers were local, so they expended a small amount of fuel to purchase the meat from the butcher; and the butcher expended some fuel for the electricity to power his freezer and cold-case.
A neighboring ranch raised their cows "conventionally". They did several things that raise the footprint: 1) They purchased corn year-round from a national distributor (hybrid seed which had to be transported to the farmer, raised with transported and synthesized fertilizers and pesticides on a mono-crop farm, then transported to a weigh station, transported to the distribution center, then transported to the customer); 2) they purchased their straw and hay from a national distributor (same issues as #1); 3) they fed their cows with an automated system (fuel and power consumption); 4) they gave their animals growth hormones and routine antibiotics (which had to be synthesized from transported materials, requiring fuel and energy to acquire and produce, then transported to a distributor and transported to the customer; 5) they used a sluice system to wash the cow waste into a septic tank which had to be pumped out and carted away (more fuel and energy). And none of that includes the costs of shipping their beeves to the slaughter plant and the subsequent shipping of the meat to distribution centers, and subsequent shipping to supermarkets.
It doesn't take a scientific study to determine that transporting your feed, especially if that feed is grown in a way that increases the carbon footprint on it's own, is going to raise the carbon footprint of the end animal product. Transportation and the way the crop is grown is the big hike in the footprint. Then, if you add in the production and transportation of the synthetic hormones and antibiotics, the footprint goes even higher. Now, if you feed your cows corn that you grew on your farm and didn't pump either the corn or the cows with synthetics, it might not be a problem.
Edited to add: our ranches were roughly the same size and we had roughly the smae amount of cows. They chose to plant their land with cotton to sell and keep the cows in lot/stalls. We chose to plant our land with grain crops (for the animals and to sell), left a large portion as pasture (for the animals), and also planted various fruits and vegetables (for the animals and to sell). Ours was a bio-diverse system that was mostly self-sustaining. Theirs was a mono-crop system that relied on external imports.
Last edited by MissingAll4Seasons; 02-13-2009 at 09:53 AM..
Reason: One more point
There are lots of studies cited in "The Omnivore's Dilemma". However, my conclusion is based on having lived and worked on a ranch. Grass pretty much grows for free and cow poop makes great natural compost/fertilizer. The only carbon-raising things we did were 1) mow one pasture for hay while the cows were grazing the other pasture; 2) harvesting our grain field (wheat, oats, barley) for winter supplement feed and straw; 3) transport the cows to our local butcher for slaughter; 4) use antibiotics when an animal was sick; and 5) transport a stud bull to our ranch twice a year for servicing (we could have gone the AI route, or bred all our cows at once, but chose not to). Our customers were local, so they expended a small amount of fuel to purchase the meat from the butcher; and the butcher expended some fuel for the electricity to power his freezer and cold-case.
A neighboring ranch raised their cows "conventionally". They did several things that raise the footprint: 1) They purchased corn year-round from a national distributor (hybrid seed which had to be transported to the farmer, raised with transported and synthesized fertilizers and pesticides on a mono-crop farm, then transported to a weigh station, transported to the distribution center, then transported to the customer); 2) they purchased their straw and hay from a national distributor (same issues as #1); 3) they fed their cows with an automated system (fuel and power consumption); 4) they gave their animals growth hormones and routine antibiotics (which had to be synthesized from transported materials, requiring fuel and energy to acquire and produce, then transported to a distributor and transported to the customer; 5) they used a sluice system to wash the cow waste into a septic tank which had to be pumped out and carted away (more fuel and energy). And none of that includes the costs of shipping their beeves to the slaughter plant and the subsequent shipping of the meat to distribution centers, and subsequent shipping to supermarkets.
It doesn't take a scientific study to determine that transporting your feed, especially if that feed is grown in a way that increases the carbon footprint on it's own, is going to raise the carbon footprint of the end animal product. Transportation and the way the crop is grown is the big hike in the footprint. Then, if you add in the production and transportation of the synthetic hormones and antibiotics, the footprint goes even higher. Now, if you feed your cows corn that you grew on your farm and didn't pump either the corn or the cows with synthetics, it might not be a problem.
Edited to add: our ranches were roughly the same size and we had roughly the smae amount of cows. They chose to plant their land with cotton to sell and keep the cows in lot/stalls. We chose to plant our land with grain crops (for the animals and to sell), left a large portion as pasture (for the animals), and also planted various fruits and vegetables (for the animals and to sell). Ours was a bio-diverse system that was mostly self-sustaining. Theirs was a mono-crop system that relied on external imports.
Most of the GHG associated with raising cattle comes from the methane they produce while digesting their feed. There is considerable work ongoing to reduce methane production in cow digestion because it is a loss of food value. Grass fed cattle are not going to benefit from that research and likely produce more methane.
But if the cow eat the grass, that's still carbon neutral... the grass would produce the same amount of carbon if it decayed. Methane from cows is from anaerobic digestion in the rumen... yes, it's supposedly a greenhouse gase, but it's naturally produced not from some sort of industrial pollution (except, of course, feed lot operations!). I doubt that cows eating grass emit as much methane as those eating corn since grass is their natural evolutionary food. However, raising cattle as part of a varied diet, rather than eating beef and dairy every single day, would alleviate a lot of the methane problem as well.
But if the cow eat the grass, that's still carbon neutral... the grass would produce the same amount of carbon if it decayed. Methane from cows is from anaerobic digestion in the rumen... yes, it's supposedly a greenhouse gase, but it's naturally produced not from some sort of industrial pollution (except, of course, feed lot operations!). I doubt that cows eating grass emit as much methane as those eating corn since grass is their natural evolutionary food. However, raising cattle as part of a varied diet, rather than eating beef and dairy every single day, would alleviate a lot of the methane problem as well.
Methane is 4 times as powerful a GHG as CO2. It's not an even exchange. Every ruminant adds to the GHG load.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
