> Grass fed beef with rotational grazing is good for the environment
Grass-fed beef isn't necessarily better for the environment than beef from CAFOs. While grass-fed systems offer benefits like soil health, they often require more land, potentially leading to deforestation. They can also be less efficient in terms of resource use and have variable effects on carbon sequestration. A comprehensive assessment considering land use efficiency, resource consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions is essential to fully understand the environmental impact of different beef production methods.
"About 75% to 80% of grass-fed beef sold in the U.S. is grown abroad, from Australia, New Zealand and parts of South America ..."
"Many U.S. customers who want to support local food are likely unaware of the foreign origin of most grass-fed beef. By law, if meat is "processed," or passes through a USDA-inspected plant (a requirement for all imported beef), it can be labeled as a product of the U.S. "
"This report concludes that grass-fed livestock are not a climate solution. Grazing livestock are net contributors to the climate problem, as are all livestock. Rising animal production and consumption, whatever the farming system and animal type, is causing damaging greenhouse gas release and contributing to changes in land use.
'Ultimately, if high consuming individuals and countries want to do something positive for the climate, maintaining their current consumption levels but simply switching to grass-fed beef is not a solution. Eating less meat, of all types, is.’"
It is better if part of an integrated system. Grass fed beef consumed locally/regionally reduces fertilizer use and transportation costs (fuel use, number of trucks required, road wear).
Deforestation is only a problem if you have a corrupt government that doesn't manage its land and gives carte blanche for destructive behavior.
People will naturally eat less meat at a higher price point. Currently the externalities of industrial meat production aren't priced into the cost of factory meat, which is why it's artificially cheap. If you were to price those things into it, it'd be more expensive than (or at least at parity with) sustainably raised animals.
> Grass fed beef consumed locally/regionally reduces fertilizer use and transportation costs
> Deforestation is only a problem if you have a corrupt government that doesn't manage its land
While governance plays a role in deforestation, these pastures are often already deforested areas. Producing beef there still demands a significant amount of agricultural land for a minor share of our caloric intake. Reforesting could offer greater benefits like carbon storage and biodiversity restoration.
> People will naturally eat less meat at a higher price point. Currently the externalities of industrial meat production aren't priced into the cost of factory meat, which is why it's artificially cheap
Exactly, and that's why I believe that subsidies for polluting and destructive sectors should be abolished, and these sectors should be appropriately taxed. Doing so could make the price of meat prohibitive for most, which aligns with your point about higher prices reducing consumption.
It's uncertain how many animals could be raised sustainably, and how many people would be able to afford meat from such sources. The number for both is likely low.
I also worry about biodiversity. If we've managed to reduce animal populations by 70% in the last 50 years, how long will it be until they collapse completely? Agriculture is the main culprit, with animal agriculture making up 80% of it.
It's not hard to re-integrate trees into pasture, agroforestry is a thing and it can provide cattle with shade, limit wind and water erosion, support wildlife diversity and provide an additional source of lumber.
I'm glad we can at least come together on wanting the cost of industrial meat to be represented in its price.
We could make meat "affordable" with only sustainable production, small local sustainable farmers can make a decent living if they cut out most of the middle men, going straight from the processor to local restaurants/butchers/direct sales. More people would need to be involved in agriculture to make it scale, and meat wouldn't be cheap like it is now, but it will have the upside of converting a lot of marginal land to beautiful mixed pasture and forests full of life.
Grass-fed beef isn't necessarily better for the environment than beef from CAFOs. While grass-fed systems offer benefits like soil health, they often require more land, potentially leading to deforestation. They can also be less efficient in terms of resource use and have variable effects on carbon sequestration. A comprehensive assessment considering land use efficiency, resource consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions is essential to fully understand the environmental impact of different beef production methods.
https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/publications/grazed-and-co...
"About 75% to 80% of grass-fed beef sold in the U.S. is grown abroad, from Australia, New Zealand and parts of South America ..."
"Many U.S. customers who want to support local food are likely unaware of the foreign origin of most grass-fed beef. By law, if meat is "processed," or passes through a USDA-inspected plant (a requirement for all imported beef), it can be labeled as a product of the U.S. "
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/13/746576239/is...
"This report concludes that grass-fed livestock are not a climate solution. Grazing livestock are net contributors to the climate problem, as are all livestock. Rising animal production and consumption, whatever the farming system and animal type, is causing damaging greenhouse gas release and contributing to changes in land use.
'Ultimately, if high consuming individuals and countries want to do something positive for the climate, maintaining their current consumption levels but simply switching to grass-fed beef is not a solution. Eating less meat, of all types, is.’"
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2017-10-03-grass-fed-beef-good-or-...