Author Topic: No Need To Cut Back On Red Meat  (Read 2514 times)

Travoli

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 856
    • View Profile
Re: No Need To Cut Back On Red Meat
« Reply #15 on: January 31, 2020, 05:05:17 PM »
>known carcinogen

But the bark sure is tasty.

ergophobe

  • Inner Core
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5375
    • View Profile
Re: No Need To Cut Back On Red Meat
« Reply #16 on: January 31, 2020, 09:14:51 PM »
>>Small farms are better than big feedlots (not a grass fed vs. grain fed argument)

Actually, based on the guy on the podcast, it's both - it's the open-pasture grazing that matters (not small or large, but pasture vs feedlot and grass vs grain) and, in particular, having enough pasture so that they do not graze it every year. That's how the bison roamed the Great Plains and sequestered a lot of carbon in the soil. It's the graze then rest then graze cycle that brings down the carbon footprint of beef.

DrCool

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 617
  • I know you all want to know what I think
    • AOL Instant Messenger - drcool1973
    • View Profile
    • What Does Joe Think
    • Email
Re: No Need To Cut Back On Red Meat
« Reply #17 on: January 31, 2020, 11:41:24 PM »
>>carbon footprint of beef

There is a good chapter in a book I read talking about carbon sequestration and how properly managed pastureland can be carbon positive in many cases. They can also turn land that can't really be used for much else into a healthy, green pasture in just a few years.

Meat raised on these kind of ranches is easily twice as expensive as commodity beef so if people shifted their eating habits to eat more of this type of meat they would most likely eat less meat as well since they just don't have the budget for it.

ergophobe

  • Inner Core
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5375
    • View Profile
Re: No Need To Cut Back On Red Meat
« Reply #18 on: February 01, 2020, 03:43:33 PM »
>> can't really be used for much else

I think the question there is, by whom/what? This issue also comes up in the podcast. In some circumstances, grazing properly done can increase biodiversity of an area. The flip side is, again, massive habitat destruction (deforestation in South America) to make forest into pasture. That's neither good for the carbon cycle or biodiversity.

In other words, grazing traditional grasslands appears as though it can be done in ways that sequester carbon and increase biodiversity. Feedlots and grazing on what should be forest or some other habitat is, on the other hand a big issue.

>>price

Ya, that's the problem. Most of the negative impacts of beef are driven by the push to make it cheap and plentiful. To tie into that other thread, I think the sustainable version of beef consumption in the future will be that all the cheap, factory meat currently being produced by cattle, gets produced by fermentation factories etc without the intermediate step of an animal. And a small amount of high-quality, pasture-raised beef will be around as a luxury item for special occasions.

A price on carbon would even out some, maybe all, of the cost differences between factory beef and pasture beef.