Comments on: Responding to the Grass-fed Carbon Controversy

By: Walter Jeffries

Walter Jeffries — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 21:44:44 +0000

Unfortunately the research on greenhouse gasses and animals combines the CAFO / grain-fed practice with true pastured livestock and it seems to only focus on beef.

Pigs can also be raised on pasture without any grain. We do it on our farm. >90% of our pigs’ diet is pasture/hay. Local waste whey and dairy brings it up to 97%. The remaining <3% of their diet is other good stuff like pumpkins, beets and turnips we grow no-till, apple pomace from a local cider mill and such. I calculated our pig’s carbon foot-print and it came out negative. Imagine that – green ham! How Seussian…

The real issue is moderation. Same as with home size, number of cars and everything else people are consuming.

Cheers

-Walter
Sugar Mountain Farm
in the mountains of Vermont
http://SugarMtnFarm.com/blog/
http://HollyGraphicArt.com/
http://NoNAIS.org

By: Hugo Skoppek

Hugo Skoppek — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 04:24:48 +0000

Thank you Amerigo and Jo.
I was missing a perspective in the article which went beyond energy. Unfortunately, the controversy between grass fed and CAFO has been reduced to (just) this. While I agree, that we consume far too much meat in our Western society, the answer cannot be to cut out meat at all, as some vegetarians promote.
As Amerigo brought in an excellent perspective on the different source of energy between the two systems and Jo about the benefits of pasture, I would like to through in another one: Soil-fertility.
Ask any organic farmer or vegetable grower and they are able to comment on the benefits of cow manure as a vital ingredient for making decent compost. So much so, that even conventional growers have rediscovered the benefits of compost to their operation, particularly as the price of petro-chemical fertilizers increases.
As humans, we seem to be so self centered that we only look towards the end of the supply chain: cows, we eat. How about looking towards the beginning of the supply chain: cows as producers of compost ingredients?
Now some of you may argue that chicken and other manure are far better, because higher in nitrogen. As far as I am concerned, that argument is as good as promoting steroids. Having observed cow and chicken manure in composts myself, I can say that cow manure is much more gentle and benign, while chicken manure can do real damage, when not handled correctly. But scientists like Dr. Ehrenfried Pfeiffer and others can probably say more about this. Moreover, I can only encourage people to really think ‘cow’, instead of just steak or burger.

By: Jo Robinson

Jo Robinson — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 02:57:50 +0000

It isn’t news that grass-fed cows emit more methane. That’s been known for more than a decade. But that’s only part of the story. Grazed pastureland turns out to be the best carbon sink known, even better than forest land and natural (ungrazed) prairie grasses. Dr. Rita Schenck of the Institute for Environmental Research and Education has run the nunbers and determined that, all in all, raising cattle in a feedlot is a net contributor to greenhouse warming while raising them on well-managed pasture (and that’s the key) results in a net decline. For the details, go to http://www.eatwild.com/environment.html

Jo Robinson

By: Frances Chapman

Frances Chapman — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 14:50:54 +0000

New to your blog, I appreciated this article. I rarely eat beef (a pet bull in my childhood, Rosario’s Pride) and I consider my own meat eating (sausage is my downfall, and chicken my default choice) a true vice.

On a public level, the methane emitted by huge herds does seem to be a true green issue, and I think we all need to reduce meat consumption. We need numbers not just for conventionally raised cattle, but for grass-fed organic cattle. (One job market that would boom under carbon caps is that of carbon footprint analyst.)

There is a good deal of evasion on this issue. One advocate of local meat actually argued that soy was a greater evil. We have to tease out the part of soy production that goes to animal feed to address this issue. (Big soy producers are throwing peasants off their land in developing economics.) I predict that meat eating will one day be seen as criminal and disgusting, but that is not the case now. As a society, we need to be honest about the environmental and moral costs of meat eating and reduce meat consumption as much as possible, and eliminate factory farming of meat.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:40:19 +0000

thank you for a more balanced take on grass-fed cows. but i really hope you understand that pasturing cattle BUILDS soil (and sequesters carbon in the process) better than just about anything else. that’s why wendell berry, among many others, thinks that sustainable agriculture needs (a href=”http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/opinion/05berry.html” title=”more grazing animals,” not fewer. look up allan savory or joel salatin for more information.

By: Lena

Lena — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:10:12 +0000

Thanks Marissa for this thoughtful distillation of the issue! Though you did not say this explicitly, I imagine that one of the keys to sustainability with meat production is for us to be eating far less of it altogether. then, if the remaining meat we do eat is pasture-raised, we will be in FAR better shape than we currently are under our industrialized mega-farm system. the argument of energy input feels specious and narrow-minded to me, as it conveniently ignores the life cycle perspective.

By: EKB

EKB — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 01:21:46 +0000

Eating less meat is a good idea, too.

By: Megan

Megan — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 16:54:27 +0000

‘Gagging’ down fake bacon? Some of us don’t eat meat because no animal deserves to die simply because their muscle tissue tastes good. Grass-fed cow may indeed be more sustainable than factory farms, but in the long-term, large-scale, this meaty utopia is a fantasy. We can’t feed the world with animal flesh. Cut out the middle man and get your nutrients from plants.

By: Gwen

Gwen — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 16:20:28 +0000

I like Amerigo’s point about the price of beef – if we all switch to grass-fed local beef it’s going to cost more, and that means we’ll eat beef less in general. Most of us would frown at this – pay more, get less? no way! – but it’s a good thing. Americans have to get over our “more is better” mentality, and realize that a 10-pound “value pack” of burger from Costco is really a lot less valuable than a single pound of local, grass-fed chuck.

By: Amerigo

Amerigo — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:45:18 +0000

Thank you for addressing some for the big issues surrounding beef.

Just one thing: Even if grass-fed beef takes more energy, it’s SOLAR energy. Most grass-fed beef producers don’t use petro-fertilizer, they spread manure, or simply let pasture rest. Done properly, it is completely sustainable.

Grain-fed might use less energy, but it’s all non-renewable. So, comparing the energy inputs is very misleading.

The extra land grass-fed needs makes it more expensive, which should reduce our consumption, and therfore the number of cows emitting methane. Our diets and our environment will be much better off, which will make my (occasional) steak dinner taste all the better.