Eating Meat is Beneficial to the Environment

Eating Meat is Beneficial to the Environment

The media and politicians are pushing hard for a policy of restricting meat in the name of saving the environment. This idea has gained traction with the Green New Deal proposal, the chatter of the Beyond Meat IPO, the Democrats climate debates, and recently the climate protests. Unfortunately, like many mainstream political ideas, the “don’t eat meat” idea is an overly simple soundbite that doesn’t fix the problem. Removing meat production does not address the real problems in the factory agriculture system, and ignores the immense benefits of that herbivores bring to an ecosystem. This idea is better suited for animal activism than the environment.

Throughout the development of this planet, giant animals have roamed the plains and savannas eating a variety of grasses and broadleaf plants. Think of the woolly mammoths, and in recent history, the bison that roamed the American Great Plains. Estimates are that there were over 60 million bison just a few hundred years ago. These animals built vast ecosystems that modern agriculture is based on today.

How could grazing animals be beneficial to the environment? Herbivore waste fertilizes soil; provides food for fungi, bacteria, bugs and birds. Stomping plants to the ground provides mulch for new plants to grow and habitat for rodents and insects. Hoof impressions break up soil, push seeds into the soil and allow for the soil to collect and hold water, especially on slopes. Eating grasses and herbs encourages the plants to drop roots; thus, sequestering carbon in the soil and opening up pathways for water to infiltrate. New growth of plants is encouraged when eaten; thus, consuming more carbon above and in the soil. This is the reason that the Great Plains had over 6 feet of rich topsoil in some places; rich soil that modern agriculture is pillaging and trying to replace with chemicals.

Sustainable grazing farms mimic the roaming herbivores patterns of the past. Animals are rotated from paddock to paddock, eating some of the grasses, stomping down some and leaving some standing. This allows the grass to recover faster, sequestering more carbon and building soil. Rotational grazing actually removes more carbon from the atmosphere than the animal process produces. This carbon is sequestered it in the ground. More importantly animal habitat, soil life and watersheds are greatly improved. One such farm is White Oak Pastures in Georgia. They have had a 3rd party study their environment impact and conclude they remove carbon from the atmosphere for each pound of beef that is sold. Another example, Allan Savory, is a pioneer using herbivores for land restoration. He turns over grazed and farmed, desertified land into productive ecosystems using herbivores. He has presented his research and experience at Ted Talks.

The claim that growing vegetables and grains in modern agriculture is better for the environment than raising beef isn’t without merit. Large CAFOs that hold 10,000 to 100,000 heads of cattle at a time and are a disaster for the environment. The animals aren’t roaming on a pasture, their waste stacks up on the same piece of land. This creates huge issues with nitrates in the soil and water, as well as a concentrated methane release. Another issue with large feeding lots is that food must be trucked in versus letting the cattle use their own legs to go get it. Waste must also be trucked out. The reason that feed lots exist is because a grower can finish the cattle faster in a feedlot. Finishing, can take 4 to 10 months longer to finish beef on a grass pasture than a feedlot. Less calories are burned up due to moving around and the cattle is loaded up with grain. These grains build up bloat in their stomachs, actually increase methane because of the bloat, and this is not good for them.

Even with CAFOs and also dairy operations, a lot can be done to reduce environmental hazards with the modern system. A dairy in Connecticut, owned by Amanda Freund, has over 300 heads of cows. It is a conventional dairy with cows stacked up in feed troughs. But unlike most conventional dairies, on the farm is a methane digester that siphons off the methane from the waste and the gas is used to heat buildings and water. After the manure finished with the digester the waste is then composted. From there it is turned into fertilizer for their plants that are sold at the farm store. In addition to that, they compress the composted manure into biodegradable planters, CowPots. These planters are sold all over the world. The planters are also better for the environment than peat planters because of the nature of peat farming. Other dairies feed spoilage or ugly vegetables to the cattle. These crops would otherwise rot in the fields, letting all the energy and water spent on growing them go to waste.

Ignored with the don’t eat meat crowd, is that modern agriculture has many issues just like modern meat production. The main crops used for protein, oils and fillers in processed food are corn, canola, wheat and legumes (soy). These are annual crops that are planted on 1000s of acres of land per farm. Annual crops are reseeded each year, seeds are normally grown offsite in other fields. These fields are monoculture, meaning they are the only crop on the land. Monoculture is efficient because expensive machinery can automate the work of one type of crop. These crops are grown on old prairie lands or deforested land that used to hold 1000s of species of animals and plants. These annual crops are less resilient to extreme weather events. For example, this year the wet and cold spring and early winter across the northern plains has led to millions of acres of unharvestable food. There was not enough time to grow it. How much energy was consumed to produce nothing? Farmers will need subsidies or go bankrupt. What did grow? Grass did, maybe not as much biomass as other years, but it still grows and can be harvested by animals. Cows can forage through snow where modern machinery cannot.

One of the biggest environmental claims about a plant based meal versus meat is that raising meat has higher energy inputs. The only way this makes sense is if meat is raised in a pen and the plants, grown with modern agricultural practices, are brought to the animals via truck. With annual crops, tractors move up and down the fields several times, tilling the land, seeding the land, spraying herbicides to kill weeds, spraying pesticides to kill bugs, spraying fertilizers to add nutrients to the soil, moving water lines, and harvesting. With a sustainable ranching operation, the rancher is mainly using an ATV or pickup truck to move a herd of cattle to their next meal. There might be some minor energy costs in fencing, but cattle can be contained with solar electric fencing. There might also be some offsite inputs in winter months depending on the climate. Still, grass is perennial and requires less passes of a tractor. For instance, there is no seeding or tilling, and normally little pesticides and herbicides are sprayed. Again, if rotated right, no fertilizers are added because the cattle take care of that.

Another claim against raising meat is more water is used to raise cattle than plants. A cow can drink 20 to 30 gallons of water a day; yet, an acre of corn will use around 600,000 gallons of water, pumped from wells and aquifers. The water usage claim for beef is almost all from the forage they eat. Therefore, if the cattle is getting most of the feed from a grass pasture, then less water is actually needed to be pumped out of the wells, rivers, and aquifers. Perennial grasses are more efficient at using water. The roots over winter unlike and annual crops; thus, they can draw on spring moisture. Perennial grasses have taproots that are 8 to 12 feet deep unlike annual crops shorter roots. These long roots can draw moisture from deeper in the soil. In pastures, ponds that fill with rainwater can be dug and the cattle can drink from these. These ponds will provide habitat for more than just cattle, adding to the biodiversity of nature.

Frustratingly, when eating plants are compared to meat, the mainstream ignores the wild life costs of monoculture? Tilling soil and harvesting destroys the wildlife. Insects, worms and rodents are pulverized. Fungi and bacteria die when the soil is turned up and exposed to UV rays. Bugs are eliminated with pesticides; thus, the insect apocalypse is upon us. In modern agriculture, bees are driven to fields to have them pollinated. The movement of the bees along with pesticides is believed to be the major factors of colony collapse disorder. A monoculture crop does not provide food and habitat for many animals. A soy field void of trees leaves birds and owls without a home, and only insects that eat soy will survive. Therefore, expanding monoculture farm land to fill the extra caloric needs from abandoning meat, would be more of an ecological disaster.

A pasture with trees is beneficial for cattle and grass. Grass grows better with some shade and cattle need shade to stay cool in the summer. Trees provide birds with habitat. Bees and butterflies in a pasture have a variety of plants to pollinate versus a single crop that flowers at a certain time of year. Amphibians and other wildlife can live by ponds or even in the hoof prints of cattle after a rain. There aren’t a lot of insects that attack grass, so very little pesticides are used in pastures.

The last major complaint about raising meat versus crops is the amount of land needed. More land is needed to raise beef with proper rotation. Raising beef builds soil, sequesters carbon and builds an ecosystem; therefore, under this type of management the more land the better. In addition, many types of animals can be raised on a pasture with cattle. Chickens and turkeys can follow the cattle eating the bugs, larvae and plants left behind. They work the manure into the ground and add their own. This increases the meat production of a pasture. Intensive agriculture is destroying land and the environment. Turning crop land that is used to provide feed to feed lots into pasture land, would be beneficial. Turning biofuel crop land and abandoned desertified land into sustainable pastures would also be beneficial.

The earth built its environment with animals and plants. Agriculture can improve on current practices with no till farming or methane digesters, but it still will not achieve what nature has built using plants and animals. Agriculture must mimic natural systems to be regenerative and fix the ecological disasters that have been created. This is a better soundbite for the mainstream. In return, CO2 will return to the earth from the atmosphere and the land will be more resilient to changes. To repair the environment and truly be sustainable or even regenerative, people need to ignore mainstream agenda and look to purchase food that was raised in a holistic manner. Buying a ½ of cow from a sustainable rancher is cheaper than buying cuts of meat in the store, and healthier. The cost of a chest freezer pays for itself. The only drawback, the meat is bought in a lump sum for the year and the consumer might have to learn to cook a different cut of meat (or just have those roasts ground up). Instead of trying to ban meat, push for an agenda of eating properly raised meat.