The grass fed fallacy

[TarekF]

I have been starting to hear this argument too much, so I thought I would tackle it, and see if it really holds up. So let me know what you guys think, any critique is welcomed (if you want me to do other upper and lower estimates in other places let me know too). I just wrote this up having done the calculations so im sure there are some silly flaws, maybe some big ones.

The locavore argument (at least the one i am talking about) is that a society which eats only grass-fed large herbivores (cows) is actually more ethical and environmentally sustainable than veganism.

As far as ethics are concerned this principle was proposed by Davis (an enemy of Peter Singer) and has several major flaws, which if addressed and are run through his back of the envelope math, come out with numbers in favor of vegetarianism [1,2]. So I think ethics are taken care of. Thus I want to talk about efficiency (land specifically).


Some starting facts:

• Acres of Pastureland in US: 410,000,000 (rounding up) [3]
• Acres of Rural Land: 51,000,000,000 [3]
• Cows killed per day in the US: 100,000
• Acres needed per cow: 2-10 [various undisputed sources, though i could pull some up]
• It takes 2 years to grow a cow before they are killed.

For each day of meat we would need 500,000 acres on average for 2 years time (in other words every day of meat takes up 500,000 acres for 730 or so days).
Also we have to consider the land needed for alfalfa stockpiling for winter months. Say that this is about 2 months of the year. The cows will need 40 pounds of hay per day. So for 2 years, that is 2 months of hay feeding. So 120(days)*40(lbs)*100,000(cows)= 480,000,000 lbs of hay.

There are about 14,000 lbs. of hay created per acre per year [4]. Over 2 years 28,000 acres are made. 480,000,000/28,000=17,000 acres needed in addition to the half million.

This means each "day" of meat requires 517,000 acres of land. This is required for 730 days. 517,000*730= 377,410,000 acres of land.

Already this is 92% of the pasture land in the US. Presumably, a fair amount of this is actually IN USE, so we would need to cut down trees, convert croplands etc (so much for the environmental argument). Unfortunately there is not much data on how much land is in use vs unused land. But the next calculation definitely shows that it doesn't really matter.

Beef consumption is WAY down in the united states so were is the rest of the meat from? Mostly chicken.

So lets say… since most locavore arguments agree that large factory farms are terribly unethical (one thing we agree on) that we convert totally to grass fed beef, then eating the same amount of meat (or more if we are all paleo), means converting from chicken meat to cow meat.

Let us recalculate. 8,000,000,000 chickens are killed for food a year (in the US). Most chickens are 4-5 pounds and about 62% become meat. So that means about 2.5 pounds of meat per chicken. This is 20,000,000,000 pounds of meat. Even if only 1.5 pounds came from a chicken, that is 12,000,000,000 pounds. Since most cattle "yield" 600 pounds of meat. So that means 20,000,000 to 34,000,000 more cows.

Acres for upper estimate: 34,000,000*5=170,000,000
Acres for lower estimate: 20,000,000*5=100,000,000

Hay calculations for upper estimate: 34,000,000*40*180= 244,800,000,000 pounds of hay and thus 8,700,000 acres
Hay calculations for lower estimate: 20,000,000*40*180=144,000,000,000 pounds thus 5,000,000 acres.

So either 178,700,000 acres or 105,000,000 acres. Per day.

So multiplying by 730 days. That is 130,451,000,000 acres or 76,650,000,000 acres.

According to the ERS there are only 51,000,000,000 acres in the rural US [3]. Both numbers even the low end are significantly higher than this. And both are MUCH higher than the current amount of pasture lands.

Without even adding the numbers in the early calculation, or pigs, and any other meat, this simply cannot be done, especially as the population grows. Even under the locavore scheme, drastic reduction of meat products would be necessary, and plant based diets not only win out ethically [1,2] but are still the most efficient in terms of environmental sustainability. If we are truly trying to move towards an ethically sound and environmentally sustainable food system we can only look towards plant based diets.


[1] http://www.jgmatheny.org/matheny%202003.pdf
[2]http://animalrights.aresistance.net/...ing%20Beef.pdf
[3]http://www.ers.usda.gov/statefacts/US.htm
[4]http://www.uaex.edu/Other_Areas/publ...F/FSA-2005.pdf

[FaerieSuzy]

The locavore argument (at least the one i am talking about) is that a society which eats only grass-fed large herbivores (cows) is actually more ethical and environmentally sustainable than veganism.

Wow that's a lot of numbers and I don't have a calculator to hand, but the fundamental flaw in that argument surely is the point that it's more ethical to kill a living creature uneccessarily for food? Can't agree with that right there, so that's the whole theory shot down in flames in my opinion
Just another attempt at justifying eating flesh because somebody can't give up their Big Mac meal if you ask me!

[TarekF]

Wow that's a lot of numbers and I don't have a calculator to hand, but the fundamental flaw in that argument surely is the point that it's more ethical to kill a living creature uneccessarily for food? Can't agree with that right there, so that's the whole theory shot down in flames in my opinion

Davis' argument is essentially that the numbers of animals killed during harvest is more than would be killed if we only ate grass fed herbivores. That said, it has been shot down pretty thoroughly by Matheny and Lamey (in the bottom of my post i have links to them [1] and [2], they are excellent reads i think). There is not very conclusive data on how many animals are killed during grain harvesting though, and Davis also misses the point that in a society which gives ethical consideration to sentient animals, there would be attempts made to cause the least amount of death possible (one way is to start harvesting from the center of the field, and then go outward slowly in each direction, i have a good article on that too).

That said i do believe that we as vegans should think about the animals killed during harvesting even if it is accidental, which makes the case for smaller more sustainable and ethical grain operations as well.

Just another attempt at justifying eating flesh because somebody can't give up their Big Mac meal if you ask me!

Couldn't agree more, but just wanted to attack their argument from a different angle (more of a "their scheme isn't possible" retort).

[FaerieSuzy]

Yeah I agree about the animals killed during harvest problem is something that needs to be addressed. My family have an allotment so we try to minimise the amount of stuff we buy from large chains. I'd love for there to be a proper solution to it (and I've given a lot of thought to it) but come up with nothing so far.

Also another thing, the mice etc have a chance to run (I wish they had more of a chance to be warned and escape) but the ethics still don't add up, when you minimise the accidental deaths of small creatures (who are still just as important!!) but instead carry on forcing other creatures into pens etc to be shot and have their throats slit. Unfortunately the evolution of the supermarket is one of the biggest problems IMO

Am reading up on the links too now.

[Robinwomb]

Without even adding the numbers in the early calculation, or pigs, and any other meat, this simply cannot be done, especially as the population grows. Even under the locavore scheme, drastic reduction of meat products would be necessary, and plant based diets not only win out ethically [1,2] but are still the most efficient in terms of environmental sustainability. If we are truly trying to move towards an ethically sound and environmentally sustainable food system we can only look towards plant based diets.

I agree with you 100% there! The focus seems to be on eating only grass fed meat, but I have yet to hear how the locavores will consider the use of animal byproducts for the numerous products on the market (that I am sure they themselves use) such as leather, wool, waxes, pet food, fertilizers, cleaning products, etc. The demand for animal use in these areas, as well as the increasing world population and increasing demand for animal foods and products (isnt this how factory farming got started in the first place?) would make it difficult to maintain only small local grass fed farms. As you said, meat/animal production would have to be drastically reduced to maintain only small animal farms (and indeed many years ago it was way less than it is today but the world population was also far less and people ate less animal products and you didn't have restaurants and fast food chains back then and most people were too poor to afford fancy pet food and lots of clothes). People would have to depend far more on plant based diets anyway.

I too am very disturbed with this growing locavore grass fed argument as well as the "buy local" argument. Every day I am discouraged and distraught over it, literally, and not only because of the blatent disregard for the rights of nonhuman animals to not be used for our own purposes when it is unnecessary. Lets not pretend we are giving nonhuman animals a good deal in return for using their bodies for our own means. This is akin to justifying slavery as long as the slave gets a clean place to sleep and decent food.

Some of the staples I rely on simply can't be efficiently produced in the area where I live, such as various beans and organic tempeh (huge sources of protein for me), sea vegetables and DHA/EPA supplements, numerous fruits and some vegetables. I could still survive eating only locally made plant based foods and finding only locally made non animal based materials for clothing and cleaning etc (though I would pay a heck of a lot more and indeed have for local organically grown cotton for instance) but my diet would be much more limited since much of the local "small grass fed animal farms" would be animal focused and therefore less room for plant crops. Grains have become the new evil these days. Sighs. Never mind that grains have kept far more people around the world from starving to death than any grass fed meat. I am starting my own vegetable and herb garden this year and I have my own apple tree (that I happily share its bounty with the less fortunate) but still...

[TarekF]

Its a pity about the tempeh its my staple too, but i have an easier time getting it

It would be pretty cool to try and grow some soya and ferment it (i am way into fermenting lately hah)

[pat sommer]

"a society which eats only grass-fed large herbivores (cows) is actually more ethical and environmentally sustainable than veganism."

That society would be pretty darn close to living as vegans so I wouldn't quibble much. Sort of the non-smoker vs the one-a-month as far as insurers see it. My view is "go for it; live truly sustainably locavore a year then we'll talk".

Has anyone calculated the grass-fed methane emissions vs vegan diet?

[Mymblesdaughter]

As FaerieSuzy and TarekF say, surely there is someway the amount of animals killed in grain harvest could be reduced. At the moment no one really has any interest in this but I'm sure it would be possible. Unlike the amount of animals that are killed due to meat eating. Also this is only grain, vegetables and fruit are harvested in a much less mechanical way in the UK anyway. Cabbages and cauliflowers etc were harvested near where I used to live and it was all by hand so no animals actually die. Unless from pesticides. It's not like vegans live on only grains.

[TarekF]

"a society which eats only grass-fed large herbivores (cows) is actually more ethical and environmentally sustainable than veganism."

That society would be pretty darn close to living as vegans so I wouldn't quibble much. Sort of the non-smoker vs the one-a-month as far as insurers see it. My view is "go for it; live truly sustainably locavore a year then we'll talk".

Has anyone calculated the grass-fed methane emissions vs vegan diet?

I certainly agree that it is more ethical than the current system (we all know that the chicken industry is the worst), however i dont think that it would be possible to sustain longterm (for reasons above) with current levels of meat consumption. So if anyone wanted to argue for that system, its foundations would have to include a drastic reduction in meat consumption.

As their argument stands (a beef centered diet) it is not all that close to the sustainability of a vegan diet (it could be close with the reduction of meat consumption). It would also be possible to find out how much of a reduction in meat consumption would be needed to make it sustainable widespread.

I guess the point of my argument is that the most feasible long term and widespread dietary plan that adresses ethics and sustainability is still veganism.

I was also thinking about the emissions thing. I am thinking i will also look for some data about this, especially since methane does seem to be one of the worse atmospheric gases. I will try to do something along those lines too.

[TarekF]

Sorry to bump it, but cows produce 280 liters or so of methane a day.

So if we have 20,100,000 cows (using the lower estimate because cows produce less methane in youth) each day to feed the nation, that is 5.6 billion liters of methane per day from the cattle.

Anyone know how much grain agriculture emits in a day (theoretically at least)? I dont think it would be all that much

[pat sommer]

Nope, our emissions wouldn't come close.

Worthwhile of you to collect collate and distribute all the facts and figures to the misguided omnis on various forums. This grass-gimmick too will pass.

I just stand back amused at the psychology behind their defense: it is theoretically possible for me to continue beef-eating if I go grass so therefore I am justified in continuing my current lifestyle without making any changes whatsoever.

That's why I throw it back at 'em 'do it'. Practice what you preach...

[Robinwomb]

The problem with just standing back and not taking it too seriously though is that it is becoming a more wide spread practice. For example, I was all psyched up to write a letter to the medical complex where I work to include more vegan/vegetarian items on their menu at their three cafeterias. Right now they are sorely lacking in vegan options, and even their plain vegetable side dishes are loaded with butter. There are no plant milks offered, not even soy, and bean dishes tend to be paired with meats. Breads are all made with egg and/or dairy. At least two of the cafeterias do have salad bars though, and sometimes offer plain oatmeal at breakfasts. At any rate, the locavore grass fed crowd beat me to it. All three cafeterias are now incorporating locally bred grass fed "meat" (I hate that word) from well known local organic farms in our area, which now have a contract with them to supply fresh beef, chicken, and eggs as well as dairy sources. No mention of any vegetables or fruits or grains. Fortunately, there is a farmers market in the summer that sets up camp once a week just a half block from the complex and they do sell a lot of fresh fruits and vegetables and locally made maple syrup, but I don't imagine most patients would be up for making the trek to get their fresh fruits and vegetables there, never mind the cost. I am still going to write the letter, but my guess is that I will be told they are already making changes to their menu to benefit the environment and local business. I might try to drive home the point that those with dairy and fish allergies (after all they are mostly serving patients) would benefit from more vegan friendly choices as well.

I find it so true though that most locavores still support factory farming by what they choose to wear (leather, suede, silk, wool for example), clean with, put on their bodies as far as toiletries, supplements, etc. Consuming only grass fed "meat", dairy, and eggs and truly living a lifestyle that involves buying only locally made items (might as well not order anything online either if from far away including books movies etc) and avoiding the use of monocrops and grains such as corn or soy (this would include gasoline for one's vehicle wouldn't it? better start riding your bike more lol) would involve a huge commitment and lifestyle change and I have yet to hear of anyone doing just that in the locavore community. Mostly the focus seems to be on diet.

One more argument I have made before about grass fed "meat". With this system animals are allowed to roam more freely within the confines of the farm, therefore, the risk of attacks from wild animals (fox, bear, wolves, coyote, etc) increases and those wild animals are often hunted, trapped, and killed to "protect" the animals (ironic isnt it? The animals are going to be butchered anyway, it's just that the wild animals get to them first). So there is still an increase in the number of animals killed. Deer are also allowed to be hunted on private grounds such as these. Deer are a threat to agricultural grasslands too. Where I live, wolves have finally been restored from near extinction from over hunting and were recently taken off the federal endangered species list. It took less than a year but now wolves can be legally hunted again. The biggest backer of this new hunting right comes from local farmers threatened by the wolves presence. Yeah, that speaks worlds of their ethical views.

[Robinwomb]

Two more things I forgot to share. Here is a statistical listing of farms in my state that produce food for local consumption. Look at the numbers of farms producing animal agriculture (first column) compared with vegetable/fruit/grain agriculture. The only non animal produce that comes close to having the same number of farms as animal produce in my state is corn. Telling huh?

http://www.locavorenetwork.com/conte...avore-overview

Also, an example of non animal food agriculture in my state that is minimally harmful to wild critters is the harvesting of wild rice by the Native Americans up here. This is a sacred spiritual task for the Native Americans that is legally protected and many of the waterways up here that naturally grow wild rice (and there are many as I have witnessed personally) are off limits for public fishing and use (some will not allow motors either). The wild rice is harvested by hand/hand tools and canoe. I have bought and eaten some of this wild rice from the Native Americans and it is a superior quality compared to commercially harvested wild rice. It is more expensive but worth it, and the wild rice is native to this area. We also have blueberry and maple syrup harvesting up here too. These types of non animal food production are minimally damaging to wildlife and more ethical than killing animals for food. And some of these naturally and natively grown foods are in areas inaccessable to humans or in public parks where commercial harvesting is not allowed so wild animals are assured of their supply as well.

[LouiseAbel]

Well nobody is ever going to only eat grass-fed animals, so I don't know why they even bother to bang on about it. Meat eaters don't care enough to dedicate themselves to anything like that. Soz.

[FaerieSuzy]

Agreed LouiseAbel. If you're committed to being ethical and care about the environment and animals enough, chances are you'll take on veganism. It's just another way to feel better before heading to McDonalds....

[LouiseAbel]

Yeah. It's cliché, but they're just lying to themselves.

[pat sommer]

Yes, yes and yes. So, what do we do about the lies?

We respond where we can. Not sure what "The problem with just standing back and not taking it too seriously..." means.
Different responses from each of us. I prefer to mock the idea as I have yet to meet anyone who has even attempted to live this way.

[FaerieSuzy]

. I prefer to mock the idea as I have yet to meet anyone who has even attempted to live this way.

Very good point!