Yep. And throwing away food isn’t totally a bad thing (though they could do better things with it, ultimately giving it away has rippling effects in the economy of food, the portion of people willing to hold out for less-fresh free food increases, lowering the demand for fresh food and thus raising its price).
The point is, it’s far better to have a surplus of food than a deficit, or even “just enough”. You don’t want a well-placed cold-snap, a drought, wildfires, fungus, insects, bird flu, barges stuck in a canal, or who knows what else happens in a grow season to be the difference between most the country being “fed” or “not fed”.
We don’t even really toss out much of the food we grow, it gets turned into grain for cattle 99% of the time. Stalks/roots of the plants get turned into feed for pigs/cows. Our system while it could be better is still very efficient.
No we do not. 85+% of the grain/food they eat is leftovers from what we grow to eat. They eat what you cannot. Stems/stalks/roots. They also drink non-potable water.
There is a reason a 50lb bag of sweet feed is $10 and drops to around $6 for bulk purchase.
Calling it leftovers is being a bit generous. It’s not waste. If there was food that was being eaten, then that means there’s not a surplus. There’s absolutely a surplus.
The best stuff goes to the humans, the bruised blemished and discolored stuff goes to the animals who are indifferent. If they weren’t eating the food, there would be less food grown.
80% of all commercial soy goes to livestock, and we are clear cutting the Amazon to grow it.
Something like 70% of the alfalfa grown in California is for dairy cows.
People like to ridicule the lowly almond for how much water it consumes to make milk…it still takes significantly less water to make a gallon of almond milk than it does to make a gallon of dairy milk. And almonds are one of the most inefficient non-dairy milks (lots of water and little significant nutritional value, compared to soy which takes less water and gives significantly more bioavailable protein and aminos). The big reason why people complain about the almonds is because it’s grown in dryer parts of California…but almost all the alfalfa grown is done in the literal desert, and most of that is exported.
Your first link is actual, verifiable, carnist propaganda.
The author worked for venture capital firm AgFunder, which invests in farms (for a tidy profit, of course).
The website is Sacred Cow, which is the website of Sacred Cow author (book) and producer (film) Diana Rodgers. She is almost rabidly pro-meat and has made her career of her book/movie/website (and resulting podcasts etc) and as an advisor for greenwashing brands like Animal Welfare Approved and The Savory Institute.
Currently Ms Rodgers is the executive director of the Global Food Justice Alliance, another greenwashing nonprofit leveraging the Food Justice term. “Food Justice” stands for sustainable, plentiful, and culturally-appropriate food. Her GFJA stands for increasing meat consumption as much as possible.
K, enough about the authors and owners, and how if they aren’t paid industry shills then they are doing shilling wrong, and instead about the actual meat and potatoes (heh) of the article itself…
The plant-based industry wants you to believe
Whoa, starting off the article strong with a very clear accusatory tone. Automatically starts off “othering”. Alright.
cool looking but intentionally misleading graph
Cool chart tells the breakdown as a percentage of total consumption across all animals. That tilts the scales quite a bit for beef, since they aren’t one of the bigger consumers of grass. Fodder crops are crops grown specifically for livestock, and humans absolutely use more than just the grain part of crops that go to livestock. We do consume the oils, and the fibers.
It’s also cool that a lot of their diet is made up of crop residue. No doubt, that is the residue from the grains grown for them and the fodder crops grown for them. Seems they are double-dipping.
When sugar is made from sugar beets, for example, an energy-dense, fibrous pulp is leftover, and when corn is converted to ethanol it yields a high-fiber, high-protein residue called distillers grains.
That’s really great. Can we question why we are growing so much corn for ethanol and beets for sugar in the first place? The beets I sort of get…America needs a lot of sugar. We’ve got a big unaddressed problem with sugar addiction. But the corn fuel? Nobody asked for that. It’s very carbon intensive to manufacture, making it ultimately only marginally better than traditional gas in the end, and it’s only even close in price because it’s heavily subsidized.
Or why these two, specifically, were chosen to demonstrate the point? Perhaps because these crops aren’t grown for direct human consumption, and therefore more “waste”? Maybe, just maybe, we are growing too much in the first place.
“Cattle can actually sequester carbon while improving soil health.”
…with very specific grazing practices and grass species, in limited regions, and most likely not scalable or cost-effective enough to replace existing practices and match existing demand. Otherwise carbon neutral at best. Also does nothing for ruminant methane emissions, which are a huge immediate concern. Methane doesn’t persist in the atmosphere as long as carbon dioxide, but it does have a stronger impact.
Although manure is a pretty good, organic, and carbon neutral fertilizer, I’ll give it that. I don’t often agree with the organic marketing hype, but many conventional fertilizers are petroleum products, and I do see organic as a better alternative in this particular instance.
There is, though, the concern of runoff from manure into human food crops. This is one cause of E. coli outbreaks in produce.
A number of sources claim that it takes 12-pounds to 20-pounds of feed to produce one pound of beef.
two paragraphs later…
So, with a feed conversion ratio of approximately 2:1 (2lbs of grain per 1lb of steak), beef is the clear winner from a nutrient standpoint.
Wait, why are you now saying two to one? Just a few short sentences ago it was between 12:1 and 20:1.
And then to compare 100g of beef to 100g of corn or 100g of soy on nutritional value is highly disingenuous. “Per 100g” is a great way to compare price for similar products. It’s not a great way to compare nutritional value. The reason is simple…most people, when balancing a diet, have the primary intention of reaching minimum macronutrient requirements while staying under a maximum calorie limit. Thus, to compare nutritional value, it’s much more honest to compare as per 100 calories.
Aside from that, it’s also an apples/oranges comparison anyway. They are comparing raw vegetables with refined vegetables (meat). That’s like saying “a cup of gasoline has more energy than a cup of crude”. Like, no shit.
A more fair comparison would be “culinary refined soy” (I.e tofu) vs “animal refined soy” (I.e beef), per 100 calories. For 100 calorie, tofu has 11 grams of protein, while 100 calories of ground beef has 8.9 grams of protein. You could say raw tofu is bland tasting. I could say the same of raw beef. It’s really all in the preparation. I’ve had bean burgers that blow the plants off of beef burgers for taste and nutrition.
Oh, and the beef they are comparing has even 4.5g of fat per 100g of beef. That means it’s 95.5% lean. Not high fat like we get from most cuts of factory farmed, force fed cattle. That good beef takes longer, feeding more over an extended time. Either that or Bessie gotta hit the gym, but you know what they say, you can’t outrun a bad diet.
And the micros are great too. Soy is a clear winner, even per 100g, on magnesium. You know magnesium is one of the most common deficiencies in the general population? Not in us soy boys, though. I had mine checked recently and it was almost too high. I asked to have it checked knowing that it’s a common deficiency and that one of my medications (you could probably guess which, from this long ranting post) has a tendency to deplete magnesium.
The United Nations FAO paper cited in the infographic also concluded that 80% of the global agricultural land allocated to feed production consists of grassland and that over half of the grassland cannot be converted to cropland.
Twenty-six percent of the Planet’s ice-free land is used for livestock grazing and 33 percent of croplands are used for livestock feed production. Livestock
contribute to seven percent of the total greenhouse gas emissions through enteric fermentation and manure.
Globally, livestock provides 25 percent of protein intake and 15 percent of dietary energy.
This does not seem like a worthwhile use of land, to me. Nor does it seem like a good value for what we get in GHGs.
A couple of paragraphs prior in the sacredcow article, it talks of pesticide impact and whatnot. Seems like we wouldn’t need as much pesticides if we weren’t using so much crop land for animal feed.
Mother Jones article
We are in agreement on the export of alfalfa grown in extremely dry regions for cattle feed.
And this is the argument I give people who complain that we give farmers subsidizes…food is cheap and plentiful for a reason.
Yep. And throwing away food isn’t totally a bad thing (though they could do better things with it, ultimately giving it away has rippling effects in the economy of food, the portion of people willing to hold out for less-fresh free food increases, lowering the demand for fresh food and thus raising its price).
The point is, it’s far better to have a surplus of food than a deficit, or even “just enough”. You don’t want a well-placed cold-snap, a drought, wildfires, fungus, insects, bird flu, barges stuck in a canal, or who knows what else happens in a grow season to be the difference between most the country being “fed” or “not fed”.
We don’t even really toss out much of the food we grow, it gets turned into grain for cattle 99% of the time. Stalks/roots of the plants get turned into feed for pigs/cows. Our system while it could be better is still very efficient.
Most of the food we grow goes to cattle (and other livestock. Mostly cattle tho). They consume far more than humans.
No we do not. 85+% of the grain/food they eat is leftovers from what we grow to eat. They eat what you cannot. Stems/stalks/roots. They also drink non-potable water.
There is a reason a 50lb bag of sweet feed is $10 and drops to around $6 for bulk purchase.
Calling it leftovers is being a bit generous. It’s not waste. If there was food that was being eaten, then that means there’s not a surplus. There’s absolutely a surplus.
The best stuff goes to the humans, the bruised blemished and discolored stuff goes to the animals who are indifferent. If they weren’t eating the food, there would be less food grown.
80% of all commercial soy goes to livestock, and we are clear cutting the Amazon to grow it.
Something like 70% of the alfalfa grown in California is for dairy cows.
People like to ridicule the lowly almond for how much water it consumes to make milk…it still takes significantly less water to make a gallon of almond milk than it does to make a gallon of dairy milk. And almonds are one of the most inefficient non-dairy milks (lots of water and little significant nutritional value, compared to soy which takes less water and gives significantly more bioavailable protein and aminos). The big reason why people complain about the almonds is because it’s grown in dryer parts of California…but almost all the alfalfa grown is done in the literal desert, and most of that is exported.
Nope and nope. A massive portion of that alfalfa is shipped overseas (it needs to stop). And no we do not grow crops just to feed cattle.
https://www.sacredcow.info/blog/qz6pi6cvjowjhxsh4dqg1dogiznou6?format=amp
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/12/groundwater-us-exports-alfalfa-hay-china-saudi-arabia-united-arab-emirates-arizona/
Your first link is actual, verifiable, carnist propaganda.
The author worked for venture capital firm AgFunder, which invests in farms (for a tidy profit, of course).
The website is Sacred Cow, which is the website of Sacred Cow author (book) and producer (film) Diana Rodgers. She is almost rabidly pro-meat and has made her career of her book/movie/website (and resulting podcasts etc) and as an advisor for greenwashing brands like Animal Welfare Approved and The Savory Institute.
Currently Ms Rodgers is the executive director of the Global Food Justice Alliance, another greenwashing nonprofit leveraging the Food Justice term. “Food Justice” stands for sustainable, plentiful, and culturally-appropriate food. Her GFJA stands for increasing meat consumption as much as possible.
K, enough about the authors and owners, and how if they aren’t paid industry shills then they are doing shilling wrong, and instead about the actual meat and potatoes (heh) of the article itself…
Whoa, starting off the article strong with a very clear accusatory tone. Automatically starts off “othering”. Alright.
Cool chart tells the breakdown as a percentage of total consumption across all animals. That tilts the scales quite a bit for beef, since they aren’t one of the bigger consumers of grass. Fodder crops are crops grown specifically for livestock, and humans absolutely use more than just the grain part of crops that go to livestock. We do consume the oils, and the fibers.
It’s also cool that a lot of their diet is made up of crop residue. No doubt, that is the residue from the grains grown for them and the fodder crops grown for them. Seems they are double-dipping.
That’s really great. Can we question why we are growing so much corn for ethanol and beets for sugar in the first place? The beets I sort of get…America needs a lot of sugar. We’ve got a big unaddressed problem with sugar addiction. But the corn fuel? Nobody asked for that. It’s very carbon intensive to manufacture, making it ultimately only marginally better than traditional gas in the end, and it’s only even close in price because it’s heavily subsidized.
Or why these two, specifically, were chosen to demonstrate the point? Perhaps because these crops aren’t grown for direct human consumption, and therefore more “waste”? Maybe, just maybe, we are growing too much in the first place.
…with very specific grazing practices and grass species, in limited regions, and most likely not scalable or cost-effective enough to replace existing practices and match existing demand. Otherwise carbon neutral at best. Also does nothing for ruminant methane emissions, which are a huge immediate concern. Methane doesn’t persist in the atmosphere as long as carbon dioxide, but it does have a stronger impact.
Although manure is a pretty good, organic, and carbon neutral fertilizer, I’ll give it that. I don’t often agree with the organic marketing hype, but many conventional fertilizers are petroleum products, and I do see organic as a better alternative in this particular instance.
There is, though, the concern of runoff from manure into human food crops. This is one cause of E. coli outbreaks in produce.
two paragraphs later…
Wait, why are you now saying two to one? Just a few short sentences ago it was between 12:1 and 20:1.
And then to compare 100g of beef to 100g of corn or 100g of soy on nutritional value is highly disingenuous. “Per 100g” is a great way to compare price for similar products. It’s not a great way to compare nutritional value. The reason is simple…most people, when balancing a diet, have the primary intention of reaching minimum macronutrient requirements while staying under a maximum calorie limit. Thus, to compare nutritional value, it’s much more honest to compare as per 100 calories.
Aside from that, it’s also an apples/oranges comparison anyway. They are comparing raw vegetables with refined vegetables (meat). That’s like saying “a cup of gasoline has more energy than a cup of crude”. Like, no shit.
A more fair comparison would be “culinary refined soy” (I.e tofu) vs “animal refined soy” (I.e beef), per 100 calories. For 100 calorie, tofu has 11 grams of protein, while 100 calories of ground beef has 8.9 grams of protein. You could say raw tofu is bland tasting. I could say the same of raw beef. It’s really all in the preparation. I’ve had bean burgers that blow the plants off of beef burgers for taste and nutrition.
Oh, and the beef they are comparing has even 4.5g of fat per 100g of beef. That means it’s 95.5% lean. Not high fat like we get from most cuts of factory farmed, force fed cattle. That good beef takes longer, feeding more over an extended time. Either that or Bessie gotta hit the gym, but you know what they say, you can’t outrun a bad diet.
And the micros are great too. Soy is a clear winner, even per 100g, on magnesium. You know magnesium is one of the most common deficiencies in the general population? Not in us soy boys, though. I had mine checked recently and it was almost too high. I asked to have it checked knowing that it’s a common deficiency and that one of my medications (you could probably guess which, from this long ranting post) has a tendency to deplete magnesium.
I have another FAO Publication (PDF) on sustainable livestock agriculture. It says:
Twenty-six percent of the Planet’s ice-free land is used for livestock grazing and 33 percent of croplands are used for livestock feed production. Livestock contribute to seven percent of the total greenhouse gas emissions through enteric fermentation and manure.
Globally, livestock provides 25 percent of protein intake and 15 percent of dietary energy.
This does not seem like a worthwhile use of land, to me. Nor does it seem like a good value for what we get in GHGs.
A couple of paragraphs prior in the sacredcow article, it talks of pesticide impact and whatnot. Seems like we wouldn’t need as much pesticides if we weren’t using so much crop land for animal feed.
We are in agreement on the export of alfalfa grown in extremely dry regions for cattle feed.