Does eating Low Carb and beef/dairy harm the environment?

[SamJB]

I guess my point was that giving up or reducing meat consumption may not help the environment as much as you might think it does. However, I think giving up seafood can help the environment. Humans have really devastated the oceans by over-fishing.

Again, I agree. Guess I posted in the wrong thread then really. Lot's of ethics surrounding food production; I'm more concerned with the reasons posted above than the environment, in particular. Although, isn't raising cattle supposed to be a large source of greenhouse gas - in particular methane?

 

[Brunneria]

Although, isn't raising cattle supposed to be a large source of greenhouse gas - in particular methane?

So the Vegan Society would have you believe.

However, for those of us still living in the real world, things are (as usual) much more complicated, and much less hi-jackable for specific agendas.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/methane_riddle_what_is_causing_the_rise_in_emissions

Fossil fuels, fracking, rice paddy fields, over population, developing industry AND ruminants all play a part.
Plus, of course, if those ruminants are raised ethically and in an environmentally aware manner, their methane production is easily offset by their other impact on the environment - improved grassland, fixing C02, etc. etc.

Edited to add the following links:

https://foodprint.org/issues/raising-animals-sustainably-on-pasture/?cid=248

https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/animals-and-livestock/beef-cattle/husbandry/general-management/production

 

[SamJB]

So the Vegan Society would have you believe.

However, for those of us still living in the real world, things are (as usual) much more complicated, and much less hi-jackable for specific agendas.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/methane_riddle_what_is_causing_the_rise_in_emissions

Fossil fuels, fracking, rice paddy fields, over population, developing industry AND ruminants all play a part.
Plus, of course, if those ruminants are raised ethically and in an environmentally aware manner, their methane production is easily offset by their other impact on the environment - improved grassland, fixing C02, etc. etc.

Edited to add the following links:

https://foodprint.org/issues/raising-animals-sustainably-on-pasture/?cid=248

https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/animals-and-livestock/beef-cattle/husbandry/general-management/production

The first link suggests that rearing cattle that produce less methane will help and the second link says that responsible pasture farming, rather than factory farming will produce less methane too.

So, as with anything, if it's done with responsibility and consideration for the environment, then the environmental impact will be reduced.

I don't subscribe to the Vegan Society - or any other fanatical agenda - but not buying meat from mass-produced, factory-reared, supermarket-sold sources can only be a good thing. That's not to say I don't, I just try not to.

 

[Brunneria]

yes, the grey areas are infinite, aren't they? And multifaceted.

The trouble is, public opinion is soooooo easily swayed by the sound bites that shout the loudest, and at the moment, that seems to be pro-vegan groups.

 

[NoCrbs4Me]

Again, I agree. Guess I posted in the wrong thread then really. Lot's of ethics surrounding food production; I'm more concerned with the reasons posted above than the environment, in particular. Although, isn't raising cattle supposed to be a large source of greenhouse gas - in particular methane?

Yes, it's supposed to be. I haven't done the math, but I suspect the GHG footprint of growing crops in semi-arid areas and shipping them thousands of miles is larger than eating locally raised cattle. Not to mention the methane produced by the people eating all those veg.

 

[Guzzler]

Again, I agree. Guess I posted in the wrong thread then really. Lot's of ethics surrounding food production; I'm more concerned with the reasons posted above than the environment, in particular. Although, isn't raising cattle supposed to be a large source of greenhouse gas - in particular methane?

With a human population fast approaching 10 billion and all of us producing methane (some more than others) we are pointing a finger at cattle? Pot and kettle. That is apart from the pollution from cars etc fossil fuels and landfill sites. There are too many of us and we are becoming victims of our own success.

 

[Oldvatr]

Although CH4 Methane is classed as a greenhouse gas, its impact is quite low. Firstly there is much less of it than CO2. secondly it has a shorter life before it decomposes, It hugs the ground and does not rise into the upper atmosphere like CO2, therefore does not trap the heat from escaping to space so is not a real greenhouse effect. It does absorb heat from the sun which is a temporary effect, and hence it is classed as a 'greenhouse gas' but no more than the earth it is covering, which subsequently does not heat up so much - net effect is almost neutral.
CH4 has an advantage in that it burns to release energy so is useful if collected properly like at municipal tips. But Methane is a hydrocarbon fuel so is not in favour in a world hellbent on eliminating so called fossil fuels such as natural gas.

 

[bulkbiker]

Again, I agree. Guess I posted in the wrong thread then really. Lot's of ethics surrounding food production; I'm more concerned with the reasons posted above than the environment, in particular. Although, isn't raising cattle supposed to be a large source of greenhouse gas - in particular methane?

An alternate view
https://daily.jstor.org/can-cows-help-mitigate-climate-change-yes-they-can/

 

[Antechinus]

Grass fed beef has a better omega 3:6 balance than grain fed beef.

Sad thing is, any human activity is bad for the environment. There is less bad like grass fed beef using cell farming, or really bad like feed lots using corn and soya bean for feed as is done in the USA.

 

[NoCrbs4Me]

Grass fed beef has a better omega 3:6 balance than grain fed beef.

Sad thing is, any human activity is bad for the environment. There is less bad like grass fed beef using cell farming, or really bad like feed lots using corn and soya bean for feed as is done in the USA.

Who can afford grass finished beef??? Where I live all cattle are raised on grass in open fields until most are finished with grains (which are from grasses - mostly rye) in a feed lot for a few months to fatten them up, with a small number grass finished and sold at triple the price of CAFO beef. The omega 3:6 ratio of grain finished cattle is still massively better than what's in the standard western diet.

 

[Pinkorchid]

but not buying meat from mass-produced, factory-reared, supermarket-sold sources can only be a good thing. That's not to say I don't, I just try not to.

I wish we had a choice other than supermarkets when it come to meat buying. We do not have any local butchers anymore I live in one of two adjoining villages both have long lost their butchers they could not compete with the supermarkets

 

[Resurgam]

At the moment there are sheep and cattle still out in the fields grazing - though there were 'hay-stations' in some fields where the number of animals was higher than the grass could feed. I am on the south coast of England, so in a most favoured position, but if the band of land which can be grazed all year round is expanding, that is good - though if all the permafrost land is allowed to wash away, that would be a negative.
Having domestic animals on land can reverse desertification - it has been seen in places where people were excluded from areas considered at risk 'so they could be properly cared for' by people in authority - the change was decidedly for the worse, and the areas where the people and cattle were still allowed to live their traditional way of life herding cattle and sheep/goats were visibly improving, due to the extra effort the people were putting into keep themselves alive.

 

[Oldvatr]

At the moment there are sheep and cattle still out in the fields grazing - though there were 'hay-stations' in some fields where the number of animals was higher than the grass could feed. I am on the south coast of England, so in a most favoured position, but if the band of land which can be grazed all year round is expanding, that is good - though if all the permafrost land is allowed to wash away, that would be a negative.
Having domestic animals on land can reverse desertification - it has been seen in places where people were excluded from areas considered at risk 'so they could be properly cared for' by people in authority - the change was decidedly for the worse, and the areas where the people and cattle were still allowed to live their traditional way of life herding cattle and sheep/goats were visibly improving, due to the extra effort the people were putting into keep themselves alive.

May I suggest that those considering that by reassigning cattle land over to arable farming is a good idea, should investigate the causes of the Great Dust Bowl in USA.