Cows have been roundly criticized in the environmental (and mainstream) media for two reasons - the allegation that their flatulence (I think it's actually eructation, but whatever...) contributes to atmospheric methane, and the allegation that raising cows for meat consumption has an adverse effect on global CO2 balance. A farmer in Maine offers some counterarguments:
I am dismayed that so many people have been so easily fooled on the meat eating and climate change issue following the UN report. The culprit is not meat eating but rather the excesses of corporate/industrial agriculture. The UN report shows either great ignorance or possibly the influence of the fossil fuel lobby with the intent of confusing the public. It is obviously to someone’s benefit to make meat eating and livestock raising an easily attacked straw man (with the enthusiastic help of vegetarian groups) in order to cover up the singular contribution of the only new sources of carbon—burning the stored carbon in fossil fuels and to a small extent making cement (both of which release carbon from long term storage)—as the reason for increased greenhouse gasses in the modern era...He also addresses the methane question. I don't know whether his arguments are scientifically valid, but I thought they deserve an audience.
If I butcher a steer for my food, and that steer has been raised on grass on my farm, I am not responsible for any increased CO2. The pasture-raised animal eating grass in my field is not producing CO2, merely recycling it (short term carbon cycle) as grazing animals (and human beings) have since they evolved. It is not meat eating that is responsible for increased greenhouse gasses; it is the corn/ soybean/ chemical fertilizer/ feedlot/ transportation system under which industrial animals are raised. When I think about the challenge of feeding northern New England, where I live, from our own resources, I cannot imagine being able to do that successfully without ruminant livestock able to convert the pasture grasses into food. It would not be either easy or wise to grow arable crops on the stony and/or hilly land that has served us for so long as productive pasture...
More at the link. Via Good blog. Photoshop credit to Spoonfan at Worth1000.com.
That cow looks like it has a map of the world in its spots. Is this the point of the picture?
ReplyDeleteThat is a map of the world, very cleverly drawn to resemble the spots on a Holstein. The original of the picture is here -
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Friesian-Holstein.jpg
The credit at the bottom of the post directs you to the creator of the modified cow, whose image was posted at Worth1000.
That's the point of the picture. That's not the point of the article. I just needed a picture of a cow to accompany the story, and thought I'd use this one because my grandfather was in the Holstein-Friesian breeders of Minnesota.
I recommend "The Omnivores Dilemma" from Michael Pollan if you haven't had the chance to read it yet.
ReplyDeleteI think the big problem is that the majority of the meat we as Americans consume is not raised on a grass diet. Instead the cows are fed corn which has to be grown and shipped to the cows who in turn after slaughter are shipped across the nation. It's the shipping and transportation that account to much of the greenhouse gasses.
...grass fed beef is almost impossible to find in the supermarket - almost $30 a pound when you can. Industrial cows are the rule in the U.S. Their poor diet and cramped conditions also require the use of antibodies...which opens up a another can of worms.
ReplyDeleteI concur with the last commenter, Michael Pollan is a must read for anybody wanting straight information on this topic.
Amen! Thanks for the great info everybody.
ReplyDelete