Become a Sustainavore!

Eat for your health, the planet, and your values.

Become a Sustainavore!

Eat for your health, the planet, and your values.

Meat is Magnificent: Water, Carbon, Methane & Nutrition

“When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.” – John Muir

There was a recent article in The Washington Post entitled “Meat is Horrible”, once again vilifying meat, that was full of inaccurate statements about the harm cattle impose on the land, how bad it is for our health, and how it should be taxed. Stories like this are all too common and we’ve absolutely got to change our thinking on what’s causing greenhouse gas emissions and our global health crisis.

Hint: it’s not grass-fed steak

In the few days since the story originally came out, I’ve been brewing up some different angle to write. I’ve written here, and here about the benefits of red meat, and how Tofurky isn’t the answer to healing the environment or our health. I keep saying the same thing over and over. Recently, I posted this as a response to Arnold Schwarzenegger’s new claims that a plant-based diet is optimal. I also wrote about Philadelphia’s sugar tax here, and I don’t think a meat tax is any better of an idea, especially when the government is subsidizing the feed. I’m feeling quite frustrated.

This morning, I went back to see the post and noticed that the story has been “significantly revised to address several inaccurate and incomplete statements about meat production’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions.” Most of the original points, references and charts are missing. However there are still some important pieces of information that I feel the author missed. The main one being that meat itself isn’t evil, it’s the method by which we farm it (feed lots and CAFOs-Confined Animal Feeding Operations) and how we prepare it (breaded and deep fried), and what we eat alongside it (fries, and a large soda).

[Tweet “Meat isn’t evil, it’s how we raise it, how it’s prepared, and what it’s eaten with.”]

Stop hating the player and instead, hate the game. Humans have been eating meat for all of our existence. Why vilify it now? I think what most people are really upset with are modern agricultural techniques and hyper-palatable, ultra-processed foods. Those are the real issue here, not a grass-fed steak. I’ll address some of the points directly:

Water, Carbon and Methane

Here’s a direct quote from the Meat is Horrible post:

“For a kilogram of meat, you need considerably more water than for plant products.”

What most people don’t understand is that there are different ways of measuring water use. If you’re measuring meat production looking at “green water”, this is very different than looking at “blue water.” Below are definitions from Waterfootprint.org’s glossary:

Green water

“The precipitation on land that does not run off or recharge the groundwater but is stored in the soil or temporarily stays on top of the soil or vegetation. Eventually, this part of precipitation evaporates or transpires through plants. Green water can be made productive for crop growth (although not all green water can be taken up by crops, because there will always be evaporation from the soil and because not all periods of the year or areas are suitable for crop growth).”

Blue water

“Fresh surface and groundwater, in other words, the water in freshwater lakes, rivers and aquifers.”

Grey water footprint

“The grey water footprint of a product is an indicator of freshwater pollution that can be associated with the production of a product over its full supply chain. It is defined as the volume of freshwater that is required to assimilate the load of pollutants based on natural background concentrations and existing ambient water quality standards. It is calculated as the volume of water that is required to dilute pollutants to such an extent that the quality of the water remains above agreed water quality standards.”

I want to also explain something that a lot of people don’t know. All beef is actually “grass-fed”, meaning the cattle start their lives on pasture (usually 12 to 14 months) and are “finished” (for four to six months) on a feed lot. In “typical” cattle production, the green water number is about 92%. In grass-finished beef, the green water number is closer to 97-98%. Again, green water is primarily rain fall. So every drop of rain that falls to grow crops, forage or grasses that a head of cattle eats over its lifetime is part of the water footprint equation. Blue water is ground water (from aquifers and rivers used for irrigation). See the full report from waterfootprint.org here. The research paper referenced in the Washington Post article considers industrially raised beef preferable to pasture-based because less water is needed to raise grains than to grow grass (looking at rain – green water). No note on how much of the pasture land herbivores are grazing is completely unsuitable for crop production is made, nor how beneficial these animals can be to the restoration of the land.  

According to this study from UC Davis, which used the blue water methodology, “typical” beef requires approximately 410 gallons of water per pound to produce. A pound of rice production also requires about 410 gallons, and avocados, walnuts and sugar are similarly high in water requirements.  In Nicolette Hahn Niman’s book, Defending Beef, she explains that the amount of water for grass-fed beef is closer to 100 gallons per pound to produce.

Once you understand how these footprint numbers are derived, you’ll understand how meaningless it is to use them as a critique of meat production. The equations also leave out a lot of critical information like soil type and health. This video by Sandra Postel, the director and founder Global Water Policy Project, explains water use in the production of meat very well. It should also be noted that the nutrition in grass-finished beef is far superior to rice, avocados, walnuts and sugar, so comparing “plant products” to “meat” is not really logical. 

Soil Health

Cows urinate and poop, which adds water and microorganisms to the soil, increasing biodiversity underground and helping to sequester carbon. Cattle grazing stimulates grass growth, which is good for the health of the pasture. They walk on the ground, which allows for rain water to pocket and seed germination to take hold. None of this happens in a chemical, monoculture system of farming. In the absence of herbivore manure, scientists are actually now experimenting with inoculating soil with microbes. 

Screen Shot 2016-01-11 at 8.59.10 PM

In my book, I refer to soil as a bank account. Cropping the soil (like planting vegetables) withdraws nutrients, and with each harvest, and you need to replenish the account. Conventional agriculture does this poorly with chemical fertilizers, producing GHG (Green House Gas) emissions, which are largely overlooked when people are singing the praises of eating vegetables. Home gardeners and organic farmers know that the best way to improve the soil bank is to add compost, ground bone, blood, and animal manure. Properly managed herbivores are also adding to the soil bank in a natural way.

Soil is not simply “dirt,” but is instead a complex web:
soil-food-web-jpeg-large
Source: http://www.ridgeshinn.com/environment/soil-health-and-fertility/?lgUTG

Click here for a really great explanation of how healthy pastures, under good grazing techniques, can sequester carbon.

According to this paper, from the March/April 2016 issue of the Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, most agricultural soils have lost 30% – 70% of their soil organic carbon (SOC), which has led to a decrease in food production in some areas. Domestic ruminants represent 11.6% of total anthropogenic emissions, vs. soil-associated losses, which contribute 13.7%. Of that 13.7%, nearly half results from agricultural inputs like fertilizers, fuels and pesticides. Wind, water and tillage erosion constitute the remaining emissions. Poor agricultural practices have contributed to soil erosion three times greater than the combined yields from corn, soybeans and hay.

Continuous grazing, where the land is not allowed to rest, depletes the root biomass, increases the bare ground, lowers SOC reserves, and contributes to soil erosion and compaction, decreasing it’s water holding capacity. Sediments from eroded soils, both due to overgrazing and poor cropping, emit GHG when organic matter sediments enter anaerobic waterways. Areas like the dead anoxic zone of the Gulf of Mexico, as well the declining numbers of North American pollinators, are examples of what can happen from soil erosion. (See the full paper here)

In the above video, Dr. Jason Rowntree of Michigan State (at about 37:00) reports that regenerative grazing of cattle can produce a 30 – 40% improvement in soil carbon compared to where there was no grazing at all. He also cites that more intensive grazing proved better for soil health than less intensive.

The talk below by Precious Phiri of Zimbabwe illustrates how extremely brittle land (much of the earth’s surface) can heal with properly managed grazing livestock. It would be crazy to plant row crops in such a brittle environment. Herbivores however, can restore the land to fertile soil.

Another quote from the Meat is Horrible post:

“The methane produced by cattle digestion alone is what leads many researchers to call for focusing on the impact of red meat, rather than poultry or pigs. Pigs and poultry contribute only 10 percent of total livestock emissions.”

Let’s not forget that prior to the mid-1800’s, there were an estimated 30-60 million bison roaming North America, yet nobody seems to acknowledge this when citing current “devastating” herbivore numbers. When the animals are incorporated into a responsibly managed, natural system, mimicking the way nature works, the entire system works.

Most of the CO2 emission numbers for food items comes from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [DEFRA]. While their analysis did take into account all sources of GHG during production, the numbers stop at emissions. No accounting for mitigation from carbon sequestration or methane oxidation, or nitrogen fixing were included. The worst emissions in this scenario (looking only at emissions) will be the animals who take the longest to reach mature weight, like grass-fed cattle. When you look at the entire cycle, cattle, responsibly rotated on pasture, have at minimum a net neutral and likely a net gain for carbon sequestration. Concentrated animal feces from factory farms (like manure lagoons) are a much different environmental issue than scattered cattle poop, urine and hoof across grasslands in a natural system.

These graphs, from the same study as referenced earlier, show what can happen when we look at agriculture differently.

Screen Shot 2016-07-13 at 10.09.24 AM
Source: http://www.jswconline.org/content/71/2/156.full.pdf+html
Screen Shot 2016-07-13 at 10.09.32 AM
Source: http://www.jswconline.org/content/71/2/156.full.pdf+html
Let’s take a look at land use:

A common question is: How are we going to feed the growing population? If we are going to eat less meat and have more crops, what will this look like?

Currently, 11% (1.5 billion ha) of the Earth’s land surface is used for crop production (annual crops and “permanent” agriculture like tree fruit). The FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) suggests that this is about 1/3 of the potential land mass (2.7 billion ha) suitable for crop production. That leaves a large amount of the land that is only suitable for grazing animals. In fact, most of the surface land on Earth is only suitable to grazing animals and not for crop production, due to topography, humidity, and other issues. What’s also not taken into account are the other potential uses this cropland may have for humans (such as housing, industrial uses, etc), so the total amount of usable land for cropping is likely much less than that number. Also, about 45% of potentially arable land is currently in forest. Read the full FAO report here. 

“The stupidity of man comes from having the answers. The wisdom comes from having the questions.” Milan Kundera

How we’re going to feed the world is much more complicated than asking people to simply eat more plants and less meat. How are we going to crop this land? Are we going to use more chemical agriculture? What are the expected yields? How will this land be irrigated? What will be planted and is there a demand for it? An example is the Democratic Republic of Congo where more than 50 percent of the land is suitable for cassava but only 3 percent is suitable for wheat. Is there a demand for cassava? What do they do with surplus cassava? Can it be stored? What processing or energy is needed in order to store it? What about North Africa, where olives can thrive but water intensive crops like rice cannot? Is this land actually fertile, free of toxins, and is there infrastructure for farming? Can the country store the excess crops? In highly populated countries like India, storage for surplus crops is a huge issue. If we want people to eat more fresh vegetables and fruit, how are we going to transport them without spoilage? Are we going to process them? Are we going to fly ripe apples from New Zealand to England in the winter, or are we going to store England’s apples and eat them in the winter? Counter to what some assume, in the case of apples and England, it actually makes more sense to fly in seasonal apples from New Zealand than to store local apples for the winter. Here’s another question: should we be eating out of season apples to begin with?

Now let’s look at human nutrition:

“Research from the University of Oxford estimates billions of dollars could be saved if people cut down to expert-recommended dietary guidelines – meaning no more than 0.6 pounds of red meat per week, 50 grams of sugar per day and 2300 calories per day.”

That statement above is saying that we can eat more sugar than red meat (78 grams more sugar per week than red meat). Really?

The truth is, much of these dietary guidelines are not only unproven for human health, but are highly debated in terms of sustainability. This article (and there are lots more like this) shows that the vilification for red meat is based on observational studies, showing links but not proving cause. It also points out that randomized control studies fail to prove that reducing red meat has a positive effect on health.

If we want to raise healthy cows, let’s look at the diet they’ve evolved to thrive on. Similarly, if we want to be healthy humans, doesn’t it make sense to eat the food we’ve evolved to eat?

In this post, I illustrate that our worldwide nutrient deficiencies are Iron and B12. Reducing meat consumption will not solve this. This post illustrates how nutrient-dense red meat is in general, and this one shows how much better beef finished on grass is, compared to typical beef. Eating more grains will not curb our global obesity or type 2 diabetes epidemic.

So, what are we eating more of?

money spent on groceries

Americans are spending less on meat today compared to years before, but twice as much on processed foods and sweets.

Globally, what are we eating?
what the world eats
Source: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/what-the-world-eats/

The world is eating a lot of grain, sugar and fat. Here’s a breakdown of this chart… and click here to interact with these graphs on your own – it’s completely fascinating!

breakdown of graph

 

Let’s look at meat consumption, specifically:
Screen Shot 2016-06-29 at 9.12.31 PM
Source: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/what-the-world-eats/

Beef consumption saw a 0% growth over this 50 year time period, while chicken consumption increased nearly 400%. Chickens and pigs are raised primarily indoors, fed heavily sprayed, mono cropped grain (plus some antibiotics, leading to superbugs, and can barely move around). Even feed-lot beef has a better life than a CAFO-raised chicken and pigs, and the cows are eating grass for most of their life. I’m just not sure beef is really the villain that everyone is claiming it to be.

According to this recent NPR post, the global diet is getting more and more westernized.

diet_composition_crops_custom-0d3ebb044b7ac8f4671074f05face0f036faf6ec-s600-c85
Source: http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/03/03/285335070/in-the-new-globalized-diet-wheat-soy-and-palm-oil-rule

Is it really safe to narrow down our crop production to a handful of crops, grown by a handful of companies? Nutritionally speaking, I’m not sure that the Standard American Diet is really the best diet for everyone on the planet. They were wrong about saturated fat and cholesterol. However, many other countries are following in our footsteps, adopting food pyramids, including more grains, and advising their people to reduce their meat consumption. I’m just not sure where those extra calories are going to come from. Is it realistic to think they will replace factory-farmed meat with organically grown vegetables and fruit? How will they get their protein? Is lab-grown meat really the best solution for a growing population? Has anyone done a Life Cycle Analysis on a product like Soylent, Tofurky, the “Beyond Meat” burger meat in the promotional video that the “Meat is Horrible” post prominently displays like an endorsement? Are these products are truly sustainable solutions? When you take into account the amount of chemicals and fossil fuels needed to grow and transport the soy and wheat, the amount of water needed for irrigation and processing, and the all of the other inputs needed to process, package and store these products, naturally produced, grass-finished beef seems like a much better choice to me. Beef is also a better source of protein than plants, and remember that our largest global nutrition deficiency is iron. The iron in beef is much more bioavailable than the iron in soy.

Solutions:

According to this paper (also cited earlier) here are a few suggestions to move into a more sustainable agriculture pattern:

  • More diversified farms
  • Cover crops with row crops
  • Cover crops between rotations
  • Minimize nongrazing feeding of ruminants
  • Organic soil amendments instead of chemicals
  • Using herbivores to improve marginal land to permanent pasture
  • Rest the land

The results would be increased soil fertility, water holding capacity, economic profitability for farmers, and better nutrition for the public. I also feel that we need to have a better understanding of how nature works. Chemical, mono-crop farming is simply not the best use of our land, and it doesn’t produce optimal food for human consumption. It’s also simply not safe, from a food security standpoint, to be eating such a narrow spectrum of foods, and CAFOs are an ideal breeding ground for superbugs. I think the idea of a meat tax, especially when we are subsidizing the exact industry that is bringing us this cheap meat, makes no sense at all.

[Tweet “A sustainable diet includes pasture-based meat and avoids processed foods and sugar.”]

We need to stop imposing the western diet on developing countries, and start worrying about what our low-fat, highly processed dietary guidelines have done to our health. We need to cook more. We need more small-scale, sustainable farms feeding regions and less factory farms feeding masses. Red meat is not causing obesity and type 2 diabetes, and not all meat production is evil. When we have a more clear understanding of natural cycles and do our best to mimic them, we can find superior solutions for human health and for our environment. We need to eat a truly sustainable diet, which includes grass-finished red meat and other pasture-based meat, plus sustainable seafood, lots of fresh, locally grown organic vegetables, some seasonal fruits, and healthy fats.


For further reading, here are some of my favorite resources on how herbivores are great for soil and human health:

The Savory Institute – and check out Allan Savory’s TED Talk

The Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund

American Grassfed Association

Carni Sostenibili (Italian association but much is translated to English)

Defending Beef by Nicolette Hahn Niman

Folks, This Ain’t Normal by Joel Salatin (or ANYTHING by him!)

An Ethical Meat Eater’s Response to the Film ‘Cowspiracy’ (blog post by Caroline Watson)

Cows Save the Planet by Judith Schwartz

The Soil Will Save Us: How Scientists, Farmers, and Foodies Are Healing the Soil to Save the Planet by Rodale Books

The Unsettling of America: Culture & Agriculture by Wendell Berry

How Wolves Change Rivers (Video)

Polyfaces: A World of Many Choices (film)

How to Buy and Thaw Grass-fed Meat (blog post)

The Paleo Solution by Robb Wolf

Year of the Cow by Jared Stone

The Vegetarian Myth by Lierre Keith

Radical Homemakers by Shannon Hayes

The Homegrown Paleo Cookbook or The Sustainable Diet, by myself

 

 

 

 

 

My posts may contain affiliate links, which means you don’t pay any more, but I may make a small commission, which helps me continue to bring you great new posts. Read my full disclosure/disclaimer here.

Enjoy This Post? Share It With Friends!

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Pinterest

58 thoughts on “Meat is Magnificent: Water, Carbon, Methane & Nutrition”

  1. we also forget that water consumed by livestock emerges from those same animals but is now fertile and will help plant growth. Cows are truly fertilizer machines. (why is everything in caps….I feel like I’m shouting.

  2. Pingback: [BLOCKED BY STBV] Meat is Magnificent: Water, Carbon, Methane & Nutrition | Primal Docs

  3. fantastic. Thanks for writing this thoughtful, we’ll researched article. The only point I would article with is that here in AZ OF APPEARS THAT cattle ARE I typically N FEEDLOTS WELL BEFORE 12 months. (not intending to Shout, I don’t seem to be able to change to lowercase)

    1. Thanks! Everything I’ve read says that cattle arrive at the feedlot around 12 months or so. Are you judging based on how you think a 12 month old cow should look, or have you spoken to ranchers and feedlot owners?

      1. In Iowa, many cattle are raised “grain-fed” start to finish. Young calves are taken from their dairy-cow mothers at birth or just a day or two after, then they are fed “milk replacement”, then they are transitioned to feedlots as soon as they are old enough to eat corn…about 3 months old. My former brother-in-law and other farmers in the area raise cattle this way – they never eat grass. SAD

      2. I HAVE A SMALL FARM WHERE I RAISE ALPACAS, GOATS, PIGS AND CHICKENS IN THE HIGH SAVANNAH OF SOUTHERN ARIZONA. I’M SURROUNDED BY PUBLIC RANGELANDs CRAWLING WITH CATTLE. THE RANCHERS ARE RUNNING WHAT’S CALLED “COW/CALF” OPERATIONS WHERE YEARLINGS ARE ROUNDED UP AND TAKEN TO LIVESTOCK AUCTIONS TO BE SOLD OR TO CAFO’S TO BE FATTENED FOR SLAUGHTER. Cow/calf operations are COMMON THROUGHOUT ALL OF THE WESTERN STATES ON PUBLIC LANDS. THE SYSTEM LEAVES MUCH TO BE DESIRED BECAUSE MUCH OF LANDSCAPE IN THE WEST HAS BEEN OVERGRAZED AND HENCE, IS SUFFERING FROM DESERTIFICATION. THE OVERGRAZING IS DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE RANCHERS DO NOT PAY ENOUGH MONEY FOR GRAZING RIGHTS TO COVER THE COST OF MANAGEMENT BY THE BLM, THE FOREST SERVICE AND STATE LAND DEPARTMENTS TO MANAGE SAID LAND ON BEHALF OF THE RANCHERS. IT’S also COMMON FOR RANCHERS TO RUN 3 or more TIMES AS MANY CATTLE AS THEY’RE ALLOCATED (no oversight) further aggravating desertification. IN OTHER WORDS, MOST RANCHING IN THE WEST IS SUBSIDIZED BY TAXPAYERS – ‘WELFARE RANCHING’ AS THOSE OF US WHO HAVE been DEALING WITH THIS ISSUE FOR THE PAST three DECADES LIKE TO CALL IT. THERE ARE RANCHERS WHO RUN CATTLE ON PRIVATE LAND BUT MOST OF THEM ARE USING GROUND WATER OR SURFACE (DIVERSIONS FROM RIVERS) WATER RIGHTS TO IRRIGATE PASTURES AND GROW ALFALFA FOR THEIR CATTLE. AGAIN, NOT A VERY SUSTAINABLE SOLUTION, NOT TO MENTION WATER DEVELOPMENT IS ALSO SUBSIDIZED BY TAXPAYERS. all of this so that the West can produce a measly 5% of the beef in the US.

        SO ALTHOUGH I’M SURROUNDED BY BEEF ON THE HOOF I HAVE NO ACCESS TO IT. AFTER IT DROPS INTO THE BLACK HOLE OF THE MODERN BEEF SYSTEM IT MAY END UP BACK HERE AT MY LOCAL STORE, BUT IT MAY HAVE TRAVELED 1,500 MILES TO DO SO. THIS IS THANKS TO REGULATIONS PUT IN PLACE BY K STREET LOBBYISTS FOR BIG FOOD WHO HAVE SUCCESSFULLY squeezed OUT SMALL FARMERS BY MAKING WHAT THEY USED TO DO (CUSTOM SLAUGHTERING) ILLEGAL. For those interested enough to do something about that, ask your representatives to support the Prime Act – https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/3187

        AN ADDITIONAL CONSEQUENCE of 150 years of cattle grazing here has been THE FACT THAT THE NATIVE HABITAT HAS BEEN TOTALLY ALTERED FROM ITS NATURAL STATE of WAIST HIGH GRASSLANDS TO THORN SCRUB. AT THIS POINT THE CATTLE HAVE little TO EAT HERE. HOWEVER, THE HABITAT CREATED BY “GRAZING” CATTLE NOW FAVORS “BROWSING” alpacas, GOATS AND PIGS WHICH CAN BE USED TO REDUCE THE INVASIVE thorn scrub SPECIES THAT THE COWS HAVE engendered, allowing THE NATIVE GRASSES TO once again FLOURISH. THIS IS WHY I RAISE ALPACAS, GOATS AND PIGS.
        I SHOULD POINT OUT THAT I WAS A CAREFUL VEGAN FOR 11 YEARS AND DEVELOPED SERIOUS HEALTH ISSUES BECAUSE OF IT AND didn’t OVERCOME THOSE ISSUES UNTIL I PUT MEAT BACK IN MY DIET and greatly reduced the amount of vegan carbs I was eating. Food is information for our bodies and our bodies and minds cannot become fully informed (evolved) without top notch nutrition. TO ignore nutrition in favor of a short sighted philosophy is a dead end. All one needs to do to determine what is right is to look to natures example – it’s a mix of plants, animals, insects and a myriad of other beings all eating and being eaten. This is balance. Remove one aspect of that and imbalance occurs. Native Americans have always known that ALL life is sacred, not just animals.

  4. Why is it necessary to eat the animals? I don’t understand why it’s assumed that this is an acceptable part of the process. If the herbivores are to be ‘used’, could they not simply live out their lives fertilising the soil for more effective crop production?

    1. Are you not interested in eating animals because it’s “mean to the animal?” or don’t want to because “we don’t NEED to for our nutrition?”

      I would point out that actually living out life and dying “naturally” is not always as humane as a quick bullet to the head and slit to the throat. Natural death is pretty sad to see. It can be gruesome or simply long, drawn out pain. I’ve seen it all.

      For the nutrition argument, I think humans are meant to eat meat for optimal health. I’ve studied nutrition, and it’s clear to me that plants do not provide us with adequate nutrients.

      If we’re going to use cattle and other herbivores to graze and fix the soil, how are we supposed to control their populations? Would you rather introduce more wolves to hunt them? Or should we sterilize these animals so that they can’t reproduce? Is sterilization more or less humane in your eyes than wolves eating them?

      1. Meat adds no BENEFICIAL nutrition to the human body. It cause the body to age faster and die younger.
        No animal produces vitamins, minerals or Omega 3. they all come from the earth, plants and sun. When you eat animals you get second hand NUTRIENTS that the animal as taken from the earth beforehand. All you get is heart clogging CHOLESTEROL, saturated fat and cancer CAUSING CARCINOGENS. Meat and dairy and all other excretions oozed from animal exploitation are killing humans faster that any virus could ever do. If ebola killed say 10 people over the coarse of a year, everyone would panic! but no mention of the hidden killer, the we love to cram in to our bodies three times a day.
        SUBSIDIES should be taken away from farmers and they should be hit heavily by taxes. Raise the price of meat and promote healthier eating.

        1. I’m not sure where to start with this comment… “No animal produces vitamins, minerals or Omega 3”. This is simply false information. “When you eat animals you get second hand NUTRIENTS that the animal as taken from the earth beforehand”. It’s all a cycle, my friend. Animals eat plants and animals, plants need animals to grow. If meat is so cancerous, how come humans have thrived on it for all of our existence? Have you ever considered that it might not be the actual meat that’s causing so many health issues, but what we eat along with it, like burger buns, deep fried potatoes in rancid oils, deep fried apple pies and 72oz sodas? I’m not sure where you’re going with the ebola comment. Finally, farmers are not subsidized to raise meat, they’re subsidized to produce excess grain.

          1. Humans thrived? Humans have actually begun thriving the moment they started multiplying plants to feed themselves, no animal, omnivore or carnivore, does that! Many animals were better hunters than humans, we’re nothing special regarding hunting!

          2. We did quite well as hunter gatherers actually – much better than we’re doing today with more obese than underweight people. I’m not saying that humans are better hunters than other hunters, but our use of tools and working in groups allowed us to capture food much more efficiently.

      2. “As humane as a quick bullet to the head and slit to the throat” – Oops, I think you forgot about the broken bones, stress, suffocation and injuries in transporting the animals to the slaughterhouse. Not to mention the fear caused by the stench of blood of their fellow creatures, plus being electrocuted/beaten/dragged after collapsing in order to get them to whatever humane death we’ve designed for them. And the fact that it is rarely the clean, quick process you are describing. Pigs for example are put into gas chambers to make their death more ‘humane’, where they struggle for 20 minutes or more as they suffocate. Many are stunned with a bolt and then boiled while still alive. Cows are skinned quickly and often the abattoir workers don’t wait until they’ve lost consciousness. The face comes off first. Many cows are pregnant when killed – because, hey, we gotta get milk from somewhere – and the unborn young regarded as waste. Humane? Would you treat a child in that way? Because after all, these animals are nearly always killed in the first years of their lives. You’re right, in that we do have the ability to care for other species, protect them from predators, harsh conditions and disease. Will we only do that if we have an unwritten contract that we get to kill them some other way then eat them? It is sad to see a creature die in any way. Can we limit the compassion only to the animals we exploit? Should we start slaughtering all wild animals just in case they have a slow death later?

        “If we’re going to use cattle and other herbivores to graze and fix the soil, how are we supposed to control their populations?” Yes, it’s not exactly a perfect solution is it. How about we replenish the soil without assuming we have the right to bring millions of lives into existence just to serve us? AND AN EVEN SIMPLER IDEA FOR POPULATION CONTROL – WE STOP BRINGING INTO EXISTENCE BILLIONS OF ANIMALS THAT WE KILL EVERY YEAR FOR FOOD. THAT WOULD PROBABLY HAVE AN EFFECT.

        “I think humans are meant to eat meat for optimal health” Have you any credible sources for this that aren’t funded by the meat/dairy industry?

        You might be interested in some of the facts about the amount of land required to feed livestock. Not to mention the amount of grain produced in developing countries to feed livestock, whose human population do not have enough to eat. As well as the threat to natural diversity through favouring the breeding of certain domesticated species over the protection of the land that is home to a rich mix of wildlife.

        So let’s celebrate the things we agree on: less processed food, less chemicals, less sugars, less unhealthy saturated fats, better soil health, less monoculture in farming practices. Yes! It’s great to progress into these things, especially where they provide benefits for all involved. Ideas that involve causing avoidable suffering to others? I believe we can do better than that. I was challenged by your article and I’m glad that I have had a chance to discuss it with you. I tried to be fairly objective but, where other’s lives are involved (and being destroyed every second), I think showing a bit of feeling is appropriate.

          1. One more request – please go find another site to troll and comment on – possibly any other food blogger that DOESN’T consider things like animal welfare, sustainability, nutrition, or social justice issues as important topics to look into. It AMAZES me how much you guys love to attack me, someone who is actually interested in treating animals and farm workers well, when there are millions of food bloggers out there that call for CAFO boneless skinless chicken breast, with no mention at all of how to responsibly source their food. I live on an organic farm, care about human nutrition and animal welfare. Go find someone else to fight with and convert, because it’s simply not going to happen here. Good day.

        1. 1. You didn’t read the article – saturated fat is good!
          2. You have only considered the worst treatment and least sustainable – not what the author is advocating or prescribing (again not reading)
          3. What complete RUBBISH about second hand nutrients!!! The cow (and its microbiomE) convert / use / make nutrients which we can get the beNefit from! Our own bodies (and micRobiome) then do the same. It is nOt a simple case of sunlight leads to photosynthesis – bam nutrients maDe!
          Conclusion – you are a troll

          I write this comment to steer Others clear of your lack of wisdom, knowledge and understanding.

          I eat good quality meat (organic from a locAl farm where the animals are taken in ones or twos to the lOcal abortoir which is two miles away – i visit the farm, i see the animals, i talk to the farmers and know how much they care)
          I eat it because i personally do not do well without it.
          Meat is not the problem – greed is (of money And food).
          Caps unintentional.

        2. I agree with you 100%. As a vegan, I choose to cause the least possible suffering to other sentient beings, first and foremost.

      3. Your response is childish at best. Killing animals with a quick bullet or slicing their throat is better than a lingering death – you mean better than living naturally? you “believe” we need meat for our nutrition, when factual studies about the human animal prove that is not the case. Meat is a choice. Almost all of the nutrients for human survival has alternate sources than meat. if you choose to have some animal products, you can always choose not to kill for those nutrients – unfertilized eggs (which is commonly in the store), cheese, dairy, etc. contain all of the additional nutrients if you so desire to do so. the human being is not a carnivore – never has been. the human animal is an omnivore who can eat plant based and or meat based sources – but does not need to kill animals for the “meat based” nutrients if they desire these sources through animal products. the animal non kill byproducts can prove that if you desire. your credibility is lost with comments like those in your thread above. do some real research and you won’t have to support the meat industry propaganda.

        1. You are correct: ALMOST all the nutrients (not all). We are NOT carnivores (I never said that we were). You are correct, we are omnivores, (not herbivores) so we need both animals and plants to survive. Here is the definition:
          om·ni·vore ˈämnəˌvôr/ noun: an animal or person that eats food of both plant and animal origin.
          I go deeper into “why” we need to eat the animals here: http://robbwolf.com/2016/08/03/why-is-it-necessary-to-eat-animals/

          1. Thank you for your reply. However, you finish with “we need to eat the animals”. No, we can eat the animal byproducts as I stated. We do not need to kill/eat the animals. Accept that. As regard health, I have been weightlifting for over 40 years, not killing animals in that time period, in good health (actually better than most my age) and do not have to kill animals to do that. Your article on killing and eating animals is false – there are ways to get the nutrients without killing I.e. byproducts. The problem of feeding the growing population is a problem of too many people, not killing animals. If you reduce the population growth through education and protective measures you remove the problem. However if you ignore the problem through rampant population growth, which is the real cause, you will never solve the problem.

      4. Are you serious, you’d rather spend your life inside being chained or confined and force fed antibiotics then driven for hours with no food or water to a slaughterhouse where you are hung upside down and have your throat slit then die naturally? That is crazy. To say meat doesn’t cause DM and heart disease goes again research. To say vegetarian diets aren’t healthy goes again every research article I’ve ever read. Where are you getting this information? I thought it was against our code of ethics to spread misinformation? With RD’s like you, no wonder we have such a hard time getting respect. I’m sure you’ll never post this.

        1. I’m certainly going to post this Lisa LaCroix, because you are twisting this post into something it is not. I’m clearly NOT advocating for industrially produced meat here, and am on the board of Animal Welfare Approved, so check your attitude before you post further on my site. I’m also NOT saying vegetarian diets aren’t healthy, but large bodies of research, plus our entire evolution prove that eating meat is not the cause of diabetes and heart disease.

          One study of an Eskimo population in 1855 found that when they were eating an “all meat” diet, their protein intake was only 44 percent due to high fat intake. During times of plenty, they would consume 4 to 8 pounds of meat a day, with a daily average intake of about 280g of protein and 135g of fat. Early American explorers survived for extended periods of time only on pemmican, a food made of dried lean meat mixed with fat, with a protein content of 20 to 35 percent.

          What about the concerns that protein causes kidney disease and cancer? In healthy people, no danger has been found in protein intakes above 3g/kg. It’s true that those with kidney disease should limit their protein intake, but there’s no proof that increasing your protein intake actually causes kidney disease.

          The studies linking protein to cancer are only able to show correlations, not cause. Just because eating something is associated with an outcome, doesn’t mean that particular food is necessarily what caused the problem. Most of these studies are looking at people on a Western diet vs. vegetarians. The typical American has a very different lifestyle than a typical vegetarian. Vegetarians are much less likely to smoke, drink, and much more likely to exercise. They also tend to eat less processed foods and sugar. So, saying that meat is the only factor causing of disease is flawed logic. In fact, a study that looked at people who shopped at health food stores (so, accounting for lifestyle factors) found no difference in mortality between vegetarians and omnivores. And when adjusting for confounding factors (i.e. lifestyle) a recent, very large study found “no significant difference in all-cause mortality for vegetarians versus non-vegetarians.”

          So Lisa, no, it’s not RD’s “like me” who are the problem. Please consider actually reading this article, looking at the science and consider keeping an open mind – because true scientists actually consider ALL of the evidence, not just the evidence that suits their emotions. I am actually arguing for a better system here. If you were ever to work on a farm and produce food, you’d see that every food system causes death. A vegetarian or vegan system actually causes TONS of death. You need to replenish the soil after you drain the nutrients from it, and this can be done with chemicals or with animal inputs. If you choose chemicals, you cause more death. If you choose animals as the inputs, then this requires we respectfully use animals as part of a natural system. All natural systems cause death in order to produce life. I’m sorry, that’s just the law of nature.

          Please go work on a farm, read some research that expands your worldview and let’s chat again. Have a great day.

  5. One of the most brilliant articles written about this much debated and distorted issues; will send it along to many people! I am a recovering vegetarian (25 years of it!) and still have health issues after eating meat for 16 years! I am so grateful for people such as you for providing grassfed and finished meat; I have never once eaten CAfo meat since reinitiating a meat diet. Why oh why cannot all the voraciously ignorant and, in my opinion, brainwashed, people understand the reality of what you are doing to truly sustain, heal and nurture the planet? If we can all agree to disagree with what we each decide works best for each of us, but understand the truth About CAfo produced meat, then, SERIOUSLY, our world can flourish and heal. People need to heal their minds and hearts about this issue and stop with all the vitrolic, unsupported claims. We love you for doing what is true for the earth! Much gratitude.

  6. Hi Diana, great arTicle. as a nutritionist i too believe In eating some humanely raised meat. I see too many vegetarians and vegans who have health conditions that could be SUPPORTED with small amounts of local grass fed meats. A very indepth and informative article- thanks!

  7. As well as the “meat is horrible” argument, I have just come across this article by George Monbiot “I’ve converted to veganism to reduce my impact on the living world” https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/09/vegan-corrupt-food-system-meat-dairy
    I would be interested in your views on it. He speaks of pollution from a dairy farm, saying that he “arranged to spend a day beside the River Culm in Devon, renowned for its wildlife and beauty. However, the stretch I intended to explore had been reduced to a stinking ditch, almost lifeless except for some sewage fungus.” He makes the enormous jump from his experience of pollution at this farm to deciding to become vegan.
    I’m imagining that it must be an intensive type farm. From your experience of organic, could this kind of pollution come from grass fed/organic Fed dairy cows? Thanks for your thoughts.

    1. Saying you’re not going to eat dairy or meat because of factory farming is like saying you’re not going to eat vegetables because you don’t believe in mono-cropping. There are alternatives. I’m not arguing for factory farming, and to me, the dairy industry is actually worse than feed-lot beef for meat.

      1. Do you think all dairying is bad? I’m not sure from your reply. The question I asked was whether you thought the farm that Monbiot mentions, which polluted so badly could have been one with organic/grass fed cows? Basically so I can challenge the author. I quite agree that giving up all animal produce because of a factory farm would be ridiculous reasoning. He could source sustainable meat. But he seems to want us to grow our food on as little ground as possible, even to the extent of not using land which won’t grow arable crops, and turning the rest into nature reserves.

  8. Pingback: [BLOCKED BY STBV] Feeling Guilty about Eating Meat? - Sustainable Balance

  9. While i agree with many of your points and dont on others..we are well passed the grass fed humanly raised consideration. Our addiction to cheap meat is off the scales and raising meat in a sustaianable fashion is no longer an option because we could never raise enough to feed the addiction, it is not environmementally possible. We just keep trying to find the right way to do the wrong thing..rather then just doing the right thing the right way. For this reason I find your article very irresponsible because all those who want to believe that we do not need to change, that there is no environmental impact and that a bullet to the head is humane (there is no such thing as humanely raised and slaughtered factory farmed meat) will use your article to support eating meat. I actually question who is paying you. Yes we are omnivores and if we did not make meat the star of every meal we could incorporate it into a balanced diet, but it is the main attraction and it is typically full of hormones and antibiotics and tortured before it hits the plate. And lets not even start on the antibiotic resitant bugs that are being created from the overuse of antibiotics in our livestock. A very irresponsibly written article indeed because we are way past the point of no return because no one wants to give up eating meat 3 xs a day 7 days a week and you have just given them reason not to – even if i underdstand that this is not what you are advocating, the masses will not.

    1. So, even though I was VERY clear that I do not endorse factory farming and advocate voting with your dollars to buy good meat, and you’re saying that you understand this is my position, you’re telling me that because other people may be stupid and not see that this is my point, that I’m being irresponsible? If you’ve read ANY of my books or attend any of my talks, or read anything that I write about, I’m very, VERY clear about my position against factory farming. I also think that unless people are educated on the importance of good meat, and the benefits herbivores have on our eco-system and for our health, nothing will change. “Who is paying me?” the people who support my work – those who pay for me to help them change their diet and those who buy my books – and by the way, I can assure you that there are many other ways I could be making a LOT more money. I left my career in marketing in order to pay thousands to get my RD credential, and my husband left his job in high tech at the age of 28 to become an organic farmer. So, I don’t feel that your criticisms are at ALL valid. You’re logic is incredibly flawed. Go give your attitude to any other dietitian or blogger who simply calls for “boneless skinless chicken breast” in their recipes with no nod to sourcing.

    2. Just by the very title “meat is magnificent” you are being irresponsible. if you have not done so yet, i urge you to watch cowspiracy which does ask the question ‘can we sustain meat production via organic grass fed livestock farming?’ and how, unfortunately no, it is not sustainable. I would also ask you to watch plant pure nation. We are so far past being able to sustain eating meat raised in any form now because people have been so misinformed & misguided by our government and enchanted by cheap meat from the corporations who produce causing an addiction that is now impossible to break – these people do not want to believe the facts and by titling your post “meat is magnificent” it is irresponsible. You have to take responsibility for what your title implies. Meat is not magnificent, it should never be considered the star of the plate, and right now, with the battle to overcome corporate rule in the ag industry, an industry that will take your post and run with it, we need to discourage the consumption of animal protein altogether . .for our health, the health of the planet and the health of the animals being reared for food. And just so I am very clear about where i am coming from, i used to believe in the same thing you do – organic, humanely raised etc .. etc.. but i now realize what a lie that is.. there truly is no such thing unless you live on the farm and raise your own food.. and this too is not sustainable for an entire planet. Watch the documentaries and then talk to me, and you might as well watch http://www.resistancethefilm.com/ … there is now way to eat sustainable raised meat any longer … and as we will never give up our meat addiction, we are in for a very scary ride indeed.

      1. The title is to counter the title of the Washington Post article. And honestly, humans wouldn’t be where we are today without eating meat. It has advanced our species. It’s miraculous for sure.

        I love this response to all of the erroneous factoids in Cowspiracy: http://primaleye.uk/ethical-meat-eaters-response-to-cowspiracy/
        The water issue that I list here is a perfect example. Are we talking rain water or water the cattle actually drank? Methodology is hugely important when deciding whether to trust research. It’s too bad people don’t understand how to read studies though, and simply trust information they see reported instead of looking up the citations.

        I never said meat should be the star of the plate. Never.

        Finally, the film Resistance is fantastic. I’ve spoken to Michael Graziano a few times and just last week I interviewed him for my podcast. That episode should be out on September 27th, 2016. He and I are in complete agreement on meat. The call to action in resistance is not to become vegan. He never says to avoid eating meat. He is not anti-meat. He’s simply anti-CAFO.

        Following this logic, I would never say that I’m “anti-vegan” because I don’t believe in mono-cropping or GMOs, right? Do you see how flawed your thinking is?

        I happen to live on a farm myself where meat is raised and sold, so this statement “there is no way to eat sustainable raised meat any longer” is simply untrue. Those who cannot live on a farm can purchase good meat from numerous sources.

        As someone who practices medical nutrition therapy to help people recover their health, I believe eating meat is critical for humans. It is the most bioavailable protein source. Humans are omnivores, meaning we need meat and vegetables to thrive.

        Again, please consider trolling another blog of someone who is easier to convert, who is unable to understand how nature works, who doesn’t get how human biochemistry works, and who simply relies on factoids from documentaries in order to be informed instead of reading the actual studies. How about go pick on any one of the food celebrities out there who call for “meat” in a recipe without any respect to how it’s raised?

        1. DIana, first I want to thank you for the work that you do and for this excellent rebuttal to that misinformed Post article. I read the Post, cringed when I first saw this poorly crafted piece and had a rebuttal floating around in my mind for weeks. You did it! Second, I want to offer my support to you in fielding these uninformed responses so gracefully. I’m know it comes with its share of pain. Humans can be so wonderful and so stupid. Hopefully we can collectively help move the very sticky dial towards the wonderful end of the scale before we are past the point of no return.

  10. Pingback: [BLOCKED BY STBV] Are Meat-Eaters Ruining the Earth

  11. Pingback: [BLOCKED BY STBV] Eat Meat, Just Source It Sustainably – Health Care

  12. Pingback: [BLOCKED BY STBV] Women and Meat - Sustainable Dish

  13. Pingback: [BLOCKED BY STBV] More Protein, Better Protein - Sustainable Dish

  14. Pingback: [BLOCKED BY STBV] A Quarter Steer Order from Hooke Farms - Sustainable Balance

  15. Pingback: [BLOCKED BY STBV] 10 Reasons to Stop Eating So Much Chicken - Sustainable Dish

  16. Pingback: [BLOCKED BY STBV] In Defense of Real Food: a Paleo & Whole30 Dietitian Responds to US News & World Report's "Best Diets of 2017" - Sustainable Dish

  17. Pingback: [BLOCKED BY STBV] Is Crowdfunding Beef The Next Big Thing? - Sustainable Dish

  18. Pingback: [BLOCKED BY STBV] Dear Mark Bittman & NY Times: Stop Vilifying All Meat - Sustainable Dish

  19. Pingback: [BLOCKED BY STBV] Why Fake Burgers Make No Sense - Sustainable Dish

  20. Pingback: [BLOCKED BY STBV] Interview with Nutritionist, Writer and Organic Farmer Diana Rodgers

  21. Pingback: [BLOCKED BY STBV] Episode 60: Transitioning from Vegetarian to Paleo

  22. Pingback: [BLOCKED BY STBV] Make America GRAZE Again! - Sustainable Dish

  23. Pingback: [BLOCKED BY STBV] Am I Less "Woke" Because I Eat Meat? - Sustainable Dish

  24. Pingback: [BLOCKED BY STBV] Chicken vs Beef: Which is Healthier & Better for the Environment? (Surprising Answer) - Inner Health Chiropractic & Consulting

  25. Pingback: [BLOCKED BY STBV] Why Is Grass Fed Beef Better? | The Castaway Kitchen

  26. Pingback: [BLOCKED BY STBV] Veganism: A New Way of Life or Another ‘ism’ - Core Health Coaching

  27. Pingback: [BLOCKED BY STBV] In-N-Out Burger Bowls -

  28. Pingback: [BLOCKED BY STBV] Animal Protein and a Whole-Foods Diet: What the Science Says – Welcome

  29. Blogs like this really make my day complete because I so love reading articles like this where I learn a lot of new things from it. Thanks for posting!

  30. Pingback: [BLOCKED BY STBV] Diana Rodgers on Sustainable Protein and Modern Food Production

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Articles

Stay Up To Date

Join 60,000+ advocates just like you!

Stay Up To Date

Join 60,000+ advocates just like you!

Scroll to Top

Sign Up for my newsletter Below, and You'll Receive Instant access to all my Free Monthly Downloads!