Become a Sustainavore!

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

Become a Sustainavore!

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

How Much Feed Does it Take To Produce a Pound of Beef?

sustainable-dish-beef-feed

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the role of animal protein in the human diet and the environment; specifically, the meat from herbivores like beef, bison, lamb, and goat. Every time I turn around, a new documentary about global warming is telling me to stop eating beef. There are films, books and blogs citing how much water and grain it takes to produce a hamburger, plus they claim meat production is a source of methane and also happens to be really bad for us nutritionally. I’ve already addressed the water, carbon, methane and nutrition issue here, explaining that “typical” beef requires about 410 gallons of water to produce one pound, a similar amount to avocados, walnuts and sugar, plus beef production can actually help sequester carbon, is not necessarily a source of methane, and is a nutrient-dense food. Grass-fed is even better.

When looking at “feed” input to edible beef output, I’ve seen all sorts of numbers ranging up to 20 pounds of feed per pound of beef.  Feed is not always the same word as “grain” and can sometimes refer to hay, corn stalks, and other non-concentrated, non-grain animal feed. For the purpose of this post, I’m going to refer to “feed” as the mix given to cattle at the feedlot.

Before you freak out, I want to make it clear that I’m not advocating we all eat feedlot cattle. I much prefer well managed grass-fed meat to feedlot beef, because the cattle are healthier animals, and it’s better for the soil and human health. What I do want to illustrate here is that beef is not the daemon it’s been made out to be.

I was curious to find out if these high feed conversion ratios attributed to beef were including the full weight of the finished cow, assuming the cow ate grain for it’s entire life, which could really inflate the number. Because it’s expensive to buy feed, a “typical” cow lives the first 12-18 months on pasture, eating grass and other forage, not grain. Pastureland is not suitable for cropping, so the cows are not competing with humans for possible land that could be used to grow vegetables. And, we can’t eat grass or hay. Also, as I describe here, when cows are properly managed, they can actually improve soil quality and help sequester carbon.

When the cattle reach about 600 – 900 pounds they are then transferred to a feedlot (unless they are grass-finished, in which case they spend their entire life on pasture.)  The diet the cattle eat at a feedlot is between 70 – 90 percent grain, the other 10 – 30% of cattle feed comes from industrial byproducts like the grain leftover from distilleries, which doesn’t compete with humans for food. At the feedlot, cows gain an average of one pound per six pounds of feed they consume. Market weight is approximately 1,200 – 1,400 pounds at an age of 18 – 22 months.

What a lot of people who are looking to exaggerate numbers like to do is calculate the 6 pounds of grain for the ENTIRE weight of the animal. This makes it look like cattle eat grain their whole life; that the entire 1200 – 1400 pounds has come from grain. Remember that cattle get to the feedlot at 600 – 900 pounds, which means you cannot calculate the prior weight into the grain equation. We’re really looking at an average of about 600 pounds that the cow is gaining at the feedlot. If you then multiply this 600 pounds by six pounds of grain, you get 3600 pounds of grain to produce an animal of 1200 pounds. This ratio of feed to beef is 3:1. Other studies have found the feed conversion ratio for beef even lower, closer to 2.5. 

But that’s not the end of the story…

The edible portion of the cow is different than the weight of the live animal. After the animal is slaughtered, the head and organs are removed to produce the carcass. A 1200 pound cow produces a 750 pound carcass. Now, you could argue that the entire cow is required to produce the meat, but these other pieces are actually used in other industries. The hide becomes leather, the bones, fat, intestines are all processed into other items like soap, pet food, fertilizer, and even used to produce pharmaceuticals. I believe that it’s “unfair” to calculate beef byproducts (non-edible meat) into the equation. Once you eliminate the 150 pounds of fat trim and 110 pounds of bone for a 720 pound carcass, you’re left with about 490 pounds of edible beef; cuts like steaks, roasts, short ribs, and ground beef.

[Tweet “Q: How much feed does it take to produce a pound of beef? A: Depends on how you calculate it!”]

If you stop to think about it, a 2.5 or 3:1 ratio of grain to flesh is pretty amazing. We humans are much better off eating one pound of beef compared to what the cows are eating. Feed for cattle includes corn, wheat, soybean hulls, cottonseed meal, corn and soy oils. That looks a lot like the ingredients on many of the highly processed boxes of junk food flooding our grocery store shelves. One pound of beef, which is the most digestible protein, the most bioavailable source of iron, and a fantastic source of B12 (iron and B12 deficiencies are among the leading nutrition issues around the world) is clearly nutritionally superior to this cattle feed.

Chickens and pigs have been promoted as more efficient converters of grain to meat than cows at a 2.5 and 3.5 ratio, respectively. However I want to point out that industrial feed is the only  chickens and pigs eat in a “typical model,” meaning in a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO). These animals do not spend the first part of their lives on ranches. They’re born indoors and will always stay indoors, under fluorescent lights, in cages. From a humane handling perspective, cattle have it much better off than chickens and pigs. In fact, all poultry is exempt from humane slaughter laws. And if you’re looking to do the “least harm,” meaning kill the least number of animals to support your health, a cow can certainly feed many more people than a chicken or a pig. And, as I mentioned earlier,  “typical” feedlot beef spends most of their lives on pasture, and even when they do go to a feedlot, they are able to walk around freely, in the sun. Also, while cattle are accused of “taking up” more land than chickens and pigs, pasture land is not usable as crop land. If you’re looking for the most bioavailable source of protein, that doesn’t compete with humans for food and can actually help sequester carbon, consider eating more pasture-based herbivores like cattle, bison, goats, and sheep. 

Because this topic can’t fully be covered by one blog post, you can read more about meat in the following posts:

The water, carbon, methane and nutrition in beef

Why it’s necessary to eat animals (how come we can’t just let them improve the land and live out a “natural” life?)

How it’s actually impossible to be vegan

Red meat and cancer – will it ever stop?

The ethics and impact of eating meat

And stay tuned for more posts exploring similar issues.

 

 

 

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

37 thoughts on “How Much Feed Does it Take To Produce a Pound of Beef?”

  1. I hate this question. Cattle on or property get grass and some hay in the winter, The water for them coms from the race and we don’t irrigate. We usually keep a few dozen over the summer and just a few of our own through the winter.

    We have a couple killed on the farm for friends and ourselves but this is becoming problematic, due to some changes in health and safety law changes. Our clients now must purchase the entire beast 28 days before the most humane death one can think of, for a dollar. Just a little dancing around the rules, but noting else changes.

    We work on the 1/2, 1/2 equation. One half of the live weight ends up on the hook, one half of that ends up on the freezer. We try to make 220kg on the hook. The mobile abattoir is a great way to harvest all the bits that are otherwise wasted, cheeks, tongue, heart, liver, kidney and other mystery meat.

    I note that you looked askance at grazing sheep in NZ. Please understand that sheep here are often doing a job. Sheep are often several years old and their job s making lambs and/or wool as well as weed control. They are often grazed on what seems to be short pasture or even what seems to be bare ground, but that’s fine, as they are not supposed to grow anymore or get fat. Some also buy in stores (mixed sex lambs) for the winter and two or three thousand of these are best managed break fed on winter brassica or free ranging on a wintering grass seed crop. Tats why you might have seen what you noted was not the most efficient method of grazing. Most of the cattle in NZ are dairy an unless the farm is biologic or organic, the grazing practice leaves much to be desired. Dairy cattle are the only cattle to get supplementary feed, grain or palm kernel, the latter is pretty dodgy and might just have to fade away for a number of reasons, like undated importation of pests and destruction of Indonesan rain forest.

    Enough ranr, ta.

    1. Re: your comment on sheep – it is unhealthy for the sheep and for the land to have the sheep on the same piece day in and day out. There is a huge difference in management systems. What I saw in NZ was scattered sheep overgrazing pasture in very large fields. This is completely unnatural. Keeping sheep on the same patch without moving them to new pasture and allowing the land to rest is detrimental to the soil, and also can spread parasites to the sheep. You MUST allow the land to rest and move the sheep to new grass on a regular basis. It doesn’t matter whether the sheep are being raised for wool, dairy or meat. That’s irrelevant.
      When you say dairy cattle are the only cattle that get supplementary feed, are you referring to your own cattle, or cattle in NZ? I’m unclear what you’re trying to say here.

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

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

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

  5. FYI you are contradicting your own reasoning in this section:
    “This makes it look like cattle eat grain their whole life; that the entire 1200 – 1400 pounds has come from grain. Remember that cattle get to the feedlot at 600 – 900 pounds, which means ==you cannot calculate the prior weight into the grain equation===. We’re really looking at an average of about 600 pounds that the cow is gaining at the feedlot. If you then multiply this 600 pounds by six pounds of grain, ===you get 3600 pounds of grain to produce an animal of 1200 pounds. This ratio of feed to beef is 3:1.===
    ~you say that you cannot calculate prior weight into the grain equation, and then you do exactly that!!! Haha, oops! If you can’t calculate it the first time around, then you shouldn’t be able to calculate it the second time (to manipulate the data in your favor)

      1. so I’ve done the math based off of your story, hope it doesn’t confuse you. you say the average animal at slaughter is 1200 lbs., from that 1200 lbs. animal we get 490 lbs. of edible beef. 490/1,200=0.4083 or 40.83% of the animal is edible, out of that total weight 600 lbs. of it is gained from eating grains at 6lbs of grain per 1lbs of weight gained. so out of that 600 lbs. gained from eating grains only 245 lbs. of it is edible meat(600×0.4083), meaning it took 3600 lbs. of grains to produce 245 lbs. of edible meat. putting the ratio of grain to meat at 14.69:1

        now grain weight to the total weight of the cow you where right at 3:1 but your factor stopped there and you didn’t factor in the rest of the equation

        1. I don’t believe that you need to calculate the weight of the bones and hide into the edible portion, since those are used by other industries. If I grew a lemon tree and it took me $200 worth of inputs, but I used the wood to build a house, then it doesn’t take me $200 worth of inputs just for lemons, right? We can’t eat the wood, but we can use it for other things. You can’t put all of the feed on the edible portion and not factor out the other parts that are used.

  6. Diana, I so appreciate the work you are doing, in particular your series on meat, which I am currently reading. I’m preparing for what I hope will be a series of presentations to my local Oasis (secular humanist Sunday gatherings) group on green living, the importance of soil, and, if I can swing it, carbon farming and the importance of animals to a healthy landscape. I’m going to promote your blog as a great place to get good information. Also, love the recipes and photos. I saw you at the Savory Institute global meeting in November in Boulder, but I didn’t want to be a fan girl so I didn’t reach out, but I am a fan. Thanks again for your great work.

  7. If only 60% of the total weight of the cow is used than that increases the ratio of grain used. It does not decrease it, like you said. 3600 lbs of grain for a total of 490 lbs of edible product equals 7.3 lbs of grain per edible pound of meat. Thank you for the analysis, it’s an important question to find unbiased answers to.

    1. No, not really because that grain also produce the inedible portions too. If the feed lot put on 600lbs to the weight of the cow, but after slaughter you only get 490lbs of edible meat, then my calculation is actually generous. Part of that grain went into bone, blood, etc.

      1. Exactly my point. What good is it including the bones, head, fat, guts, etc. in your calculation if it isn’t used? That percentage of the grain is technically “wasted” from my perspective. If I am a tomato farmer and I say it takes me about 25 gal of water to grow a pound of tomatoes, that does not include the stems and roots. If I did include them, my gal/pound ratio would decrease, as it did in your calculation. But that doesn’t measure the edible product. If you want to include non-edible portions in your calculation that’s your choice but it seems disingenuous to the argument.

        1. Because, as I explain in the post, those non-edible portions are used in other industries. The hide is a carseat, other parts are pet food, fertilizer, insulin, heart valves, fireworks, glue, lipstick, etc. BUT even if I did include that part, you still can’t include the first part of the animal’s life on grass… Here’s that part of the post:

          “Remember that cattle get to the feedlot at 600 – 900 pounds, which means you cannot calculate the prior weight into the grain equation. We’re really looking at an average of about 600 pounds that the cow is gaining at the feedlot. If you then multiply this 600 pounds by six pounds of grain, you get 3600 pounds of grain to produce an animal of 1200 pounds. This ratio of feed to beef is 3:1”

          See? I calculated that part. But the edible portion is only 490 on average from a 1200 pound animal. Here’s the part in the article where I address that:

          “The edible portion of the cow is different than the weight of the live animal. After the animal is slaughtered, the head and organs are removed to produce the carcass. A 1200 pound cow produces a 750 pound carcass. Now, you could argue that the entire cow is required to produce the meat, but these other pieces are actually used in other industries. The hide becomes leather, the bones, fat, intestines are all processed into other items like soap, pet food, fertilizer, and even used to produce pharmaceuticals. I believe that it’s “unfair” to calculate beef byproducts (non-edible meat) into the equation. Once you eliminate the 150 pounds of fat trim and 110 pounds of bone for a 720 pound carcass, you’re left with about 490 pounds of edible beef; cuts like steaks, roasts, short ribs, and ground beef.”

          If you calculate in the BENEFIT to the land of cattle grazing, and also account for the amount of feed that isn’t grain, then the ratio is better than 3:1 even if you leave out, as you say, the “stems and roots” of the animal. But since we use those parts in other industries, you really can’t factor that in and use it as a case against meat. It’s just illogical – THAT’S disingenuous. But, if you want the straight numbers, I did them for you – it’s 3:1. Still better than pork and I could make a pretty clear argument for cattle over CAFO chicken meat, simply because chickens eat ONLY grain, cattle eat much more than grain in the form of agricultural waste (corn stalks, etc) so their ratio of grain is lower than a chicken at 100%.

          1. I will try to lay this out in a very common sense way so that your readers can decide for themselves who has the math right.

            You put in 3600 lbs of grain (in the feed lot), you get a 1200 lb animal. That’s a 3:1 ratio, not taking out the non-edible portion.
            Note: I’m not sure why you keep saying that’s a generous number, that’s the most you can get. That’s the entire animal (1200lbs). That’s including the weight it gained on the pasture. That Includes the BENEFIT from Cattle grazing.

            If we take out the non-edible portion (leaving about 500 lbs of meat) we get a ratio of about 7.2 lbs of grain/pound of meat.

            Now I’m seeing some sources saying 99% of the rest of the cow is put into byproducts. I don’t know how accurate that is, but if it is true, yes that makes for a much more compelling argument. This would bring the ratio back to 3 lbs of grain/lb of useful animal meat or byproduct. That said this is likely a simplification as many byproducts may require energy intensive transformations, but I am ignorant to this.

            There is no way this ratio gets better than 3:1. The weight of the total grain is three times the weight of the total animal. Unless you feed them less or they suddenly start growing bigger there is no way that ratio decreases. Please stop saying your number is generous, that is the lowest it is going, very simple math.

            Thank you for taking the time to put this all together. Your thoughts have helped me immensely in clearing up this moral issue. It’s certainly not even close to as inefficient as I have seen some say.

          2. They are not 100% grain fed. The ratio is 6:1 (on average). Cattle start out most of their lives on grass so you absolutely can not calculate the entire 1200 pounds x “grain”. That’s why you calculate only 50% of the weight at the 6:1 ratio. AND THIS IS GENEROUS because “feed” which is 100% grain. Because cattle are ruminants, much of what they eat is fiber leftover from crops (residue) so to calculate that into the 6:1 ratio is really not fair either. And because much of this 50% of grain input becomes output for other industries, 3:1 is completely generous. I’m kind of done explaining this. I’m sorry it doesn’t make sense to you but it does to all of my other readers. I ran this whole equation by many, many people and they all understood it.

          3. Living in Idaho, I have to to laugh at the idea of cattle benefiting the land. Besides the great damage they do, especially in riparian areas, they are like a plague in the national forests and BLM lands.

  8. Pastureland is only pastureland because it was destroyed by the cattle. When looking at the data, it is infeasible to feed the world with beef. Also, seeing how some of the most in depth studies taken place on nutrition support a purely vegan diet, I am having a hard time understanding your strong stance with beef. Is it because of your personal background?

    You also state the WHO is using broken logic to determine beef as a carcinogen. The WHO makes determinations for thousands of doctors and they are upholding this statement with the support of many of those physicians. There seems to be something driving the information you are providing. There are people who have been vegan for 40+ years that have some of the best labs for people their age, and you’re saying it is not healthy to avoid meat? I would like to understand. I hope this is not info ingrained in the NTA because I was planning on attending eventually soon.

    1. I think you’ll be very disappointed with NTA if you’re vegan, because they are very much not vegan and endorse animal products in the diet. Do you think the bison that were here in North America before we hunted them out were also just destroying the environment? You think corn farming is better? Monocropping to save the planet? I think you’re sadly misguided. I also have great labs for my age and am cancer free – if you’re using n=1 logic, then how do you explain this? I eat meat every day and I’m incredibly healthy. And guess what? Humans have been eating meat for thousands of years and not dying of cancer. Beef consumption has not increased in the last 50 years, but our intake of vegetable oils, sugar, and processed foods has. I’m not making this up – these are statistics easily found on google.

  9. Thanks for your thoughtful, well-researched article. Having lived close enough to a Kansas feed lot to enjoy the odor when the wind was right, I know that they often use alfalfa and silage besides grain to fatten the cattle. Alfalfa is an important rotation crop because it puts nitrogen back into the soil, thus increasing future grain yields without the use of chemical fertilizers. In other words, it’s a win-win. The milo that is grown for silage is usually planted after harvesting wheat or another grain, when the season is too short for two seed crops in a year. Thus it does not reduce the amount of grains available for human consumption.

  10. A very educational post on the ramifications to the ecological system in comparison to plant based meal and animal based meal. Even if there are similarities or one is in favor to the other you have not mentioned perhaps the most important thing. That thing is simply that meat has been time and time again proven to be harmful to human health.

    I can expound on the benefits of eating bacon for breakfast. I can talk about the protein and omega fatty acids, but if I fail to forget that it is literally considered a type 1 carcinogen and has been proven to cause cancer then am I omitting important information from my blog?

    A most recent report from some Harvard scientists claims that if people quit eating meat then 1/3 of premature deaths would be prevented. This number does not exclude smoking and exercise, so the estimate is likely low. https://www.sciencealert.com/third-of-early-deaths-could-be-prevented-with-diet-change-vegetarian This is only one of many studies that link eating meat to detrimental health outcomes. Your number may argue that their is no significant difference in ecological effects, but isn’t our health an issue as well?

    1. I actually write a lot about nutrition elsewhere on my blog. It’s impossible to address all the arguments for why we SHOULD eat meat in a small blog post, which is why I’m working on a film about this http://www.sustainabledish.com/film
      But to answer your question, you need to understand relative risk. The average risk for someone to get colon cancer is about 5%. If you ate bacon every day, your risk goes to 6%. ONE PERCENTAGE POINT DIFFERENCE. Smoking increases your chance of lung cancer by 1500%.

      There are also a ton of BENEFITS to eating meat, so if you’re worried about the 5% increasing to 6% chance of getting cancer from bacon, eat some steak. Protein is incredibly important and animal sources are the most bioavailable. And this VERY LARGE study (243,096 participants) found that there was no overall longevity benefit to giving up meat… AT ALL. That’s right, none. How long have humans (omnivores) included animal products in their diet? Pretty much forever.

      Also, fyi – bacon is from pigs, this post was about beef. Have a great day.

      1. Full disclosure: I’ve been completely plant-based for 35 years.

        I enjoyed reading this blog article, but I see two things worth considering:
        1) In your picture you do look healthy — but fairly young. I’m almost 61 and have found that as I’ve gotten older, my health, strength, and stamina has stayed consistent with when I was younger. However, over the years many of my peers (including several close family) have had increasing issues with cancer and heart disease, which matches the premise that eating meat has negative health impacts. I know correlation doesn’t prove causation, but my data set is pretty large at this point (i.e., I’m old!).

        2) The study you mention considers a vegetarian diet, not a vegan one. I’ve seen studies that implicate dairy and eggs in most of the same health problems some associate with meat consumption.

        1. I’m in my mid-40’s but just by looking at someone, you can’t tell what is going on under the hood, I’m sure you know this. Humans are biological omnivores, a vegan diet is nutritionally deficient, and I’ve seen many, many studies showing low status of multiple nutrients in vegans. I don’t feel it’s safe to eat a diet we aren’t biologically designed for. Humans are animals and all animals have evolved to eat a certain diet. For humans, this means animal products plus plant products. We evolved to have large brains because of our animal protein and fat intake. I’m glad you feel it works for you but I feel it’s irresponsible for me as a dietitian to endorse a diet that requires supplementation and has so many documented cases of child death and nutrient deficiencies in adults.

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

  12. Diana, I am an extreme carnivore and love beef, so I like the work that you are doing. But you need to get better people to run your math by. I had the same reaction as Paul when I read your blog, and he is absolutely correct. There is a 3 lbs. to 1 lb. ratio if you use 3600 lbs. of feed for a 1200 lb. animal. If you only want to consider the edible part, then the ratio of feed to beef is higher than 3:1, not lower. Why is that difficult to understand? Since all of the animal has use, I think it’s fair to use 3:1. If all the 3 pounds of feed is not grain, then you could say that the ratio of feed grain to weight gain is less than 3:1. But you can’t say, like you did, that the 3:1 ratio assumes that you eat the whole animal, and since 61% is carcass and even less than after butchered, the ratio goes down. The RATIO GOES UP.

    1. I understand what you’re trying to say, and I could argue it both ways, but the point Paul was making is that the non-edible parts are not useful. That’s not true – all of the animal is “used”, so all of the feed goes to all of the animal. The ratio can’t go up, because the feed is not only going to the meat, it’s going to the leather, fat, head, blood, etc. If you get 490lbs of meat from an animal, and more of that is used for other things, I was calculating a lower ratio for the meat, since most of the weight of the animal goes into other uses than food. I do understand what your point is though.

  13. I think I’m confused. If 3:1 is your ratio for the entire cow, why would it go down if you were just calculating the edible parts? If you take out %40 of the cow because you’re only calculating the edible parts, then you would also take out %40 of the total grain it took to create the weight of the whole cow, so the ratio would still be 3:1.

    Right? Or am I missing something huge?

  14. Pingback: [BLOCKED BY STBV] Energy from Cow to Hamburger | Share to Learn

  15. You wrote that the cows don’t go to the feedlot until they, “reach about 600 – 900 pounds,” and indicate that until that point they eat, “grass and other forage, not grain…on pastureland [that] is not suitable for cropping;” which seems to suggest that the first 600-900 pounds is all from grass not grain. However, I think that their birthweight comes from their mother – who is probably feed a lot of grains while pregnant. Further, “most calves will weigh 500-700 lbs at weaning,” which means a lot of the 600-900 pound pre-feedlot weight comes from their mother’s milk – and again a lot of the mother’s feed while producing milk will be grain. So I believe a lot of the initial 600-900 pounds should be credited to grain as well.

  16. Thank you for your post. Do you have information about what percentage of the “by-products” of the meat production are actually used by other industries (ie. manure, bones, tendons, skin, contents of the gastro-intestinal tract, blood, internal organs, etc) and what percentage is buried or thrown away (possibly polluting water, air and soil)? Shouldn’t this also be a consideration for sustainability?

  17. Your article was very informative and the 6/1 ratio was the one I needed. The people that don’t eat meat are really missing out on some good things of life.😋😋😋😋😋😋😋😋😋😋😋

  18. Bottom line is, a calorie is a calorie. For a human to replace that amount of calories from vegetation to produce the same amount of protein the human now becomes the fart machine.

    Now the industrial produce industry that’s majority owned by big pharma and the chemical companies would have to grow that much more produce that cows normally gain from wild grass and vegetation with edible produce. This in turn destroys natural habitat takes huge amounts of water. After they have depleted the land of its natural resources they revert to chemicals for fertilizers and kill off the natural microbiology.
    All those nitrates and chemicals end up in our watersheds or right into the ocean.
    To many people believe the government funded political science that’s lobbying comes from the Corporate Oligarchy. Bottom line is if humans replace meat as a food source they become the cattle.
    If you want to have a positive impact on the environment, grow your own food. If you want to make a positive impact on society, stop picking a side and trying to force it on society. Be the solution for yourself first.

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!