I grew up on a (very) small farm - so I knew where all the meat we ate (and eggs, apple, plums and jam) came from.
One of the things I find most disconcerting as an adult is the disconnect with the food I eat. Even the local 'farmer butcher' - I don't actually know if the meat they sell me is what they say it is.
I buy a lot of deer from a friend of a friend as it feels slightly more known to me - even if I have no idea about what the deer actually ate in it's life.
I grew up similarly and it's part of the reason I've cut back on my meat.
Shoving 100 cattle into a 1 acre feed lot for their entire lives is unfortunately how a lot of beef is produced. They spend their lives covered in shit, sleeping in shit, and trapped with no where to roam.
And instead of addressing this problem, my state (Idaho) made it illegal to take photos of the issue. [1]
I keep seeing people make this claim that cattle spend their entire lives on feed lots, but I've never seen this anywhere and I've been all over cattle country. Where do they do this? Because around here feedlots are only for finishing cattle and typically only spend about 2-3 months there after having very happy lives as calves on a ranch.
I think what they're saying there is "I was just taking pictures... noooo, you will break my camera!!! you evil brute!" when you say GTFO is no defense.
Not saying there aren't weird laws. Check the notions of boxed squares (miles) and airspace. Some of these need addressing at the federal level.
> Shoving 100 cattle into a 1 acre feed lot for their entire lives is unfortunately how a lot of beef is produced. They spend their lives covered in shit, sleeping in shit, and trapped with no where to roam.
And then being shoved into a truck, shipped who knows how many thousand miles to a butchering facility that does it for 3c cheaper and then end up in a line with all your peers to be killed in a horribly industrialized way.
When I lived in central Europe there was a story about pigs or cows, I don't remember, being shipped to Morocco for butchering, imagine that!
People would be vegetarians in a heartbeat if they saw how meat is produced.
> And instead of addressing this problem, my state (Idaho) made it illegal to take photos of the issue. [1]
I agree with you--feedlots are disgusting and cruel.
However, cattle do not spend their "entire lives" at a feedlot. Usually only the last few months (or less) before slaughter. Prior to that, that majority of cattle live in very open and pleasant conditions.
I'm in the UK - but yes he's a registered 'pest controller' - he gets paid by local farmers to keep the invasive deer population low (muncjac and Chinese water deer), and is also licenced to sell the meat. You can get either a whole/half skinned and basically butchered deer from him, or any selected cuts, for £9 a kg - which pretty damn cheap really!
Depends which jurisdiction. It’s legal in the UK if you have a license and I think it has to be professionally butchered and labelled at a registered slaughterhouse.
That should be the last concern of any decent human being. If they outlaw breathing, will you stop? Hunting is something our species has done for over a billion years by this point.
I've moved to a meat buying strategy of "only buy meat if you've met the farmer".
I don't object to eating meat, but so much of the industrial meat production world is a nightmare. From disease risk, to abuse of animals, to slash and burn, to waste.
By buying meat from a local farmer, you can eliminate a lot of that. You end up eating less meat, probably, but we buy a whole cow every few years and divvy it up between friends. You could do that more or less often if you still wanted to eat a lot of meat.
I can see two reasons: maybe it is not cheaper, or maybe there's not enough for local consumers. There should definitely be some economic incentive somewhere.
Higher quality is debatable, foreign imports are not necessarily "lower quality", I'm a Brazilian so I'm on the other side of the coin, our beef is anything but low quality. The problem that the article wants to expose is that much of it is raised on illegal ranches, more often than not on the deflorested Amazon.
Being local is not something that food chains care about.
Doubtful that the mass ranched cattle is raised to the same quality standards as in America, especially if they know their beef is going to fast food. Ex. Grass fed, hormone-free
Also I understand what the article points out about illegal ranches supplying corporations but Who eats the food from the food chains?
Because it’s cheaper for Mc’Donalds and Burger King but probably not for the average consumer. Grocery store beef quality has gone down after Covid except Prime grade and local butchers $$$.
For context, I've known that McDonald's uses rain forest beef since the mid-1980s when my dad first told me about it. I thought they stopped that for a while, but nope:
Nothing has been done to stop it because of a number of cultural problems: 1) Americans love beef: "why would I eat what food eats?" 2) America could stop all conflict around the world, from deforestation to war to civil rights abuses, if that wasn't directly at odds with the appetites of our capitalist empire and 3) scarcity mindset for survival has so dominated the Global South for so long that nature is seen as a resource to be exploited, far below even the dignity of human life, due to unrelenting debt pressure from the IMF to create a wage slave class for harvesting cash crops and labor/resource-intensive commodities like beef.
For anyone interested in the numbers behind how bad beef and deforestation are for the environment, see Hannah Ritchie’s great new book Not the End of the World.
As a counter point, livestock are a critical part of the regenerative ag movement.
Our property was farmland for 150 years before it basically ran out of nutrients in the 1970s. After one year of a pretty good harvest (not great) in 2019, we couldn't grow anything. One home testing kit later, and we found that there were virtually no minerals in the soil.
Fast forward five years and between heavy composting and generating a very healthy amount of bird waste, we're just starting to restore the nutrient balance in the soil. The next step (in progress) is planting some native grasses and low lying shrubs to try and break up the practically impenetrable clay pan that exists below the soil.
Many people dislike meat eating, and I understand that, but developing a healthy relationship with the land practically requires some form of livestock. We are turning "dead" land into highly productive pasture literally in one growing cycle.
Rgenerative AG is BS. For example, they'll talk about how they sequester CO2, but fail to mention that after 10 years, the ground reaches a limit, from which point forward it produces far more CO2 than our current meat production.
They'll also ignore any imports into the system from conventional sources. SO, they'll feed conventionally grown feed, but not include that in their numbers.
In the end, even if regenerative farming was any good, the amount of meat we could afford to produce (aka without using too much land, water or other resources) is so tiny that 90% of our food would end up being vegan anyway.
Beef in itself is not bad for the environment. It's the scale of demand that is bad. And that demand is fueled by the combined effects of global population growth and global increase in standards of living.
We tend to stop at the symptoms instead of going after the root cause.
> Beef in itself is not bad for the environment. It's the scale of demand that is bad.
Wasting crops feeding cattle is inherently worse than the alternative, feeding directly on the crops and avoiding the wasting of calories when going up one trophic level.
Agreed. Check out /r/keto and /r/zerocarb for some great research about the natural human diet. Humans have eaten beef (exclusively even) for billions of years.
> China’s outsized contribution to the global greening trend comes in large part (42%) from programs to conserve and expand forests. These were developed in an effort to reduce the effects of soil erosion, air pollution and climate change. Another 32% there – and 82% of the greening seen in India – comes from intensive cultivation of food crops.
If the green of pristine forests is replaced by the green desert of a monocultural eucalyptus planted forest, or the green of grass pastures, it's still a big ecological net loss.
"Forest" is a 3-D bulk tonnage of captured (for now at least) carbon dioxide.
This increase in the colour green that you tout hasn't made a dent in reducing the ever increasing amount of insulating CO2 in the atmosphere.
Otherwise yellow grasses being greener due to increased CO2 is of some small interest, but it's not the same as a similar area X height of large trees in terms of capture.
Just pragmnatic facts, not a "convenient" or "inconvenient" "truth".
Killing off most of the bison shifted lots of land from grassland to forest. Forest is greener than grassland but doesn’t necessarily store more carbon.
More to your implied point, deforestation can happen one place and afforestation/reforestation another at the same time. Even a net increase in forest worldwide doesn’t make the loss of Brazilian rainforests are any better
A month or so ago a ship filled with 19,000 Brazilian cattle destined for the Middle East docked in Cape Town. The cows were living in such horrendous conditions that the stink of the ship took over the entire city. Living in pools of excrement, sick, lame, pregnant and even dead cows among them. The South African animal protection service had to put many down.
It's easy, its right to blame the Bolsonaro regime for having ramped up cattle farming in the Amazon leading to situations like this. It's harder to think of them when we have beef on our plates.
Don't see why halal needs live imports. The main thing is theyre slaughtered in a halal way. Presumably it's just cheaper to ship them live (or just about) to the middle east and then slaughter them there than send halal qualified slaughters to Brazil and then ship over frozen meat.
Also, don't think it's right to let Brazil off the hook here - it's their cattle ranching practices and export legislation.
It’s really profitable to. I know a Greek fella that transports goats in bulk and has said it’s very profitable due to not many ships fitted to do it well.
Readit News
One of the things I find most disconcerting as an adult is the disconnect with the food I eat. Even the local 'farmer butcher' - I don't actually know if the meat they sell me is what they say it is.
I buy a lot of deer from a friend of a friend as it feels slightly more known to me - even if I have no idea about what the deer actually ate in it's life.
Shoving 100 cattle into a 1 acre feed lot for their entire lives is unfortunately how a lot of beef is produced. They spend their lives covered in shit, sleeping in shit, and trapped with no where to roam.
And instead of addressing this problem, my state (Idaho) made it illegal to take photos of the issue. [1]
[1] https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title18/t...
I wonder how much it costs to buy a legislature house. Can't we crowfund buying it to make "modern" farming illegal?
This kind of corp-captured government is one more reason I'm certain we're in the 1910s again.
I'm finding it easier to count the exceptions to that. (they had appropriate housing, we have fewer labor-related deaths).
source: am an annoying genealogist
Deleted Comment
Not saying there aren't weird laws. Check the notions of boxed squares (miles) and airspace. Some of these need addressing at the federal level.
And then being shoved into a truck, shipped who knows how many thousand miles to a butchering facility that does it for 3c cheaper and then end up in a line with all your peers to be killed in a horribly industrialized way.
When I lived in central Europe there was a story about pigs or cows, I don't remember, being shipped to Morocco for butchering, imagine that!
People would be vegetarians in a heartbeat if they saw how meat is produced.
> And instead of addressing this problem, my state (Idaho) made it illegal to take photos of the issue. [1]
Same in Canada. Very disappointing.
However, cattle do not spend their "entire lives" at a feedlot. Usually only the last few months (or less) before slaughter. Prior to that, that majority of cattle live in very open and pleasant conditions.
Please don't assume that everyone here lives in the same city/state/country/continent as you.
Brazil reached 92 percent renewable energy. So there are good news.
https://www.gmexconsulting.com/cms/brazil-hits-92-renewable-...
What mechanisms were put into action that indicate improvement?
I'm Brazilian, living in Brazil and I don't share your optimism.
I don't object to eating meat, but so much of the industrial meat production world is a nightmare. From disease risk, to abuse of animals, to slash and burn, to waste.
By buying meat from a local farmer, you can eliminate a lot of that. You end up eating less meat, probably, but we buy a whole cow every few years and divvy it up between friends. You could do that more or less often if you still wanted to eat a lot of meat.
Higher quality is debatable, foreign imports are not necessarily "lower quality", I'm a Brazilian so I'm on the other side of the coin, our beef is anything but low quality. The problem that the article wants to expose is that much of it is raised on illegal ranches, more often than not on the deflorested Amazon.
Being local is not something that food chains care about.
Also I understand what the article points out about illegal ranches supplying corporations but Who eats the food from the food chains?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-30/mcdonald-...
Nothing has been done to stop it because of a number of cultural problems: 1) Americans love beef: "why would I eat what food eats?" 2) America could stop all conflict around the world, from deforestation to war to civil rights abuses, if that wasn't directly at odds with the appetites of our capitalist empire and 3) scarcity mindset for survival has so dominated the Global South for so long that nature is seen as a resource to be exploited, far below even the dignity of human life, due to unrelenting debt pressure from the IMF to create a wage slave class for harvesting cash crops and labor/resource-intensive commodities like beef.
Dead Comment
Our property was farmland for 150 years before it basically ran out of nutrients in the 1970s. After one year of a pretty good harvest (not great) in 2019, we couldn't grow anything. One home testing kit later, and we found that there were virtually no minerals in the soil.
Fast forward five years and between heavy composting and generating a very healthy amount of bird waste, we're just starting to restore the nutrient balance in the soil. The next step (in progress) is planting some native grasses and low lying shrubs to try and break up the practically impenetrable clay pan that exists below the soil.
Many people dislike meat eating, and I understand that, but developing a healthy relationship with the land practically requires some form of livestock. We are turning "dead" land into highly productive pasture literally in one growing cycle.
They'll also ignore any imports into the system from conventional sources. SO, they'll feed conventionally grown feed, but not include that in their numbers.
In the end, even if regenerative farming was any good, the amount of meat we could afford to produce (aka without using too much land, water or other resources) is so tiny that 90% of our food would end up being vegan anyway.
We tend to stop at the symptoms instead of going after the root cause.
Wasting crops feeding cattle is inherently worse than the alternative, feeding directly on the crops and avoiding the wasting of calories when going up one trophic level.
Dead Comment
Deleted Comment
https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/co2-is-making-...
https://terra.nasa.gov/news/modis-shows-earth-is-greener
> China’s outsized contribution to the global greening trend comes in large part (42%) from programs to conserve and expand forests. These were developed in an effort to reduce the effects of soil erosion, air pollution and climate change. Another 32% there – and 82% of the greening seen in India – comes from intensive cultivation of food crops.
If the green of pristine forests is replaced by the green desert of a monocultural eucalyptus planted forest, or the green of grass pastures, it's still a big ecological net loss.
"Forest" is a 3-D bulk tonnage of captured (for now at least) carbon dioxide.
This increase in the colour green that you tout hasn't made a dent in reducing the ever increasing amount of insulating CO2 in the atmosphere.
Otherwise yellow grasses being greener due to increased CO2 is of some small interest, but it's not the same as a similar area X height of large trees in terms of capture.
Just pragmnatic facts, not a "convenient" or "inconvenient" "truth".
Nice attempt at a tangent, pity it fell flat.
More to your implied point, deforestation can happen one place and afforestation/reforestation another at the same time. Even a net increase in forest worldwide doesn’t make the loss of Brazilian rainforests are any better
It's easy, its right to blame the Bolsonaro regime for having ramped up cattle farming in the Amazon leading to situations like this. It's harder to think of them when we have beef on our plates.
https://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/western-cape/seven-h...
Live exports should be entirely banned.
Also, don't think it's right to let Brazil off the hook here - it's their cattle ranching practices and export legislation.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment