TollingSteady
It's interesting to me that you had such problems on plant-based diets if you were eating balanced meals. I wonder what nutrient you could've been missing? Thanks for sharing your personal experience, though!
(Also, not to steal your line, but sorry for the late reply.)
As far as I can tell, even in the best case scenario, they consume intense amounts of resources and output a lot of unwanted byproducts, such as greenhouse gases, that are not removed by the farming system.
I honestly believe that current animal agriculture is a root cause of what I'm against, such as increasing global warming. There seem to be less bad forms of animal ag, but I've yet to see any proof that there are good versions.
I think you overestimate my feelings on this topic though. I feel compelled to act with my conscience, but if there were hard data that any of these systems are net positive for the ecosystem, I'd definitely reconsider my stance.
The trouble is that he seems to keep a lot of ruminants for the amount of land he has. Ruminants produce very potent greenhouse gases that are not offset by sequestration (cited a few times in other sources), so with that plus all of his other animals kept I'd be very interested in independently gathered data (i.e. not marketing materials he wrote himself ) about the GHG production / absorption by his land.
Sadly, I'm struggling to find the number of animals he keeps or anything I could use to run any sort of calculation.
Therefore, this definitely looks like the closest I've seen to sustainable animal agriculture, but its claims are currently unsubstantiated.
Supplemental feeding of commercially grown oats, for example, means that these animals are not only using resources on the land they're raised on, but they're also directly contributing to the crop monocultures we both agree are unsustainable. Humans could eat these oats directly, which is much more efficient than passing them through other animals first.
-
Vegetables, crops, etc. can be grown effectively and less wastefully without farmed animals. Insofar as animals are necessary to a natural ecosystem, it's the native species with lower impact rather than the extremely modified modern livestock that consume massive quantities of input at produce large amounts of GHGs and other unwanted waste.
As for your last sentence, it's disingenuous to act like animals (including the animals in your example who require supplemental feed) aren't the ones consuming the majority of the feed and therefore are the reason for most of those trucks moving conventionally grown crops.
It seems like the most sustainable system is relying on plants: preferably grown in the same country, preferably grown in less intensive organic means, but even plants that don't meet these two criteria are still more sustainable than the best current forms of animal agriculture.
Consider that transportation is only 11% of a food's total greenhouse gas emissions, and dropping red meat and dairy for a single day of the week is better for the environment than making your entire diet 100% local food. (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18546681/)
By all data I can find, trying to run plant calories/protein through the inefficient process of creating animal protein, which necessarily involves much higher GHG emissions and calorie waste, is not a good idea — even with a local farm using carbon sequestering.
-
But again, given that 99% of U.S. farmed animals live on factory farms (https://sentientmedia.org/u-s-farmed-animals-live-on-factory...), if you're already eating according to the morals you've claimed in this post, our diets will be extremely similar. I'm assuming anyone who avoids animal agriculture we all agree is unsustainable (by not getting meat/cheese at regular restaurants or at general grocery stores, by avoiding baked goods containing factory farmed eggs and dairy, by eating plant-based when you're anywhere that's going to use these kinds of animals) will have much more in common with a vegan than with those following the Standard American Diet, so I'd still have a lot of respect for your commitment.
You're not taking into account that, by virtue of being an animal taking in oxygen and creating carbon dioxide / other pollutants, the chicken itself is contributing to greenhouse gas emissions.
The question is, in real life, are the bonus calories we get from animal farming efficient enough so as to be worth those greenhouse gases? Given the massive GHG emissions of animal agriculture, it doesn't seem so.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your example, though: feedback appreciated
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your conclusion, I just don't see how you got there.
For example, one molecule of methane (CH4) contains the same amount of carbon [the element] as carbon dioxide (CO2), but is >= 28x more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/why-methane-cattle-warm...).
Therefore, when talking in carbon dioxide equivalents (i.e. making something carbon neutral), my understanding is that for 1kg of methane emitted by cattle, there would need to be ~28kg of carbon dioxide equivalent sequestered by the soil.
Even if cattle produced only CO2, to create a closed carbon cycle, it seems like soil would still be insufficient for carbon sequestering, unless you have massive tracts of land for relatively few cattle. Cattle need a constant input of feed, but it takes time to remove GHGs from the atmosphere.
Polyface seems to have a few other issues, such as using the same breeds of meat (broiler) chickens as used in factory farms. I need to dig into more data on this particularly, but their chicken farming doesn't seem to meet sustainability standards.
He also feeds his animals grain grown from outside the farm, meaning that this doesn't make sense as a "closed loop" sustainable system, even ignoring the other concerns.
[Note: this is not intended to come off as overly negative, I'm just attempting to analyze what I see as shortcomings in this example. After looking more into it, I would still classify this as ecologically net negative, and less sustainable than a plant-based diet based on the GHG emissions of the animals. If you have further data to provide on this example though, I would definitely be willing to revise my position.]
Your conclusion paragraph seems a bit pessimistic, given the reality of how much food we currently produce — "According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the world produces more than 1 1/2 times enough food to feed everyone on the planet. That’s already enough to feed 10 billion people, the world’s 2050 projected population peak... the bulk of industrially produced grain crops (most yield reduction in the study was found in grains) goes to biofuels and confined animal feedlots rather than food for the one billion hungry." from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241746569_We_Alread...
So it seems to me as though reducing or eliminating animal solves the problems you bring up: to have the same amount of food available to humans, we'd need to farm less crops, which means we could e.g. start switching to lower-yield organic farming without compromising human nutrition, and diversifying a lot of current corn/wheat/pasture land into more nutrient dense vegetables.
Theoretically, a plant-based agricultural system taking compost and natural land replenishment from wild (native) animals & plants as inputs and producing a variety of plant foods as outputs would be lower GHG emissions, lower pesticide use, lower soil erosion, all while supplying a higher number of people food.
What am I missing?
80% of Amazon rainforest deforestation has been driven by cattle farming (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/08/27/how-beef-...)
According to USDA data, over 70% of soy grown in the U.S. is fed to animals (https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexisten...)
Dairy uses almost double the water of almond milk per glass, as well as ~4x the carbon footprint and more than 10x the land. See https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46654042 for graphs that represent this wide gulf
As far as farming ruminants, even in the best-case scenario where they're eating land otherwise unfarmable plus maximally effective carbon sequestering practices are in place, it still produces unsustainably massive quantities of GHG emissions (https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6392/987) [Most relevant subsection: "Producer mitigation limits and the role of consumers"]
The good news is that there are plenty of plant-based dog diets that meet all AAFCO nutrition standards. A quick google search will bring these up. As dogs' most common allergens are all meat and they're considered omnivores, this is a great solution for dog owners.
Cats are obligate carnivores, and require molecules that only occur naturally in meat (e.g. taurine). Technically, this does not translate to a requirement for meat itself — artificial taurine, etc. does exist. However, while the only research review says it can be done (https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/6/9/57/htm) I don't see enough longitudinal evidence that it can be done safely, as issues like urinary crystals are a major concern. I think the best hope for cats' diets is something like the lab-grown mouse meat kibble Wild Earth is developing, but sadly this product just doesn't exist yet.
So those interested in reducing their carbon footprint should absolutely consult their vet about switching their dog onto a plant-based diet. For cats (and ferrets/foxes/etc), I think the best we can do right now is fund overpopulation control measures (i.e. spay/neuter programs) and continue research into sustainable nonanimal food.
It goes without saying that all pets should be adopted (is anyone capable of coming up with some edge case where this is bad advice? if so please let me know) so as to not breed more animals into the world. As long as you adopt, I see no moral negative to having a plant-based dog.
And for those unable/unwilling to do so, taking up gardening instead is a great option.
Gabe Brown definitely does seem like he's achieving carbon sequestering, which is great! I have no doubt that carbon sequestering exists and is effective — my problem is that it neither matches nor exceeds the carbon output of e.g. cattle. So even with maximally effective carbon sequestering practices, there's still on net large GHG emissions. (See 20-60% figure from above.)
As far as the links you provide, here's the direct quote from the conclusion of the FastCompany site: "...better management techniques can be helpful but not as much as many think, and that the term 'regenerative' is so vague that it risks becoming greenwashing. Another study, from the Food Climate Research Network in the U.K., found that better management of livestock only sequesters carbon under some conditions and even then may be temporary and not necessarily large enough to offset the negative impact of raising the animals."
The second link seems to be marketing copy from General Mills, which as you note I might tend toward being suspicious of. Their sponsored study seems to contradict both the FastCompany site and all the other studies I've read. Definitely something to look more into on my part, though: will update here after reading more thoroughly.
Thank you for the interesting links, and for being willing to engage in good faith.
If you are able to provide sources showing that sustainable, ecologically-sound animal agriculture exists, please do link me, as I'd be very personally interested.
And just to clarify: I am under the impression that all forms of animal agriculture that currently exist are environmentally and morally negative, in their current forms. My opinion would more be that the fact is "burning coal is bad", so my opinion is "let's switch to renewables." I am only trying to act in alignment with my conscience, even though it can be inconvenient.
It seems we do have a lot of common ground, though; if you're already boycotting factory farmed meat, eggs, and dairy, we'll have way more in common than different.
What did your vegetarian diet look like?
I'd imagine taking these minimum steps toward environmental sustainability would either a) greatly exacerbate food insecurity in America or b) make meat into a luxury that only the top 10% can afford to eat at all.
Either way, I suppose it would be an effective way to let the market reduce animal agriculture.
If you'd like to help this come about, please consider boycotting the current animal agriculture industry until it reforms, as this kind of carbon-neutral meat currently does not exist.
However the problem is that the large majority of these monoculture crops go to animals. Reducing animal agriculture not only means less direct GHG emissions from animals, it also means a huge reduction in the amount of crops required to feed the same number of people.
In the US, 41% of land is used for animal agriculture, while only 19.8% is used for food humans eat. (Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-us-land-use/)
"The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire American population." + "For every kilogram of high-quality animal protein produced, livestock are fed nearly 6 kg of plant protein." (Source: https://news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-m...)
If you're worried about greenhouse gas emissions, stop paying into animal agriculture.
If you're interested in reducing the need for monocrops, reducing land use, and creating more sustainable plant farming, your best choice is still to go vegan.
Your claims don't seem to match any of the evidence I've seen, but I'd be interested in discussing them further if you could provide sources.
As far as poor soil, a) current animal agriculture is mostly making use of usable soil & farmed crops, so this currently seems like a moot point, and b) this gets back to the above issue of being completely unable to scale. Unless you're being careful to only eat meat about once a month, I don't understand how the use of only poor soil is supposed to produce enough meat to feed everyone who would want it.
As far as crops, the majority of what we grow is fed to animals. For example, according to the USDA, approximately 70% of U.S. soy is used as animal feed. If you're interested in reducing crop farming, go vegan. (Source: https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexisten...)
As far as the limited abilities of carbon sequestering, "Grazing management could potentially, and under very generous assumptions, offset between 20-60% of annual average emissions from the grass-fed only sector," meaning that even all grass fed beef is still going to involve horrifying amounts of GHG emissions, completely ignoring the cost/land use that would make it otherwise unfeasible. (Source: https://phys.org/news/2017-10-grazing-livestock-climate-impa...)
Bonus link for more info on ruminants and carbon sequestering: "https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/animal/article/abs/m..."
Additionally, factory farms are pretty much the only option to make animal products available anywhere close to the quantity required. Community farms have significantly lower output at a higher cost, and therefore animal products prices would presumably skyrocket.
There are plenty of delicious and easily available vegan recipes that require 0 veggie burgers, if you're interested in reducing your carbon footprint.
Obviously your actions are up to you, but community farms like you suggest just aren't feasible at scale.