The Grass-fed Manifesto strikes again! As a vocal advocate for grass-fed and pasture-raised animals, a recent op-ed article got my brain a churnin’ – in a good way of course! In this third part to my ongoing essay secretly titled, “Grazing Animals and its Discontents,” I want to discuss the environmental and ecological benefits to animals in the food system, our food system. This is to be distinguished from the industrial food system.

This past Friday Nicolette Hahn Niman wrote an op-ed article in The New York Times titled, “The Carnivore’s Dilemma.” Now that Michael Pollan has popularized the dilemma slogan, Niman captures an important piece to the modern eating conundrum – meat. Whether you like it or not, meat consumption dominates our Western diet. When we lived in Minneapolis it was common to hear locals argue that a complete meal always has meat in it. I have one friend there who believes that no meal can satisfy him sans meat. (I always wanted to prove him wrong but missed the chance since we moved.)  Most if not not all of us grew up consuming meat and/or fish. Now that veganism (my arch nemisis) has taken ground in the last couple decades, I think future generations may not have this experience of eating animals, which is interesting unto itself.

To return to Niman’s article, the issue is, if we choose to eat meat, the livelihood of the animal must be taken into consideration. This intention has health implications (as I wrote about here) as well as environmental and ecological. The growing distrust of industrial factory farming is gaining steam (definitely a good thing.) But what troubles Niman (and myself), is the tendency to assume all animal farming is bad. Yes, CAFOs should be condemned and abolished, but what about farmers like Niman that raise animals in a holistic way? Providing the animals with the opportunity to lives the way they are meant to – roaming, eating, sleeping, fornicating and dying.

In the article she recognizes the claims that industrial farming is overtly destructive. In the context of global warming, sustainable animal-raising methods are far healthier for the planet than CAFOs and conventional agriculture (i.e. fruits, vegetables and grains.) From this perspective she makes a very convincing argument in favor of small-scale traditional farming methods that incorporate animals in the food cycles.

But I don’t want to brush over this important point – agriculture is more destructive than eating meat. If we assume that meat is consumed less and only grass-fed or pasture-raised animals are eaten (significantly less than we eat meat today), meat production is actually better for the planet than our conventional means of growing grains, vegetables and fruits. Sure, organic growing methods are ideal. But at what cost does conventional farming impact our planet? – This is the premise of Niman’s position.

Looking at the three noxious chemicals that argiculture produces – carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxides – Niman explains their role in sustainable agriculture (using livestock in the process) vs. conventional method. For example, even though tree populations are necessary for lowering levels of CO2, soybean production in Brazil comes at the cost of massive deforestation. On top of that, the soybean crops are owned, harvested and distributed by a handful of corporate agribusinesses that exploit fossil fuel usage every step of the way. Unlike small-scale farms that raise the animals on pasture and use less machines, soybean production requires loads more petroleum-laden equipment to harvest and process the crop. All of a sudden, that tofu has more oil going into it than a cut of steak.

In the case of methane, the 2nd most harmful greenhouse gas, the toxic output goes to grain production over traditional animal grazing methods. Niman explains that “wetland rice fields alone count for as much as 29 percent of the world’s human-generated methane.” Yes, CAFOs produce astronomic amounts of methane with giant pools of manure concentrating on the “farms,” but again we must consider alternative (i.e. traditional) means of raising animals for meat. Lower methane levels from cows are related to their diet. As I have said before, cows should not be eating corn. Along with the potential for killer strands of E. coli, obesity and heart disease, this harmful diet affects the environment too.

The third noxious chemical is nitrous oxide, which as you might expect come from man-made fertilizers. Hence the push for organic farming that utilizes fertilizers composed of animal waste, rather than Miracle Grow. When animals are fed grass the farmer does not have to rely on corn (that in turn was fed fertilizers.) The assumption that cows eat grain begets the need for fertilizer to help feed the cow. All of a sudden a vicious cycle is created to sustain its own harmful self. Here is one place where the organic movement has such an important role. Niman, like Salatin, advocates for raising animals and growing crops in an ecological cycle that mirrors nature’s way. This return to tradition can counter the disease and disaster of modern conventional convenience.

After reading this article I decided that I wanted to explain my position on eating meat. As you may expect, I have no problem eating animals and fish. I do have a problem with industrial means of food production. As a meat, grain, vegetable and fruit eater, I acknowledge that each act of consumption requires a well-intended choice. Beyond advocating for grass-fed animals, I have the utmost desire to make people think. In today’s world we must always consider the source of our food – no matter your wealth, education, religion or political bias. Where our food comes from has such HUGE consequences on all of us that we cannot leave this problem to some other group or politician.

If you choose not to eat meat, then please choose to eat local and seasonal. If you want to eat meat, eat it less often, eat smaller portion sizes and only buy grass-fed/pasture-raised animals. If you are a vegetarian or a vegan, welcome to the vegetarian dilemma!

Related posts:

1. The Grass-Fed Manifesto (part 4)
2. The Grass-Fed Manifesto (Part I)
3. The Grass-Fed Manifesto (part 2)
4. “The Portland Meat Collective” (or) The Grass-Fed Manifesto (part 4)
5. USDA Destroys Local Economies

Tags: afton field farm, Food Politics, Grass-Fed, Joel Salatin