Beef; I'll miss you most of all....

[JenniferQ]

Weclome to the club! I took one environmental studies class 23 years ago then gave up meat.

Raising cows for meat is one of the worst things we do to the environment. The fact that we grow corn then feed it to cows (who didn't evolve to eat corn) is a horrible use of resources. Also the runoff (down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico) from corn production creates a huge dead zone in the gulf where no fish can live. Anyone who looks into the way meat is produced in the USA can't in good conscience keep eating meat. I know it is a hard thing to do for anyone, but if a boy born and raised on bbq in TX can do it, you can too!

Voting with your wallet is a great way to spark change.

And a girl born and raised on bbq in TX joins the "herd." And I guess veal counts, too? Oh, my...there goes my bone marrow. I can do this!

- - - Updated - - -

Yep... I'm done... I've already pared back a lot; never buying beef (or any red meat) again :crying:

Still not ready to give up poultry...

So I finally get to buy a few chickens?

 

[ohmman]

Raising cows for meat is one of the worst things we do to the environment. The fact that we grow corn then feed it to cows (who didn't evolve to eat corn) is a horrible use of resources. Also the runoff (down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico) from corn production creates a huge dead zone in the gulf where no fish can live. Anyone who looks into the way meat is produced in the USA can't in good conscience keep eating meat.

While I agree overall with the sentiment, best to keep the facts perfectly straight. Feedlot cattle are corn-finished but raised on grass. In many places you can get grass-finished beef, which IMO is more flavorful anyway (but leaner and less forgiving of cooking errors). So if you're buying grass finished beef, that particular contribution to the monoculture of corn in the midwest isn't an issue.

And to add some color to the dead zone comment, that's due to fertilizer runoff and algal bloom. The good news on that front is that the midwest is starting to make some decent changes in how they manage their soil (see recent NYT article on Iowa returning carbon to the soil, among others). And while I'm sure this next comment is going to ruffle a few feathers, I'm hopeful GMO crops will be developed (and publicly accepted) which better fix atmospheric nitrogen during the growth phase and reduce inputs without sacrificing yield.

 

[Skotty]

I don't think it's time to give up meat yet. Someday, perhaps, but not yet. Perhaps just a reduction. They claim it's healthier, yet the vegetarians I know over time develop weird health issues. I don't think they are getting all the nutrients the human body really needs. But that's not the main reason. It's more about balancing out the quality of life equation. I think we need better substitutes than what currently exists. And this issue isn't the low hanging fruit we should probably tackle first. So lets tackle the bigger greenhouse gas problems first, energy and transportation, and then we can dig deeper into agriculture if needed.

With that said, let me get my rant on.

We should never be satisfied giving up quality of life to solve other problems. We must work hard to solve our problems with minimal or no loss to quality of life. Some contrarians say environmentalists should walk to work, live in huts, and I've even seen going around naked suggested, to "walk the walk" if you will, and minimize their own environmental impact. Arguments about Al Gore's house size or traveling in a jet are along these same lines. Those who don't are incorrectly labeled hypocrits. But it's backward thinking often meant just to dismiss and alienate people voicing environmental concern. Reducing quality of life is not the right answer. Eliminating the negative impacts of those things that give us quality of life is.

At this time, I'm actually less concerned about environmental impact of having livestock, and more concerned about the treatment of livestock. This also is the quality of life concern, just extended to lesser life forms. While I don't think it matters for plants, I do believe that God, if He is up there, would expect us to treat our livestock with a level of respect higher than what currently exists. Their life may not be as important as ours, but it still matters; it's still a variable in the equation.

Someday, I hope we figure out how to grow proteins in food labs, and we can grow a crop of food proteins much like we might a hydroponic crop of wheat. It might not be an exact duplicate, but I could see it being a good subsititute for steak, much better than what substitutes we currently have. This, I think, should perhaps be the end goal for agriculture. Really, it's the end goal for everything. Human progress can be measured by how many things we no longer have to forage from the natural world, but instead can build or grow in a lab. Meanwhile, human morality can be measured by how we treat other life around us, beings that can feel, think, and perhaps even desire a better quality of life for themselves.

In the end, I believe quality of life is all that matters. It's the answer to life. It's the only purpose I can see for life, the universe, and everything. For matter to be satisfied -- even happy -- with the state of it's own existence. Happiness. Acheived by maximizing quality of life. Not just our quality of life. Quality of all life. And not just now, but now and forever into the future.

 

[Canuck]

The vast majority of people couldn't care less about eating less meat (or eating less, for that matter), even if it means they will live longer. Obesity is epidemic in the first world, and it's only not in the third world due to lack of resources -- not human nature. We're circling the drain and while eating less red meat will slow the ultimate flush, it's coming and it won't be pretty. Most people would rather enjoy their triple cheeseburger than leave a better world for their children. It's sad really but that just our human nature.

In the end, I believe quality of life is all that matters. It's the answer to life. It's the only purpose I can see for life, the universe, and everything. For matter to be satisfied -- even happy -- with the state of it's own existence. Happiness. Acheived by maximizing quality of life. Not just our quality of life. Quality of all life. And not just now, but now and forever into the future.

I don't believe there is, or needs to be, an "answer to life". I also don't agree that happiness or satisfaction is the only purpose or ultimate goal. I see the ultimate goal as integrity and legacy. That's all we really have in the end. Our integrity and our legacy. Nothing else really matters, in my view. It won't make someone happy to go into a burning building to save a helpless baby's life. But the integrity gained, and the legacy left, should he/she make it out fatally burned while saving the baby, is the ultimate expression of the human goal. Not happiness, contentedness, or satisfaction.

 

[rolosrevenge]

My solution was to just eat the red meat that I could hunt. I got a nice free range organic deer this year. Now I won't be buying any beef for a year.

 

[GasKilla]

While I agree overall with the sentiment, best to keep the facts perfectly straight. Feedlot cattle are corn-finished but raised on grass. In many places you can get grass-finished beef, which IMO is more flavorful anyway (but leaner and less forgiving of cooking errors). So if you're buying grass finished beef, that particular contribution to the monoculture of corn in the midwest isn't an issue.

You have that backward, feedlot cattle are raised on corn (to fatten them up quicker) but finished on grass. Read Michael Pollen's book "The omnivore's dilemma" where he purchased a feed lot cow and followed it through the whole process, he explains it all in that book and has a whole section on corn.

 

[Spyder14]

No need to take a hacksaw to FLA just yet. Based on this map + VW diesels + (fill in your climate change "beef" here), we will be under water in no time!! :wink:

 

[abasile]

We should never be satisfied giving up quality of life to solve other problems.

I mostly agree, though given our current state of technology, I think we still need to be mindful of our choices. For instance, while I'm not categorically opposed to using airplanes and I feel that non-petroleum-fueled aviation should be a goal, I realize that flying is carbon intensive and am therefore less inclined to fly than I was years ago. This means more vacations closer to home, principally. It doesn't mean not taking vacations. (As I live in California, there are plenty of great vacation options in driving distance.)

Since almost one year ago, my diet has excluded red meat or fat-containing dairy products except on very rare occasions. My cholesterol numbers are as good as they've ever been in the last ~25 years and I'm not at all feeling deprived. Going full vegan would be tougher for me, as I exercise frequently and avoiding meat leaves me physically feeling lacking. (I know it's possible to be athletic and vegan, but it's not that easy, and I'm not convinced that any benefits would be worth my while.)

 

[Zythryn]

...
We should never be satisfied giving up quality of life to solve other problems. ...

I agree with you 100%.
What does that have to do with eating less meat?

Less red meat, by all the studies I have seen, increases quality of life.
Now, some people that cut it out completely and don't replace the protein can run into health issues.

I gave up 95% of the beef I used to eat years ago. I still eat some poultry and need to work on increasing my fish intake.

With no change to activity, my cholesterol has dropped and I have more money in my pocket (chicken is a lot cheaper than beef).

 

[RubberToe]

We cut way back on red meat consumption too. Substituted something like a once per month trip to a really nice steakhouse (Houston's) versus eating a cheeseburger for lunch once per week and maybe one beef dish for dinner per week. Having it less makes it more special versus having it all the time. And it's better quality too. Not ready to give it up entirely. Lots of good comments above too. I don't feel a diminished quality of life because I eat beef 1/8 as much as I used to. I think the most important thing is to get the majority of the "herd" (the human herd that is) moving in the right direction, even if they don't all do everything to the max. For example, I don't fly around the world in planes, recycle to the max, we drive two EV's, will be putting up PV panels at our house shortly, use green power in Pasadena, and don't generally buy a lot of "junk", except for upgrading cell phones every two years. But we still do eat some beef, not the end of the world (hopefully!).

It seems to me that as people start doing one or two of the "right" things (for lack of a better word), they tend to start doing more of them. I think in the developed world we have it much easier "cutting back" on stuff like this because we have been living so high on the hog for so long, the novelty has worn off. Contrast that with places like India or China where a lot of people still don't have reliable power, and they are building coal power plants just to get everyone on the grid. Then you are looking at hundreds of millions of people who then want to start living better (i.e. flying around more, eating more pork/beef/sushi etc) and you really can't blame them. It's a huge issue we face going forward.

Personal anecdote: I had an uncle who was in a concentration camp during WW2 in Italy. When he was released he weighed 125 pounds, and he was 6'4" tall. When we would have dinner at their house, they actually saved the leftover food from everyones plates, no food was wasted. This left quite an impression on me at the age of 10 or so. So I have never been much of a food waster, simply because of that. Then once at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas, we were eating at the buffet. A couple went to the dessert bar and got one of each of something like 8 or 9 different items. They took one bite out of each, then left the rest for cleanup and headed out :scared:. I still remember that to this day, and that was back in the late 1980's. Things leave impressions on people in different ways. Not sure what was motivating the dessert eaters, other than maybe "we need to get the most possible benefit out of the buffet no matter how much food we waste". I'll have to watch the documentary tonight.

RT

 

[ohmman]

You have that backward, feedlot cattle are raised on corn (to fatten them up quicker) but finished on grass. Read Michael Pollen's book "The omnivore's dilemma" where he purchased a feed lot cow and followed it through the whole process, he explains it all in that book and has a whole section on corn.

I think you may be remembering the book incorrectly. All cattle are started on grass or grass products. This should clear things up:

Cattle feeding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[tomas]

Well, since everyone is telling their story: I've wanted to control cholesterol without meds. Tried a few things, but what has worked great for a year now is a hysterical diet created by Mark Bittman (NYT food writer) called VB6 or Vegan before 6:00. As he tells it, he made a deal with the devil that he'd eat devout vegan (and no junk food) for all meals and snacks before 6pm, and for dinner he'd eat anything he wanted. It works great. Cholesterol down, and don't need to sacrifice anything. About 20% of evening meals are meat-free, 60% are chicken or fish, and 20% are pork, beef, or lamb. Never feel deprived. The only challenge is travel or staying at friends/relatives houses... when that comes up, I usually just drop it and try to stay moderate.

Highly recommended for all! bittman explains in 3 minutes.

 

[Chris TX]

... Everything in moderation.

Yes. Red meat has amazing amounts of good protein, vitamins, and amino acids. It also contains bad cholesterol. Fortunately, the human body has evolved to get rid of the bad stuff from the occasional consumption.

 

[mspohr]

Well, since everyone is telling their story: I've wanted to control cholesterol without meds. Tried a few things, but what has worked great for a year now is a hysterical diet created by Mark Bittman (NYT food writer) called VB6 or Vegan before 6:00. As he tells it, he made a deal with the devil that he'd eat devout vegan (and no junk food) for all meals and snacks before 6pm, and for dinner he'd eat anything he wanted. It works great. Cholesterol down, and don't need to sacrifice anything. About 20% of evening meals are meat-free, 60% are chicken or fish, and 20% are pork, beef, or lamb. Never feel deprived. The only challenge is travel or staying at friends/relatives houses... when that comes up, I usually just drop it and try to stay moderate.

Highly recommended for all! bittman explains in 3 minutes.

Mark Bittman is part of a new startup which delivers vegan meals weekly.
Vegan Recipes | The Purple Carrot
Once a week they send a box of ingredients and recipes for vegan diners. You can order three dinners for two people or two dinners for four people. Recipes look good. I'm going to try it starting next week.

The evidence is clear that you don't need meat to be healthy and that there are a lot of unhealthy fats and chemicals in meat (especially the way it is raised by the agriculture industry). Most people focus on protein but most Westerners get about twice the protein they need. The rest is just wasted. There are many cultures which have existed for thousands of years eating a vegan diet.

I personally like the Mediterranean diet which consists primarily of vegetables and fish with very little meat or dairy. It also includes lots of olive oil which has been shown to be very healthy. Fish oils are also very healthy.

 

[JenniferQ]

This new site as noted above, The Purple Carrot, run by Mark Bittman, has some very delicious looking recipes and also a delivery service. Of particular note is that unlike Plated.com and Blueapron.com, you can get the recipes directly off the site without having to subscribe and pay.

 

[JohnSnowNW]

Now I won't be buying any beef for a year.

Or deer, I suspect.

 

[ScepticMatt]

If you don't want to give up meats, substitute red meat with poultry, farm fish ... or insects.
All of them have a much lower feed conversion ratio, the mass of the food eaten divided by the output.

Healthier too.

 

[deonb]

Plants that die and rot naturally in air don't normally give off methane because the microorganisms use aerobic digestion.. Methane is produced by microorganismscusing anaerobic digestion. Corollary: if your compost heap stinks you're doing something wrong.

So, swamp gas/marsh gas is an example where the decay is happening in anaerobic conditions, like, say, standing water.

And aerobic digestion creates CO2 instead of CH4. I prefer CH4 to CO2.

CH4 is of course 30 times worse than CO2, but CH4 only lives around 12 years in the atmosphere, and then it forms CO2 through chemical reaction. CO2 on the other hand lives 100's of years and can't be changed to anything else - it has to be sucked up in the ocean and re-deposited below the crust.

The best thing that can actually happen is if humanity pumps catastrophic amounts of CH4 into the atmosphere, BEFORE pumping catastrophic amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. Because the effects of CH4 is reversible in a lifetime - if a global warming disaster occurs we can change policies and mostly reverse it by waiting it out. A CO2 catastrophe on the other hand is not reversible.

 

[Adm]

Problem?

Solution: Meet the Vegetarian Butcher https://www.vegetarianbutcher.com/

They try and make the experience as close to the real thing as possible.

They did a €2.5 million crowfunding round and are opening a factory next year to increase production and expand in products and markets.

 

[Mookuh]

CH4 is of course 30 times worse than CO2, but CH4 only lives around 12 years in the atmosphere, and then it forms CO2 through chemical reaction.

Is there a typo here? Because otherwise you end up with having CO2 in the atmosphere after these reactions, so it's still worse than plain CO2.

In addition, a very brief layman research to Wikipedia shows that the "30 times worse" figure is measured over 100 years. So 1kg of Methane will trap 30 times more heat energy on the planet than 1kg of CO2 would over the next 100 years.

Atmospheric methane - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm certainly no expert on the topic, but it seems CH4 is a problematic beast.