Organic Meat Sales Growth Drives Land Conservation

cool, now if those farmers go for grass-fed meat, we'll really be in business...

I'm sorry, but this is bullpies.

A growing organic meat industry (and with all the confusion about organic standards, who knows if all that meat really IS organic?) simply fuels the misconception that you can be an environmentalist or generally progressive person and still eat meat. Sorry, but you just can't.

Yeah, yeah, it's better to have the money going into good causes than just right to the gastanks of the SUV-owning owners/shareholders of non-organic meat companies, but come on. The meat industry is a HUGE part of why there is a need for conservation in many parts of the world in the first place!

I don't know why the meat issue is still such a sticking point with so many otherwise cool/caring people, but it is, and it's really too bad.

If you care about the environment, social justice, or really any other progressive cause, you probably already know deep down that eating meat is indefensible, no matter how "nice" the company is. They're still killing millions of animals, and that, I believe, is just no good.

I apologize if I am simply uninformed, but it seems to me that an increase in the number of cattle, 'organic' or not, would require an greater amount of land...This article fails to explain its title, so I don't really know how the organic meat sales growth has driven land conservation...
[joeysafe]#gmail#com
==== author's response follows ====
In a nutshell: f western US ranch owners are pressured to graze more intensively (more cattle per acre per unit of time) to compete with third world meat imports (that are not organic). This strong trend to permium organic prices enables a niche market that lets US ranchers survive that pressure, which is in turn good for range land management if proper stewardship care is taken. Second factor: developers keep offering to buy out ranchers on the urban fringe to build dude homes for rich celebrities and to build rows of water sucking, range destroying McMansions. Again, this market niche, combined with the offer of conservancy agreements reduces range land loss. The third factor, not yet in evidence but certainly hoped for, would be as a commenter said, a switch to grass fed, non-feedlot prepped cattle. The fourth (fingers crossed) would be to go away from supersized meals, so a little high quality meat would replace a massive portion of sweet greasy plop. Fifth factor we look for is a switch from beef cows to buffalo (Bison)l Bison do not destroy waterways as do free ranging cattle. This is an extremely critical difference. Even a trip to bucolic Lancaster County PA USA reveals "naturally grazed" Amish cattle destroying the stream banks, and contributing to the pollution of east coast estuaries. If meat must be eaten, buffalo is where we want to go.

The author of "The Omnivores Dilemma" has suggested that locally raised grass fed/finished beef may actually be better for the soil/planet than growing soy beans. As somebody who has made the ecological argument for going vegetarian I find this interesting. Personally though, I still prefer a good hummus sandwich...

I have to oppose the comment of Jordan and state that eating meat can be (both historically and contemporarily) better for the environment and for the community. For examples of this compare the ability of settled pastorial African groups to the same pastorialists who have not settled (aka become farmers) and their ability to survive a drought - the result of that comparison is that the pastoral group is able to survive a drought (and many other environmental disasters) at a much higher rate than the farmers.

In short, the evil is not the meat industry, but industrial food production. On that note, I take exception at Jordan making accusations that it is the meat industry alone that destroys the environment, when on a simple acreage comparison, agriculture (aka growing crops) has created larger areas of environmental destruction (just take a look at China today).

Thad,

I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

I didn't say that only the meat industry is harming the environment, but I did say it was a significant evil.

I really don't want to get into the fact that much of acreage used in farming grains (the problem you referred to in your last paragraph) is actually being used to fuel the meat industry, organic or otherwise. It takes many more acres of land to feed a cow which in turn feeds humans than it does for those same humans to simply eat the plants grown on the land. This is a well-known fact, and if you need any more information on it, please search google.

As for the study of groups in Africa, I find it hard to see that as relevant in ANY way to the North American (or, moreso industrialized) situation. If the issue here was whether or not it's better for people to be nomadic and eat meat or become farmers and eat plants, I could see some relevance. However, in North America, we are neither of those things, nor are we likely to become either one.

The problem is that we CAN eat sustainably-farmed organic plant-based diets, but for some reason, we won't (well, YOU won't. I do.).

That's the problem.

I would like to object to the derogatory comments left by Jordan. To say you can't be progressively minded or concerned about the environment and still eat meat is just outright narrow minded and elitist. I don't eat meat everyday, and when I do eat meat it is always in small portions, but I do this for health reasons (American's on the average simply eat too much meat).

I also installed half-flush devices in all my toilets and low volume shower heads on all my showers. My house goes into "low-power mode" during the work day and at night once everyone is asleep, and I'm working on getting at least one major room off the grid by the end of the summer. Most of my light fixtures are compact fluorescent. I use natural wood chips when I cook outside and use environmentally friendly fire starters (made from laundry dryer lint mostly). I compost. I mulch. I use a push mower. I buy organic whenever possible (not always possible for financial reasons). I bought a low emissions/high fuel efficiency car that I drive like a grandma to drive the fuel efficiency even higher....and you have the nerve to say that evil meat-eaters like me don't care about the environment???

Vegetarianism is a chosen path in life, and those who follow that path should be careful to not judge others who care about the earth but don't follow the vegetarian path....otherwise you just end up becoming another judgemental fundamentalist group, and lord knows we have enough of those already.

==== author's response follows =====
Thank you for the considerate, circumspect comment.

If I may embellish briefly, cultural traditions are a big piece of this "issue". Specifically, animal husbandry, as exported to the US from Europe, was important to carry people through cold winters (which were much worse then) , when vegetable crops were unavailable, and the grainary low. A case can be made that without the modern practices of energy intensive over-seas growing, packing, shipping, distribution, and point of sales practices, the vegetarian lifestyle would be pretty bleak indeed: largely a matter of canned goods, root crops, and fermented cabbage plus breads. Good idea not to throw stones if one's life is supported by an electrically lit greenhouse.

I have to throw in my two cents, in the respect that I wish I COULD be a vegetarian, but for medical reasons I have to eat a lot of protein, usually in the form of meat protein. I harbor a lot of guilt about it, but if I want to avoid getting sick, eating meat is what I have to do.

My only recourse (aside from hunting, fishing, or raising my own food animals) is to buy the most ethically produced meat I can. I pay close attention to where the meat comes from and how the animals are raised, and I'm more than happy to pay extra for it. I'm also pretty sure I'm not alone in this.

Humans as a species will not stop eating meat. Ever. But perhaps we can work together to eliminate factory farms and make our food as cruelty-free as possible.

--
editor note: Out of curiosity, what medical condition is that?

One of the posts above makes the point that meat production is less damaging to the environment than agriculture. Most of the grain and soy grown in the world is fed to animals! Whether plant agriculture is damaging or not, its environmental impact is inextricable from meat consumption. Less meat consumption means less impact from all agricultural sources, animal and plant.

Okay, I'm just dying to know...how can one consume the flesh of other animals, knowing the environmental and social degredation that it causes, and consider him/herself to be an environmentalist? The strides each of us make on a daily basis are great and necessary, but given that flesh-for-food consumption is the single greatest contributor to environmental problems, how can we, as environmentalists, continue to justify it? Those who attempt to do so may want to read FOOD REVOLUTION by John Robbins. Knowledge is power, and learning is a continual process.

And just as an aside, those with medical conditions necessitating high protein consumption will find that the most complete, most environmentally-friendly, socially just, and nutritionally and physically beneficial sources are obtained through plant sources--not animals or animal by-products. Reading Robbins' book will also provide information (and extensive references) to this effect.

I agree that *conventional* meat production is an enviromental nightmare. But what if, as Michael Pollan claims, grass-fed beef on a rotational grazing system is actually better for the enviroment than organic production of vegetable protein? Would/should those of us who claim the enviromental benefits of vegetarianism switch to eating the nasty stuff (meat)? I for one would love to see the science on this.
==== author's response follows ====
American Plains Indians hunted bison, the perfect rotational grazing animal, and lit fires to drive the herds as a hunting technique, which in turn created the tall grass prairies as settlers had first encountered them, Much of what was historic prairie at the eastern edge of the Mississippi valley is now mixed deciduous forest and cash cropped land. Several authors have written about a return to prairie ecosystems as a means of switching away from cows to bison as a food production system. Ted Turner even has a restaurant chain that seems to promote the feasibility.

Just a question for all those who make themselves feel better about eating animal flesh by claiming the animal was "humanely" treated: if you are convinced that the animal has an interest in not being abused during its life and brutalized at the time of its death, wouldn't you also be willing to admit that it has an interest in not being slaughtered for food as well?

Sorry to be late to this debate.

But I wanted to respond to The Authors reply to TendoMentis: "...animal husbandry... was important to carry people through cold winters (which were much worse then) , when vegetable crops were unavailable, and the grainary low. A case can be made that without the modern practices of energy intensive over-seas growing, packing, shipping, distribution,... the vegetarian lifestyle would be pretty bleak indeed: largely a matter of canned goods, root crops, and fermented cabbage plus breads. Good idea not to throw stones if one's life is supported by an electrically lit greenhouse."

John, what about dried beans, lentils, various grains, etc? These foods store very well for many months with no energy required. Prepared with spices, you can make some delicious winter food. Most vegetarian diets are based on these kind of foods, not expensive imported vegetables.