Slashdot Mirror

Cows are not the problem and lettuce is not the fix.

The confusion is from focusing on animal and vegetable foods when the problem is the way they are produced and brought to market. The industrial food system is extremely fuel intensive and uses the worst possible methods for raising both vegetables and animals.

Cows and lettuce are not the issue.

Eliminating industrial mega-growers and replacing them with SMALLER, educated local growers would be a great solution. ADM, Monsanto, Cargill, et al just need to be OK with profiting somewhere else.

Therein lies our real problem. The mega farms will figure out a way to pump methane from a feed lot before they do away with the problem - the feed lot system itself. They'll figure out a way for lettuce to withstand even more toxic chemical inputs before they do away with destructive growing practices that mandate those inputs.

The biggest thing anyone can do to change the world (even if you only consider fuel use) is to grow one's own food - at home. Whether it's animal or vegetable. Even if you can only grow one thing.

Permaculture
Polyface Farm
No Work Gardening

Thanks for sharing, that's the first time I've seen a somewhat thoughtful and serious (if not rigorous) attempt to debunk Savory's claims. Unfortunately, it disappoints on several fronts. First it gets some key facts wrong. For example, Holistic Management is not a "livestock management system" it is applicable to any context, not just agriculture. The livestock management system used by Savory is called Managed Intensive Rotational Grazing (MIRG) or just "rotational grazing" for short. A minor distinction, perhaps, but one that Savory takes pains to make clear in numerous lectures. So, right out of the gate, it tells me that this author might not know as much as he thinks he does about Savory's methods.

In general, the entire piece is long on "common sense" or "everybody knows that..." claims, and short on actual scientific citations. (I counted zero throughout... maybe I missed one?) It also has some contradictions and logical failings. For example, "Most arid grasslands have low productivity, thus low ability to store new sources of carbon." This ignores the whole point of MIRG, which is to improve the health and productivity of marginal lands, thus increasing their ability to sequester carbon. I could go on, but I don't have all day.

Yes, before and after photos may just be "anecdotal" evidence, but at least they are evidence. I didn't see much in the way of superior or more-rigorous evidence in this article.

Meanwhile, folks like Joel Salatin and thousands of others continue to enjoy success with MIRG on 6 out of 7 continents, in virtually every type of climate where grazing is possible.

Add to that list of links http://www.polyfacefarms.com/ about a farm that has been using polyculture, pasture rotation and natural symbiotic methods for decades, since before all the current organic hoopla. Owner Joel Salatin achieves almost an order of magnitude more return per acre than than monoculture farms in the vicinity, and has much better soil conditions. There are lots of Youtube video interviews with Salatin, BTW, if interested.

The biggest mistake made by farmers in the Western world is to isolate conditions and *think of them* only in isolation. If you decide you only want to be a corn farmer, or a hog farmer, you end up missing some incredible advantages that could be had by farming both at the same time, using one to feed or fertilize the other. Then, if you add a few other judicious crops and/or livestock to the mix, you have even more opportunity for capitalizing on the interactions. Of course, this does take more planning and forethought, but isn't that why we humans have the big brains?

Ironically, the best beef for you is not from a cow being fed corn from giant trough which is also sludged up with manure, dead cow parts, and days-old standing water. How about a cow eating grass, seeing as they happen to be ruminants?

So yes, GOOD meat would be less expensive if the government stopped subsidizing the corn industries. In fact, the whole idea of massive farms growing nothing but corn is the stupidest waste of land possible. Corn has very low benefit for both humans and cows, but it just happens to be easy to ship long-distance. Ask yourself "Why do they need subsidies to survive?" It's just like the "too big to fail" banking system that must be subsidized at the cost of huge segments of our economy. Politics and power never seem to collude in our benefit.

The whole concept of the monoculture industrial farming system has ruined generations of farmland. The age-old concept of rotational grazing as well as other sustainable methods has actually been shown to produce much more return for square acre than typical large-scale industrial farming, but our whole government and food-regulation system makes it very hard for these kinds of farms to compete. Check out Joel Salatin's book "Everything I Want to do is Illegal".

Joel Salatin --- "Holy Cows and Hog Heaven"

People in denial about nature, thinking that the concept of morals - a concept created by man, for the governing of the behaviour of man towards man - can be applied to animals, are sorely mistaken. Not that we shouldn't treat our animals right in life - heck, I think what takes place on CAFOs and egg factories is downright unconscionable. BUT YOU DON'T FIX THINGS BY REDUCING AND ABSTRACTING THEM. This can work for simple problems, or for a short time, but it will not work in the long run (neither for industrial food, or pretend food like MEATA (TM) ).

Farming over the centuries has provided innumerable benefits to our animals. Chickens, Cows, etc. actually benefit from being under our protection. They no longer have the natural defenses their progenitors once posessed. The image of the wild cow freed from its shackles of slavery is a myth, a fantasy. If we synthesized all of our meat, and freed our livestock, they would in short order go extinct. Reducing its suffering? Yes, I suppose not living implies not suffering. But once again, you don't solve these problems by getting further away from them - you reduce suffering by farming differently, not genetically engineering away anxiety, or making brainless test-tube ribeye.

Finally, this is completely unsustainable. By that I mean that doing this requires substantial energy input. Where is that energy going to come from? This is just a guess, but based off of previous data, I think it would bear out: petroleum. Love it, hate it, it's an amazing source of energy. One that won't be around forever. How do you grow sustainable meat? Well, that also requires substantial energy input - from the sun. I'm of course ignoring pesticides and fertilizers for the feed crops - they're unsustainable as well. However, you don't fix the problem BY ABSTRACTING IT EVEN FURTHER.

Okay, done ranting. If you want more information about this and other topics, might I redirect you to The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals by Michael Pollan, and Polyface Farms? Not the whole answer, but it's a good start. We aren't going to solve these problems by thinking about it from an industrial perspective. It's about time we start to think differently.

It's not about creating prion-free cattle. It's about cheap meat. The meat industry is all about high density feedlots for cattle, pigs, and chickens. It's all about providing you with the cheapest meat, not necessarily the safest for you or the meat animals. The industry players want you to think that cattle spend all of their days frollicking on the range and munching on grass instead of being cooped up in their own shit and forced to eat antibiotics so they can eat corn which they did not evolve to eat. I'm a devout omnivore and won't stop eating meat, so those more rabidly zealous vegans can get stuffed. I can and will however eat safer and better raised meat.

Read Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma . It has a fascinating account of Joel Salatin and his Polyface Farms. You can have a win-win situation between raising meat animals and the enviroment. Finally, everything you ever wanted to know about high density feedlots can be found in cartoon format at The Meatrix.

As we age our brains may ossify and turn us all into natural luddites. But, it seems that a "hi-tech" solution to another "hi-tech" solution is a problem. We need to step back and look at how this bacterial problem occurred in the first place. Say hello to the high density feedlot where cows live in great metal buildings standing around in their own filth being fed unnatural foods and pumped full of hormones and antibiotics. Antibiotics? The overuse of antibiotics has created superstrains of bacteria. And it is those stronger strains that are showing up in our meat supply.

The practical solution is simple. Grass finished beef. Corn fed isn't natural or healthy. Let the steers eat grass for their last two weeks before slaughter. They can still do the dense feedlots, CAFO's but most of the problems caused by CAFO's are mitigated by grass finishing diet. But they determined it wouldn't be cost effective so they pass the real cost onto the consumer to make sure their meat is properly handled and cooked and the medical costs associated with tainted meat. Oh well.

The real solution is free range grass fed beef. Read Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma and check out Joel Salatin's Polyface Farms. After reading about CAFO's, I can see why some people become vegans and vegetarians, but I won't stop eating meat. I'll just eat meat that is safer and healthier for me.