Comments on: Is Eating Meat Sustainable For Everyone?

By: When did vegetarianism become passe? | Grist | WorldWright's …

When did vegetarianism become passe? | Grist | WorldWright's … — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 23:28:15 +0000

[...] to do it right comes with serious environmental impacts, from high water consumption to large land footprints to excessive methane [...]

By: When did vegetarianism become passe? | Grist

When did vegetarianism become passe? | Grist — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 15:33:00 +0000

[...] to do it right comes with serious environmental impacts, from high water consumption to large land footprints to excessive methane [...]

By: Feeding the Masses – Small Farms are More Efficient

Feeding the Masses – Small Farms are More Efficient — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 18:04:58 +0000

[...] space can support an additional 5 sheep and 400 chickens. The same 2.5 acres planted in grain at (9000 lbs feed grain per acre) and fed directly to cows would produce 2250 pounds of beef (10:1 feed conversion (p. 16)). The [...]

By: » Factory-Raised vs. Grass-Fed Beef: A Comparison Platykurtosity

» Factory-Raised vs. Grass-Fed Beef: A Comparison Platykurtosity — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 01:43:45 +0000

[...] The average “factory farm” occupies 16,000 acres of land. On this land it raises an average of 3,800 cattle at a time. That’s 0.2375 acres per animal that the average factory farm can raise. The average grass-fed beef operation – a.k.a., open area with cattle in it – is estimated to require an average of 18.75 acres per cattle. This is based on a representative sample of US grass-fed beef operations that required between 2.5 acres and 35 acres…. [...]

By: Meat Is Earth Medicine

Meat Is Earth Medicine — Wed, 25 May 2011 06:24:36 +0000

[...] crops. Here is a lengthy discussion on the sustainability of grass fed livestock in the US Is Eating Meat Sustainable For Everyone? : Naked Food Cooking It's probably not possible to say for sure if a completely grass fed meat supply is sustainable, [...]

By: Nicollas

Nicollas — Sat, 12 Jun 2010 08:38:39 +0000

If you don’t know already, you shoud seriously take a look at the permaculture concept (Farm for a future evoques it). IMHO it is the best sustainable choice to produce our food. It is based on energy efficient and pollution-free techniques and principle of design, and heavily based on permanent systems (hence its name).For example, medicinals, nuts, fruits, berries, mushrooms (timber, fuels) can be produced by food forest / edible forest gardens (check the incredible two volumes Edible Forest Gardens by Dave Jack).Vegetables can be produced by growing perennial vegatables, and with mulchng and double-digged no-till beds.Fish can be produced by carefully designed aquaculture systems (chek out work by permaculture co-founder Bill Mollison), and in backyards with Aquaponics systems (aquaculture + hydroponic, that close the amnoniacal cycle).Chicken and Pigs can be produced under forested areas (their ancestors come from forest !). Check out the incredible inspiring book Tree Crops by Russel Smith (inspiration for the permaculture concept, he proposes to fight erosion due to frain cultivation by planting fodder forest for animals, like persimon for winer food of pigs or mulberries for summer food for chickens)Cattle can be grass feded, and acually can benefits to the environment, check the Holistic Management for example that mimicks herds of wild grass eating animals, to restore brittle environnement).You can also check the eyLine concept (not directly concerned with food production, but tu enhance farm soils).I think permaculture is the best method to produce a paleo/primal diet. And i think that as paleo is the best diet for our bodies, permaculture is the best way to produce food sustainably.(again, maybe population is the limit, but i think the first limiting factor should be energy consumption)

By: Is it possible to sustain large scale primal diets in cotemporary times? « Crossfit Guelph

Fri, 27 Nov 2009 21:06:01 +0000

[...] http://www.fitnessspotlight.com/2009/07/27/paleoprimal-lifestyle-sustainable-meat-production/ [...]

By: Doris

Doris — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 06:50:27 +0000

Hi, Scott,I appreciate the thought and research that went into this. I just wanted to address two of your arguments and (rhetorical?) question about marginal lands:”Regardless, this is the major flaw in the “we should all be vegetarian” argument. Some land won’t support plant life that humans find edible or palatable and therefore, it would be inefficient to not use it for animals.”"Why would it be better to leave land that can support animals but not plants alone?”We shouldn’t think of leaving wild places wild as “inefficient.” We should think of it as environmentally sound.It would be environmentally irresponsible to deforest more lands and displace more wildlife, even if the land is “marginal.” We do not need to destroy every last wild place on earth, just because we’ve found a way to use it for food when we have agricultural lands that could easily be freed up if we stopped feeding so much grain to livestock. We can’t eat pine trees and not many crops grow in the poor, sandy soil that some pine trees thrive in, but that doesn’t mean we should level all of our evergreen forests in order to create more grazing land for grass-fed cattle.Even if the marginal land is already free of trees and consists mostly of grass, introducing cattle to the area will displace the local wildlife. Where will these animals go, who have evolved to live in that niche environment of “marginal” land?”grain-fed animals tend to receive the low-quality corn, soy, and processing by-products of food product creation rather than using the higher-quality versions reserved for humans.”Arguing the limited uses of low-quality corn and soy begs the question, because if we were to focus on feeding people directly instead of feeding livestock, the farmers would not plant feed corn or other low-quality crops. They would plant crops that people can eat directly.And what if those by-products were turned into compost and fertilizer instead of being fed to livestock? We would have less of a need for artificial fertilizers.Thanks,Doris

By: skustes

skustes — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:09:53 +0000

Jeff, I was in the Canadian Rockies a few years ago (Banff) and drove over to Lake Louise, but took the windy backroad instead of the main highway for some scenery. I came across an entire flock of mountain goats grazing. They weren’t too keen on moving out of my way either, so I just got out of the car and took pictures.Jon W, interesting comment about eating the predators. Why does it not make sense? Are there issues of over-fishing the smaller species by competing with the large predators and thus killing them too? I definitely agree with you about all of the grass! First we fertilize and water it to make it grow, then we cut it cause it’s too tall.LeslieW, thanks for the great info on grass-feeding. Most of the “grass-fed beef” you’ll find in groceries, including Whole Foods, is going to be grain-finished. It seems the only way to get real food is to go direct to the farmer. Food doesn’t like to be industrialized.Dexter, I like that article. There’s always two sides to every story.Pete, thanks for the info. I was just taking a quick estimate based on the numbers Jim gave me for his farming here in the Louisville, KY area. But your numbers only improve the possibility of getting all of our meat. I wonder though, can you add goats and pigs and chickens along with cattle? Is there some limit to the amount of animal traffic the land can support?CheersScott

By: pete

pete — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 03:29:08 +0000

Your acreage est. for cattle is suspect. Most cattle come from the east side of the country, not the dry west. So the stocking rate should run closer to 2 than 10. Also don’t forget to include the cost for the mother cow and bull.You can add 1 pig per 2 cows to pasture for free (on the land cost) and this can reduce your pig grain needs by 30%