Graze Anatomy

Comments

• Elizabeth Schafer wrote on February 28, 2009, 07:27AM : Flag this comment as inappropriate

  I'm not sure why growing grain is such an eco-disaster. The raising of beef cattle is more of an ecological threat than the production of grain or vegetables. I happen to be a proponent of a vegetarian diet, although I'm not strictly vegan. I think the world would be better off if people ate more beans and whole grains and less animal foods. Public health would improve, there would be less animal suffering and whole grains would feed people, not livestock (as would legumes, like soybeans). The production of grain is more expensive, when you feed it to cattle, but people need it for protein and the B-vitamin complex. Also beans cost less than meat to feed people.

• Johanne Dion wrote on March 20, 2009, 02:39PM : Flag this comment as inappropriate

  In reply to Elizabeth and to those who did not understand the environmental impacts of growing grain: the grain discussed here is mostly transgenic modified corn or soy grown to feed CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations).

  The environmental impacts of those crops are multiple:

  - being annuals, it means the fields in which they grow is left bare for a large part of the year, resulting in soil erosion and watershed pollution.

  - being GMOs, it means they corrupt the natural gene pool of the countryside.

  - being monocultures, it means they basically make vast areas of the countryside left with no food for insects for a long part of the year.

  - being grown for maximum crop volumes, they need either lots of fertilisers (for corn) or pesticides (for corn and soy), meaning the additionnal burning of fuel to spread the fertilisers and pesticides, and also meaning that some of those will end up in the soil, in the aquifer or in the nearest lake or river. Fertilisers ending up in rivers and lakes are the main cause of algae blooms, and most pesticides in rivers and lakes are hormone-imitating substances causing havoc in fish and amphibian reproduction.

  - being monocultures, it means they are susceptible to pest infestations and crop failures (thus all the subsidies and crop failure insurance).

  The industrialisation of agriculture is not a pretty thing. Grass farming, I think, is a step in the right direction.

• Elizabeth Schafer wrote on March 22, 2009, 12:25PM : Flag this comment as inappropriate

  You say that GMO's cause the use of added pesticides, but aren't GMO's designed to provide genetic pest resistance through the DNA of the plant? I, personally, think if we had better management of fields and control of development, as well as proper maintenance of brush country, that pesticides would be almost unnecessary. I'm not in favor of genetic altering of plants. Also importation of pests through illegal plant imports, like illegal drugs, may be a problem too.

• AJ wrote on March 23, 2009, 11:13PM : Flag this comment as inappropriate

  The idea that GMO's are bred to be resistant to disease and parasites is not always true.

  Many GMO's are simply bred to be resistant to the chemicals sprayed on the fields so you can spray everything else without killing your crop. (Round-Up ready Corn for example) So, in fact, many GMO's actually encourage MORE use of chemicals.

  Often, the best pest control is natural pest control. The only problem is that in order to use a natural system, you have to take the time to learn how nature works...something that often is hard for us to understand, so we just dump on chemicals instead.

• Theresa Westaby wrote on March 24, 2009, 08:33AM : Flag this comment as inappropriate

  Being organic dairy farmers who graze, I can help explain the problems with GMO's. What Monsanto doesn't want you to know is that you end up using more chemicals to fight off weeds and insects because they become immune to the changed GMO traits. Weeds and insects are nature's way of getting rid of unhealthy plants. Every year they come out with "new and improved" GMO's, and every year, conventional farmers have to spray more and more to get rid of them. It isn't just because of the CAFO's that farmers are encouraged to use these products, it's the saying that "Farmers feed the world and people want cheap food". Cheap food equals unhealthy food, grown on unhealthy soils, and in turn, unhealthy people. Consumers drive the market, if you want to be healthy, demand from your grocers organic, sustainable meat, dairy, and vegetables!

• arcataberry wrote on April 01, 2009, 12:34AM : Flag this comment as inappropriate

  All i know is this: i moved from a rural/coastal area of california with several dairy ranches to washington d.c. here, i bought supermarket brand milk & it went bad after a couple of days. i buy organic, it turns out to be more economical in a lot of ways. we've turned the corner out west, we require fresh produce, free-range beef, cruelty-free breeding and slaughering methods. There's zero tolerance for animal abuse in an area where horses are ridden and winter prey's waiting to hit the dinner table.

• Edith Borie wrote on April 02, 2009, 03:52AM : Flag this comment as inappropriate

  Just about all the calls to convert to a completely meatless diet to
  reduce greenhouse gas emissions concentrate only on the emissions, and
  ignore the fact that somewhat natural grasslands sequester carbon, in
  addition to providing habitat for wildlife. If they cannot be used
  in some form, they will disappear. Thus if pastureland is not used
  for (low-density) grazing, it will be converted to another use, with
  concomitant release of greenhouse gases. Some studies indicate that
  more CO_2 equivalent will be released than the cattle or sheep that
  grazed on it emit. Another point that should not be ignored is that
  the production of soybeans for tofu involves the use of chemical
  fertilizer and pesticides, with emission of N_2O which is an even more
  potent greenhouse gas than methane.

  Thus, Graze anatomy is right on when calling for more natural grassland. The message should be urgently sent to Brazil and Argentina, where grassland is being converted at an alarming rate to soybean culture (for agrofuels)

• Ryan wrote on April 21, 2009, 04:20PM : Flag this comment as inappropriate

  Given all the other issues surrounding the production and consumption of meat, dairy, and other animal products, the switch to grass-fed cattle seems to do very little in making our steaks any more "guilt-free." A responsible account of agricultural and commercial practices, nutrition, and, in particular, the environmental effects of "burger" should be less worried about alleviating the psychological anxiety surrounding our choices and more focused on bringing to light previously unseen relationships between humans and the earth. After all, that's what environmentalism and ecologism are (or, I think, should be) about. And when this is done, it tends to become harder and harder to conceptualize what it means for Americans to enjoy a "guilt-free steak."

• yogihaji wrote on June 03, 2009, 06:27PM : Flag this comment as inappropriate

  There is no such thing as humane meat.

• Ricker wrote on November 03, 2009, 03:04PM : Flag this comment as inappropriate

  There is no such thing as "guilt-free" factory farmed vegetables either.
  Human habitation and reproduction necessitates the conversion of habitat into productive space. This loss of habitat leads to the direct diminuition of other animal populations. Whether it is by starvation or carefully controlled production and culling, farming of any kind means that other animals die off.
  This is the nature of competition for resources, which is why animals are not friendly even to each other, unless it directly inflates their likelyhood of survival, such as in a herd mentality.
  Like it or not, a robust human population infers a less robust population of any other animal that depends on that same space for food.
  A pasture, at the very least provides a space for birds, smaller mammals, and insects to live and thrive in harmony. Unlike a field dedicated to grain or vegetables, organic or not, in which their is no chance for habitat formation.
  While buthcering and eating animals may not be called a kindness, -destroying all available habitat and thereby precipitating starvation and extinction; as well as relying on fertilizers and pesticides that poison the remaining ambient and the life in those systems,- is hardly what I would call "Guilt-Free".
  You don't have to eat meat, but a rationale person would have the good judgement to relinquish the high horse.

• Ricker wrote on November 03, 2009, 09:10PM : Flag this comment as inappropriate

  I hope you will pardon my failure to edit for spelling. I would like to think the content is more important.