I grew up on a (very) small farm - so I knew where all the meat we ate (and eggs, apple, plums and jam) came from.
One of the things I find most disconcerting as an adult is the disconnect with the food I eat. Even the local 'farmer butcher' - I don't actually know if the meat they sell me is what they say it is.
I buy a lot of deer from a friend of a friend as it feels slightly more known to me - even if I have no idea about what the deer actually ate in it's life.
I grew up similarly and it's part of the reason I've cut back on my meat.
Shoving 100 cattle into a 1 acre feed lot for their entire lives is unfortunately how a lot of beef is produced. They spend their lives covered in shit, sleeping in shit, and trapped with no where to roam.
And instead of addressing this problem, my state (Idaho) made it illegal to take photos of the issue. [1]
I keep seeing people make this claim that cattle spend their entire lives on feed lots, but I've never seen this anywhere and I've been all over cattle country. Where do they do this? Because around here feedlots are only for finishing cattle and typically only spend about 2-3 months there after having very happy lives as calves on a ranch.
> I keep seeing people make this claim that cattle spend their entire lives on feed lots, but I've never seen this anywhere and I've been all over cattle country. Where do they do this?
Nobody does that, it’d be way too expensive. People here on HN have absolutely zero knowledge of how industrial cattle farming operates and have some really bizarre beliefs about the process. Largely because their only experience with it is the supermarket meat section and passing those massive stinky feedlots along the CA I5.
For everyone else: After a calf is raised and weaned from their mother, they are sent to “background” on pasture and the last few months a cow spends packed in a feedlot is just to fatten it up for human consumption. These are usually steps done by different companies altogether. The whole point of beef is utilizing marginal land that can’t grow human food. It converts tons of grassland to usable farmland, and that pasture makes up 2/3 of the total agricultural land in the US.
>"The whole point of beef is utilizing marginal land that can’t grow human food."
FYI: 36% of corn is grown just to feed cattle/livestock. I'm trying to breed chickens that are less dependent on commercial foods, so I'm somewhat familiar with the topic.
That's also very misleading because the vast majority of the corn we feed cows isn't fed to them fresh. It's distillers grains, an industrial waste from ethanol production: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distillers_grains
It's a cheap type of corn [1] only grown on marginal farmland that is one step above pasture land.
I'm not here to police tone, but it sounded like you were disagreeing with the parent comment but your factual claims do not appear to disagree.
>> typically only spend about 2-3 months there after having very happy lives as calves on a ranch.
> After a calf is raised and weaned from their mother, they are sent to “background” on pasture and the last few months a cow spends packed in a feedlot is just to fatten it up for human consumption.
The only difference is the introduction of "sent to “background” on pasture" which arguably is not different from "happy lives as calves on a ranch" given different interpretations of calf to distinguish between baby and adolescent cattle.
Many western states have much stricter views on property rights and trespassing than the coasts. The penalties are generally higher even if not dealing with this specific scenario. Even regular ID trespassing law can carry 6mo-1y jail time depending on the circumstances, etc.
One often overlooked thing that isn't particularly applicable in this case is the biosecurity aspect involved in agricultural trespassing. Even trespassing in agricultural areas without taking pictures can carry higher penalties in many states.
in other states, these penalties only exist for slaughterhouses, if you broke into a Beyond meat factory and filmed you wouldn’t be eligible for same penalties
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Most of the agricultural trespassing, disruption, etc laws don't just apply to slaughterhouses, but also include the farms and such. Many states have general secret recording that apply to nearly all scenarios if you're referring to recording. If you're talking about just trespass, if you "broke" into a beyond meat facility you would in fact face similar penalties in other western states with similar property rights culture. I believe even the ID law would result in 6-12mo maximum jail if you broke into the factory (might even qualify as burglary with higher penalties depending on specifics).
I personally empathize more with the concerns of poor humans than I do mistreated animals and increasing food costs seems likely to increase their pain. I'll gladly wait for technology to improve the lives of animals, but I think it's important our legislation focuses entirely on improving the life of people, exclusively.
Beef is incredibly expensive in terms of costs of food, land, and water -- and in high density situations - rapid disease spread (and post consumption disease spread via cancer, metabolic, and heart disease)
By promoting sustainable diets, mostly vegetarian with optional beef splurges
> but I think it's important our legislation focuses entirely on improving the life of people, exclusively
What about the activists who are motivated by a genuine belief that this is wrong and believe it's their life's work to raise awareness of the issue? Throwing them in jail isn't improving their lives - what framework are you using to pick losers & winners of the people you help vs hurt?
"Throwing them in jail isn't improving their lives - what framework are you using to pick losers & winners of the people you help vs hurt?"
Seems to be the combined wishes of the constituents. Same theory applies to most topics. You can see this in how different states poll on firearms (or abortion, etc) and the types of laws they have on that topic. As an extreme example, the same person can carry the same gun in two different states and be lawful in one and committing a felony in another without causing any damage simply because the values and beliefs expressed by the populations results in different laws. They might even qualify to carry lawfully in both states but are missing a piece of paper confirming it. That's how the laws works - break it and suffer consequences. Maybe it's worth it depeding on your moral convictions. Don't like it, then change the law. In the case of agricultural tresspass, the law is not likely to change in ID based on the current views of the population there.
Improving the lives of animals directly improves the lives of humans. Who do you think is eating them? Feeding them? Building their shelters and living near them? Slaughtering them and butchering them? Animal welfare is a public health issue. People have caught bird flu and died!
A picture is worth a thousand words, so the voice of the industry would become too expensive (bribes, oh excuse me, lobbying and consulting) if the public can use pictures. Hence, pictures are forbidden.
Unless my understanding of 'misrepresentation' is incorrect, and I'm neither a lawyer nor an American, but I find the law to outlaw basic journalism, including and especially the below section which seems to specifically outlaw undercover journalism. What's reasonable about that?
> (c) Obtains employment with an agricultural production facility by force, threat, or misrepresentation with the intent to cause economic or other injury to the facility’s operations, livestock, crops, owners, personnel, equipment, buildings, premises, business interests or customers;
If the definition of undercover journalism is simply lying about ones identity in order to publish secrets with the intent to cause injury to another party, then yes, absolutely, I'm in favor of outlawing it, and a 1 year max seems generous.
I think what they're saying there is "I was just taking pictures... noooo, you will break my camera!!! you evil brute!" when you say GTFO is no defense.
Not saying there aren't weird laws. Check the notions of boxed squares (miles) and airspace. Some of these need addressing at the federal level.
> Shoving 100 cattle into a 1 acre feed lot for their entire lives is unfortunately how a lot of beef is produced. They spend their lives covered in shit, sleeping in shit, and trapped with no where to roam.
And then being shoved into a truck, shipped who knows how many thousand miles to a butchering facility that does it for 3c cheaper and then end up in a line with all your peers to be killed in a horribly industrialized way.
When I lived in central Europe there was a story about pigs or cows, I don't remember, being shipped to Morocco for butchering, imagine that!
People would be vegetarians in a heartbeat if they saw how meat is produced.
> And instead of addressing this problem, my state (Idaho) made it illegal to take photos of the issue. [1]
I agree with you--feedlots are disgusting and cruel.
However, cattle do not spend their "entire lives" at a feedlot. Usually only the last few months (or less) before slaughter. Prior to that, that majority of cattle live in very open and pleasant conditions.
I'm in the UK - but yes he's a registered 'pest controller' - he gets paid by local farmers to keep the invasive deer population low (muncjac and Chinese water deer), and is also licenced to sell the meat. You can get either a whole/half skinned and basically butchered deer from him, or any selected cuts, for £9 a kg - which pretty damn cheap really!
That is a fantastic deal for meat you can feel good about! I pay that much for pork at the big organic grocery chain in Germany (ebl) that I can only hope they’re telling the truth about, and far more for the occasional beef steak there.
I live in America. I buy half-beef from a farmer down the road. His cows are pastured all the time, grass-fed and grass-finished. It costs me $3.50/lb to do this and that includes dozens of steaks - all cuts and ground beef etc. are the same flat rate.
This isn't a special deal either, this is how the guy makes his living, along with some other farm products.
Depends which jurisdiction. It’s legal in the UK if you have a license and I think it has to be professionally butchered and labelled at a registered slaughterhouse.
That should be the last concern of any decent human being. If they outlaw breathing, will you stop? Hunting is something our species has done for over a billion years by this point.
1) equivocating hunting with breathing? One is necessary for life, the other is done by less than a quarter of people, and for most of them it’s just a hobby.
2) slavery has also been done probably since humanity began millions of years ago, so that clearly is not sufficient for something shoulding be legal.
Hunting is just as necessary for life as breathing. Domestication of animals and agriculture are the unnatural ways that man has invented. So banning it is banning the most natural human behaviour. All other predators do nothing except hunt, breathe, drink, sleep and mate. And they don't keep slaves.
There's a lot of people who never drink water, but drinking water is still essential and shouldn't be outlawed.
That doesn't make any sense. What makes hunting any more natural than agriculture? Isn't exerting control over our environment one of the defining characteristics of humanity?
>> Hunting is something our species has done for over a billion years by this point.
Sustenance hunting yes, but the rules about selling wild meat are to prevent market hunting. There are more humans by weight than any other land animal. If the general population started eating hunted meat, any wild population would be wiped out. So we have careful rules to ensure hunters do not hunt simply to sell the meat.
I agree that there is a difference, but a very small difference. Even animals share their prey with those who didn't participate in the hunt.
If the general population started eating hunted meat, vast agricultural areas would be returned to nature, giving a slight offset to that problem.
But jumping back to reality, those people who actually hunt and purchase hunted meat right now are people who care about nature and shepherd it with responsibility. They can safely ignore any hacker that starts yapping about some law written by unnatural people.
> If the general population started eating hunted meat, vast agricultural areas would be returned to nature, giving a slight offset to that problem.
I don't think the math works here. There isn't enough agricultural area on the planet to sustainably generate enough hunted Calories for the general population.
It’s simple… harvesting more than the population you are hunting can sustain. A lot of animals outside or deer are regulated through a lottery system, if everyone who wanted to hunt a bear, mountain goat, or cougar did every year, we’d have none.
We have deer seasons for a reason. Lots of times you can only hunt the male bucks to keep populations in check. People have decimated populations. Look at the Goliath Grouper ban in Florida and how the species has recovered.
I've moved to a meat buying strategy of "only buy meat if you've met the farmer".
I don't object to eating meat, but so much of the industrial meat production world is a nightmare. From disease risk, to abuse of animals, to slash and burn, to waste.
By buying meat from a local farmer, you can eliminate a lot of that. You end up eating less meat, probably, but we buy a whole cow every few years and divvy it up between friends. You could do that more or less often if you still wanted to eat a lot of meat.
I can see two reasons: maybe it is not cheaper, or maybe there's not enough for local consumers. There should definitely be some economic incentive somewhere.
Higher quality is debatable, foreign imports are not necessarily "lower quality", I'm a Brazilian so I'm on the other side of the coin, our beef is anything but low quality. The problem that the article wants to expose is that much of it is raised on illegal ranches, more often than not on the deflorested Amazon.
Being local is not something that food chains care about.
Doubtful that the mass ranched cattle is raised to the same quality standards as in America, especially if they know their beef is going to fast food. Ex. Grass fed, hormone-free
Also I understand what the article points out about illegal ranches supplying corporations but Who eats the food from the food chains?
This is why I mentioned the word debatable. Brazil has high-quality standards for cattle; I specifically live in an agribusiness state in Brazil (very far away from the Amazon, although still having ecological problems). The absolute majority of cattle here are raised in free-range being grass-fed, without any hormones, and this is exactly the problem, free-ranging demands a lot of land, and ultimately this land is being made by cutting down old-growth forests.
Let's not make assumptions about quality when we don't have enough information from each country to make an educated guess. I will point out that Brazil is the largest exporter of agricultural products in the West, and we comply with very demanding markets, including the US. The problem being cited is not about quality—we are compliant with the FDA—but the ethics of ranging cattle in previously Amazon forests
Right I never said it was about quality. I asked why an American would buy exported beef and quality obviously is a factor in a buying decision. Quality has to be proven, something that is difficult to understand and prove when the product is an export.
I am asking a different question than what is demonstrated by the article, intentionally.
Because it’s cheaper for Mc’Donalds and Burger King but probably not for the average consumer. Grocery store beef quality has gone down after Covid except Prime grade and local butchers $$$.
For context, I've known that McDonald's uses rain forest beef since the mid-1980s when my dad first told me about it. I thought they stopped that for a while, but nope:
Nothing has been done to stop it because of a number of cultural problems: 1) Americans love beef: "why would I eat what food eats?" 2) America could stop all conflict around the world, from deforestation to war to civil rights abuses, if that wasn't directly at odds with the appetites of our capitalist empire and 3) scarcity mindset for survival has so dominated the Global South for so long that nature is seen as a resource to be exploited, far below even the dignity of human life, due to unrelenting debt pressure from the IMF to create a wage slave class for harvesting cash crops and labor/resource-intensive commodities like beef.
For anyone interested in the numbers behind how bad beef and deforestation are for the environment, see Hannah Ritchie’s great new book Not the End of the World.
As a counter point, livestock are a critical part of the regenerative ag movement.
Our property was farmland for 150 years before it basically ran out of nutrients in the 1970s. After one year of a pretty good harvest (not great) in 2019, we couldn't grow anything. One home testing kit later, and we found that there were virtually no minerals in the soil.
Fast forward five years and between heavy composting and generating a very healthy amount of bird waste, we're just starting to restore the nutrient balance in the soil. The next step (in progress) is planting some native grasses and low lying shrubs to try and break up the practically impenetrable clay pan that exists below the soil.
Many people dislike meat eating, and I understand that, but developing a healthy relationship with the land practically requires some form of livestock. We are turning "dead" land into highly productive pasture literally in one growing cycle.
Kitchen scraps and forage mostly. We did add some feed during the winter because we miscalculated our needs.
We aren't doing anything intensive, and we don't have chickens or pigs. I did the math, and it doesn't really seem like you can have chickens or pigs just range, you have to supplement their diet in some way. Geese on the other hand are like...the best animals for regenerative ag, maybe next to sheep.
We will probably get chickens at some point (unless we miraculously can range enough ducks for eggs), but we will have to buy in their feed.
This is currently downvoted, but it's a valid question. The concept at play is "ghost acres". The idea being that you might have a wonderful regenerated plot of productive land, but if it requires a massive amount of land elsewhere to maintain, you might not have gained as much as you think.
Rgenerative AG is BS. For example, they'll talk about how they sequester CO2, but fail to mention that after 10 years, the ground reaches a limit, from which point forward it produces far more CO2 than our current meat production.
They'll also ignore any imports into the system from conventional sources. SO, they'll feed conventionally grown feed, but not include that in their numbers.
In the end, even if regenerative farming was any good, the amount of meat we could afford to produce (aka without using too much land, water or other resources) is so tiny that 90% of our food would end up being vegan anyway.
What is the solution to recover topsoil in the midwest without cattle? I'd also be for returning the buffalo that made it so fertile in the first place, but clearly what we're doing now is not sustainable.
Beef in itself is not bad for the environment. It's the scale of demand that is bad. And that demand is fueled by the combined effects of global population growth and global increase in standards of living.
We tend to stop at the symptoms instead of going after the root cause.
> Beef in itself is not bad for the environment. It's the scale of demand that is bad.
Wasting crops feeding cattle is inherently worse than the alternative, feeding directly on the crops and avoiding the wasting of calories when going up one trophic level.
"A large amount of beef is grown in areas that are not suitable for crop farming in the United States. In fact, 85% of the land used to graze cattle in the U.S. is marginal land, which means it's not suitable for growing crops. Marginal land is either untouched or used for grazing livestock, mostly cattle"
Grain finishing is another matter. But it's not a 1 grain : 1/10th beef type situation.
Now chopping and burning down the amazon to create grazing land for cattle? yeah that's going to probably kill us all.
They're gonna chop and burn it down either way, it'll either be for cattle or if you make eating meat illegal they'll chop and burn it for something else like palm oil.
Like it's obvious the people who own and control that land don't care about it anywhere near as much as you do so if you want them to stop chopping it down essentially you're gonna need to start paying them not to. Just seems naive to think stopping specifically poor people from eating meat is the solution to this.
If you take away one of the profitable reasons to chop down the Amazon, it’ll reduce people doing it at the margin - that is simply facts.
> Poor people from eating meat
Yeah and a carbon tax will stop poor people from using as much gas, etc. - if we want to solve climate change we cannot just insulate all poor people from externality pricing.
Yes, but now give out the statistics on how much of the calories fed to cows in total in the US or worldwide is actually grazing and how much is from crops that need extra area apart from where the animals graze. Even cattle that grazes is often supplemented with grain, and the grain is of course much more calorie-dense.
So the answer to "what would we do with all that land we can't put crops on" is "whatever we want". For example, we could just leave it be nature, since we don't need it for farming.
Seriously, the is a big problem in the US. Cattle are grazed on BLM land and they trample all the stream banks to such an extent that riparian ecosystems are totally destroyed. And in exchange the grazing fee is only $1/head/month! If you stand at the point where a stream crosses from a fenced conservation area into a grazing area, the difference across the boundary is stark.
> Now chopping and burning down the amazon to create grazing land for cattle? yeah that's going to probably kill us all.
How?
I mean, I'm not a fan of destroying forests, etc, but around here, there is no unmanaged land so presumably all the forests were already burnt etc for farmers... But we're all around, right? I don't get how burning the Amazon for food people want will actually kill us.
Because the rainforest is important in regulating global temperature and oxygen production, much more so than the (probable) temperate climate forests you are from.
You are living in a post destruction area, with new forests planted to supplement the destruction that was there before. Most of these forests aren't more than 70 years old, that's about when we finally made an effort to fix how badly we totally fucked up and why people needed clean air to not die from lung cancer (among other things). The loss of biodiversity, air quality, etc. already occurred. You are a survivor. What's more, your survival was in part supported by the air quality of other virgin forests further away from you that weren't yet cut down. But now that they are being cut down, there's less left to support you.
In short, you're asking yourself why you shouldn't shoot yourself in the foot again, because you managed to survive the first shot and it looks to you like it healed just fine (it didn't).
That's an uneeded "optimisation". There is nothing wrong with eating meat and breeding cattle. Again, the issue is that the environment has a limited, finite capacity, which we exceed when we are 10 billion with good standards of living.
To reduce quality of life (because it's not limited to meat, it's comprehensive restrictions) simply to accomodate ever more humans on the planet is madness and unsustainable, anyway.
PS: Let's also remember, for example, that 50-60 million bisons roamed North America before European settlement, whereas there are about 28 million beef cows in the US today (according to Google).
> There is nothing wrong with eating meat and breeding cattle.
You're not doing a whole lot to explain why there is nothing wrong with eating meat and breeding cattle. I can think of a whole host of reasons why it is wrong in matters of ethics and mercy. Who is there to advocate for the cow? We know cows feel a gamut of emotions just as we do. They are not insensate. Most humans, when given a knife or a captive bolt gun and told to go kill that cow on yonder would not. So we externalize the death-making to slaughterhouse workers who coincidentally also suffer:
> ...SHWs had significantly higher levels of depression compared with office workers, but not butchers. The difference in depression rates differed from study to study, ranging from 10% to 50% [1]
There's really no good, ethical argument to be made for the killing of animals for food or pleasure. Did we need to do it once to survive as a species? Yes. Are we largely living in a post-scarcity world where those practices should now be challenged? Yes.
> You're not doing a whole lot to explain why there is nothing wrong with eating meat and breeding cattle.
Why should explain why something is NOT bad ? It's up to you to convince him (or others) that it is bad, and the reasoning "according to MY ethics it is bad" is not a good argument.
There is a good argument to be made that in the West we should eat less meat, but that doesn't mean removing it completely: it is harder to make a balanced vegan diet, so for most people that would mean a less healthy outcome that just eating a moderate amount of meat.
There is nothing wrong or unethical with eating meat. It is a natural behaviour, which we are evolved for, and in fact a necessary animal behaviour within the environment at large.
If you do not wish to eat meat for personal reasons you are free to do so of course but I object to the current trend of minority groups trying to impose their views to the whole of society and to paint those who disagree as 'wrong'.
Another way to cast the meat vs crops debate is "true pricing": the growing demand for meat is not simply a result of growing population or growing standards of living, but caused by ignoring "externalities".
I.e.: if the true impact of turning crops into meat were reflected in the price of a hamburger, demand elasticity would eventually result in much less production. Or: growing meat consumption is mostly a result of implicit subsidies to maintain status quo, ignore climate change,etc.
Why is it always impossible to have an adult discussion on this issue? (An interesting question for academics, I think)
Obviously we are all people. The question is do we keep chasing an ever increasing population or do we accept that it cannot keep growing and should in fact probably decrease?
Most developed countries have birth rates below replacement rate so this is already happening. We need to accept it and adapt.
Agreed. Check out /r/keto and /r/zerocarb for some great research about the natural human diet. Humans have eaten beef (exclusively even) for billions of years.
> China’s outsized contribution to the global greening trend comes in large part (42%) from programs to conserve and expand forests. These were developed in an effort to reduce the effects of soil erosion, air pollution and climate change. Another 32% there – and 82% of the greening seen in India – comes from intensive cultivation of food crops.
If the green of pristine forests is replaced by the green desert of a monocultural eucalyptus planted forest, or the green of grass pastures, it's still a big ecological net loss.
But it's not at all an """Incovenient""" truth. The fact that plants use CO2 to grow, and that more CO2 can result in more ruffage growing is uncontroversial.
It also does nothing to offset the actual problems with increasing CO2 levels!
I agree with you on reforestation. As a matter of fact, Northern Europe was almost completely deforested only 100 years ago, and is now one of the greenest parts of the planet. Looking at old photographs from that time, you won't recognise places. It is disgusting listening to these Germans and French sitting on their high horses and trying to impose their will onto a country on the other side of the world, while not planting any trees in their own deforested nations.
"Forest" is a 3-D bulk tonnage of captured (for now at least) carbon dioxide.
This increase in the colour green that you tout hasn't made a dent in reducing the ever increasing amount of insulating CO2 in the atmosphere.
Otherwise yellow grasses being greener due to increased CO2 is of some small interest, but it's not the same as a similar area X height of large trees in terms of capture.
Just pragmnatic facts, not a "convenient" or "inconvenient" "truth".
Killing off most of the bison shifted lots of land from grassland to forest. Forest is greener than grassland but doesn’t necessarily store more carbon.
More to your implied point, deforestation can happen one place and afforestation/reforestation another at the same time. Even a net increase in forest worldwide doesn’t make the loss of Brazilian rainforests are any better
A month or so ago a ship filled with 19,000 Brazilian cattle destined for the Middle East docked in Cape Town. The cows were living in such horrendous conditions that the stink of the ship took over the entire city. Living in pools of excrement, sick, lame, pregnant and even dead cows among them. The South African animal protection service had to put many down.
It's easy, its right to blame the Bolsonaro regime for having ramped up cattle farming in the Amazon leading to situations like this. It's harder to think of them when we have beef on our plates.
Don't see why halal needs live imports. The main thing is theyre slaughtered in a halal way. Presumably it's just cheaper to ship them live (or just about) to the middle east and then slaughter them there than send halal qualified slaughters to Brazil and then ship over frozen meat.
Also, don't think it's right to let Brazil off the hook here - it's their cattle ranching practices and export legislation.
It’s really profitable to. I know a Greek fella that transports goats in bulk and has said it’s very profitable due to not many ships fitted to do it well.
One of the things I find most disconcerting as an adult is the disconnect with the food I eat. Even the local 'farmer butcher' - I don't actually know if the meat they sell me is what they say it is.
I buy a lot of deer from a friend of a friend as it feels slightly more known to me - even if I have no idea about what the deer actually ate in it's life.