True Cost of Eating Meat: Grass-Fed Beef Benefits

May 17, 2018 , Ted Slanker

True Cost of Eating Meat

Column #143

A reader sent this comment: “I wanted you to be aware of this article and perhaps you can send them some truth about what you are doing. Their article does not even talk about the great grass-fed options and is a total slam against what you do. Healthy grass-fed meats will continue to be a part of our diet.” TF

The article, “What is the true cost of eating meat?” was written by Bibi van der Zee and published in “The Guardian” on May 7, 2018.

My knee-jerk response, based on a brief scan of the article, was: “This is a typical article written by someone with an agenda using imaginary ‘facts.’ Trying to tell folks like that anything is a total waste of time and energy. They have beliefs which can’t be changed even with facts.” Then I did more research and came up with some surprising facts.

Bibi van der Zee is the commissioning editor on Animals Farmed, a Guardian global series looking at farming and food production. Animals farmed is supported by the Open Philanthropy Project. Their published agenda is: “Billions of animals each year are treated cruelly on factory farms. ... We believe that people have equal intrinsic value regardless of the circumstances of their birth, and that animals’ lives have value, too. We believe economic development and technological innovation have greatly increased human well-being.”

Their agenda, which they hope to accelerate, in so many words is: People should not eat animals and we’re so smart with our “increased human well-being” that we no longer need to eat animals.

This all-to-familiar message is preached by the PETA, vegetarian, and anti-red-meat crowds. It ignores science and has religious overtones. Consequently it’s based on beliefs that are backed by “facts” that are often highly flawed and/or narrowly focused.

In an email exchange some years ago I debated with a “scientist” who wrote a widely publicized report about water usage and grass-fed beef. Her assumption was that 50% of the pastureland required irrigation. She was dead wrong and refused to admit it even after being shown the government data refuting her assumptions. The actual US data is:
●    Cropland - about 349 million acres
●    Range and Pasture Land - about 788 million acres
●    Total irrigated acres - about 55.5 million acres
●    Total irrigated acres of harvested cropland is about 52 million acres

Clearly, 95% of the irrigated farmland is for raising food for humans and grain-fed livestock. Less than 0.5% of the range and pastureland is irrigated. That means more than 99% of the grazing lands depend solely on natural rainfall. Feedlots are a different matter because 100% of the feed is provided. But feedlots are only for finishing young cattle which takes about 155 days per critter. During that period the cattle are fed a ration that is about 80% grain and 20% hay. About 15% of that feed by volume requires irrigation beyond natural rainfall.

The studies referring to the cost of water indicate that most of the water (98%) refers to the water required to raise the feed for the animals. But how can you say that natural rainfall on cropland, pastureland, and rangeland is a cost. The rain falls naturally and the crops and grasses grow naturally. Man, even with his “increased human well-being,” cannot survive eating the forages that grow on range and pasture land. Only livestock can thrive on grasses, leaves, and such. When man stocks the range and pasture lands with livestock he converts what grows on the land to a useful, healthy food. If the animals were not grazing those lands, the forages would grow and die and be nothing more than a fire hazzard. Erosion would be extensive.

The people claiming “increased human well-being” can’t claim that natural rainfall on grasslands only utilized by livestock is a cost burden on the world ecology. Furthermore, we know that there is a natural symbiotic relationship between rangeland, animals, grasses, and rainfall that are good for world ecology. Livestock raised on range and pasture land do not require farming (machinery, plowing of soils, fallow land, irrigation equipment, etc.) and they are still a very good, relatively low cost food source. On the other hand, farming is not a symbiotic relationship with nature.

In terms of water efficiency the crops “scientists” claim as the most water efficient are: Sugar, vegetables, starchy roots (potatoes), fruit, cereals, oil crops, pulses, nuts. They claim sugar is 78 times more efficient than cattle.

Most vegetables are very nutritional foods. But according to Pennsylvania State University “Most horticultural crops require irrigation to minimize plant stress.” At a minimum they need one inch of water per week. One bad week can damage a crop. But that’s not true with range and pasture land. The grasses can go weeks and even months without rainfall.

In terms of nutritional food production, grass-fed meats are slightly better than even kale and spinach. Because grass-fed meats are nutrient dense and diverse, zero glycemic, with a perfect source of Omega-6 to Omega-3 essential fatty acids (EFAs) balanced 1:1, they blow away the comparative nutrition of sugar, many vegetables, all starchy roots, fruits, cereals, oil crops, pulses, and nuts.

The long-term consumption of high glycemic crops and carbohydrates damages health. Grains, nuts, some fruits, seeds, grain-fed meats, most oils, and even some vegetables are high in inflammatory Omega-6 EFAs and low in Omega-3. They cause the Omega-3 deficiency which is detrimental to the function of the brain, nervous system, and immunity and is associated with nearly every known chronic disease.

The anti meat crowds ignore the fact that all farming (grain and vegetables) is on premium land. The raising of livestock is usually on less productive land and even scrub land. Therefore, one can’t directly compare the resources required to raise all livestock versus all crops. Since most Americans, as well as those with religious agendas, have so little knowledge of agriculture, biology, nutrition, and anthropology, the erroneous schmooze-filled reports they promote sound nice but are totally misleading.

Agriculture, food, and related industries make up 5.5% of the gross domestic product (GDP). About 18% (up from 5% in 1960) of the 2017 GDP was spent on healthcare with about 85% of it for treating chronic diseases. Food is dirt cheap compared to the cost of healthcare requirements brought on by eating sugar, grains, grain-fed meats, nuts, seeds, fruit, and even some vegetables. But the PETA-vegetarian types ignore these facts while drumming up fake costs for the world’s healthiest foods.

In the end the Open Philanthropy Project suggests that we should live on beans rather than meats. For the health of mankind, our pets, and literally for the health of the planet . . . I think not.

To your health.

Ted Slanker

Ted Slanker has been reporting on the fundamentals of nutritional research in publications, television and radio appearances, and at conferences since 1999. He condenses complex studies into the basics required for health and well-being. His eBook, The Real Diet of Man, is available online.

Don’t miss these links for additional reading:

What is the true cost of eating meat? From The Guardian

Farm Animal Welfare

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) from Wikipedia

Water Footprint of Crop and Animal Products: a Comparison by Global Water Footprint Standard

The Truth About Land Use in the United States

USDA Reports 55.3 Million Acres of Irrigated U.S. Farmland

Irrigation for Fruit and Vegetable Production by the College of Agricultural Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University

Six Reasons We Need Grazing Animals by Alan Newport at beefproducer.com

Allan Savory: How to Fight Desertification and Reverse Climate Change ...

Can Livestock Grazing Stop Desertification? by Colin Sullivan, in Scientific American

Ag and Food Sectors and the Economy from USDA