Eat grass-fed beef, help the planet? Research says not so simple

I need to look at this study and see what assumptions are in the model, but based just on this story above I'm troubled by the idea that the authors conclude, "even in the best-case scenarios, the amount of carbon that grasses could sequester didn’t make up for the emissions of the cattle." If truly only pasture fed, all the carbon from the cows ultimately come from the grasses grazed upon in the pastures. If the rate of sequestration is lower than the rate of emission, the pastures would be eventually be overgrazed. This is by definition not best-practice for cattle ranching and rotational grazing, casting doubt on the assumptions used in the model. While traditional ranching most likely can not support the same demand as industrial farming, it flies in the face of basic evolution and ecology to think that traditional cattle ranching is equivalent to industrial farming with regards to carbon production.

As highlighted, the current world wide feeding frenzy for beef has no shortage of environmental impacts esp in use of resources such as water.

Aside from the emissions debate, for me the actual fact that so much land across the globe is being devoted to the mono-culture of beef at the expense of other far more productive uses, is the sticking point.

60 years ago global meat production - predominantly beef - was around 70 mill tons and is now about 360 mill tons per annum, and rapidly increasing.

This is just not sustainable regardless of methods - open pasture or factory farming.

3.5+ billion hectares are used directly for livestock pasture or growing livestock fodder out of a world availability of about 4.8 billion hectares.

Just crazy.

Sensible advice from the article -

"don't make beef a habit."

I eat grass fed beef and butter because it is more nutritious something that is omitted from this article which I find to be odd.

In Japan, grass-fed beef is mainly only available online from the likes of Horizon Farms. We try to buy Japanese Black Beef when the price is good. Not all black beef is grass-fed.

ffs

Where are you buying grass-fed beef from?

Wallace

Aeon Malls have grass fed beef from Australia. I don’t eat often to be honest, I do eat plenty of butter though, always grass fed from New Zealand or Australia. Not much higher priced than domestic butter and I prefer the taste.

Not often I agree with FFS,but Tasmanian beef from Aeon is the best I have had here, admittedly a very low bar,and especially when it is discontinued by half after 5 p.m.

We buy Australian beef. It is never labeled as anything other than Australian beef. 97% of it is grass-fed. Cheaper than Japanese beef.

You can buy it online from. It's expensive. New Zealand beef is only online.

Whole Meat

https://wholemeat.jp/collections/beef?gad_source=1

I mainly buy grass-fed Australian beef from Aeon/Daiei as well. But I don't buy into the nonsense this "article" is based on, which is trying to demonise nutritious, healthy meat in favour of plant-based foods and processed slop.

 But I don't buy into the nonsense this "article" is based on,

You mean science, that is what the article is based on. You are here accepting to have a deep antiscientific bias that does not let you accept what can be demonstrated with scientific data and instead persist on a belief that can be demonstrated wrong. That is not a desirable position, not a rational one.

Animals that are fattened up in fields instead of feedlots grow more slowly and don't get as big, so it takes more of them to produce the same amount of meat.

Yes, grain fed cows in feedlots fatten quicker, but they are nowhere close to as healthy as grass fed cows, both in terms of the cow's health and in terms of the nutritional value of their meat.

The researchers used a numerical model of the emissions produced across the process of raising beef, then simulated many herds of industrial and grass-fed cattle. 

Another modeling study that supports a certain agenda. I've seen too many examples demonstrating the benefits of regenerative farming (restoring soil health, increasing biodiversity and CO2 biosequestration) to ignore it all because of a model.

There are too many examples of faulty models.

Yes, grain fed cows in feedlots fatten quicker, but they are nowhere close to as healthy as grass fed cows, both in terms of the cow's health and in terms of the nutritional value of their meat.

Nothing that would matter ecologically, and also both kinds of meat still have high content of saturated fats which means both are considered unhealthy.

Another modeling study that supports a certain agenda

And since you have exactly zero arguments to refute the methods or conclusions your accusations of a conspiracy are irrelevant. When a study demonstrates something scientifically the only arguments that can be used to refute the conclusions need to be also scientifica.

I've seen too many examples demonstrating the benefits of regenerative farming (restoring soil health, increasing biodiversity and CO2 biosequestration) to ignore it all because of a model.

That means you have not read the article, what is the point of doing something in a slightly less damaging way when you have to do it at triple the scale for the same results? that is the whole point of the study being described.

There are too many examples of faulty models.

Yet you could not find even one single fault in this one.

Nothing that would matter ecologically, and also both kinds of meat still have high content of saturated fats which means both are considered unhealthy.

Only by people who've swallowed the net-zero AND nonsense about saturated fats being dangerous thanks to fraudulent "science" on both counts.

Only by people who've swallowed the net-zero AND nonsense about saturated fats being dangerous thanks to fraudulent "science" on both counts.

You have provided exactly zero scientific evidence or arguments about science being fraudulent. Zero.

That means you can't use that argument since it is only a personal belief born from antiscientific bias and not something that you can actually support with anything. Which is the same as what other antiscientific propaganda groups like flat earthers or creationist do, when pushed to prove their claims they also simply use the excuse that science is fraudulent, even when they can never even explain how, much less prove it.

 But I don't buy into the nonsense this "article" is based on,

You mean science, that is what the article is based on.

No, the article is based on a model, dressed up as "science".

both kinds of meat still have high content of saturated fats which means both are considered unhealthy.

Yeah, there is some evidence associating saturated fat with higher LDL, but the LDL causing cardiovascular disease narrative has been crumbling for quite a while already.

But I don't think anyone can seriously say that grass-fed beef is not healthier.

No, the article is based on a model, dressed up as "science".

Completely wrong, the models are validated scientifically, you have made exactly zero scientific arguments disqualifying the report, just expect people to believe you know more about science than professionals scientists that clearly, explicitly describe their methods for anybody to examine without any criticism coming from anywhere about their methods nor their conclusion.

Yeah, there is some evidence associating saturated fat with higher LDL, but the LDL causing cardiovascular disease narrative has been crumbling for quite a while already.

Not at all, the experts have clearly showed LDL causes cardiovascular disease, that it reduction by the use of statins (specially the latest, more effective ones) clearly reduce cardiovascular risk have made this relationship even more obvious.

There is exactly zero institutions of medical science that say the relationship of LDL and cardiovascular disease is not clearly causative.