Defending Beef the Case for Sustainable Meat Production Problems With
See a Problem?
Thanks for telling us about the problem.
Friend Reviews
Community Reviews
This book says not only is that true but it's actually the key to sustainability. The author highlights what is being termed "Regenerative" grazing on grassland with cattle as a solution to the environmental depletion caused by commercial agriculture and mono-cropping. She whole heartedly misrepresents the data in a delusional attempt to not only keep beef on the table but purports that it's necessary fro
Is raising cattle on grassland better for the environment than confined feeding operations?This book says not only is that true but it's actually the key to sustainability. The author highlights what is being termed "Regenerative" grazing on grassland with cattle as a solution to the environmental depletion caused by commercial agriculture and mono-cropping. She whole heartedly misrepresents the data in a delusional attempt to not only keep beef on the table but purports that it's necessary from an environmental standpoint.
Is raising cattle locally on grassland more sustainable than CAFOs? It might seem self-evident on the surface to a person looking for a reason to continue eating animal products, making a book like this dangerous to the future of life on this planet.
Are mono-crops and tilling part of the problem? Absolutely, but to claim that there is no other models for a plant based system without animal inputs (veganic permaculture and agroforestry) is dishonest. It's also dishonest to attribute the scale of agriculture, deforestation and soybean crops solely to plant eaters and fail to mention that as the system currently exists most crops are fed to animals. This book mixes the fantasy of "best" possible animal agriculture systems by blaming the reality of what they are on people who abstain from beef.
There is no argument for animal manure or animal bodies for soil fertility. What is manure? Fermented, Digested, and Nutritionally depleted plant matter. Composting plant matter directly and cover cropping is a much faster and efficient way to amend the damage mass grazing, mass tilling and deforestation have done. Bone and blood meal are also an ineffective way to recover nutrients that would have been directly obtained in greater quantities and quality directly from the foods mass fed or grazed to animals.
The better question to ask is, What is the most sustainable way to eat and live?
I recommend Food Choice and Sustainability by Dr. Richard Oppenlander for anyone who cares about finding out.
I recommend The Vegetarian Myth by Lierre Keith for anyone who wants to remain in the delusional world of nonveganism. Spoiler for that book and it's author - Lierre was never Vegan so her critique of any health aspects are imaginative at best. Plants are missing nutrients animal flesh contains. I have not met a single person who can elaborate on which nutrients aren't found in plants - I have yet to meet a nonvegan who knows even a slight amount about nutrition and how they get it - but bygone regardless of the mathematics and biological functions involved they are sure they are getting more and better nutrition. Must be an intuition drawn out of their soul.
...more
Her argument is simple: eat beef, but it from local ranchers who care about the quality and care of their cattle.
Turning inarable land
As a previous biologist-turned-lawyer, Hahn Niman defends how integral bovines are to our agricultural system and more largely the sustainability of our political economies. I found her writing to be delightful and while she's not as readable as Pollan, Hanh Niman's created a persuasive argument based on policies and science, something that is an art in itself.Her argument is simple: eat beef, but it from local ranchers who care about the quality and care of their cattle.
Turning inarable land into protein, cows are a rich source of vital nutrients, especially for the underdeveloped world which depends on bovine for economic success and the health of their communities. Hahn Niman also turns the psuedo-science and fad diets that have become normalized in the past 30 years on its head. Using government and non-partisan data to show the rise in unhealthy sugars and grains incentivized by post-WW II government policy that have lead to chronic illnesses in America, she argues that salts and preservatives are at fault and not fat. Essentially, we've entered into a biological & social contract with bovine - one where if we manage them properly, protect them from predators, and attend to their needs, they in turn give us ecological and economical sustainability through the protein of their milk and meat.
Any vegetarian who relinquished meat for ecological and moral reasons should read this book. I'm certainly glad I did.
...more
PROPERLY raised meat is not the problem,
I admittedly went back and forth on this book over the course of my reading, but came around to it as a whole. My reasoning is that Niman's title is missing a few words: "grass-fed". Nearly every single one of her arguments is based on (as her subtitle aptly says) sustainable meat production. As a raised-from-birth vegetarian and recent vegan, I simply can't argue with her points, which are meticulously (sometimes to a fault) backed up by quotes and data.PROPERLY raised meat is not the problem, and I have no problem with ethically and environmentally sustainable meat production. We AREN'T meant to be vegans or vegetarians; I accept and admit that it's a lifestyle that's typically only available those with the ability/privilege/affluence to follow such a path; except that millions of those in India/SE Asia are vegetarian for religious reasons and doing just fine...
My critique of Niman has to come from the obvious angle, first: she is a beef farmer, and is defending her livelihood from an oncoming shift in the tides of opinion. As it is with any industry-funded study, we must take the opinion of one so entrenched with a teaspoon of salt. That said, Niman clearly and repeatedly states that her problem is with industrially-raised animals, and we are both in total agreement there; she and her husband are the subjects of an entire chapter in the book that moved me from vegetarian to vegan, Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer, and they are clearly some of the best people in the industry. If anything, this book comes off as a frustrated response to the FAO's publication, Livestock's Long Shadow, that threatens her livelihood because it will get lumped in with the bad eggs; and she does, as a good lawyer would, cite numerous amounts of studies and data to show her family's methods aren't the problem.
For me, there are many back and forths: Niman points out that deforestation is wrongfully cited in the annual costs of grazing, since a tree can only be cut down once (though this ignores the fact that deforestation CONTINUES every year to meet the increasing global demands - see the 2020 burning of the Amazon). On the flip side, she engages in a frustrating amount of "whataboutism"; she cites the fact that the US only imports a tiny fraction of its soy from Brazil, but definitively states that several other countries ARE the main importers, and doesn't cite the numbers that THEY output - completely sidestepping the issue and only addressing the US's production. After all, if Brazil is exporting tons of soy for feed, then it has to be going somewhere, and THOSE locations ARE the problem, even if the US isn't that bad. Similarly, she brings up the amount of resources used/expended for beef, but rather than comparing it with meat alternatives, she switches to rice instead, saying, "look, rice has the same environmental footprint, why are people focused on cattle!" - maybe because it's all the elements of cattle that combine to make the issue a heady one, whereas rice has been a staple of Eastern cultures for millennia, so it's not really the problem at hand?
This trend continues in (perhaps the most frustrating aspect to me) that not ONCE does Niman actually state the numbers comparing grass-fed to industrialized raising of cattle. Her whole argument argues for proper raising and that industrial farming is the problem, but never tells us what the ratio is; it is impossible to use her work as a defense of beef if her slice of grass-fed sustainable, righteous farming is only 1% of the market; if so, that means 99% of meat DOES have terrible consequences, and therefore we SHOULDN'T eat meat. By refusing to make this comparison, Niman's argument loses a great deal of credibility to me. Similarly, her argument that eliminating meat won't simply be replaced by something worse is easily defeated by the fact that we have stats for the GHG/land-use/water use for alternatives to animal protein, and they all are vastly less destructive.
Going back to agreement though, this book is indeed a fantastic argument for properly-raised animal products. Between carbon sequestration, regenerative agriculture, lack of need for chemical fertilizer, improved animal welfare, water security, and more; Niman's methods of raising cattle is indeed far superior to the industrial CAFO alternative.
...more
The only reason I didn't give it five stars is because Niman often loses the thread of her own argument as she digresses into other a
A strong argument for the necessity of cattle as a source of human food, this book does an excellent job countering widespread misunderstandings and fallacies concerning beef production and consumption. Such a quick read and easily accessible by anyone, it should definitely be read by those who never come into personal contact with the production of their own food.The only reason I didn't give it five stars is because Niman often loses the thread of her own argument as she digresses into other areas. Specifically, she spends a bit too much time in places maligning other aspects of agriculture (which admittedly do deserve it) without following up on the beef side of the issue. Still, it is well worth the read for anyone interested in the sustainability and ecological responsibility of our food supply!
...more
Favorite Quote: "More to my point, non-industrialized farms and ranches, especially those with animals, create an incomparable living environment for humans, one that is formative for both individuals and the nation. Because engaging in agriculture is one of the best ways for people to stay connected with the natural world, the country benefits by having a sizable portion of its population living and working on farms and ranches. As a nation, something intangible, yet vital, is slipping away as the number of farming and ranching families declines. It is diminishing our national character.
Daily, physical, outdoor labor that's connected to the land, dependence on weather and the elements, and the intense focus on the health and well-being of animals and plants all combine to make farming and ranching vastly different from living in the country while telecommuting to an urban job. Life on a farm or ranch strengthens bodies, enlivens minds, and and enriches souls. Simply put, the farm environment cannot be created without farms. And it is a human environment eminently worth protecting."
*The caveat to all of these points, which Niman does explicitly state numerous times, is
I read this as a direct attempt to challenge myself re. my own strong (negative) beliefs about beef production and consumption. However, this book was not nearly as contrarian as I had expected, rather I agreed with essentially all the points raised*. I.e. Animals are a deeply integral part of sustainable ecological practice (which involves eating them) and beef is a very healthy addition to a balanced diet.*The caveat to all of these points, which Niman does explicitly state numerous times, is that this is grass fed, free range beef. There are almost no defensible arguments for massive scale industrialized meat production. But that is a pretty goddamn big caveat in my opinion.
...more
The discussion about how grazing by cattle is good for the land is okay, but honestly if you want a better more in-depth exploration of that topic the book Holistic Management is the way to go. And if you want to read a story about someone who grazes cattle to improve the land then the book Dirt to Soil is the way to go.
But everything else is bleh.
Especially the section about the nutriti
This book shines when the author discusses her personal experience with cattle and her husband's cattle ranch.The discussion about how grazing by cattle is good for the land is okay, but honestly if you want a better more in-depth exploration of that topic the book Holistic Management is the way to go. And if you want to read a story about someone who grazes cattle to improve the land then the book Dirt to Soil is the way to go.
But everything else is bleh.
Especially the section about the nutrition of beef was horrible. I do not deny that meat can be eaten as part of a healthy diet. However, the science that the author chooses to support this claim is shoddy at best (although nutritional science is weak in general). She also goes on a giant tangent about how sugar is terrible, processed meat is bad, and then somehow gets to support a low carb diet (she literally cites the book Wheat Belly *facepalm*).
Especially when she discusses science sh*t hits the fan. She uses weak science and then uses the weak science to try to support a poorly connected claim. For example, she uses her giant tangent on how sugar is bad to support that eating meat isn't bad for health. Yes, sugar is probably bad for health, but it being bad doesn't say anything about whether meat is good or bad for health. There are so many claims created like this it's hard to pinpoint them all. And many of the claims created like this are problematic and sources she selects are extremely cherry picked. There is also a double standard where science that doesn't support her claim is criticized for its methods but the science she selects to support her claims are not held to the same level of scrutiny. I don't necessarily believe that all her claims are wrong, I just think the way she went about supporting her claims was weak or that there is not enough research at the moment to fully support those claims.
She also literally says "not eating meat because you care about health or the environment is a bad reason." Sure, eating meat doesn't necessarily have to be bad for your health or the environment, but as of now MOST of the meat consumed produced is factory farmed processed meats.
Also, there is a really weird part where she basically shames women who don't breastfeed their babies. This book is all over the place.
...more
This book was amazing. So why 4 stars? Her audiobook, which she recorded by herself, sounds like it was recorded on a 2000s flip phone. Sometimes, Niman is whispering, clearly recording at night when people are trying to sleep. Other times you hear her rustling pages or someone sighing in the background. It's just unprofessional and kept me from listening for too long at a time.
...more
There are a few sections of the book that, while not taking away from her argument, add nothing and make this Well written book that addresses each point against eating meat and absolutely refutes them. Additionally, Niman also argues against the idea that growing crops is entirely eco-friendly and completely free of any animal cruelty. She takes the simplistic arguments against meat and reminds us that what we grow and consume is necessarily complex because our Earth and our bodies are complex.
There are a few sections of the book that, while not taking away from her argument, add nothing and make this long book even longer. Talking about how farm kids are better in every way than city kids isn't important to the argument that beef is can and should be healthy for both humans and the environment.
Even with a few unnecessary tangents this book is a well researched and well argued defense of raising and eating cattle. ...more
Though most parts are well sustained in data, others might be understood as the au
The author takes the world-extended view of Cattle being the main aspect involved in environmental and health issues and guides you through each an everyone of the topics related to it. It does a great job dismantling old assumptions around sustainability, agriculture and meat suggesting and intensely explains the huge difference between meat industrialization and farming and each one's role in the world ecosystem.Though most parts are well sustained in data, others might be understood as the author's opinion. Still, in those cases she keeps an honest and clear approach.
It doesn't have the answer for all the upcoming question around meat production but for me there's no doubt it's a well documented and eye-opening book.
...more
Interestingly, the author remains a vegetarian because
A thoroughly researched book on the health and sustainability of beef - a exoneration of the vilification of beef for the harms of factory-farming and a thorough debunking of the myth that reducing beef consumption would in any way help the problem of food shortages. Some spoilers: very little grain is fed even to grain-fed cows and it is not suitable for human consumption and cattle are able to make use of land utterly unsuitable for crops.Interestingly, the author remains a vegetarian because she has never had the desire to eat meat, but she fully supports the consumption of meat and believes it is healthful to do so.
...more
Regenerative agriculture is the way to go. I wonder how much more destruction we need to cause in order to understand it. We cannot keep producing/consuming the way we do it today. We cannot continue to live a life in which 'we have no time' to assess and understand what we are putting into our bodies. I just A must read for everybody. I found it a bit tedious and repetitive at times but I totally understand the need for emphasis, iteration and different perspectives on everything she's saying.
Regenerative agriculture is the way to go. I wonder how much more destruction we need to cause in order to understand it. We cannot keep producing/consuming the way we do it today. We cannot continue to live a life in which 'we have no time' to assess and understand what we are putting into our bodies. I just wish everybody will see that and take action, get involved, demand governments and authorities for a change. We must strive for quality over quantity, for a better quality of life. ...more
Talks about falsely inflated impact of beef on global warming and how good beef and all parts of the cattle animals for the humans are in general.
A big part is dedicated to the benefits of growing cattle on pastures, which if done right, makes a lot of sense for animals, people and nature.
At least for myself I now know the difference between grain and grass-fed beef is not just words.
This is an excellent discussion about the relevance of beef to soil, water and human health. Highly recommended. Needs to be read by everyone who has an interest in landscape regeneration.
The only part I didn't agree with was her stance on predators. I can see why she has the view she does given where she lives though.
The thing is... the same argument and correlating evidence of livestock assisting in maintaining an ecosystem that was changed hundreds (some would argue thousands if you want to get into discussion
This book was fantastic. At last someone has put into text with the academic & scientific proof to back up what small scale rancher have known for a very, very long time.The only part I didn't agree with was her stance on predators. I can see why she has the view she does given where she lives though.
The thing is... the same argument and correlating evidence of livestock assisting in maintaining an ecosystem that was changed hundreds (some would argue thousands if you want to get into discussion on native American interferences on ecosystems) that she uses for livestock being beneficial to the land is then thrown out the window in concession to a hot button political issue. When reality is that a non-native predator in a land where wild game is already properly managed by human hunters, native coyotes, native cougars, etc. is frankly devastating to both wild game populations and ranch populations of livestock. Beyond the cost of lost livestock, there is the cost both in emotional pain and the loss of a valuable working companion when these predators tear apart a working dog assisting the rancher is checking on and moving cattle around. Its not pretty, they tear them into many small pieces. Will reality hit for when someones small child is torn apart in a similar fashion? Probably not for those in urban and suburban areas, whom tend to be the ones lobbying in congress.
I can understand the author's concession on this point. It's unfortunate, but frankly there is an immense need for seeing the realities of good beef production and it is important to really ease the audience into given the vast quantities of literature that focus solely on the evils of CAFO's and ignore the realities of responsible livestock production.
I very much liked her discussion on plant crop production worldwide and the discussion at the end on how world hunger is more of a poverty issue. So incredibly true.
...more Related Articles
Welcome back. Just a moment while we sign you in to your Goodreads account.
Source: https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/22180823
Belum ada Komentar untuk "Defending Beef the Case for Sustainable Meat Production Problems With"
Posting Komentar