

Actually, Raising Beef Is Good for the Planet - prostoalex
http://www.wsj.com/articles/actually-raising-beef-is-good-for-the-planet-1419030738?mod=trending_now_3

======
SwellJoe
So, a rancher says beef is good for the environment. I'm totally convinced.

This article makes no mention of how grazing lands come to exist.
[http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/may/31/cattle-
tr...](http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/may/31/cattle-trade-brazil-
greenpeace-amazon-deforestation)

Nutrition production per acre is much lower for beef than plant-based foods,
and as nations become more developed and populations increase their intake of
meat-based foods, more land for grazing, and more land for raising grains to
feed to the food animals, must be cleared.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edible_protein_per_unit_area_o...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edible_protein_per_unit_area_of_land)

In short: Most of the claims made for beef being "good for the environment"
here are about grass lands on which they graze, but no one would reasonably
argue that chopping down an old growth forest and replacing it with millions
of acres of grass would be good for the environment, but that's effectively
what this author is claiming.

I'm frankly somewhat disappointed that an article with such clear industry
bias has been given the patina of respectability that the WSJ provides.

~~~
ArkyBeagle
I don't see any claim on the part of the author that cutting down forest and
replacing it with grassland makes any sense. There is the claim that woody
shrubs encroaching on grassland reduces the utility of the grassland - whether
that's in a natural state or as part of a ranch. The buffalo grass prairie was
pretty dern eco-rich and cattle grazing isn't that far off of that if you're
careful.

It depends on the base ecosystem before you add cattle. If you can graze beef
critters in East Texas, Oklahoma or Kansas, I doubt it would have the same
effect as doing same where old-growth forest stood in the Amazon basin. These
areas _generally_ have adequate rainfall and don't require aquifer depletion.
Then again, there's 2011.

The Niman Ranch is in California; I am not sure how that works. Agriculture in
general in California requires much redirection of water to work. It could be
that cattle ranching is better than Central Valley style crop farming.

The critical figure of the piece is the disconnect between 2,500 gallons of
water per pound of beef vs. the claim of 441 gallons - again, in California,
water is key. The 2,500 figure is suspicious; the 441 gallon figure is at
least defended by UC Davis scientists, where the provenance for the 2,500
gallon figure is much more shadowy.

------
JDDunn9
A few notes to balance out this half-truth article.

\- The U.N. report "Livestock's Long Shadow" estimate's pollution from cattle
at 18%, more than all transportation combined. Much higher than the 8% from
the EPA.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livestock%27s_Long_Shadow](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livestock%27s_Long_Shadow)

\- I couldn't find the study that gave that incredibly low estimate for water
consumption per pound of beef, but I'm guessing it doesn't factor in the water
used to grow the food for the cows. Every other estimate I've seen is
incredibly high.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_pr...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production)

\- Cows or crops are not the only two options for farming. We also have
hydroponics, which could make land unsuitable for farming, 10x more productive
than traditional methods. Cows are pretty inefficient at converting food into
beef. It's not a solution for global hunger.

------
adamnemecek
> ...and we now have a grass-fed beef company—I’ve come to the opposite
> view...

A biased writer says something biased, news at 11.

