Nuances around beef and deforestation
Common misconceptions around cattle, soy, and the Amazon
The nuances of animal agriculture are fascinating, and I appreciated a recent think piece about misconceptions when it comes to cattle. Some not-so-common points from the article include:
1. Deforestation is directly linked to soy and beef production - but most of the soy being grown in Brazil is not actually being eaten by cows. In fact, only 2% is fed to beef and dairy cattle; the bulk is for poultry and pigs, as well as oils and food for humans.
2. Roughly 2/3 of global agricultural land (and 1/4 in the US) is best suited for grazing on pasture and rangeland - not growing more crops. The lands and ecosystems in the US are historically used to large-scale grazing from millions of bison, elk, deer, and caribou. Calling for the end of all animal agriculture and the myriad of biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and food security benefits it provides is short-sighted. Yes, cows emit methane, but so do other ruminants that might be grazing on these lands otherwise.
However, there are additional notes to consider. Although US cows aren’t directly attributed to Amazonian deforestation, some of the domestic meat conglomerates, who are operating in the Amazon and selling internationally, are responsible. So, purchasing commoditized meat from them should still be avoided when possible (not to mention for animal welfare reasons), while local sustainable ranched beef should be supported.
Moreover, while soy isn’t significantly grown for cows’ consumption, ~80% of soy in Brazil is still grown exclusively for animal feed. This highlights a glaring need for alternative animal feed (particularly for poultry and pigs), and a higher-level need to decrease animal protein consumption overall, which would prevent the land use clearing required to industrially feed animals in the first place.
This is particularly true for China, which is by the far the biggest importer of Brazilian soy (~75%). As meat and dairy demand continue to rise in countries like China, we need to continue commercializing alternative proteins, which would buck the need for such vast soy exporting (and land clearing) from Brazil. *In an ideal world, some of those alternative proteins could be produced using superfood ingredients that are grown via agroforestry in Brazil's Amazon to displace some of the lost export income while increasing conservation.
Hey Mitch,
Thanks for the excellent articles.
As a scientist, it seems to me that all of evolution points to a decentralized, broadly dispersed, genetically varied , high variety energy/food intake system as the safest to ensure the health and stability of any natural animal/plant ecosystem.
Our political system has consistently rewarded models of centralized control of industry with the outcome being large, centralized, genetically similar, narrowly geographically dispersed, narrow energy/food intake variety ecosystems/corporations/animal farms.
We provide tax breaks and a variety of other financial incentives to reward our current preferred structures. Nature, the animals, plants, and people are not the problem. Moving away from the lessons of millions+ years of evolutionary knowledge is our problem. To the extent that our systems mimic nature, we will succeed, unless we believe our civilization is more centrally intelligent than all of natural history as recorded in the genetic biodiversity of existence? I doubt it ....
To that extent, my thought would be to focus on the stimulus/reward system promoted by our government and begin to vote/pressure government to reward small farms that are geographically, widely distributed while promoting genetic diversity, encouraging natural feeding habitats and foods (insects, worms, low lying edible plants & fruit) and steadily removing the federal financial stimulus system that rewards centralization. Doesn't sound too hard, Lol ... Encouraging people to move out of cities into the vastness of our land by using technology to promote environmentally independent, local, energy sources, fruit/plant/vegetable gardens, and animal farming would replicate the giving away of lands in the West to grow our country back in the day .... allow the people to figure it out but provide financial stimulus to do so. Technology now makes this feasible and easier for the average person. Especially if supported well by our body politic. So much better than what big government currently has to offer us in terms of the personal satisfaction of being able to care for oneself, mental health, environmental health, etc. ...
But like the Bitcoin idea, which empowers individuals and replicates the widely distributed system of nature, my idea will not be enjoyed by our, or likely any, government. Big government exists to take peoples energy/food/money and distribute that energy/food/money to things they support (political friends). A well distributed system goes counter to the federal governments own desire to eat and grow from an ever narrower but larger energy/food source (huge corporations that finance/feed them). Centralize and justify ...
We can not let the narrative be to blame the people or the animals for our problems when it is our government itself that is the problem and our government officials attempting to gaslight the population into feeling guilty for systems encouraged and created by government leadership that were not of the peoples doing and now are out of their control.
Individuals regaining control of their lives and their economy by moving themselves and/or their governments toward financially rewarding this decentralized form of leadership is the proper path to your goals.... it says so in our own Constitution .... as archaic as people now like to think it is, despite the worlds problems being unchanged from those days to now. Small government, widely distributed geographically, with equilibrium from checks on that power by encouraged diversity and varied energy input sources ... like our farms/energy sources should be.
Jeff