red meat

[Norman Albers]

We read of the high cost in global warming gasses from beef farming and consumption, and I almost never eat it. My local supermarket just put on sale, for $3/lb., frozen buffalo burgers. I enjoyed a luscious one last night, and I am snorting happily. Can folks help me compare buffalo farming, which is spread around the northwest US (at least), on the issues of warming? If I feel good about it I'll put a few 2 lb. boxes in my freezer!

[iNow]

Hi Norm - I believe the key chemical to consider is methane, and by what volume it is excreted by buffalo versus steer. That largely depends on diet and what the animal is eating, but I believe there would be no appreciable difference between cows and buffalo (roughly equal methane excretion... hopefully someone will correct me if I'm mistaken on this point).

 

However, with buffalo, they don't tend to be so easily found locally as cows and other steer. So, the buffalo must be transported, and you now need to account for the transportation issues (trucking and deisel). For example, a cow raised and slaughtered just down the street doesn't use as much fuel to get it to the store and then to your house. A buffalo raised and slaughtered across the country requires much more fuel to get to the store and to your house.

 

So, it depends.

[Norman Albers]

Some guy whose name escapes me at the moment, has been speaking on the evils of corn-feeding cows. Is this the issue, then, as opposed to grass-feed? I am picturing bison "on the prairies" and I shall be asking questions. We have some being grown nearby, in SW Oregon, and the coop extends into Idaho, I think.

[scalbers]

Yes, apparently the main item for CO2 emissions is that buffalo/bison are usually grass-fed and this is carbon neutral compared with the energy intensive grain production for most cattle. Transportation is less by comparison. Methane may be a factor, though it has a shorter lifetime than CO2 in the atmosphere. The other main factor is land use. Grass-fed does take more land though at least it seems like a more "natural" use of the land. Yet whether there's enough grass for everyone to eat buffalo is uncertain. So we need fewer people on the Earth, yet it is less CO2 intensive to eat grass-fed buffalo, even if it is transported a bit.

 

Here is an NPR interview that gives plenty to chew on...

 

http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=08-P13-00006&segmentID=4

Edited January 26, 2009 by scalbers

[D H]

I think iNow had it right (or mostly right -- he omitted nitrous oxide). The key concern isn't CO₂ so much as methane and nitrous oxide, both of which are much more potent greenhouse gases than is CO₂ (and nitrous oxide is far stronger than methane). Grass-fed versus corn-fed: Grass-fed beef (or beefalo, or buffalo) requires grazing land. Lots of grazing land.

 

From http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/0612sp1.htm

Deforestation' date=' greenhouse gases.[/b'] The livestock sector is by far the single largest anthropogenic user of land. Grazing occupies 26 percent of the Earth's terrestrial surface, while feed crop production requires about a third of all arable land. Expansion of grazing land for livestock is a key factor in deforestation, especially in Latin America: some 70 percent of previously forested land in the Amazon is used as pasture, and feed crops cover a large part of the reminder. About 70 percent of all grazing land in dry areas is considered degraded, mostly because of overgrazing, compaction and erosion attributable to livestock activity.

 

At the same time, the livestock sector has assumed an often unrecognized role in global warming. Using a methodology that considered the entire commodity chain (see box below), FAO estimated that livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, a bigger share than that of transport. It accounts for nine percent of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions, most of it due to expansion of pastures and arable land for feed crops. It generates even bigger shares of emissions of other gases with greater potential to warm the atmosphere: as much as 37 percent of anthropogenic methane, mostly from enteric fermentation by ruminants, and 65 percent of anthropogenic nitrous oxide, mostly from manure.

 

Also see this 2009 Scientific Americian article and this 2007 Christian Science Monitor article.

[scalbers]

I would suggest a slightly more nuanced answer about grassland and methane. For grassland, for those buffalo that are grazing on land that was naturally grassland to begin with it seems to be relatively benign to the environment. The US clearly had millions (I think ~100 million) of buffalo grazing sustainably and naturally on grassland in its past. So the type of grassland ecosystem would be a factor I'd say.

 

For methane, it is many times more potent than CO2, however it lasts only about 8-12 years in the atmosphere. CO2 lasts a fair amount longer, some of it for many thousands of years, so in the long run in terms of reversibility I would suggest CO2 may have more concern. This depends perhaps more clearly on the relative amounts of CO2 and methane being discussed, rather than simply the share of emissions of each species. At any rate, what is the methane production of grass-fed vs corn fed?

 

Perhaps its true that even 100 million buffalo thundering around on the plains would be insufficient to meet the demand for meat?

Edited January 26, 2009 by scalbers

[Norman Albers]

I don't eat much meat. These days I do two hours outside with the chainsaw or loppering up branches. Inside I do piano shop work, and more quiet hours doing physics math. I need a little more food in general and protein; the more excited I get about physics the more of an airhead I tend to become. Let's all join in a chorus of "Home, home, on Lagrange..."

[D H]

Something was bothered me with this report. How do cows produce anyCO₂ (that doesn't come from plant material)?

 

Yes, apparently the main item for CO2 emissions is that buffalo/bison are usually grass-fed and this is carbon neutral compared with the energy intensive grain production for most cattle.

Wrong. The underlying report is fraught with bad science and bad accounting. To get at the figure that cattle are responsible for "9% of all anthropogenic CO₂", the authors of "Livestock's Long Shadow" used some potentially dubious accounting, such as double-booking of CO₂ emissions to arrive at the statement "[t]he livestock sector accounts for 9 percent of anthropogenic CO₂ emissions". Cows don't eat coal or drink gasoline, so how can respiratory and digestive CO₂ emitted by cattle count at all?

 

Answer: Deforestation. "The largest share of this [CO₂ emissions figure[ derives from land-use changes -- especially deforestation -- caused by expansion of pastures and arable land for feedcrops." (Aside: Boycott Brazilian and Chinese beef and we're fine?)

 

The accounting of CO₂ resulting from deforestation is a bit dubious. The report overestimates CO₂ sequestration in forestland and and underestimates CO₂ sequestration in pasture and crop lands (for example, it completely ignores tilling plant residues back into croplands because of "data unavailability").

 

The IPCC accounts for transportation of cattle, along with transportation of all other materials, as transportation. Accounting for it with cattle production is again a form of double-booking.

 

Some guy whose name escapes me at the moment, has been speaking on the evils of corn-feeding cows. Is this the issue, then, as opposed to grass-feed? I am picturing bison "on the prairies" and I shall be asking questions.

Per the report, it is the other way around. Yes, feed lots are a sign of the evil megacorporate world. The cowboy way is even worse. Grass has very little nutrients compared to feed, and what little there is is hard to obtain. The bovine digestive bacteria have to work overtime (read: produce a lot of methane) to enable a cow to gain weight via grazing. Feed is much easier to digest than grass. Moreover, feed can be improved (e.g., immature forages and legumes) and enhanced (e.g., grinding, adding canola oil) to significantly methane production. Some intensive facilities now sequester greenhouse gases produced by cattle, something that simply cannot be done with grazing cattle.

 

 

Some critiques:

http://www.drovers.com/news_editorial.asp?pgid=717&ed_id=4354

http://www.thebrokeronline.eu/en/articles/Livestock-s-long-shadow

 

Alternative reports:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html

[Norman Albers]

So buffalo did not used to roam in the prairies, happily well-fed? You might be describing Texas but not Montana or Oregon. Reading the box, this product is Carmen Creek, Alberta Canada. If you show me they are trashing forests I won't buy it. I am not buying from other parts of the world.

Edited January 27, 2009 by Norman Albers

[iNow]

There have been a lot of good posts to this thread. Norman, try to remember that we are not generally talking about wild buffalo here. They will be kept much like other cattle, by ranchers and within fencing and subject to some kind of feeding regimen. The stuff you buy at the supermarket is not generally "the spoils from a hunt," but instead follow a very similar process to cattle.

 

With that said, there are a lot of different ways to process cattle, and I'd be inclinded to think that those taking the extra time and energy to raise buffalo instead of cows (they know they have a different market to cater to) will likely be more careful and use better techniques. I don't have numbers or sources to support this assertion, it's just a gut feeling. If they are going to put forward the effort to raise buffalo instead of cows, then they will likely make the effort to raise them well and do minimal damage to the enviroment.

 

To the feed issue, it was mentioned that grain is better as it is easier to digest and hence causes less methane output. When doing this accounting, however, you must also note that the grain must be grown and transported. So, you have the diesel from all of the tractors planting, tending, and harvesting the grain, and the deisel from the trucks which ship it to the cattle. This adds to the overall carbon footprint.

 

However, with grass feeding, there is no need for tractors or trucking. You just let them graze on what's natural, and you eliminate all of the carbon emissions in the middle.

 

This is quite an interesting question you've asked, Norman. I always thought of buffalo meat as simply healthier and tastier, never concerned myself much with the ecological impact.

[Phi for All]

So buffalo did not used to roam in the prairies, happily well-fed?

They must have eaten little strawmen, based on this question.

You might be describing Texas but not Montana or Oregon. Reading the box, this product is Carmen Creek, Alberta Canada. If you show me they are trashing forests I won't buy it.

I doubt any forests are being trashed. I think your proximity to buffalo herds makes it a good environmental alternative as a protein source.

 

I've heard various claims about the fat content, but what would sell me most on buffalo is a lack of growth hormones injected for market potential. I don't know that buffalo has less but I've heard it does, just because the scale of production and the larger size of the animal makes it unneccesary.

 

Do you notice much difference in taste, Norman?

[iNow]

I love bison meat. They serve it in the cafeteria at my work. All burgers are 100% bison, and they're amazing.

[Norman Albers]

Cool discussion...iNow, I will research the agronomy and feeding regimens here, starting with the butcher, and also emailing Carmen Creek. Yes Phi the box says "100% pure all natural", "ranch-raised without added growth hormones of stimulants" Footnote: "Federal regulations do not permit the use of growth hormones or artificial growth stimulants in raising bison." This is interesting. The fats have much less cholesterol than beef, and I feel the difference of the fats/oils on my tongue. Beef has a stickier, heavier taste. Buffalo is sweet, red, almost like beef, but lighter in this sense. For a one-third pound serving, a total fat content of 22g, cholesterol 80mg. One of the most intelligent things I've read on diet said, eating meat makes sense if you are doing the level of physical work involved in hunting and butchering! I moved a carload of hardwood today and then did a tankful on the chainsaw. I am starting to get hungry.

[D H]

So buffalo did not used to roam in the prairies, happily well-fed? You might be describing Texas but not Montana or Oregon. Reading the box, this product is Carmen Creek, Alberta Canada. If you show me they are trashing forests I won't buy it. I am not buying from other parts of the world.

Ah yes, those lush tropical Texas rainforests.

 

The report attributes to cattle raising *all* of the deforestation in Brazil, Africa, China, and elsewhere. Couple that with exaggerations of how well forests and how poorly croplands sequester CO₂ and, voila! "9% of all anthropogenic CO₂" arises from cattle production.

[Norman Albers]

[bIGTEETH]. DH I had trouble following your narrative thread in the last paragraph. OK, further personal confessions. In recent years I have in the cold of winter ceremoniously purchased two cans of corned beef. For a while it was Hereford's, from Australia, and lately it's from Argentina. I appreciate the heads up on not supporting this. What's up in Australia? I don't want to confuse this thread with beef, but I appreciate learning. A show of hands please, how many burgers should I put on???

Edited January 27, 2009 by Norman Albers

[Phi for All]

Footnote: "Federal regulations do not permit the use of growth hormones or artificial growth stimulants in raising bison." This is interesting.

These are the Canadian regulations from Alberta? That *is* interesting. Almost an admission that the stimulants are a bad thing. Either that or they don't want downtown Calgary ravaged by Buffzilla.

 

I wonder if the US has similar attitudes towards buffalo husbandry.

[Norman Albers]

Yowsa, I didn't even think "Canada" feds. I just emailed them (CarmenCreek) and told them they are on Candid Camera right here.

Edited January 27, 2009 by Norman Albers

[Phi for All]

I'm guessing the Mounties don't want to have to chase down anything bigger than a buffalo already is. And buffalo *are* scary big. Like moose, you don't think about them much until you're really close, and then you wish you were much further away.

[Norman Albers]

Also probably wishing for a slower relative velocity. It's a good precedent in case we ever bring back, like, sabre-toothed tigers.

Edited January 27, 2009 by Norman Albers

[Mr Skeptic]

I read that kangaroos don't produce much methane due to different bacteria in their guts. I'd have to eat some kangaroo to tell whether I'm in favor of eating them or additional measures to reduce cattle methane production.

[Phi for All]

I wouldn't think kangaroos would have much meat on them, but I've heard that some hoppy creatures have legs that taste like chicken.

[Norman Albers]

Dang, boy, speaking of AUSTRALIA. Seriousness aside, I want to know where to support by buying. . . . .Tonight my outside temps are to be below freezing. I am grateful for most excellent food.

[JohnB]

Norman, most Aussie beef is free range. We don't use much in the way of additives as it's very hard to deliver to the cattle.

 

Anna Creek is our largest cattle station. At 34,000 sqare kms it would rank as the 40th largest state in the US. (It's bigger than every state from South Carolina on down.) Mustering on the large stations is actually done by helicopter, so you can see why it would be hard to give hormones etc to the cattle. The largest US ranch is only 3,000 square kms.

 

There is grain fed beef, but that is mostly for "upper class" restaurants. (Frankly I've had better steaks in roadhouses.)

 

Another benefit of free range cattle is that the fat tends to be on the outside of the steak, where grain fed meat has the fat marbled in it. So if you want lean beef, you just cut the fat off the edge.

 

[shameless plug for Aussie tucker]

 

If you're in Australia, perhaps the best steaks are at the SSS Barn in Tamworth. They also have the lamb shank "challenge", the sucker weighs in at 2.5 kilos. If you can eat entree, shank and desert, you get the desert for free. It is a point of honour in our company that every time we do a show in Tamworth, someone has to do the challenge.

 

The best burgers in the country are at the Aratula roadhouse about 6 klicks east of Warwick. The skewer in their "Long Haul" burger isn't for show, it holds the thing together.

 

Seriously though, you can get a good feed anywhere there is a 2 acre carpark and a dozen trucks parked. I've eaten places where you order a steak and the next thing you hear is a gunshot out the back.

 

[/shameless plug]

 

Phi, roos have plenty of meat, but the legs are pretty much muscle. Roo steaks are a better bet. Emu isn't too bad and you just can't beat the drumsticks for size.And one scrambled egg feeds 4.

 

Buffalo and croc are also available. Over the years, I've also eaten carpet python and goanna. (Sorry Mokele) I drew the line at witchetty grubs however.

[Norman Albers]

One morning at my old place, looking up the field, I saw an escaped emu. We are a countryside of small and large farms. A pickup truck pulled up and the man tried to convince this verrry long-legged bird into the back. Finally he put his arms around it and deposited it. Highly entertaining, a most unlikely pas de deux. I shall continue seeking Hereford's for those few winter morning breakfasts of corned beef and eggs. Snort.

Edited January 27, 2009 by Norman Albers

[JohnB]

I shall continue seeking Hereford's for those few winter morning breakfasts of corned beef and eggs.

So, what do Hereford eggs taste like?