The Accidental FarmerLearning how to farm on the fly

A recent blog post at change.inthekoots.com by Rod Taylor suggests that eating less meat will save the planet.

He refers to Al Gore, David Suzuki and the Environmental Working Group to support his beliefs. He alludes to some of the points I raise below but gives them short shrift and his message is clear. Eat less meat, period. His numbers and stats seem skewed to support his post.

When I read posts like Rod’s, I think the problem is really us humans. We each produce roughly 1 kg of C02 a day which combined is more than all fossil fuels. Perhaps Rod is targeting the wrong species. I’m waiting to hear that exercise causes global warming due to increased expulsion of CO2 by inconsiderate miscreants. Being lazy produces less CO2.

Of course, the causes and solutions to global warming are not so simple. It’s easy to take a narrow view of the issue which does not take into account the larger picture.

Reducing this issue to whether vegetables are preferable to meat in terms of global warming completely misses the point. The issue is industrial farming techniques that have been supported by oil, fertilizer and chemical lobbies to further their interests and increase the value of their stock with no regard for the good of consumers or the planet.

Most food we eat as a populace is produced on factory farms, including vegetable farms. These farms burn fuel, use fertilizer and chemicals and are certainly responsible, in part, for global warming. Because growing, harvesting, processing, packaging and transportation are all heavily mechanized, what they produce becomes irrelevant.

The grass fed lambs in my pasture are carbon neutral. They are recycling CO2 in a short term carbon cycle as animals and humans have done for eons. It’s the release of new carbon into the atmosphere from oil, gas and coal in long term carbon stores that is warming our planet, not flatulence.

Excess flatulence in ruminants is the result of an unnatural diet. The grains, corn and soybeans used as feed on industrial farms are not a natural diet and not what I feed my ruminants. Mine thrive on grass as ruminants have since 70 million buffalo and swarms of other large wildlife roamed our continent. Soil is a short cycle carbon store these animals and humans depend on.

These sorts of diversions, in terms of the conversation on global warming, help obscure the fact we aren’t doing enough about the real causes of global warming.

The issue of factory farms will not go away until there is pressure from the buying public. As long as we put the cost and ease of our food above all else, we support distant factory farms. When we support more responsible farms, we send a strong message and demonstrate that we value responsible food and farmers.

As a consumer, what message do you send?

Do you shop at Safeway and buy your meat shrink wrapped on a foam tray or do you develop a relationship with a farmer and fill your freezer once a year? Do you care how your food is grown or are price and convenience the deciding factors? Do you buy baby bunny carrots because they’re all the same shape and size and don’t need cleaning? Rod failed to ask any of these questions.

If we turn the prairies back into pasture and eliminate growing corn, grains and soybeans to feed cattle in feedlots, we could put cows back on pasture and not deforest Brazil to serve our needs. Addressing these issues will do far more to solve global warming.

Beyond alienating meat farmers, eating one less burger a week won’t save the planet and won’t solve the issue of factory farming or global warming.

Eating a local, grass-feed steak a week might and I challenge Rod on his assertion that it will cost you more.

Buy a full, half or quarter cow and it’s $3.25 a pound this fall with a $0.60\pound cut and wrap fee included. Buy a lamb and it’s $6\pound. Chicken is $4.75, turkey $3 and pork $3.75. Hardly expensive considering the quality.

It will take more effort though,  just as writing a fair, balanced and engaging piece on global warming will.