Debate on meat-eating does not cut the mustard

Add a Comment

Comment by Joanne Hay on November 5, 2010 at 11:50

Since Vegetarianism doesn't work to keep my body well, I opted to eat only grass fed animals and to eat every part I possibly could. Recently I discovered the health benefits of eating raw meat and thus, now only eat very small portions of flesh, at the most 100gms in three meals a week. The rest of my animal foods are raw dairy straight from the cow and raw eggs. If you're looking to cut down on animal foods, eat them raw.
I am more concerned about grain based diets and the effects of monoculture and soil mining that living on wheat, rice and other grains creates. I know the herds from which I eat and I know the land they live with is being regenerated with each successive generation. Can you say the same for your grain source?

Comment by Ronnie Wright on November 4, 2010 at 15:28

I think that the book that George Monbiot reviewed Meat: a benign extravagance makes many valid points. Most of which I would agree with. However, I notice that George did not address what we are to do until the world changes the food production system that is put forward in the book.

Herein lays the problem we face. Are we to continue our current lifestyle habits until the system is changed or should we make changes in our own lives now to deal with the problems we face?

I’ve seen arguments that everyone needs to reduce their meat consumption to only three meals per week but what about all of those that don’t cut back to three meals per week? Do we take it upon ourselves to cut back more to make up for those that don’t especially since we don’t need to eat any meat to have a healthy diet? I don’t feel that the “I won’t do more than my own share” attitude will be very helpful especially when you consider the consequences. It’s kind of like being in a sinking boat and not bailing water unless everyone else does.

It could take decades to bring about the changes to the food production system suggested and we don’t have that amount of time. I think that those changes will be forced on us by peak oil anyway but that may be a slow process as well.

And, sure some people can buy sustainably raised animal and wild kangaroo meat now but there is not much to go around as very little is raised in a sustainable fashion and you can see my post down below about how little kangaroo meat is available.

If we did establish the kind of farming system described in the book, and I think we should, most people would have very little meat to eat and would be very close to vegetarian. We don’t need to wait until the system is changed to reduce our meat consumption and I think we have a moral obligation to act now.

I would also like to address the comparison of meat production to transportation as far as emissions are concerned (I think the UN was wrong to do that). To me that’s like comparing apples to oranges. Transportation itself is not the real source of carbon emissions they emit; it’s the cargo they carry that is the problem. Let me explain. If food is being hauled long distance then the transportation itself is not the problem. The problem is that we are not growing our food locally. If manufactured products are being transported then the problem is centralized production instead of regional or local production. So, instead of worrying about transportation we should worry about what they are carrying. Reduce what they are carrying and we automatically reduce transportation. But really it’s as simple as meat can’t transport trucks but trucks do transport meat.

Cheers,
Ronnie

Comment by Ken Xie on November 3, 2010 at 9:00

To add to the debate - this recent retraction by none other than George Monbiot. I think the crucial point to be taken away from this and the above article is that the situation is much more complex than we might think. And so instead of attacking all meat-producing practices, we need to focus on those which are really irrational and environmentally damaging. In regards to consumers' eating practices, I think that there's a lot of awareness-raising and education of the general public that needs to be done so they understand the real impact of what they're eating. Only this I believe can lead them to reduce their consumption and move towards alternative sources of meat, like kangaroos.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2010/09/07/strong-meat/

Comment by Ronnie Wright on November 3, 2010 at 5:38

Of course kangaroos are leaner and don’t emit methane like cows do so replacing cow with kangaroo meat would be both healthier and better for the atmosphere.

Such suggestions may sound like a great idea; unfortunately, they don't stand up to scrutiny. Consider we currently kill about 20% of our kangaroo population annually and get a mere 1500 tonnes of meat for human consumption. That's about 1/2 a kg per animal. Even if we add in the additional meat sold as pet food, each kangaroo yields only 2 kg per animal. Even if we stop leaving kangaroos shot for the skin trade to rot in paddocks, we still have to realise that they are small animals. The biggest of our kangaroos, the male reds, have an average live weight of only 65 kg, with the females a mere 25 kg. Take out the bones, skin and the other inedibles, and there just isn't much left. Grey kangaroos are even smaller at about 2/3 of this weight. In comparison, cattle yield a thousand times the meat - really. We get 1,700,000 tonnes of beef each year. To get this from kangaroos we would need, at present efficiency rates, 200 times the entire kangaroo population annually.

So while it may work for some it will not be of much help in the overall scheme of things. I’m not so sure we will ever find a way to stop the destruction of the natural ecosystems on earth if we keep trying to substitute one destructive habit with another, perhaps greener, destructive habit. Business as usual (BAS) is not going to save our planet. We have got to make some very fundamental changes in the way we live and it needs to include our diet.

The following information is reposted from the forum on http://www.vegsoc.org.au/ in response to the suggestion that people eat Kangaroo meat.

Cheers,
Ronnie

-----

If Aussies substituted just 10% of their meat for kangaroo flesh, there would be no more kangaroos left in just over a year.

Here’s the calculation...
* How many kangaroos are there? 24 million (in 2006) (1).
* How much meat from a ‘large’ kangaroo? 12kg (includes all cuts of meat, but not bone etc)(2).
* How much meat does the average Aussie consume per year? 112 kg(3).
* Population of Australia? 20.1 million.

Even ignoring exports of kangaroo flesh and assuming all kangaroos are ‘large’ (that was the word used in the referenced report), one can work out with a pocket calculator that kangaroos would be gone in a little over a year, if we were to eat just 10% of our meat as kangaroo (assuming we could hunt them to the last individual).

24 000 000 x 12 = 288 000 000 kg of potential kangaroo meat in the current kangaroo population.
20 100 000 x 112 = 2 251 200 000 kg of meat in demand per year, 10% of which is 225 120 000 kg of meat.
288 000 000 / 225 120 000 = 1.28 years, or in 1 year and 3 months, kangaroos would be all gone.

Each year kangaroo populations are studied and a quota is set, i.e. the number that can be killed the following year and still maintain a healthy population. Killing more kangaroos than the quota is thought to put kangaroo populations at risk of collapse. The number killed each year (quota) is usually somewhere around 10-20% of the kangaroo population. In Australia, we usually just about reach the quota each year already. If the demand for kangaroo products increased greatly, the demand could not be met currently.

Garnaut (4) has suggested over the next 12 years we replace about a quarter of our sheep and cattle with kangaroos before we started eating their meat on a larger scale. The yearly cull from which we get our kangaroo meat keeps their population at the current level, and given that females kangaroos only have about one joey a year(5), the kangaroo industry may not be so willing to forego hunting long enough to allow such population increase. Certainly climate change isn’t going to wait that long for us to start to reduce greenhouse gases from the livestock sector.

Even if the kangaroo population reached 175 million as mentioned in Garnaut, it could only supply about 14% of Australia’s current meat consumption per year (assuming a 15% yearly cull), and reduce Australia’s greenhouse emissions by less than 3% (4). In contrast, an animal-free diet could reduce greenhouse emissions by at least 27%(6). Eliminating or nearly eliminating animals from our diets would buy us much more time to reduce emissions from other sectors.

Reference:

(1) Dept Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (Commonwealth) “2006 Population estimates for kangaroos within the commercial harvest areas”
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/trade-use/wild-harvest/k...

(2) Hardman J (1996) “The wild harvest and marketing of kangaroos” Queensland Department of Primary Industries.

(3) Calculated from figures for domestic consumption of meat 2004-5, divided by population of Australia in 2004, from:

*Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) (2006) “Australian Food Statistics 2006” Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) http://www.abareconomics.com/publications_html/crops/crops_07/fstat...

*Australian Bureau of Statistics (2006) “Population” in Year Book Australia 2006, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra

(4) Commonwealth of Australia (2008) “The Garnaut Climate Change Review” http://www.garnautreport.org.au/

(5) Encyclopaedia Britannica Online (2006) “Kangaroo” http://www.enotes.com/britannicaanimals-encyclopedia/kangaroo

(6) Calculated from data from: Commonwealth of Australia (2005) ”Balancing Act”

Comment by Peter Turner on October 27, 2010 at 21:45

New Scientist article week or so back recommends kangaroo:
http://green-change.com/2010/10/14/kangaroo-meat/

Cheers, Peter.

Comment by Karen Horne on October 27, 2010 at 16:48

I agree that the debate is polarised. It's great that meat eaters are cutting down, eating less, eating more lower impact varieties and that should be recognized. There should be a category for that. It should be socially acceptable. The social awkwardness of being a vegetarian was too much for me, so after many years it really wore me down.
Then on the other side, equally unhelpful was the scornful look my totally vegan friend gave me when I told her i ate a little meat occasionally, to save my host embarrassment. When people go to so much trouble to cook you a lovely meal, you do the polite thing.

So a little tolerance and acceptance of the middle ground would go a long way to making everyone feel better about eating less meat, and generally more accepting of the concept.

There's a socio-economic aspect to the problem too. I present a Big Mac versus a vegan delight from a boutique eatery. But that's a whole other topic.

Comment by Adrian Barclay on October 26, 2010 at 10:19

I'm a meat eater, yet I agree with your arguments. In the short to medium term, I'm unlikely to give up meat. I do favour smaller portion sizes, increased use of alternative meats such as kangaroo,camel etc. that have a lower environmental impact (more accurately, they are already in the Australian outback in abundance).