The Magic Pill, grass fed meat, and sustainable agriculture

(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #1

I don’t want to reopen previous threads that have gotten quite heated over the (frankly very tame!) issue of grass fed vs grain fed livestock. However, the Magic Pill doc delves into this issue toward the latter quarter of the film. I know I’m probably a few months late on commenting on it, but I just got around to it, so here are a few thoughts:

  • The natural feed for cows is, undoubtedly, grass. The doc makes this claim, and it’s also a common sense one: there weren’t grains before the agricultural revolution, and so grain products are an unnatural food source for cows.
  • Industrially raised cattle are confined to tiny spaces and fed grain to fatten them up unnaturally. Numerous low carb and keto proponents mention a preference for grass fed pasture raised meat, but not a lot of emphasis is put onto it as far as I can tell. I think from an ethical perspective, as well as from a health perspective, it’s basically inarguably true that pastured meat is preferable to industrially raised cattle meat.
  • Having said all of the above: if a substantial proportion of agriculture in America suddenly switched to a holistic, biodiverse farming practice, could we feed everyone sufficient meat? I don’t know enough about the industry numbers, but given that factory farmed meat is designed to be produced as quickly and efficiently as possible for the mass market, you’d have to assume that even if holistic farms started spreading like wildfire, there might be a meat shortage pretty soon after.

Any thoughts? No flames please! This is not about dogma, I’m hoping for civilized discussion.

(Ron) #2

Actually I believe this has been discussed already or am I not understanding your question?

(GINA ) #3

“Industrial raised cattle” are grass fed prior to being grain finished. They could just slaughter them early I suppose. They would weigh less, so there would be fewer pounds of meat that way. Or they could take a little longer and let them get bigger on pasture.

Fatty (well-marbled) meat is what was desired by consumers so the grain finish was added. It is an added expense, off-set by quicker growth. If/when there is enough demand, it will go back the other way.

The market would adjust. It always does.

(Ron) #4

OK maybe I didn’t understand it right. Re-reading your post, you are asking if demand could be filled if the meat industry dropped the grain feeding or finishing. I would agree with @GME in that the agricultural industry would adjust grain production down and elevate alfalfa (and other grass feed) crops to accommodate the demand. While grazing schedules are mostly being used to the max, feeding with supplemental food could be extended some to compensate for growth loss from grains. As Gina said, the market would adjust.

(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #5

@mtncntrykid This is not a general thread about The Magic Pill, but thanks for your comment,

(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #6

Actually, and this refers to @GME as well, I’m not talking about tinkering with industrial agriculture. Rather, I’m specifically addressing the solution put forward in the last 20 mins of the Magic Pill: a shift towards holistic farming.

The fundamental difference between industrial ag and traditional/pastured/holistic agriculture (or what we used to call “farming” until the second half of the 20th century) is not just grass/grain. It’s the caging of the animals in tiny enclosures, the rapid fattening process at the end of it. The way the animals are treated in general. The inclusion of hormones and antibiotics.

I am emphasizing that when I talk about moving toward grass fed animals, I’m talking about a complete phase shift. And the question is: if everyone went back to demanding what I demand (and what I assert is meat that is manifestly better for you), could we still feed America?

I suppose it’s more of a policy question than a keto question, but as LCHF gains traction, and as people who care about the quality of their meat and about environmental sustainability comprise a bigger and bigger proportion of the LCHF community – I mean, as LCHF begins to go mainstream, as I think it will – will we have enough productive capacity? Or are the efficiencies of industrial agriculture so great that we’ll never be able to meet demand without a reduction in beef consumption?

Subquestion: does this matter? Everyone eats too much protein anyway. So maybe a reduction in per capita meat consumption while we shift toward sustainable, holistic, pastured cattle raising, could be a good thing for everyone.

(Zack F) #7

I see it as an ethics issue but I put the ethics of feeding more people better over the ethics of feeding/treating animals better. Not that both goals are necessarily mutually exclusive, but just because I can afford to source better doesn’t mean my neighbor can. I’m assuming a reasonable, goodwill intent on both our parts and not just concluding he just wants go with the cheapest meat to fund a $100k SUV. In an imperfect world, people trump animals.

Having said that I believe men like Joel Salatin have stated they would just like a level playing field without having to compete against competitors fed with cheap, subsidized grain. If this would happen the market would feed everyone better. I happen to agree. I don’t have a citation but I imagine most grass fed ranchers would also.

(Robert C) #8

The market will take care of itself. Why do people sit down to 16, 20 and 24 oz. steaks? Because they don’t cost much. Restaurants make the next size up just a little more money. Hormones and anti-biotics are added along with non-standard food to make that cost work.

If we suddenly moved back to steak being expensive again because it is grass fed without adding chemicals - it suddenly becomes easier to convince people that they really should be limiting their protein (with the added advantage of protecting their wallets).

(Ron) #9

I do understand the question but the answer you are looking for is going to be speculation and opinion only. I live in an area that is heavily dependent on the cattle industry (have you heard of Simplot) and have worked in the industry in the past. It is my opinion that even industrial cattle production is capable of supplemental feeding of animals in close proximity to each other and in this part of the country hormonal control doesn’t happen that I am aware of. Antibiotics are a necessity to fend off diseases that would be way more harmful to the existence of the species not to mention anyone (including humans) or thing consuming the infected meats. IMO

(Rob) #10

In the words of great British comedy duo, Vic & Bob…

“You wouldn’t let it lie…(rubs thighs)” :crazy_face:

Your points are the same as you’ve trotted out before so the response is the same…
a) yes, but most things are nothing like their “paleo” versions - almost all vegetables and fruit spring to mind and we wouldn’t hesitate to eat the engineered versions (as long as they are keto)… and organic… :roll_eyes: No-one would eat the bitter, ugly, tiny ‘natural’ versions nor would pay the price for the low productivity varieties :nauseated_face:
b) It ain’t nice and in an ideal world we’d be nicer to them but it isn’t ideal and most of the globe has no hope of affording pasture/grass fed (until you make your next point the global norm). Shaming these people (majority) with this emotional blackmail is bordering on the reprehensible vs. their health
c) Smarter people than us (e.g. Ballerstedt) push this and make it seem practically feasible and economically viable but the switch in models is what will be slow and hard in a (not so) pure economic model we have today. Spend your time fighting the good fight to reduce/remove subsidies or weaken the power of revenue maximizing global agribusiness that make these new practices hard to make competitive.

Most people here and elsewhere would reasonably support your claims such as they are but as has always been the problem (in all the other threads where this has been DONE TO DEATH by you and others :dizzy_face:), there is no proof of the materiality of the benefits (to the consumer) vs. the difference in cost and the appeal to “morality” above evidence is STILL a bid shady IMHO.

Out…

(GINA ) #11

What are you looking for? Grass fed meat and organic vegetables, or the romantic notion of an old-fashoined farm?

There is a lot more to modern agriculture than hormones and grain. Are you talking about returning to the small farms of, say, 200 years ago? A much larger percentage of the population was involved in agriculture. A farmer could feed his own family plus a far fewer extra number than they do now.

Mechanization and specialization have changed agriculture more than grains or pesticides. If I invest hundreds of thousands of dollars into a XYZ harvester, I am going to grow a lot of XYZ. I won’t be diversified, but I will be efficient. If you raise/grow a variety of things, you won’t be as efficient.

Where I live though, there are people returning to that kind of farming. There is a little farm down the road from me that used to employ my son over the summer when he was in high school. They have a you-pick strawberry farm and grow a variety of vegetables for local restaurants. They seem to be supporting themselves, though not in a way that I would like to live (based solely on what I see from the outside).

I have quite a few relatives that are small-scale farmers just because they enjoy the lifestyle. It doesn’t support them though. Somebody has to work in town.

(Brian) #12

A couple of thoughts come to mind… in no particular order…

There is a lot of decent land in this country, and a lot of acreage usable for a very wide range of agriculture. There is a lot of that usable acreage that gets planted in corn and soybeans. Just drive through the midwest and it’s no secret. Could that be repurposed? Of course. When the money is there, it will happen. If the money isn’t there, it won’t. There are quite a few small operations with a bend towards the sustainable that have started in the last decade or so and there will likely be many more. It is still a growing movement. Beef, hogs, chickens, eggs, vegetables, fruits, any of it is fair game for those wanting to provide for people wanting the types of products you mention wanting. It’s business. And that’s not a bad thing.

I still see a line of reasoning in your questions that makes me wonder if you have a handle on real live agriculture, not the stuff you see in pictures, on TV, in documentaries, but real life, seen with your own eyes. You seem to be seeing an awful lot of black and white.

If I could illustrate, “black” being a zero and representing a cow raised in total confinement from birth to slaughter, never on grass and fed the cheapest and most polluted Chinese imported feed possible to put on weight for slaughter, and “white” being a one hundred and representing the ideal organic environment for a cow from birth, always on the best of organic chemical-free pasture after being weaned off of it’s mother’s (organic, chemical-free) milk, of course, you don’t seem to have any room for a 90, an 80, or even a 70. The real world is just not as black and white as you seem to paint it. It’s just not. Gray areas abound. The actual black and white farms are pretty rare.

A case in point is a cattle farm right up the road from me. The cattle are raised on grass. (Black Angus. Very nice looking cows.) Seriously, if I took a picture, you’d be hard pressed to find a nicer pasture for cows anywhere. There is no reason to supplement them with a whole lot of anything. Pasture land is cheap around here so just letting them eat and grow bigger doesn’t cost a whole lot. There is no need to feed them large amounts of grains and they do not get a lot of grain during their lifetime. They actually get very little. But they’re not “organic”. They’re not labeled as “grass fed grass finished”. They’re considered standard agriculture here. They’re probably a 90 or a 95 on the scale and may in reality be better than some of the stuff on the Walmart shelf labeled “grass fed organic”.

FWIW, I share a lot of your inclinations towards very high quality stuff, both animal and vegetable products. But I also see the business end of farming a little more up close and personal than some. There are some people touting their “organic” labels that barely eek by. There are even times when the government will sanction them using that organic label on stuff that’s NOT organic. There are loopholes, unfortunately. But there are also some “standard agriculture” type farms that have really taken a lot of positive steps to raise the quality of the things they’re producing that never even try to bring about the “organic” or “grass fed” label. They just quietly go on producing their crops and selling them as just what they are, decent stuff without the fancy labels… kinda like my neighbors.

(TJ Borden) #13

After watching the movie, I had the same thought. If the land used to grow grain for cattle was just used to let cattle graze, how would the land equate?

Right before watching it I had a vegan friend trying to tell me how growing veggies was so much more efficient, but when you add in the aspect that we have so much land that we have to artificially irrigate in order to grow veggies where it could serve as grazing land in its natural state, I don’t think the argument holds up.

@GME, not all industrial cattle are greed fed befor being grain fed. There are plenty of feed lots where the cow never even sees a blade of grass, but I don’t think @gabe is trying to argue the merit of grass fed versus grain fed. That HAS been done in other threads. It’s more the agricultural economics:

If the whole world went keto, and/or mostly carnivore, would we have enough land that could be switched from growing grains and produce to grazing land to support the demand for meat as naturally grass fed.

I think it’s a great question. I’ve also wondered if some of the other environmental concerns of cattle still hold up with grass fed beef or if they only really apply to grain fed cattle (mostly their…emissions).

(Ron) #14

The "what if " debate as I see it is of little value other than for entertainment only. Facts are that progression throughout the world has required changes in order to supply demand. Explosive populations around the globe dictate necessity in order to keep death from starvation at bay. In the hunting world, populations are controlled with harvest to maintain healthy herds based on the amount of feed available. I believe the human race to think this an unacceptable means of resolution for itself and will continue to try to find available means to accommodate the evolution of it’s species. This being forward advancement, and trying to re-live historical means isn’t feasible. Thus the entertainment value only. IMHO

#15

The film also speaks to Joel Salatin of Polyface Farms who raises meat producing animals and birds in a systemic way; regenerative agriculture, that builds soil and improves the nutrient value of the eventual farm produce. His small farm is intensively highly productive built on natural biological systems.

Improved nutrient density from improved farming methods driven by a market for these foods.

Add that to reduced/ moderated protein intake on a ketogenic way of eating. Then there is plenty of headroom to provide protein and fat for a large population of humans while regenerating agricultural production systems and available agricultural farm land.

Ruminant herbivores are important for building nutrient rich soils that builds nutrient rich plants. Those nutrients eventually end up in, and as, us, whether we eat meat or not.

(Brian) #16

Guess I didn’t say it so well in my post last night. The answer is, YES, we have way more than enough land to provide for the needs of a keto nation if we used it wisely. There is no shortage of land.

Any change towards keto or any other similar eating style will be gradual and it’s not going to happen all at one time. People don’t change overnight and agriculture won’t either. A decade or two ago, there were a few oddities such as Salatin that mainly played to an audience of homesteaders. Today, there are still homesteaders but there is also a nice crop of people producing food on smaller scales. There are even a few that are growing beyond just their own labors and becoming closer to what might consider “mid sized” operations (still small compared to the likes of Tyson, but growing, nonetheless).

(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #17

Yes!!!

(Brian) #18

I’ve never been a fan of government subsidies. Farmers are a pretty resourceful lot and I personally think they’d be better off without the government interventions. Ethanol is another huge topic that relates somewhat as the corn being grown for ethanol competes for land that would otherwise be usable for food production. Messy…

(KCKO, KCFO) #19

Previous threads about grass fed vs. grain.

There is also the excellent podcast with Dr. Peter Ballerstedt. Peter is an expert in the nutrition of ruminants.

Other protein would be available from other sources besides beef. We eat bison most of the time with elk, venison, and duck in our mix as well. So sources of protein that eat other sources of nutrients could be more common, so not really an issue as I see it.

(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” ) #20

Ya this thread is not those threads. I’m specifically talking about moving towards the holistic model that the farmer in The Magic Pill uses. This has been discussed in other documentaries too.

I do recognize the grey area that some of the participants in this thread have mentioned. At the same time, I think that it’s clear that monocultures cause a host of problems. And as plenty of people have mentioned in this thread, American monocultures (notably corn and soy) are encouraged through massive government subsidy.

Take the subsidies away and, if anything, give them back to the American taxpayer so the market can operate as intended. Better still imho, subsidize holistic farming. Why is it that our society favours the Monsantos of the world but not the little guys? Frankly it seems unAmerican!

I’m not suggesting making the perfect the enemy of the good. I guess my question is, once you take away the economies of scale of industrial cattle farming, and simultaneously let’s say hypothetically you remove grain subsidies, could pasture-raised cattle conceivably be able to cover demand?