Cows and Beans

Why the metaphysical, disconnected approach to talking about food and the environment gets us nowhere fast.

I put out a video on a ridiculous article PETA recently published about a meme from over a year ago (the “cat distribution system”), which inevitably led me to the discussion of lifestyle veganism, which always riles people up.

In response to what I said about bean production – that I don’t buy that we are “farming too many soybeans due to meat production” – people keep giving me an “efficiency” argument about soy. They claim that as feed in meat production, about 2% of calories get passed on to the final meat. But eating a bean passes on 100%. This is supported by research:

The calories or grams of protein that we feed livestock are later available to consume as meat and dairy. As an example: beef has an energy efficiency of about 2%. This means that for every 100 kilocalories you feed a cow, you only get 2 kilocalories of beef back. In general we see that cows are the least efficient, followed by lamb, pigs then poultry. As a rule of thumb: smaller animals are more efficient. That’s why chicken and fish tend to have a lower environmental impact.

- Hannah Ritchie, Our World in Data, “If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares”

However, as an argument against meat production, I find this inadequate.

The implication is that we will stop making beans for the cows, and soy-based diets can replace them. However, this kind of implication of a simple 1:1 effect would not stand up to scrutiny. I do not believe the human population can simply switch to unprocessed beans for food, which is what cattle eat. This is impractical for nutritional purposes as well as quality of life. For various reasons, cattle feed can’t just be put in a bag and given to people instead of meat.

That is a metaphysical, disconnected approach that leaves much to be desired.

---

A Meatless Industrialized Society

If society were genuinely considering a move away from meat production (and it was a democratic matter in which class rule was not a factor), it would be vital to ground our discussion in practical realities rather than purely theoretical arguments.

The notion that human diets could seamlessly adapt to consuming the same primary inputs as cattle, such as soybeans, oversimplifies human dietary needs (and preferences, for that matter). It’s one thing to argue for increased efficiency in food production; it’s another to suggest a wholesale shift to a diet that directly mirrors cattle feed (and this is the implication of the argument once considered).

Moreover, the lack of precedent in industrialized societies transitioning entirely away from meat production poses a significant challenge to understanding the full implications of such a shift. While smaller-scale examples and case studies offer some insights, they fall short of illustrating the broader societal, economic, and logistical challenges that would emerge in such a large-scale transition. The absence of a real-world example leaves a gap in our understanding of the potential impacts on supply chains, market movements (which we must consider regardless of critique), and the necessary adjustments in agricultural production.

There just is no comprehensive view of what alternative food systems might look like in a society of scale. Questions abound: What would the supply chain for a post-meat industrialized society entail? What additional crops or food products would need to be cultivated to compensate for the absence of meat (because it wouldn’t just be soy)? How would this affect agricultural practices and land use?

The efficiency argument, often cited in discussions about reducing meat production in favor of plant-based diets, suggests a dramatic decrease in the need for resources like soybeans. However, this argument is frequently presented without any kind of practical implications. It's not enough to know that cattle convert only a fraction of the calories from their feed into meat; we need to understand how this translates into a functioning food system for human society, and we don’t.

The idea of simply replacing meat with the caloric equivalent volume of plant-based food, such as soybeans, is an oversimplification at best and an obfuscation at worst.

The argument for reduced meat production often cites environmental benefits, such as lower greenhouse gas emissions and decreased deforestation. However, this transition would also necessitate a reevaluation of land use. In a shift from livestock grazing to increased crop production, the potential environmental consequences, such as soil erosion, loss of biodiversity in grassland ecosystems, and increased use of agrochemicals, must be carefully considered.

---

Arrid Terrain

Again, the argument is frequently made that the land used for cattle should be used for farming – what an inefficient use of land!

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), about one-third of the global agricultural land area is used as cropland, while the remaining two-thirds consists of meadows and pastures for grazing livestock. This distinction is important because not all land is equally suitable for all types of agriculture.

“Marginal” lands, often used for cattle grazing, are typically characterized by conditions that are less favorable for crop production. These can include factors like poor soil quality, limited water availability, and challenging topographies such as high mountains, steep slopes, or rocky terrains. Cattle, being ruminants, can utilize these marginal lands effectively because they can digest the relatively low-quality grasses found in these areas. This ability allows cattle to convert human-inedible forages and byproducts into edible meat and other useful products.

It’s also important to note that the concept of “marginal land” is not static. Land can become marginal due to degradation from various factors, including intensive crop cultivation. Conversely, through practices like rotational grazing, cattle can contribute to the restoration and maintenance of soil health in these areas.

Further, the FAO data indicates that while the global population has grown significantly, the amount of cropland per capita has decreased.

As the global population continues to grow, with the number of people in the world more than doubling between 1961 and 2016, there is greater demand for food. And the strain on land, which is a limited resource, has also grown. Global cropland area per capita decreased continuously over the period between 1961 and 2016: from about 0.45 hectare per capita in 1961 to 0.21 hectare per capita in 2016.

- UN Food and Agriculture Organization, “Land use in Agriculture by the Numbers”

My opponents would likely use this in this argument to say, “We are straining the land,” likely with some allusion to overpopulation (but not really, but really!!!!!).

However, I think this should be seen differently: it reflects a trend of increasing agricultural efficiency – we are able to produce more food on less land than before. Over the same period of time, we have seen advancements in agricultural technology, improved farming practices, better crop varieties, and more effective use of resources like water and fertilizers.

Part of this process is grazing “marginal” lands as part of a soil cycle. In fact, the role of cattle in soil health and nutrient cycling is undeniable, but this leads us to another critical consideration — the need for supplemental feeding.

While cattle can thrive on natural forages available on grazing lands, especially in extensive systems, the reality is often more nuanced. Seasonal variations, environmental conditions, and forage quality can significantly impact the necessity for additional feed. During winter or when forage quality is low, there is no avoiding supplemental feeding to meet cattle’s nutritional needs. But even in warmer conditions, research indicates that cows in many production systems need some form of supplementation, particularly during winter, to support vital functions like pregnancy and lactation.

Therefore, if we were to maintain a cattle population solely for environmental benefits such as soil cycling (and we would likely need to), we would still face the challenge of providing adequate nutrition for these animals. The reliance on supplemental feed would still be a significant consideration.

---

Metaphysical vs. Dialectical

Discussion around this issue, along with most others, is dominated by a metaphysical approach – which isolates and analyzes phenomena in static, abstract terms. This is evident in the focus on the “2% efficiency” statistic, which, while factual, is examined totally disconnected from its broader context. Such an approach, while seemingly logical, fails to grasp the dynamic and interconnected nature of agricultural systems. It simplistically reduces a web of ecological, economic, and social relations into a linear cause-and-effect narrative, leading to half-assed conclusions.

Contrastingly, a dialectical approach, as per Marx and Engels, recognizes contradictions and dynamic interactions within systems. It understands that agricultural practices, like meat production or plant-based diets, are not merely a series of technical processes but are deeply intertwined with socioeconomic structures, ecological cycles, and even cultural practices.

Coming from this perspective, we should understand that simply replacing one food source with another is short-sighted and impractical. On that scale, there is no such thing as “switch x with y;” it would have ripple effects in labor relations, resource distribution, and ecological considerations.

While the argument that reducing meat production could lower greenhouse gas emissions seems straightforward, this change would not occur in isolation and would necessitate significant shifts in other industries and practices. Introducing new industries to compensate for the absence of meat production in various ways, for example, might lead to unexpected ecological and economic impacts, including potential increases in greenhouse gas emissions.

The idea of maintaining cattle for crop rotation further underscores this point. While this practice contributes to soil health and reduces the need for chemical fertilizers, it also involves cattle, which emit greenhouse gases and still require feed, especially in colder seasons.

Moreover, intensified crop production to replace meat could lead to increased use of agrochemicals, land use changes, and potentially higher energy consumption in crop production and processing. These factors could offset or even exceed the greenhouse gas emission reductions achieved by decreasing meat production, which is the stated goal. The assumption of a direct 1:1 correlation between reducing meat production and lowering greenhouse gas emissions fails to account for potential ripple effects.

In essence, a dialectical approach reveals that the relationship between any two things (particularly contradicting/conflicting ones) is not linear but is embedded within a web of systems. Any change in one part can (and will) have cascading, often unpredictable, effects throughout, challenging the simplistic notion that reducing one component (meat production) will straightforwardly lead to a desired outcome (reduced greenhouse gas emissions).

We are where we are today because history has already played out. The contradictions of the past produced the conditions of the present. One could make an argument we have outgrown these conditions as they have developed new contradictions, but that would require a dialectical approach to problem-solving all the same.

---

Conclusion

In grappling with the complexities of meat production, its environmental impacts, and the viability of plant-based alternatives, it becomes evident that simplistic solutions fall short of addressing the intricacies of our global food system. The shift from a meat-centric diet to a plant-based one would not be just a matter of substituting one source of calories for another; it would require rethinking the entire framework of how we produce food (which has many other problems).

Reducing meat production might seem a straightforward path to lower greenhouse gas emissions, yet it would likely open a Pandora’s box of other challenges and implications, including the need for new industries, potential increases in other forms of environmental degradation, and profound changes in labor practices.

Ultimately, the path forward requires us to embrace the complexity of these issues, acknowledging that every choice has its trade-offs and impacts. Beating each other over the head with statistics that are cited in isolation, razor-focused on supporting an agenda, is not productive.