To start, I should specify that I haven’t read this book, so my comment is based on the passages you’ve included.
First of all, this passage discusses the fact that many animals are killed in crop production. While there are some issues in the studies that claim that, I’ll set those aside. My issue is that the passage fails to mention that the majority of plants grown on this planet are fed to livestock, and this is an inefficient use of energy, since you lose many calories in the process. For example, 77% of soy grown in the world is used as feed for livestock. Thus, eating factor farmed cow leads to more crop deaths than eating plants. The author does mention grass-fed cows, which make up a tiny proportion of livestock in the developed world. The problem with this is that it isn’t scalable. We probably can’t feed a country the size of the U.S. on grass-fed cows, hence the existence of factory farms in the first place. It will also be more expensive (more so than plant forms of protein).
Regarding Wolff’s health claims, it’s harder for me to comment on that since I’m not a registered dietitian. That being said, neither is he. If we ask the largest group of registered dietitians, however, they say that a plant based diet can be acceptable for people at any stage in life.
Firstly just to say: the book isn’t advocating factory farming at all.
- On the point of efficiency (p. 227):
‘The antimeat camps raise concern about how much food is diverted away from people toward the “inefficient” process of feeding animals… this is largely a false pretense’ – and has a chapter (chapter 10) dedicated to explaining that there are vast swaths of land that can’t be used for crops, but which animals can be rearer on. So the opportunity cost from the initial inputs (for pasture-raised meat) is not as straightforward as inefficiency calculations suggests.
- The book argues regenerative agriculture could feed the U.S. – while being better for the long-term environment (p. 232):
’Do we have the land for it? Diana consulted with a few experts to run the numbers, including Dr. Allen Williams, an ecosystem and soil health consultant, farmer, and former agriculture professor … [List of many other people consulted]… One critical piece of information to keep in mind is to remember that we’re comparing industrial monocropping to regenerative agriculture, which have drastically different impacts on the land. Even though it takes more land to produce well-managed grass-finished beef, it could be argued that the regenerative solution is a smarter one for our future than the chemical one. At a recent conference about grass-fed beef, Rowntree said in his presentation, “I’d rather have 2.5 acres of regenerative agriculture than 1 acre of extractive agriculture.” [And that regenerative agriculture leads to more utilisable land]
’let’s dive into what sort of acres we’d need in the US to finish all our beef herd on grass… the numbers are rough and could certainly be challenged, but… If we look at the current amount of idle grassland, underutilized pasture, and cropland that would be freed up from grain production in an all-grass-finished scenario, the short answer to our question is yes. We do have the land to finish all our current beef cattle on pasture in the US.
’If we are now grass-finishing all beef cattle produced annually in the US, we can reduce the ninety to ninety-four million acres of corn planted. Approximately 36–40 percent of today’s corn crop actually goes into livestock feed (cattle, pigs, and chickens)…
’If we take just fifteen million acres of cornfields and consider these productive (after all, they once were thriving grasslands), each of them can finish 1.25 steers per acre. Altogether, these acres finish 18.75 million cattle. In addition to converting some of our corn acres back to grassland, there are over five hundred million acres of privately owned pastureland in the US, and many experts we’ve spoken to estimate it’s only being utilized at 30 percent capacity. This leaves enormous potential for better grazing management.
‘And again, these acres will be a net gain to our agricultural land because they would be beneficial to our ecosystems instead of destroying them… soil, water cycles, and mineral cycles, and more wildlife.’
- And they argue (p. 234):
‘Not only could it be possible to finish all US beef cattle on grass, but grass-finishing beef is more profitable as well.’
- On the health point, I am also not a registered dietician! Diana Rodgers (the lead author of the book) is. [Updated reply:] There are a few very good pages from p.103–108 in the book. I will refrain (for brevity) from citing volumes, and just share:
‘While the American and British dietetic organizations maintain a vegan diet is safe for all life stages, both Germany and Switzerland specifically don’t recommend vegan diets for pregnant or lactating women, infants, children, or adolescents. And in May 2019 a group of doctors from the Belgian Royal Academy of Medicine put forward a proposal to make feeding babies a vegan diet illegal. The committee stated that a vegan diet is unsuitable for unborn children, children, and adolescents, as well as pregnant and lactating women.’
I won’t push more as I feel the health argument is already run exhaustively in many places. But my main point in posting all this is that I think the environmental/ethical side of EA thinking here might not have been robustly challenged (and thus is much more interesting!).
To start, I should specify that I haven’t read this book, so my comment is based on the passages you’ve included.
First of all, this passage discusses the fact that many animals are killed in crop production. While there are some issues in the studies that claim that, I’ll set those aside. My issue is that the passage fails to mention that the majority of plants grown on this planet are fed to livestock, and this is an inefficient use of energy, since you lose many calories in the process. For example, 77% of soy grown in the world is used as feed for livestock. Thus, eating factor farmed cow leads to more crop deaths than eating plants. The author does mention grass-fed cows, which make up a tiny proportion of livestock in the developed world. The problem with this is that it isn’t scalable. We probably can’t feed a country the size of the U.S. on grass-fed cows, hence the existence of factory farms in the first place. It will also be more expensive (more so than plant forms of protein).
Regarding Wolff’s health claims, it’s harder for me to comment on that since I’m not a registered dietitian. That being said, neither is he. If we ask the largest group of registered dietitians, however, they say that a plant based diet can be acceptable for people at any stage in life.
Thanks Yair.
Firstly just to say: the book isn’t advocating factory farming at all.
- On the point of efficiency (p. 227):
‘The antimeat camps raise concern about how much food is diverted away from people toward the “inefficient” process of feeding animals… this is largely a false pretense’ – and has a chapter (chapter 10) dedicated to explaining that there are vast swaths of land that can’t be used for crops, but which animals can be rearer on. So the opportunity cost from the initial inputs (for pasture-raised meat) is not as straightforward as inefficiency calculations suggests.
- The book argues regenerative agriculture could feed the U.S. – while being better for the long-term environment (p. 232):
’Do we have the land for it? Diana consulted with a few experts to run the numbers, including Dr. Allen Williams, an ecosystem and soil health consultant, farmer, and former agriculture professor … [List of many other people consulted]… One critical piece of information to keep in mind is to remember that we’re comparing industrial monocropping to regenerative agriculture, which have drastically different impacts on the land. Even though it takes more land to produce well-managed grass-finished beef, it could be argued that the regenerative solution is a smarter one for our future than the chemical one. At a recent conference about grass-fed beef, Rowntree said in his presentation, “I’d rather have 2.5 acres of regenerative agriculture than 1 acre of extractive agriculture.” [And that regenerative agriculture leads to more utilisable land]
’let’s dive into what sort of acres we’d need in the US to finish all our beef herd on grass… the numbers are rough and could certainly be challenged, but… If we look at the current amount of idle grassland, underutilized pasture, and cropland that would be freed up from grain production in an all-grass-finished scenario, the short answer to our question is yes. We do have the land to finish all our current beef cattle on pasture in the US.
’If we are now grass-finishing all beef cattle produced annually in the US, we can reduce the ninety to ninety-four million acres of corn planted. Approximately 36–40 percent of today’s corn crop actually goes into livestock feed (cattle, pigs, and chickens)…
’If we take just fifteen million acres of cornfields and consider these productive (after all, they once were thriving grasslands), each of them can finish 1.25 steers per acre. Altogether, these acres finish 18.75 million cattle. In addition to converting some of our corn acres back to grassland, there are over five hundred million acres of privately owned pastureland in the US, and many experts we’ve spoken to estimate it’s only being utilized at 30 percent capacity. This leaves enormous potential for better grazing management.
‘And again, these acres will be a net gain to our agricultural land because they would be beneficial to our ecosystems instead of destroying them… soil, water cycles, and mineral cycles, and more wildlife.’
- And they argue (p. 234):
‘Not only could it be possible to finish all US beef cattle on grass, but grass-finishing beef is more profitable as well.’
- On the health point, I am also not a registered dietician! Diana Rodgers (the lead author of the book) is. [Updated reply:] There are a few very good pages from p.103–108 in the book. I will refrain (for brevity) from citing volumes, and just share:
‘While the American and British dietetic organizations maintain a vegan diet is safe for all life stages, both Germany and Switzerland specifically don’t recommend vegan diets for pregnant or lactating women, infants, children, or adolescents. And in May 2019 a group of doctors from the Belgian Royal Academy of Medicine put forward a proposal to make feeding babies a vegan diet illegal. The committee stated that a vegan diet is unsuitable for unborn children, children, and adolescents, as well as pregnant and lactating women.’
I won’t push more as I feel the health argument is already run exhaustively in many places. But my main point in posting all this is that I think the environmental/ethical side of EA thinking here might not have been robustly challenged (and thus is much more interesting!).