Fair. The saturated fat is mostly in the dark meat and under the skin. So, chicken wings and drumsticks, and processed chicken in nugget form are high. And those cheapo rotisserie chickens in all the grocery stores, cooked skin on.
Some Disturbing Climate Trends
- Thread starter semipro
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
Fair. The saturated fat is mostly in the dark meat and under the skin. So, chicken wings and drumsticks, and processed chicken in nugget form are high. And those cheapo rotisserie chickens in all the grocery stores, cooked skin on.
SpaceBus
Minister of Fire
This is basically where I came to after the last few terms at school. I took a class on climate change and then sustainable livestock management and it really is true that rotational/mob/multispecies grazing is just a fantasy. The increase in land use is MASSIVE compared to CAFO, as much as I dislike them. I really wanted to "prove" that CAFO are objectively bad for animal welfare and the environment, but that's actually not easy to do. The below citation is a study on exactly what we are talking about, and the conditions were about as good as it gets for rotational/intensive grazing techniques.
Rowntree Jason E., Stanley Paige L., Maciel Isabella C. F., Thorbecke Mariko, Rosenzweig Steven T., Hancock Dennis W., Guzman Aidee, Raven Matt R. (2020). Ecosystem Impacts and Productive Capacity of a Multi-Species Pastured Livestock System. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 4. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.544984Links to an external site.
As much as I personally dislike "broiler" type chickens due to their inherently poor quality of life, I can't deny the environmental benefits gained by their extremely efficient feed conversion rates. It's better even than CAFO beef or swine products. I work on a (tiny) organic poultry CAFO + processing facility and the output per acre is really mind boggling, and it could be even higher if they could operate outside of the USDA/Maine organic standards. However, those organic standards are part of what makes it the best commercially available chicken I've ever eaten.
SpaceBus
Minister of Fire
A cow that can subsist on grain is really just a pig or chicken. Why engineer cows to emit less when non-ruminant livestock options already exist? The effort should be placed on selecting swine for beef-like flavors instead of trying to make a cow that is not a ruminant.The main issue is methane, and there beef really stands alone. Pork and chickens don't make much methane, so no need to enclose them. I assume they are confined bc it makes them fatten up faster? I think chicken farms produce a lot of ammonia, but the atmosphere scrubs that out pretty fast. While a grain based diet does reduce beef CH4 production a lot (IIRC >60%), it would probably be cheaper to engineer the animal and its microbiome to produce nearly zero CH4 on a grain diet than to capture the CH4 mechanically.
Cows Genetically Modified to Burp and Fart Less Could Cut Methane Emissions
Scientists have identified genetically inherited gut microbes that regulate how much methane a cow produces.www.newsweek.com
I think there are many opportunities in reducing food waste. Products with short shelf lives are always going to generate some waste. And I learned long ago that many sewage treatment plants rely on food 'waste' being put down kitchen disposal systems. The bacteria that make the plant work rely on those calories and nutrients. If everyone composted every scrap of their waste, we would need to throw 'food' into the treatment plants to make them go.
Chickens are raised indoors simply for ease of growing them out. These birds only live for eight weeks, and even without battery cages it's just easier to manage large flocks indoors. You can keep them from getting cold, wet, control what they eat, etc. Also, no more hormones in poultry, that's now illegal.
I think hormones are still being used for cattle, but mostly to help with digestion, not necessarily growth. In fact, you can't keep a cow alive on just grain without hormones and antibiotics, they would die. Cattle are not adapted to eat grain. The grain can be digested without the aid of bacteria in the multi-chambered stomach, unlike cellulose based forages. The bacteria are what make the methane and CO2, byproducts of fermentation of cellulose. Kind of like alcohol and CO2 are the byproducts of yeast fermentation (microbial digestion). To my understanding the antibiotics are to prevent negative bacteria from setting up shop in the digestive tract now that the lactobacillus have starved to death due to the grain. Lactobacillus produce acids that make the PH too low to support (most) harmful bacteria, creating a natural barrier to infection. The hormones are similar to those produced by infant/nursing calves that don't yet posses the proper gut development for digestion of cellulose and need to digest milk instead.
Being an animal science major has a few limited perks!
The AP covered the story yesterday. Better to continue discussion in that thread. Link posted here:
10 states plan to sue the EPA over standards for residential wood-burning stoves
JUNEAU, Alaska (AP) — Attorneys general from 10 states plan to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, saying its failure to review and ensure emissions standards for residential wood-burning stoves has allowed the continued sale of appliances that could worsen pollution. That means...
www.hearth.com
I'm confused, the study you linked to does conclude that the amount of land needed for rotational/mob/multispecies meat production is much higher than for CAFO's, but also concludes that the total GHG emissions of the "regenerative" rotational grazing/multispecies farm in their study was significantly lower *IF* you factor in the measured carbon sequestration in the soil. Do you disagree with that part of the study's conclusion?
Also curious, Woodgeek, does the CAFO vs. pasture re: GHG emissions literature you've surveyed factor in carbon sequestration on the so-called "regenerative" pastured systems, the kind championed by Joel Salatin? (The study claims that the scientific literature on this type of system is sparse.)
Your reading is correct. The problem is that the sequestration by the soil factor is assumed to be very large, and to continue indefinitely. Other data has shown that it saturates in a few years. This is intuitive bc they are changing a nearly barren landscape into a grassland with some soil organics, in a few years. But it doesn't make sense that that rate of sequestration would continue forever... once it plateaus, the regen system is much worse than a CAFO process.
Lots of BS from General Mills. But their White Oak Pastures project publication is here:
Ecosystem Impacts and Productive Capacity of a Multi-Species Pastured Livestock System
Regenerative agriculture is a newly codified approach to agriculture that emphasizes reducing reliance on exogeneous inputs, as well as restoring and enhancing ecosystem services such as soil carbon (C) sequestration. These regenerative agriculture principles suggest that modern livestock...
Check out figure 2.
Note that this paper is authored by the folks running WOP and their consultants.
In practice, any approach that increases organic carbon at a site will form a carbon sink. For example, returning depleted land to natural habitat by a variety of methods (like putting up fences to reduce overgrazing) would have a similar, but transient, negative carbon effect.
Last edited:
sloeffle
Minister of Fire
RALGRO® | Merck Animal Health USA
RALGRO (zeranol implants) is an anabolic agent that increases rate of weight gain and improves feed efficiency of weaned beef calves, growing beef cattle, feedlot steers, and feedlot heifers.
www.merck-animal-health-usa.com
My cattle seem to eat grain just fine, and so do hundreds of thousands of cattle that are shoved into feedlots. Do I like feeding it, no, but customers want grain fed beef.
Grass fed beef is generally too lean for most folks and can easily be ruined by someone not knowing how to cook it correctly.
I’d be interested to see a study that takes into account all of the diesel burnt, fertilizer used, and what the soil health is on the inputs for a CAFO vs MSPR. The sheep / goat numbers are interesting in that study. My guess is, they don’t raise nearly the number of pounds of lamb, and goat as they do beef. The world just needs to eat less and waste less meat.
Last edited:
Thanks for clarifying. But then another question, what about the possibility of very long term (if not forever) C sequestration, in quantities large enough to move the needle on GHG, by proper site selection, e.g. the native Midwestern grasslands, where rotational grazing by bison created incredibly high concentrations of org. matter (C) down to incredible depths.
i'm telling you guys don't worry about cow farts,the methane thats going to be released from the arctic will dwarf that by a long shot
SpaceBus
Minister of Fire
Cows fed intensive grain diets have poor health. It only works because you are taking them to slaughter, like other CAFO. The digestive system of ruminants is not adapted to grain intensive diets. I understand the difference between grass and grain finished and agree that most folks don't like it.RALGRO® | Merck Animal Health USA
RALGRO (zeranol implants) is an anabolic agent that increases rate of weight gain and improves feed efficiency of weaned beef calves, growing beef cattle, feedlot steers, and feedlot heifers.
My cattle seem to eat grain just fine, and so do hundreds of thousands of cattle that are shoved into feedlots. Do I like feeding it, no, but customers want grain fed beef.
Grass fed beef is generally too lean for most folks and can easily be ruined by someone not knowing how to cook it correctly.
I’d be interested to see a study that takes into account all of the diesel burnt, fertilizer used, and what the soil health is on the inputs for a CAFO vs MSPR. The sheep / goat numbers are interesting in that study. My guess is, they don’t raise nearly the number of pounds of lamb, and goat as they do beef. The world just needs to eat less and waste less meat.
I posted a link about the carbon of CAFO vs multi species grazing. It's just as Woodgeek said, CAFO is still greener. It's only going to get better with electrification. I do think utilizing animal waste products does need to be more efficient. Biogas refineries are bigger in Europe, but I guess cheap fossil fuels prevents them from gaining traction in the US. I think the methane emissions from ruminants would be a non issue if other sectors could become carbon neutral.
The rate of sequestration matters. The animal operation in the WOP project (some of it off site) produce CO2 and CH4 at a significant fixed rate, if the rate of sequestration of atmospheric CO2 into underground biomass is slower than that, the project is a net producer of climate forcing.
The evidence is that the sequestration factor can outweigh the CO2 and CH4 production for a few years (5-10 years, given the most optimistic accounting in the WOP publication), but then slows to the point where the project is a net producer again.
If the ground continues to build carbon very slowly for another 1000 years after that, what is the point? CH4 lasts 25+ years in the atmosphere, CO2 more like 500. The WOP system still emits more CO2 and CH4 than a CAFO operation growing its feed on a fraction of the land area.
The reality is that new forests can store a lot more carbon over the span of a few decades than new grasslands. Both will continue to add more carbon (much of it underground) as they mature, for centuries longer, but that is really irrelevant for climate change factors.
That is, the WOP reference case is one where the damaged land is not remediated by any other means. That makes it look better than it is.
So, let's say we CAFO the same amount of livestock as WOP, and grow their feed crops on part of the land taken by the regenerative model. We then plant trees on the remaining land. If they need fertilizer, use the CAFO manure, or synthetic, doesn't matter. This system would sequester carbon faster and longer than the WOP process, yield the same amount of meat (which would do better in the marketplace due to USDA prime scoring) and emit less CO2 and CH4 in perpetuity.
WOP is a greenwashing operation by General Mills, and makes a tiny amount of grassfed beef that is made into EPIC jerky and sold at a premium price as 'low carbon' or green beef.
Re bison, I have read that they were key to the prairie ecosystem, as was the native american use of fire to keep the land clear. Bison don't over graze grass, and like to eat small trees and brush esp in the winter. That and intentional burns by the native americans formed and maintained a giant and deep grassland pasture. But it should be noted that the legendary bison 'herd' size and its meat productivity at its peak were miniscule compared to current animal agriculture system fueled by Haber Bosch nitrogen and CAFOs. If the prairie ecosystem could be magically restored and sustainably harvested... it would make a far too small and too lean amount of meat to satisfy the current American appetite.
Last edited:
Livestock create close to 10X as much sewage and waste (by nitrogen) than humans in the US. Unlike human waste, that is now typically treated, livestock waste of sprayed on crops, drained in lagoons, and does end up in rivers. Much of the giant algal blooms in the oceans are fed by such waste (not just runoff of synthetic fertilizers).
Runoff of $$ fertilizer costs farmers money, so they have incentive to be careful with application.
Conversely, treating animal waste costs farmers money, so they are incentivized to oops, spill it.
This will require regulation to resolve, will increase expenses for meat, and so will probably lead to a higher subsidy than those already in place.
EU simply has better regs against dumping waste, which makes sense given the higher population density.
Estimates of this effect vary a lot, and are a moving target as future projected temps are coming down. If the methane is released more slowly (due to slower warming), then it is less of an issue, as it breaks down as it is released. If the artic peats dry out and burn, then that is also OK, bc there is less methane and more CO2. The smoke sucks, though.
Either way, the amount of carbon there is large, but not THAT large compared to current human production, like a few years of what we are currently pumping out every year.
Selective breeding, overuse of antibiotics, fortified feed, and lack of activity.
SpaceBus
Minister of Fire
Early natives to North America also ran those herds of bison off of cliffs to harvest them. The numbers of bison that white Europeans found were likely artificially suppressed by unsustainable harvest techniques. It appears that the indigenous peoples only transitioned to hunting individual bison after firearms were traded to them by Europeans. It could really be argued that the bison were in a way domesticated by the natives who maintained their favored habitat. Europeans also believed that "rain follows the plow", when the opposite is typically true. Europeans came to North America and destroyed the native forests and grasslands (which can be argued as to whether or not they are indeed native) not only disrupting the carbon sequestration, but also the water cycle. Now rather than that deep water table being slowly evaporated/respirated by plants into the atmosphere, it's being pumped out and washing out to sea. This was made very clear after the industrial revolution and resulting dust bowl effect from a significantly increased rate of land use change.
Regarding animal waste products, organic farmers have a much larger incentive to control the waste flow. My local organic dairy collects as much manure as possible for combining with the waste hay, organic chicken viscera, and soiled organic chicken bedding/feed slurry. This is only possible because they can sell the compost and spread it on their own grazing fields. Interestingly a pasture based dairy operation can be "greener" than a confinement based operation (Link). However, I would be willing to put money on the confinement system coming out on top if you can contain the waste manure and use it for biogas, fertilizer, etc.
This is due to selective breeding. I work on an organic farm that can basically only give them water and organic grain and they still get up to be wild turkey weight if you let them go past 8 weeks. Around 12 -16 weeks they usually die of a heart attack before they reach the max size, but I've processed birds that were in excess of 9 lbs dressed. There is an old school heritage breed called the Jersey Giant that can get up to 13+ lbs, but they grow super slowly, far to slowly for commercial production, and take a year or more to hit full size. These Jersey Giants also tend to favor leg and thigh meat rather than the light breast meat that Americans prefer. The commercial chickens are known as Cornish Cross Broilers (CornishX or just broiler), and can't reproduce without human intervention due to their huge weight and size. Same with commercial broad breasted white turkeys, which I got three of them for free this year. They are only a few months old but already approaching wild turkey size. Due to having the same health issues as broilers, I wouldn't have chosen them myself. I prefer heritage breeds which grow slower, but have a much better taste and darker meat. This is definitely not as environmentally sustainable as growing broilers, but I do quite enjoy my flock of 30 laying hens, 44 growing chicks, 2 roosters, and 3 broad breasted turkeys. Since I'm growing these birds for egg production rather than just meat, I can't really guess on the actual carbon emissions from my micro CAFO with part time pasture. There are significant carbon emissions from the feed, but the ammonia and waste carbon are sequestered in compost for me. However, in general the carbon emissions related to eggs pales in comparison to that of red meat production.
SpaceBus
Minister of Fire
I was just a bit too late, but organic broilers get just as big as those fed antibiotics (which is being ever more regulated) and kept in battery cages, but only if the conditions are just right. Most of the time "conventionally" farmed chicken meat is higher yield, and organic farms can't really compete in quantity, so they focus more on quality.
I am so glad progress is being made. Organic sales at our local grocery store continue to grow. Big chains like Fred Meyer and Costco are also offering more organic options.
SpaceBus
Minister of Fire
I like organic food and think it's better to eat things not grow with pesticides. However, it's an unsustainable fantasy in the current form as structured by the USDA. Large companies like Purdue and Tyson put pressure on the USDA and congress to keep the status quo, to the detriment of small and organic farms. The antibiotic usage absolutely needs to be regulated more closely, but the best benefit to organic food is no harmful pesticide residues. I wish there were a class of products certified by the USDA that are simply free from pesticide laden inputs.
To stir the pot a bit... now that I'm vegan I have an extra incentive to not buy/eat organic food.
Organic farming relies on manure from animal agriculture, while conventional farming can use synthetic, that does not require animal inputs. In a (non-existent) vegan world, there would be no organic farming, unless it used humanure. There is also 'veganic' agriculture, which is organic but relies on crop rotation, but I am skeptical that it has the required productivity (and haven't seen much data).
As it is, I preferred conventional veggies before, and still do, but will still grudgingly buy organic if its the only option.
Organic farming relies on manure from animal agriculture, while conventional farming can use synthetic, that does not require animal inputs. In a (non-existent) vegan world, there would be no organic farming, unless it used humanure. There is also 'veganic' agriculture, which is organic but relies on crop rotation, but I am skeptical that it has the required productivity (and haven't seen much data).
As it is, I preferred conventional veggies before, and still do, but will still grudgingly buy organic if its the only option.
No till farming can reduce fertilizer needs. David Brandt in Ohio has been farming no-till, crop rotations for decades. Biomass makes up most of his fertilization. His data shows yields match neighboring farms while his costs are lower and the soil is hugely better and more fertile. It is dense and dark down several feet while his neighbor's soil is tan, chalky, and blows away when bare in the winters. IIRC his corn tested for protein just below the average synthetically fertilized corn. Sadly, he just died a month ago, but he left a strong legacy that changed USDA policy and recommendations. He has pioneered in this field and helped manufacturers develop the equipment needed for no-till. His manures came from keeping his cattle out all winter and letting them forage on the winter cover crops.
www.sare.org
understandingag.com
Dave Brandt - Carroll, Ohio - SARE
Cover Crop Innovators Video Series David Brandt farms 1,150 acres in central Ohio's Fairfield County. He began no-till farming in 1971 and has been using cover crops since 1978. David has participated in yield plots for corn, soybeans and wheat into various covers. This information has been used...
Brandt Farms Case Study - Understanding Ag
Brandt Farms, Carroll, Ohio Introduction David Brandt at home on the farm. David and Kendra Brandt purchased his grandmother's farm in 1971 after being
understandingag.com
Last edited:
sloeffle
Minister of Fire
I'm sorry, but I struggle with the idea of a feedlot being a more environmental way to feed cattle than a having them doing what they do naturally, turning grass, legumes and forbs into red meat.
None of these studies take animal husbandry or soil health into affect. If you were a cow would you want to me shoved into a feedlot in Kansas on a 100° degree day with no shade or would you rather be grazing a silvopasture where there's trees for shade ? Most of my customers are my customers because they want animals that are treated with respect and kindness and just not seen as a commodity. I guarantee any rancher or cattle men treats his cattle a hell of a lot better than any feed lot ( Cargill, JBS, Tyson) operator does.
Concerning soil health, I read the article about Dave Brandt ( RIP ) that @begreen posted and that took me down a rabbit hole of watching some of the videos on the Soil Carbon Cowboys site. I'd recommend watching the video of the farmers from Kansas, and from Will Harris at WOP.
From a personal perspective the organic matter on my pastures is 4% on the soil I had tested last year. I had a pasture walk at my place last year and the NRCS guy was a huge Dave Brandt, and Gabe Brown fan. He shared of of the techniques he was doing on his farm. Very interesting stuff, if you are into that kind of thing. I doubt there are any monocrop fields in my area with organic matter that high.
There's only a few farmers in my area that plants cover crops an no till beans or corn into them the next year. They love riding around in there 300k tractors and tearing up fields in the fall time.
None of these studies take animal husbandry or soil health into affect. If you were a cow would you want to me shoved into a feedlot in Kansas on a 100° degree day with no shade or would you rather be grazing a silvopasture where there's trees for shade ? Most of my customers are my customers because they want animals that are treated with respect and kindness and just not seen as a commodity. I guarantee any rancher or cattle men treats his cattle a hell of a lot better than any feed lot ( Cargill, JBS, Tyson) operator does.
Concerning soil health, I read the article about Dave Brandt ( RIP ) that @begreen posted and that took me down a rabbit hole of watching some of the videos on the Soil Carbon Cowboys site. I'd recommend watching the video of the farmers from Kansas, and from Will Harris at WOP.
From a personal perspective the organic matter on my pastures is 4% on the soil I had tested last year. I had a pasture walk at my place last year and the NRCS guy was a huge Dave Brandt, and Gabe Brown fan. He shared of of the techniques he was doing on his farm. Very interesting stuff, if you are into that kind of thing. I doubt there are any monocrop fields in my area with organic matter that high.
There's only a few farmers in my area that plants cover crops an no till beans or corn into them the next year. They love riding around in there 300k tractors and tearing up fields in the fall time.
Last edited:
I agree it is counterintuitive, but you neglect the overshoot factor. If we converted the whole midwest to primo grazing land, it couldn't come close to supporting the current herd size and beef production rate.I'm sorry, but I struggle with the idea of a feedlot being a more environmental way to feed cattle than a having them doing what they do naturally, turning grass, legumes and forbs into red meat.
None of these studies take animal husbandry or soil health into affect. If you were a cow would you want to me shoved into a feedlot in Kansas on a 100° degree day with no shade or would you rather be grazing a silvopasture where there's trees for shade ? Most of my customers are my customers because they want animals that are treated with respect and kindness and just not seen as a commodity. I guarantee any rancher or cattle men treats his cattle a hell of a lot better than any feed lot ( Cargill, JBS, Tyson) operator does.
Concerning soil health, I read the article about Dave Brandt ( RIP ) that @begreen posted and that took me down a rabbit hole of watching some of the videos on the Soil Carbon Cowboys site. I'd recommend watching the video of the farmers from Kansas, and from Will Harris at WOP.
From a personal perspective the organic matter on my pastures is 4% on the soil I had tested last year. I had a pasture walk at my place last year and the NRCS guy was a huge Dave Brandt, and Gabe Brown fan. He shared of of the techniques he was doing on his farm. Very interesting stuff, if you are into that kind of thing. I doubt there are any monocrop fields in my area with organic matter that high.
Wholly natural methods for animal husbandry have been off the table since about 1950 due to exploding demand.
But ofc, beef production is not environmentally benign when done at the current scale. We are trying to choose the least damaging approach to meeting current demand. The environmental move would be to decrease demand to a 'sustainable level' well below the current one, but that seems to be off the table, politically and culturally.
The sustainability of current plant agriculture is an important topic, but separate from the beef issue.
Last edited:
sloeffle
Minister of Fire
If you can raise the organic matter of the soil, the soil can grow more lbs. of forage per acre. In a mono crop type system, you are so reliant on chemical fertilizers that kills soil health, this will never happen. Or do what Gabe Brown does, you plant a cover crop in with your main crop and then you graze the animals on that after the main crop has been taken off. This eliminates some of a cattle farmers largest expense ( hay ), puts weight on the animals, fertilizes the soil and build organic matter. You would still need a place for the cattle to graze during the spring and summer though.
I agree one-hundred percent with your statement, and beef production is only going to continue to grow. I was at a beef conference a few years ago and the spokesperson from the Ohio Beef council said the average American eats 32 or 36lbs of beef per year. They were wanting to know how they could continue to grow those numbers.
What's funny is, sheep are a much better at converting a lb. of grain, grass, whatever into a lb. of meat and the average American eats half lb. of lamb a year.I agree one-hundred percent with your statement, and beef production is only going to continue to grow. I was at a beef conference a few years ago and the spokesperson from the Ohio Beef council said the average American eats 32 or 36lbs of beef per year. They were wanting to know how they could continue to grow those numbers.
I suspect the beef versus sheep factor is mostly decades of effective branding, and the historical demand for cow-based dairy products that yield low end beef that must be disposed of... usually as fast food.
Found a helpful report from the USDA (from 2005):
The abstract:
Beef is a highly consumed meat in the United States, averaging 67 pounds per person per year. Findings based on the 1994-96 and 1998 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) indicate that most beef was eaten at home. Annual beef consumption per person was highest in the Midwest (73 pounds), followed by the South and West (65 pounds each), and the Northeast (63 pounds). Rural consumers ate more beef (75 pounds) than did urban and suburban consumers (66 and 63 pounds). Beef consumption also varies by race and ethnicity. Blacks ate 77 pounds of beef per person per year, followed by 69 pounds by Hispanics, 65 pounds by Whites, and 62 pounds by other races. Low-income consumers tend to eat more beef than do consumers in other income households.
It also shows that beef consumption per capita peaked in 1975, and that poorer people eat more beef!
Looks like consumption dropped a fair amount from 1975 to 1990, back to the level it had in 1960, and then very slowly declined. More recent data 2012-2022:
Per capita red meat and poultry consumption expected to decrease modestly in 2022
Per capita red meat and poultry disappearance is expected to modestly decrease in 2022. While it is often used as a proxy measure for consumption, per capita meat disappearance is a measure of the supply available for use in domestic markets, including fresh and processed meat sold through...
www.ers.usda.gov
Summary: US per capita beef consumption appears to be falling very slowly from 1990 to today, from ~68 lb/yr.person to ~58 lbs/yr.person, which is probably similar to the 1950s level.
And in the 1970s, beef consumption surged to closer to 90 lb/yr.person in 1975! Not sure why that happened... but I remember the price of beef being a staple topic on TV (e.g. Archie Bunker). The big beef advertizing didn't start until 1993 (and may have stemmed the slide in sales?).
Bottom line: beef is only growing in the US due to increases in population and perhaps exports?
ETA: the surge in beef consumption in the 1970s was probably due to the Baby Boomers. People in their 20s generally eat a lot more beef than at other ages...
Last edited:
