Everyone seems to be raving about grass-fed meat these days, and its supporters boast not only about its superior taste and higher quality, but also grass-fed animals' lesser impact on the environment, as well as their more humane treatment.

"Conscientious meat eaters" believe that eating meat that comes from local, sustainable farms is much better for both consumers and the earth.  Grass-fed beef is lower in overall fat and saturated fat and rich in heart-healthy omega-3 fats found naturally in grass.  It takes nearly 16 pounds of grain and 2,500 gallons of water to produce one pound of grain-fed meat, and much of the grain comes from developing countries where much of the land is used to raise cattle for export to the United States. 

Despite these facts, the issue of whether grass-fed meat really is green is much more complicated.  Certainly cattle were not meant to eat corn, which is exactly what mass-produced, feedlot animals are fed.  It's faster and cheaper to fatten calves up on grain, but their digestive tracts, designed to digest grass, react badly, so most corn-fed cattle are also dosed with antibiotics to keep them well. 

Keeping animals in feedlots and feeding them with grain is also responsible for the increase in E coli 0157:H7 bacteria in the food supply.  Grain-fed cattle's intestinal tracts are more acidic, making them more favorable to the growth of E. coli bacteria.  Growing corn used to feed livestock requires large amounts of chemical fertilizer, which takes vast quantities of oil.

Still, the world of grass-fed livestock is far from perfect.  Not all grass-fed meat is organic; organic beef, chicken, and eggs are hormone and antibiotic free, but the animals still typically spend the last months of their lives in feedlots where they eat grain.  And non-organic cattle often graze in pastures that have been treated with synthetic fertilizers, even herbicides. 

Smaller, sustainable farms promote more ethical animal husbandry practices, but just because cage-free and free-range chickens aren't kept in cages, many are still crowded in dark, windowless buildings with one small opening leading to a small area of bare earth.  Grass-fed animals require grazing land for long periods of time that exacerbates the existing grazing issues of loss of rainforests and farmland, soil erosion, threats to wildlife, and the use of public land for grazing.  Since the land on which the animals feed must often be irrigated, this also uses up diminishing water supplies.

According to some experts, including Mark Bittman, food writer for the New York Times, and the author of several books, most recently Food Matters, grass-fed cattle may actually be worse for the environment than feedlot animals.  In a recent story in Science News, Nathan Pelletier of Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia said that greenhouse gas emissions for grass-finished livestock are approximately 50 percent higher than for grain-fed animals.  Like animals raised indoors, grazing cattle produce major amounts of manure, therefore emitting methane, a toxic greenhouse gas.  And grass-fed stock simply eat more, making it an expensive luxury for most.

So, it pays to think about all the issues when we shop for meat. One might follow Bittman's example from Food Matters, and "eat less meat and fewer animal products in general."  Bittman recommends an average of one-to-two pounds of animal products a week at the most.  Or give it a try as a vegetarian or vegan.

Related Reading:
The Meat of Climate Change
Dire Economy Takes Negligible Toll on Organic Food