My beef

My entire philosophy can be summed up in the quote, “live and let live”. It's an ancient quote. It's often cited as the most profoundly noble ideal humans can strive for. Yet it is also the last thing most people even bother reaching for. The one thing in this world that still angers me is when people try to manipulate me into following their path. Often, this manipulation takes the form of physical force via the proxy of govt. But just as often these days it comes in the form of people claiming their way is the righteous way and trying to shame me into joining their cult. They can't simply enjoy their life and accept that I enjoy life differently.

Although they have not yet resorted to the violent brutality of the Inquisition, there are groups today who steadfastly claim the moral high ground and use almost every underhanded tactic they can to prove they are better than you. It started with environmentalists. They have succeeded in using pseudo-science, shame, ridicule, outright lies, and propaganda to sway much of the modern world to their beliefs. But the group I want to direct my tirade towards today is vegans.

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with people choosing to live the vegan lifestyle. It's their life, their choice. And I harbor no ill will towards those who view it that way. But recently I have begun to encounter militant vegans. These are people who are so convinced their choice is the right one that they have become evangelical about it. They say veganism is the only moral way to live. That is where they cross the line. The instant you claim you are righteous and I am evil for disagreeing, you have ceased to be a worthy human being.

Since morality is such a fuzzy subject and virtually impossible to debate with any objectivity, I will focus on what has become the standard “proof” vegans use to show they are the righteous ones. They have latched on to the popularity of the eco movement and are trying to claim that veganism is better for the environment than omnivorism. They claim that meat creates more pollution, uses more energy, and wastes more resources than a meat-free diet does.

This is absolute bunk. First of all, grains and vegetables are woefully lacking in important nutrients. Essential fats are missing. Protein is in short supply. And vitamins are scarce. You have to eat a broad range of non-meat products to get the same level of nutrition you can get by eating meat. This is important to note because every vegetable you eat is grown in a separate field. The more types of vegetables you need, the more fields we need to grow those vegetables. Vegans like to claim that forests are razed to make room for cow pastures. But they conveniently ignore that those same forests, more even, would have to be razed to make room for the fields of rutabagas it would take to feed everyone. So they can't claim cows are more damaging because they remove forests. Unless they are going to produce the added veggies by magical means that require no fields.

But they don't stop with the fallacious claim of wasted land. They also insist cows waste water. Because, apparently, you don't have to water crops. This link shows the sort of outright lies these folks will resort to in order to “prove” their point.

According to the author of that article, it takes twelve thousand gallons of water to produce a single pound of beef. If you are curious, a typical cow produces somewhere in excess of 500 pounds of beef. So the author of that article is telling you it takes six million gallons of water to raise a cow for slaughter. I have raised cows. I have filled the water trough. I have never seen a cow drink nearly that much water. But just for kicks, let's do some math.

There are approximately 98 million cows just in the United States. If each of them needed 6 million gallons of water that means the entire US cattle population would consume 588 TRILLION gallons of water. That's 588 with twelve zeroes behind it. To help visualize that, there are 1,101,117,147,428 gallons in a cubic mile. That means cows in the US consume 534 cubic miles of water. Still not getting the scale? That is just under ten percent of the volume of the Great Lakes. And that is just the US cattle. China has over 130 million cattle. That still leaves Europe, Africa, South America, Canada, India, Russia.... By the time you add up all these cattle, where does the water come from to support them?

In reality, cows don't use nearly that much water. A typical cow drinks twenty-five to fifty gallons a day. Assuming you raise the cow for two years before slaughter, that means the cow will have drank, at most, 36,500 gallons of water in it's entire life. Or about seventy-three gallons per pound of beef. That's a far cry from the twelve thousand gallons claimed in the above article. Not to mention the fact that every single drop of water consumed in the production of beef is recycled. It is either excreted by the cow, exhaled as vapor in the cow's breath, or consumed by you as that succulent juice in the steak. Water does not disappear. So even if their figures were close to accurate the whole idea would still be a red herring.

But they will tell you it isn't just about what the cow drinks. The other 11,927 gallons per pound of beef are the result of the process of raising cows. Anti-meat types love to claim meat requires much more resources to produce. Shall we compare?

This is how you prepare a field to grow crops. This is how you prepare a field to grow cattle. Is there any question which method is using more resources and producing more pollution? But we're not done yet.

This is how you plant a field of crops. This is how you plant a cow. Again, the difference in the amount of labor and resources is self-evident.

This is how you fertilize a field of crops. This is how you fertilize a cow pasture. The difference in the level of technology is once again self-evident.


This is how you pesticide a field of crops. That doesn't have an analog in the world of livestock. More resources consumed by crops that would not be used by livestock.

This is how you harvest grain. The grain is then hauled to a silo and stored until it is ready to be reloaded and hauled to a processing facility. This is how you harvest cattle. Again, which process involves the least effort and mechanization? Not to mention how much grain gets wasted in the harvesting process.

I challenge anybody to explain to me how all that machinery using all that fuel and producing all that pollution to plant and harvest vegetables can possibly be more eco-friendly than this.

As blunt as I can be, it's pure bullshit. Grains and vegetables have to be grown on big factory farms. There is no other way to grow enough to feed people. They have to use pesticides and fertilizers to make sure they harvest enough to feed everybody. It is unavoidable. Organic methods will not produce enough food on the available land to sustain the population.

And none of this factors in the wastefulness of grains and vegetables. If you pay close attention towards the end of that video on harvesting corn you will see a great deal of corn being dumped over the side of the truck. That may be an unusual occurance to lose that amount. But some is lost every single time a truck is loaded. More is lost in the processing. Since grains and vegetables have a finite shelf-life they have to be treated with more chemicals to keep them from rotting before you buy them. Even so, grocers routinely have to throw away products that have expired. The amount of waste with grains and vegetables is very high compared to meat. Meat can be kept fresh, alive even, until the day you eat it.

Meat, on the other hand, requires very little machinery to grow. It requires no chemicals. Yes, I realize factory farms are the current practice in meat production as well. But meat doesn't require that technique. You can grow cows, pigs, chickens, whatever in small numbers quite economically. I have personally seen chickens being grown in a coop just twelve miles from Manhattan. And wild game is still plentiful for those who wish to harvest it. You can't get food with less expenditure of resources than that.

And meat can be grown in areas where edible crops cannot be grown. Much of Wyoming does not get enough rainfall to support corn or wheat. But cows, sheep, and buffalo can graze on the grass that grows there. There are also areas which are too hilly to allow for fields to be planted and harvested. But, again, livestock can easily graze on the wild grass that grows there. You can't plant corn on a lake; you can harvest the fish that grow in that lake.

I am not trying to convert anybody. How you choose to live your life is your business. But do not come at me with your nonsense in the attempt to convert me to your ways. Live and let live. I'm not bothering you, don't bother me. And definitely don't try to make me out as morally inferior when all the evidence shows that my lifestyle leaves less of a footprint than yours. Eat all the veggies you want. Just shut up and let me enjoy my steak in peace.