TR Forums

shaq_mobile wrote:

I'm actually curious (honestly, not trying to sound sarcastic) how you have come to the conclusion that our means of meat production takes abnormally improper amounts of energy.

To answer the question quite directly and precisely, the 'average' computation is 7 pounds of grain to increase the weight of a steer, raised for meat production purposes, 1 pound of usable product. A 7-to-1 ratio.

http://www.extension.org/faq/4027

It takes all the normal requirements to raise the 7 pounds of grain - water, fertilizer, gasoline for the vehicles both cultivating and harvesting the grains along with other general farm-related activities for the land owner, energy used to disperse feed, storage needs, etc. Then, once the steer has been raised to the required weight, you must factor in methane production (bowel gas) from the steer during it's lifetime, round-up energy used (gasoline for any vehicles used, feed for any round-up animal assistants (horses, dogs, etc.), feeding the hired hands used during round-up time), transportation of steer to slaughterhouse, energy used inside slaughterhouse, feeding of slaughterhouse employees, transportation of meat product to market, refrigeration of meat products, butcher energy usage...

Versus having the 7-times greater food yield go directly to the end consumer worldwide, removing the grain-to-steer-to-meat product-to-cut meat conversions. And, as you well know, the Law of Conservation says AND conversion loses energy.

There you go. The most rational answer available.

Snake wrote:

shaq_mobile wrote:

I'm actually curious (honestly, not trying to sound sarcastic) how you have come to the conclusion that our means of meat production takes abnormally improper amounts of energy.

To answer the question quite directly and precisely, the 'average' computation is 7 pounds of grain to increase the weight of a steer, raised for meat production purposes, 1 pound of usable product. A 7-to-1 ratio.

http://www.extension.org/faq/4027

It takes all the normal requirements to raise the 7 pounds of grain - water, fertilizer, gasoline for the vehicles both cultivating and harvesting the grains along with other general farm-related activities for the land owner, energy used to disperse feed, storage needs, etc. Then, once the steer has been raised to the required weight, you must factor in methane production (bowel gas) from the steer during it's lifetime, round-up energy used (gasoline for any vehicles used, feed for any round-up animal assistants (horses, dogs, etc.), feeding the hired hands used during round-up time), transportation of steer to slaughterhouse, energy used inside slaughterhouse, feeding of slaughterhouse employees, transportation of meat product to market, refrigeration of meat products, butcher energy usage...

Versus having the 7-times greater food yield go directly to the end consumer worldwide, removing the grain-to-steer-to-meat product-to-cut meat conversions. And, as you well know, the Law of Conservation says AND conversion loses energy.

There you go. The most rational answer available.

Your link never even mentions a 7:1 ratio. On top of that, you're presenting the article as supporting conclusions that it just doesn't.

I've been a veggie since I was 14; I do it for moral reasons re animal welfare. I don't remember finding it particularly hard to stay away from meat, although it was a long time ago, I don't remember that well. But now I actively find the smell or sight of meat repulsive.

Anyway, good luck on your quest! I cook sometimes from a book called the student's vegetarian handbook, it's got some great stuff in there. Really there is a lot of choice in vegetarian food you can make or buy (even ready meals are pretty good nowadays) so don't think it's all just nut roasts. And sometimes when I sit down with my family and their boring old meat and veg and I have something like a Cashew nut paella, well, it feels good.

So since you said "vegetarian" and not "vegan", you're still okay with occasional cheese and such, right?

Personally, I enjoy meat, but it doesn't have to be part of every meal for me. Mediterranean themes offer possibilities -- a real nice medley of flavors can include a Pasta Alfredo base with bits of spinach, pine nuts, portabella mushrooms, sun-dried tomatoes, and (optional) tofu bits, all lightly sauteed in garlic and olive oil. I like to start by heating the olive oil and then pressing fresh garlic, which is then sauteed first until it starts to brown and mellow out, and then add the rest. The pasta and sauce are cooked separately, and then the whole works can be mixed together before serving. Sprinkle bits of fresh parmesan cheese or maybe bits of feta or gorgonzola on top of the final dish, and you won't notice the missing meat.

It really isn't hard to blend those kinds of dishes, either, it's just a matter of selecting and procuring the ingredients (some of which can be a bit pricey unless you buy bulk and freeze the extra for use over many meals).

Do whatever feels right for you, its your life. For me, I enjoy meat too much to give it up =)

mattsteg wrote:

Your link never even mentions a 7:1 ratio. On top of that, you're presenting the article as supporting conclusions that it just doesn't.

We should re-read the articles, both mine and the link.

a) I state "average", in quotes. The exact figure is hard to compute do to many factors and methods of computations, which is where the linked article comes in.

b) The articles states "Cattle convert (pounds of feed per pounds of gain) at around 5.5 to 6.5 in the feedlot...So, with the example above of 50 bushels of corn fed to a finished animal, now 4.67 pounds of corn were required for each 1 pound of beef. If you calculate the red meat yield from this and equate that to pounds of feed per pound of red meat yield, that conversion may approach as high as 20, especially using the 6 pounds for every 1 pound gain."

The article wisely identifies the various methodologies to come to a conclusion regarding this issue and therefore never truly settles on an exactly figure. But, as the quoted paragraph states, the industry considers "5.5 to 6.5 pounds in the feedlot" as a reasonable baseline computation. But the beef industry itself has never truly answered the question

"Clearly, 20 pounds is not correct because cows are usually grazing forages, not corn, and cattle do not enter the feedlot until they are 7 to 20 months of age. Clearly, 2 is not correct if you are using only red meat yield. So, the answer to the question depends how you define "beef."

The exact figure is somewhere between 20 to 1 and 2 to 1, but the article never truly settles on a precise calculation. So, therefore, using the beef industry's own 5.5/6.5 to 1 (6.5 rounded to 7) computation is quite within acceptable reason.

I made this chili for a friend thats diabetic, has gluten allergy and is a vegetarian (not by choice, but because she was raised as one, so she can't develop the taste for it now). If you aren't a vegetarian, fear not, this chili is pretty darn good, and you can toss in w/e kind of meat you want. In fact, I think I'm gonna make a trip to the store right now...

http://www.epicurious.com/recipes/food/ ... ili-230632

I have pan fried chicken with sri racha sauce, cooked some rice, and used this to make burritos as well. If you wanna go the burrito route, don't add any tomato puree. It make's it significantly thicker, which is better (thats what she said).

Also, something that *might* interest you, if you do have an acre or two, raising pigs is extremely easy. They're pretty low maintenance and they're not so big that you need special equipment to deal with them. They're also incredibly smart, so if you plan on doing it, make sure you got a good size pen/field for them, or they will find a way out. We raised them for 4H, and we raised an extra one each year and had it butchered. For one pig, it probably cost around a hundred bucks for enough food for the 8 months or so that we raised them. They weighed anywhere from 250-280lbs (270 is usually max[i think, we did this almost 10 years ago], so we butchered the biggest one). Just make sure you let them roam in a large enough area, you don't wanna be too cruel . They need an area to rest (a shed like area will do), lots of shade is good for pigs because they can get really bad sunburns, they will choose where they poop and pee (usually) and continue to use those areas. Just do some basic caretaking, think of them like tasty pets. It's hard to let go of them in the end, I got attached to one because he was a gimp, his leg got broken when he was a piglet. It was sad, but that is the circle of life, no use in having him die of old age (unless he plans on getting a job or writing philosophy, hes not gonna live free on my payroll). Mmm, home raised bacon is amazing in the morning...

Snake wrote:

The exact figure is somewhere between 20 to 1 and 2 to 1, but the article never truly settles on a precise calculation. So, therefore, using the beef industry's own 5.5/6.5 to 1 (6.5 rounded to 7) computation is quite within acceptable reason.

You said you were giving a "direct and precise" 'average' computation. You follow it up with a link. The closest your supposed supporting link gets to your number is a (lower) range that you need to round up beyond the top end to arrive at your number. Beyond that, you very directly imply that the grain involved is being raised exclusively for animal feed, even though your link mentions the common use of various byproducts of other industries for feed. Then there's the line

Your article wrote:

Most of the beef raised in the United States, and even more so globally, consume relatively small amounts of grain.

In short, you took a number, rounded it up for good measure, and then represented it as saying something it doesn't. Extremely dishonest.

Guys be happy he is going veggie more steaks for us

To be serious though the entire buying local thing just isn't possible for some of us. If I want local produce I could have potatoes, beef, pork and corn year round. Other than that there just aren't many crops grown around here unless they come out of a garden. From mid summer to fall I could have a few fresh veggies (out of a garden which I dont have time for) and then back to spuds, beef, pork and corn. The nearest farmers market is at least 60 miles away. What has a bigger environmental impact me driving to the grocery store ten miles away to buy produce that is already trucked in or me driving sixty miles to the farmers market ?

I was veggie for almost 10 years, spent a couple more as a pesce-vegetarian, and then lost a bet and now I eat meat. I had great friends that were vegetarian, so it was easy to start. It got much harder after college, but entirely doable, especially coupled with a veggie-ish religion like Buddhism. Just a few tricks I've learned, sometimes if you eat out and request vegetarian, the food will actually be prepared with meat (chicken stock in rice, beef broth in soups, etc.). Cheese is often started out with rennet, a part of the cow stomach; cultured rennet is OK however. Eggs are a potential vessel of life, so you're on your own with that choice.

It's also easy to eat poorly, as has been spelled out above. I tend to think in three groups, roughage, proteins, and liquids. Thinking this way makes you think deeper about what's in the food, and perhaps a bit easier to keep a balance. Some things like roots and grains are difficult to categorize (my system isn't fully baked), but, thinking about food is the goal.

Anyway, happy cooking!

mattsteg wrote:

Snake wrote:

The exact figure is somewhere between 20 to 1 and 2 to 1, but the article never truly settles on a precise calculation. So, therefore, using the beef industry's own 5.5/6.5 to 1 (6.5 rounded to 7) computation is quite within acceptable reason.

You said you were giving a "direct and precise" 'average' computation. You follow it up with a link. The closest your supposed supporting link gets to your number is a (lower) range that you need to round up beyond the top end to arrive at your number. Beyond that, you very directly imply that the grain involved is being raised exclusively for animal feed, even though your link mentions the common use of various byproducts of other industries for feed. Then there's the line

Your article wrote:

Most of the beef raised in the United States, and even more so globally, consume relatively small amounts of grain.

In short, you took a number, rounded it up for good measure, and then represented it as saying something it doesn't. Extremely dishonest.

As I am no expert I will differ to you. If you can supply more precise grain and energy usage figures over what I have come across, including

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/au ... k.hrs.html

http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM (with debate at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livestock%27s_Long_Shadow)

http://sustainability.hawaii.edu/Plone/ ... k-industry

I would be most pleased use them in substitution.

SecretMaster wrote:

However my reasoning is still very much environmentally oriented. I think our current practices for meat production are damaging towards the environment and really not very suitable.

Our current methods of farming are not doing the environment any favors either.

You could always eat venison...bastards are crapping all over my yard.

Or grow your own chickens. (bonus eggs).

Snake wrote:

mattsteg wrote:

Snake wrote:

The exact figure is somewhere between 20 to 1 and 2 to 1, but the article never truly settles on a precise calculation. So, therefore, using the beef industry's own 5.5/6.5 to 1 (6.5 rounded to 7) computation is quite within acceptable reason.

You said you were giving a "direct and precise" 'average' computation. You follow it up with a link. The closest your supposed supporting link gets to your number is a (lower) range that you need to round up beyond the top end to arrive at your number. Beyond that, you very directly imply that the grain involved is being raised exclusively for animal feed, even though your link mentions the common use of various byproducts of other industries for feed. Then there's the line

Your article wrote:

Most of the beef raised in the United States, and even more so globally, consume relatively small amounts of grain.

In short, you took a number, rounded it up for good measure, and then represented it as saying something it doesn't. Extremely dishonest.

As I am no expert I will differ to you. If you can supply more precise grain and energy usage figures over what I have come across, including

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/au ... k.hrs.html

http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM (with debate at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livestock%27s_Long_Shadow)

http://sustainability.hawaii.edu/Plone/ ... k-industry

I would be most pleased use them in substitution.

[/b]None[/b] of those include your original supposed "direct and precise" number! Two of them don't appear to have any such number at all, upon a cursory inspection! The third gives a number more like < 4:1 average grain feed/animal protein mass ratio (but doesn't split out beef). That 4:1 appears to include grain feed produced as a byproduct of other processes as well. Throwing out random links that do not support your claim does not help advance your cause? Why not keep it honest?

It doesn't take an "expert" to report a number that actually matches what's presented in a linked source!

Matt and Snake, you are creeping this thread into R&P territory. I suggest that you take your argument elsewhere.

Just giving a heads up before the mods do something.

Yeah I don't want this to turn into a debate over agricultural methods. If people feel inclined to debate the moral/ethical issues or question reasoning, by all means start a thread in R&P. I posted this thread asking for advice/tips/food recipes. Nothing else.

As ideal as growing my own food would be, I'm a college student currently. It simply isn't doable to create my own garden and raise my own livestock. When I'm older though, I will most certainly contemplate it. And I don't have the stones to hunt, but living off venison is acceptable in my book (white tailed deer are hideously overpopulated).

Krogoth wrote:

Matt and Snake, you are creeping this thread into R&P territory. I suggest that you take your argument elsewhere.

Just giving a heads up before the mods do something.

So far the Mattsteg/Snake discussion has not crossed the line because it's remained a debate over empirical data. It's not as if I haven't been watching this thread and am in need of help.

Best advice I can give is don't go to Hungary...

I went there with my dad when he was still a proper veggie. When he told the proprietor of a cafe he wouldn't eat anything with meat in it he was told (rather huffily) "HUH? If that's your attitude you can have boiled potatoes and ketchup!"

In fact I think this was the first time he'd eaten meat in about 40 years... and what did he have? Hungarian SPAM no less! A bright pink substance that I (a non veggie) wouldn't have touched with a ten foot pole

He was pretty hungry in Hungary.

Just an update, tonight began my first venture into this land of no meat. I spent $65 on food, higher than I like but once I figure out how much I eat in a week and what works/doesnt work, I expect the price to drop a bit. My plan for this week is eggs/toast for breakfast, quesadillas and rice/beans for lunch, and stir fry's for dinner (consisting of potatoes, green peppers, and onions). For snacks I have red onion and extra sharp vermont cheddar (really good, my friend introduced me to it). After this week, I'll start delving into culinary diversity, provided by some of my fellow gerbils.

You might want to add a source of protein to the stir fry... some tofu, perhaps? (I'd suggest egg, but you're already having that for breakfast; best to not over-do any one type of food.)

My typical stir fry is just leftovers of whatever I have had recently. Leftover rice, put it in. Leftover carrots, sugar snap peas, sprouts, sesame seeds, cucumber, potatoes, etc. I'll also usually throw eggs and some kind of meat into it. Pakistan style grilled chicken is great, but that's not an option for you. You do need to add some protein to it or it just won't be satisfying, especially if you're used to eating meat.

just brew it! wrote:

You might want to add a source of protein to the stir fry... some tofu, perhaps? (I'd suggest egg, but you're already having that for breakfast; best to not over-do any one type of food.)

Yeah I've been thinking about it. I thought 2 eggs, breakfast and about 1/2 cup of black beans for lunch (7g of protein in that) might not be enough. I have no idea on gauging how much protein I should be eating.

You should be getting around 50g of protein daily. Your two eggs plus the beans is less than half that. Some of the other foods (e.g. the tortillas and potatoes) do have some protein in them too, but not enough to cover the gap. The cheese is a good source of protein, but is also really high in fat. (The eggs are fairly high in fat too, for that matter...)

just brew it! wrote:

You should be getting around 50g of protein daily. Your two eggs plus the beans is less than half that. Some of the other foods (e.g. the tortillas and potatoes) do have some protein in them too, but not enough to cover the gap. The cheese is a good source of protein, but is also really high in fat. (The eggs are fairly high in fat too, for that matter...)

Hmm. Well this is why the first week is the testing week I suppose. I'll definatey invest in some tofu then. I also snack on peanuts throughout the day but I'd have quite the gap to match. Come friday I think I will have mostly everything figured out for my next food shopping run.

Once for ounce, peanuts have the same amount of protein but more fat than cheddar cheese. At least with the peanuts it is mostly unsaturated fat...

If you snack on peanuts a lot, that'll probably make up the protein gap easily. But you'll be getting a ton of calories from fat.

Edit: This site may be helpful. It has nutritional data for many different foods and ingredients.

just brew it! wrote:

You should be getting around 50g of protein daily.

50 grams? Sounds optional. I never keep track of how much protein I take in but I'm pretty sure it's less than that.

ssidbroadcast wrote:

50 grams? Sounds optional. I never keep track of how much protein I take in but I'm pretty sure it's less than that.

"Optional" in what sense? Sure you can certainly live on less, much less likely. 50 grams is about optimal for most males but it depends on size. It's been my experience that most vegetarians have poor diets as they're not willing to monitor and build they're meals around nutrients they may be missing. It always struck me as odd when people who make such a conscious on their diets would use words like you did. Disappointing considering your righteous attitude in your first post.

Skrying wrote:

ssidbroadcast wrote:

50 grams? Sounds optional. I never keep track of how much protein I take in but I'm pretty sure it's less than that.

"Optional" in what sense? Sure you can certainly live on less, much less likely. 50 grams is about optimal for most males but it depends on size. It's been my experience that most vegetarians have poor diets as they're not willing to monitor and build they're meals around nutrients they may be missing. It always struck me as odd when people who make such a conscious on their diets would use words like you did. Disappointing considering your righteous attitude in your first post.

*shrug* I get a clean bill of health every time I visit my doctor, which is approx. 4 times a year. Blood pressure is on the "low" side of normal, but other than that I'm physically fit. I'm not going to win any arm wrestling contests, but that's not really one of my priorities anyway.

ssidbroadcast wrote:

just brew it! wrote:

You should be getting around 50g of protein daily.

50 grams? Sounds optional. I never keep track of how much protein I take in but I'm pretty sure it's less than that.

It is the "recommended" amount. Whatever that means.

You could very well be taking in that much (or more) without realizing it. 50g isn't really all that much -- less than 2 ounces. As I noted above, something as seemingly simple as a propensity for snacking on peanuts can easily push your protein numbers into the "recommended" range even if you eat little other protein (though peanuts do have the potential side effect of bumping your fat consumption beyond recommended limits, but that's a side discussion).

And just in case anyone is starting to think I'm some sort of "diet Nazi"... no. Not even close. I'm just quoting info that is widely available on the 'net. Do I pay much attention to this stuff in my daily life? Nope.

(Well, OK... I do make a token effort to limit my intake of refined sugars and carbs when I eat; I figure I get enough of that from the beer! )

SecretMaster wrote:

Hmm. Well this is why the first week is the testing week I suppose. I'll definatey invest in some tofu then. I also snack on peanuts throughout the day but I'd have quite the gap to match. Come friday I think I will have mostly everything figured out for my next food shopping run.

Tofu, for most people, will need some type of preparation for best taste. Most [carnivores] feel that tofu has "no taste / no flavor" but in actuality it DOES have a flavor, but it is very mild (a very slight "nutty"). If you want to try I have found the best way to intensify that natural 'nuttyness' is to dry-braze sliced tofu on a nonstick pan, no oil, over medium-low heat for a total of about 20 minutes (flip when golden).

You can also marinade, sear (troublesome though), bake, saute, pan fry, deep fry, stir fry...almost anything you do with meat you can do with tofu, but each method of preparation ends up with a different flavor due to the beginning taste being so mild. Pan frying in olive oil works very well - BTW, I've been told that tofu absorbs very little, if any, oil during oil frying as long as the temperature is correct.

Snake wrote:

If you want to try I have found the best way to intensify that natural 'nuttyness' is to dry-braze sliced tofu on a nonstick pan, no oil, over medium-low heat for a total of about 20 minutes (flip when golden).

You can also marinade, sear (troublesome though), bake, saute, pan fry, deep fry, stir fry...almost anything you do with meat you can do with tofu, but each method of preparation ends up with a different flavor due to the beginning taste being so mild. Pan frying in olive oil works very well - BTW, I've been told that tofu absorbs very little, if any, oil during oil frying as long as the temperature is correct.

Heh heh... I got this mental image of someone in a machine shop welding slabs of tofu together. (Note the difference between brazing and braising).

Silliness aside, I agree with you: browning tofu -- possibly with a little oil -- generally improves the flavor and texture. I personally prefer the flavor imparted by peanut oil, but olive oil is also a good choice (and the flavor of olive oil may go better with whatever you're cooking/serving the tofu with, if it is a non-Asian dish).