|
Iowa | I'm not a fan of grass fed beef, but this is not a very credible article either. This Dr., or the article, claims to prove a broad theory - feedlots are better than grazing - but takes a very myopic view for establishing the empirical data to prove the theory. I think we may be missing the point of this "research". The Dr.'s point is not really that one is "better for the environment" since the simplistic conclusion that the Dr. draws taken to its simplistic end would say that it's better to pen up wild buffalo herds and feed them corn rather than let them pollute our national parks and environment. Plucking several finite sets of data from two totally different systems, and comparing the systems based on these data is not good science. I believe what the Dr. is really trying do is what Einstein said "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong", The Dr. is simply trying to prove wrong a few of the items that others use to "scientifically" explain why grass-grass fed is better, but that isn't the same as proving one better than the other. If you want to convince Joe and Jill consumer one way or the other, simply give tours of confinements and feedlots vs pastured animals. When Joe and Jill stop gagging from the smell at the feedlot/confinement, ask them which they think is better for the environment. Now tell them the price of one vs the other and ask them again. My theory is that many will say that they can't see or smell the feedlot/confinement from their house but they can see and smell the money they saved in their wallets from buying meet grown in them, but that's establishing consumer preference, not which is better for the environment either. | |
|
I don't usually post here, but
