Defending Beef: The Case for Sustainable Meat Production

by Nicolette Hahn Niman

For decades it has been nearly universal dogma among environmentalists that livestock goats, sheep, and others, but especially cattle are Public Enemy Number One. They erode soils, pollute air and water, damage riparian areas, and decimate wildlife populations. The UN s Food and Agriculture Organization bolstered the credibility of this notion with its 2007 report that declared livestock to be the single largest contributor to human-generated climate-change emissions.But is the matter really so clear cut? Hardly. In her new book, Defending Beef, environmental lawyer turned rancher Nicolette Hahn Niman argues that cattle are not inherently bad for the Earth. The impact of grazing can be either negative or positive, depending on how livestock are managed. In fact, with proper oversight livestock can actually play an essential role in maintaining grassland ecosystems by performing the same functions as the natural herbivores that once roamed and grazed there. Grounded in empirical scientific data, Defending Beef builds the most comprehensive and convincing argument to date that cattle could actually serve as the Earth s greatest environmental benefactors by helping to build carbon-sequestering soils and prevent desertification.Defending Beef is simultaneously a book about big issues and ideas and the personal tale of the author, who starts out as a skeptical vegetarian and eventually becomes involved with sustainable ranching. She shows how dispersed, grass-based, smaller-scale farms can and should become the basis for American food production. And while no single book could definitively answer the thorny question of how to feed the Earth s growing population, Defending Beef makes the case that, whatever the world s future food system looks like, livestock can and must be part of the solution.

"

Genres: Nonfiction, Food, Health, Agriculture, Science, Nutrition, Sustainability

288 pages, Paperback

First published October 24, 2014

Reviews

[Amora · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is PACKED with footnotes and makes the best case I’ve ever seen for sustainable meat production. Niman makes the case, using concrete empirical data, that not only does meat production actually mitigate climate change and improves the environment, but also is safe for our health and contains nutrients that are extremely difficult to get anywhere else. I don’t give many 5 star reviews but this book definitely merits it!

[Rebecca · Rating 1 out of 5]

Is raising cattle on grassland better for the environment than confined feeding operations?

This book says not only is that true but it’s actually the key to sustainability. The author highlights what is being termed “Regenerative” grazing on grassland with cattle as a solution to the environmental depletion caused by commercial agriculture and mono-cropping. She whole heartedly misrepresents the data in a delusional attempt to not only keep beef on the table but purports that it’s necessary from an environmental standpoint.

Is raising cattle locally on grassland more sustainable than CAFOs? It might seem self-evident on the surface to a person looking for a reason to continue eating animal products, making a book like this dangerous to the future of life on this planet.

Are mono-crops and tilling part of the problem? Absolutely, but to claim that there is no other models for a plant based system without animal inputs (veganic permaculture and agroforestry) is dishonest. It’s also dishonest to attribute the scale of agriculture, deforestation and soybean crops solely to plant eaters and fail to mention that as the system currently exists most crops are fed to animals. This book mixes the fantasy of “best” possible animal agriculture systems by blaming the reality of what they are on people who abstain from beef.

There is no argument for animal manure or animal bodies for soil fertility. What is manure? Fermented, Digested, and Nutritionally depleted plant matter. Composting plant matter directly and cover cropping is a much faster and efficient way to amend the damage mass grazing, mass tilling and deforestation have done. Bone and blood meal are also an ineffective way to recover nutrients that would have been directly obtained in greater quantities and quality directly from the foods mass fed or grazed to animals.

The better question to ask is, What is the most sustainable way to eat and live?

I recommend Food Choice and Sustainability by Dr. Richard Oppenlander for anyone who cares about finding out.

I recommend The Vegetarian Myth by Lierre Keith for anyone who wants to remain in the delusional world of nonveganism. Spoiler for that book and it’s author - Lierre was never Vegan so her critique of any health aspects are imaginative at best. Plants are missing nutrients animal flesh contains. I have not met a single person who can elaborate on which nutrients aren’t found in plants - I have yet to meet a nonvegan who knows even a slight amount about nutrition and how they get it - but bygone regardless of the mathematics and biological functions involved they are sure they are getting more and better nutrition. Must be an intuition drawn out of their soul.

[Christian Dechery · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent, down to earth, science based and fact checked analysis on the impact of cattle on the planet. I'm a vegetarian, and a lot of the arguments countered in this book were among the ones I've used to justify my diet. Since I know there's a lot of bullshit in vegan/vegetarian circles in attempting to "convert" people, this book looked like a good source of a way to get a source for countering them, since the author was herself a vegetarian. Sure, there are some parts of the book that seems a little one sided and tries to make beef look like the salvation for the world and whoever quits eating meat seem like an idiot, but in general, the book is very solid, and its arguments are very hard to fight without hard evidence. There are some gray areas not covered very well, such as the impact of deforestation in Brazil, which is still a huge (and growing) problem, but in general, the book does a pretty good job in showing that beef is exagerately being blamed for many problems, health, environmental and otherwise.

[Colin · Rating 1 out of 5]

**EDIT 2 YEARS AFTER INITIAL READING**: I recently learned that Niman Ranch was bought by Perdue in 2016, two years after this book was published. Perdue is one of the Big Four of meat processors in the US and has an exceptionally poor track record of worker's rights, animal abuse, and generally throwing its weight around on politic issues (read: bribing legislators via lobbying). As such, I'm knocking this down to 1 star. Nicolette can argue for 'sustainable meat' all she likes, but the second she sold out to Big Food, nothing else matters. She made a buck doing the 'right' thing, but now her cattle ranch is subject to the whims of the same individuals who perpetuate the mass slaughter of animals, toxic pollution of our environment, and an imbalance of healthy foods in our stores. As such, she's lost the right to argue for the "good guys" in my view.

Go preach somewhere else, sell-out!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Original review:
I admittedly went back and forth on this book over the course of my reading, but came around to it as a whole. My reasoning is that Niman's title is missing a few words: "grass-fed". Nearly every single one of her arguments is based on (as her subtitle aptly says) sustainable meat production. As a raised-from-birth vegetarian and recent vegan, I simply can't argue with her points, which are meticulously (sometimes to a fault) backed up by quotes and data.

PROPERLY raised meat is not the problem, and I have no problem with ethically and environmentally sustainable meat production. We AREN'T meant to be vegans or vegetarians; I accept and admit that it's a lifestyle that's typically only available those with the ability/privilege/affluence to follow such a path; except that millions of those in India/SE Asia are vegetarian for religious reasons and doing just fine...

My critique of Niman has to come from the obvious angle, first: she is a beef farmer, and is defending her livelihood from an oncoming shift in the tides of opinion. As it is with any industry-funded study, we must take the opinion of one so entrenched with a teaspoon of salt. That said, Niman clearly and repeatedly states that her problem is with industrially-raised animals, and we are both in total agreement there; she and her husband are the subjects of an entire chapter in the book that moved me from vegetarian to vegan, Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer, and they are clearly some of the best people in the industry. If anything, this book comes off as a frustrated response to the FAO's publication, Livestock's Long Shadow, that threatens her livelihood because it will get lumped in with the bad eggs; and she does, as a good lawyer would, cite numerous amounts of studies and data to show her family's methods aren't the problem.

For me, there are many back and forths: Niman points out that deforestation is wrongfully cited in the annual costs of grazing, since a tree can only be cut down once (though this ignores the fact that deforestation CONTINUES every year to meet the increasing global demands - see the 2020 burning of the Amazon). On the flip side, she engages in a frustrating amount of "whataboutism"; she cites the fact that the US only imports a tiny fraction of its soy from Brazil, but definitively states that several other countries ARE the main importers, and doesn't cite the numbers that THEY output - completely sidestepping the issue and only addressing the US's production. After all, if Brazil is exporting tons of soy for feed, then it has to be going somewhere, and THOSE locations ARE the problem, even if the US isn't that bad. Similarly, she brings up the amount of resources used/expended for beef, but rather than comparing it with meat alternatives, she switches to rice instead, saying, "look, rice has the same environmental footprint, why are people focused on cattle!" - maybe because it's all the elements of cattle that combine to make the issue a heady one, whereas rice has been a staple of Eastern cultures for millennia, so it's not really the problem at hand?

This trend continues in (perhaps the most frustrating aspect to me) that not ONCE does Niman actually state the numbers comparing grass-fed to industrialized raising of cattle. Her whole argument argues for proper raising and that industrial farming is the problem, but never tells us what the ratio is; it is impossible to use her work as a defense of beef if her slice of grass-fed sustainable, righteous farming is only 1% of the market; if so, that means 99% of meat DOES have terrible consequences, and therefore we SHOULDN'T eat meat. By refusing to make this comparison, Niman's argument loses a great deal of credibility to me. Similarly, her argument that eliminating meat won't simply be replaced by something worse is easily defeated by the fact that we have stats for the GHG/land-use/water use for alternatives to animal protein, and they all are vastly less destructive.

Going back to agreement though, this book is indeed a fantastic argument for properly-raised animal products. Between carbon sequestration, regenerative agriculture, lack of need for chemical fertilizer, improved animal welfare, water security, and more; Niman's methods of raising cattle is indeed far superior to the industrial CAFO alternative.

[Alyshia · Rating 3 out of 5]

As a previous biologist-turned-lawyer, Hahn Niman defends how integral bovines are to our agricultural system and more largely the sustainability of our political economies. I found her writing to be delightful and while she's not as readable as Pollan, Hanh Niman's created a persuasive argument based on policies and science, something that is an art in itself.

Her argument is simple: eat beef, but it from local ranchers who care about the quality and care of their cattle.

Turning inarable land into protein, cows are a rich source of vital nutrients, especially for the underdeveloped world which depends on bovine for economic success and the health of their communities. Hahn Niman also turns the psuedo-science and fad diets that have become normalized in the past 30 years on its head. Using government and non-partisan data to show the rise in unhealthy sugars and grains incentivized by post-WW II government policy that have lead to chronic illnesses in America, she argues that salts and preservatives are at fault and not fat. Essentially, we've entered into a biological & social contract with bovine - one where if we manage them properly, protect them from predators, and attend to their needs, they in turn give us ecological and economical sustainability through the protein of their milk and meat.

Any vegetarian who relinquished meat for ecological and moral reasons should read this book. I'm certainly glad I did.

[John Madany · Rating 5 out of 5]

My favorite book!

I have personal experience in range management and medicine. I am an “expert witness“ that this book contains a wealth of wisdom. Just see how good your life would be if you buy her arguments.

As a physician I witnessed people coming back to life when they eat more animal products and eliminate processed foods.

I apply regenerative principles to my few acres and have seen amazing results. I have thoroughly read most of the references cited in this book and appreciate the fact that Nicolette wrote it for me. Now I don’t have to write a book.

[Philip · Rating 1 out of 5]

I'm going to start this review by pointing out a few things:
1) I believe wild and domestic ruminants have a place in local and global systems of food production; and I think cattle could, and arguably should, be an integral part of such systems,
2) I also believe that beef can be a healthy part of a balanced diet. And,
3) I do not believe that it is inherently unethical to eat animals.

Why start with this? "Defending Beef" is essentially structured as a book length "debunking" of three "anti beef" arguments (or, at least as the author sees them); Namely that 1) beef is bad for the environment and a big contributor to greenhouse gases and thus climate change, 2) that beef/red meat is unhealthy, and 3) that it's unethical to eat animals. And while I think the book does contribute some valuable perspectives and ideas, it's largely a complete shit-show that gets way, way more wrong than it gets right.

So much so that I'm unsure how much I'm willing to address in a review, but I will cover some specific points in the near future. Again, why? Because I think it's crazy how many reviewers (and not just here on GR) who appears to equate foot- and endnotes with "truth" and "good research." I mean, you can sprinkle references like they're candy on Halloween and remain factually incorrect. You can also use them to confuscate the hell out of people. The author is managing to do both both in "Defending Beef."

To be honest, I'm not sure if she is doing so deliberately or if she believes her own beef fairy-tale. But even if she's completely sincere, I really wonder how she could write a book about how great grass-fed beef is without realizing, by doing simple math, that said math just isn't mathing.

What do I mean by this?

Well, the author is a proponent of grass-fed beef where cattle is raised on otherwise unused grassland. Her eponymous defense of beef is based on such a system that doesn't compete with human food crop production. And while I think there's at least an argument to be had surrounding this (keeping in mind that "grasslands for cattle" isn't exactly choice one for the environment everywhere - which even the author kinda says), the book also pushes for increased cattle/beef production, which I would argue is a very tough sell under the best of circumstances. However, and disregarding for a moment all other factually incorrect, statistically disingenuous, questionable, and/or confuscating statements, the following is the math I'm talking about:

Sticking to the U.S. (chiefly because the author herself is generally doing her darndest to separate the U.S. beef industry and production from the global context), if we take this at face value and attempt to scale a grass-fed system to raise the current U.S. cattle herd (including both grass-fed and not), we quickly run out of land. If the U.S. were to shift to a national pasture-only beef herd, current pasture lands could only support somewhere between 25% to 33% of the current cattle herd. That's for pasture-only. If we allow for other forage input as is currently allowed under the "grass-fed" certification, the U.S. could support about 50% to 65% of the current cattle herd ("forage" can include human edible crops like legumes and grain in a vegetative state) - NOTE that these numbers changes somewhat depending on which studies one looks at (both due to the employed calculations, and which year the studies use population data from - and whether it measures heads of cattle or butchered weight of beef). Which means that the U.S. would need to at least nearly double or triple the current pasture land to support the same number of cattle (and that's before calculating how many more cattle would be necessary to replace some of the other meat production; fowl, pigs, etc., which NHN argues for).

Maybe this doesn't sound like such a big deal? It is. In 2020, about 27% of the U.S.'s total land area was made up of "permanent meadows and pastures" (meaning 5+ years) according to the FAO. To complicate things a bit, not all this land is used for cows or cows only, but there are also temporary meadows and pastures (which are mostly used for cows) that do not count as permanent. Nonetheless, simplifying somewhat then (but without redirecting more of the meat production into cattle which, NHN argues for), for the U.S. to maintain its cattle herd at current levels in a "grass-fed" system, at least 50% of the U.S.'s total area would have to be allocated to cattle (and if leaning heavier into the pasture-only argument, possibly more than 75%). Oh, and keep in mind that Alaska, which isn't exactly ideal for raising grass-fed cattle, constitutes almost 20% of the U.S. land area.


Ok, the basic math is done for now. I will come back to land use related arguments again, there are a lot of them in the book (relating to marginal lands, carbon sequestration, soil quality, tilling, Savory and holistic management, etc.) and I can't think of a single on of them that was discussed honestly (or, if NHN really believes all this stuff, with any nuance). And then there are all the health and food claims she makes in the second part of the book. However, I hope this breakdown gives at least an indication of how problematic this book is.

[Mike Lisanke · Rating 3 out of 5]

So, the author is a libiot who worked for/with RFKJr as an Environment Lawyer and spokesperson for governments on deciding what We the People will eat (what bull crap; we'll end up with weeds and bugs). But the author of the book is fortunately arguing the correct position for the wrong reasons (or arguing without a need to argue). This book might be interesting to those who think there's an Ethical issue with eating meat (do you also think plants want to be eaten; hint, they do not). Also, there are many people who'd better argue there's No Loss of Land or Any Malthusian Scarcity with raising Ruminants for meat milk and work on a ranch. And, agronomists will tell you the grasslands that ruminants eat is Good for the Soil. So, also read a better author on this topic.

[Ma'Belle · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have a couple of beefs with this book (heh) but am rounding up my rating because it has been fascinating me deeply for weeks and makes compelling arguments that will actually affect some of my life choices and perception of ecology and health going forward.

Let's get my two main criticisms out of the way first, then I'll paste in the notes I've made so far (but plan on going back to a handful of bookmarks and transcribing certain quotes).
1. I've tagged this book "indigenous" merely because it cites some of the food ways and practices or knowledge from different indigenous communities, and is part of the wider re-wilding movement that I was initiated into a few years before this was written. The broad aim of the book is to understand how we, and our planet, evolved naturally and to get back in line with that, for the sake of all (except the rich and apologists of fossil fuel and animal and labor exploitation, all of whom we will eat like cattle). But I've also tagged it "white man views" because the author somehow fails to include *any* discussion of bison/buffalo native to North America. She's making the (convincing) argument that grasslands all over the world developed in a symbiosis between large herds of heavy, ruminant, hooved mammals grazing, walking and stomping, and pooping on the ground, under which the grass roots, fungi, and millions of microorganisms work together, moving nutrients up out of the soil (not just dirt) in exchange for carbon. She knows that mammals native to a part of the world are the most natural fit, and bison fit the main criteria, and yet she skips over the possibility of expanding buffalo populations (even a fraction of the millions that used to live on Turtle Island!). Her conclusion is that cows in particular are the best option. Maybe it's because they don't require as much space to run and so can accomplish the dense herd stomping and grazing?

Okay, here's what I wrote while reading this book:

Once I grasped the key ecological concepts laid out in the first chapter or so, most of the first half of the book felt very repetitive, albeit convincing in very important ways! Once she delves into the People portion, I agree with her that children can be much healthier in a few important ways by growing up - including in utero! - in nature and exposed to nonhuman animals. She cites some interesting studies and anecdotes of farm kids being far more immune to allergies. I wonder if my own childhood - mostly in the city, but regularly spending hours playing in suburban woods and on my relatives’ farms several times a year - was just shy of protecting me from being allergic to trees, pollen, dust mites, and mildew. The author, who did chores in her fields including inhaling pig feed, during her pregnancy right up until her water broke out in a field, cites newer microbiology science that I learned some things about from I Contain Multitudes.

However, I think she gets way out of her lane with some causal claims that children raised on farms and ranches “invariably” grow up wanting to continue the traditions of land and animal stewardship and that they’re all the best students and best candidates for jobs.

One interesting soft claim or theory is that the cropshare and the plow specifically will be responsible for the loss of more human life than the sword, when the damage caused by plowing up soil catches up fully and more people starve to death.

Growing body of research shows no correlation between saturated fats and obesity or diabetes. But manufactured trans fats from vegetables, made to preserve shelf life, DOES. Basically processed foods have the negative impact. High sugar and carbohydrate diets are now thought to be to blame for the key *ratio* between different types of LDL cholesterol and related heart disease and obesity. Americans eat significantly less red meats now - esp. beef - than we used to (and largely switched to “white” meats), yet our heart disease and obesity-related death is at an all-time high. Benjamin Keys’ hypothesis from the 50s was the basis for decades of societal notion of saturated fat and cholesterol being to blame. His science was severely flawed.

Major takeaways from the People section regarding the health epidemic (morbidity from heart disease and other fat-related diseases like diabetes): “Fat doesn’t make people fat. Sugar makes people fat.” And regardless of whether sugar *and carbohydrates* makes you fat or not, they do increase your chances of heart disease, hypertension, cardiovascular disease (“CVD”), and diabetes. Once sugar makes up 15% of your daily calories, your chances skyrocket. Decreased HDL particles and increased LDL and triglycerides = connected to added sugar consumption and subsequent heart disease.

“Regardless of whether a person is fat, sugar consumption is an independent risk factor for *metabolic syndrome.* A huge percentage of heart attack patients have normal cholesterol levels, but they all have metabolic syndrome. (gotta research that more, and how much of my caloric intake from alcohol contains sugar!)

The grains in our bread today are not like the grains of our ancient ancestors. Our bodies immediately turn wheat to sugar. Damn, I love good bread and pastas and such.

Stanford study was the longest and most careful (and actually started biased against meat) comparing the major diets’ effects on a wide sample of people. The Atkins diet that places no restrictions on eating protein and fat but cuts out carbohydrates won by a landslide. Zero negative effects in all the categories observed, and they had beneficial results.

Another study supports her theory that people who tend to be more health-conscious and fit have been receiving the message for decades to avoid meat, and many have been doing so. Whereas the people who eat the most meat *also* are the people consuming the most sugars, carbs, cigarettes, alcohol, etc. This could explain correlations between eating more meat and being more overweight in various populations (esp. in populations where processed meats are more prevalent). “Healthy user bias” is common in studies attempting to connect meat consumption with cancer and heart disease.

Animal fat comprised 80% of the calories consumed by hunter-gatherer North American native. Older animals were prized for their significantly developed back fat rather than the European way of eating animals two years old or younger. The back fat was saved, rendered, used to flavor and preserve other foods later. The Inuit’s diet was almost entirely high fat animal meat and almost no plants.

Late in the book she finally reveals that while the smell of beef on the grill is one of her favorite aromas, and that she had dangerously low iron levels during and after both of her pregnancies, she’s STILL A VEGETARIAN! Wow, I was misled by the ambiguity of the subtitle “... an environmental lawyer and vegetarian turned cattle rancher.” I took that to imply she started eating meat parallel to her journey towards praising it. Nope! Wow.

As far as beef’s particular nutritional value goes, rather than focusing on “protein, protein, protein,” which I’m sick of hearing now as a restaurant euphemism or shorthand for animals (they could just as easily have a nut based something or other as a protein option, right?), first she emphasizes through citing the most scientifically trustworthy data that beef offers the best vitamin and nutrient absorption. Better than other (“mainstream”) meats, especially the organs such as beef liver (Vitamin B and iron), your body *absorbs*, i.e. actually is able to use in a beneficial way, iron and zinc. Iron and zinc deficiencies are among the most common health problems around the world, especially with “women.” She STILL has not compared cattle to native North American plains bison. I’m sad I missed the farmers’ market season by like a week right now because I’m hankering to go drop some money on grass-fed, local animal organs! I should follow up and finally take a trip to my local butcher shops.

Bill, the author’s husband, who sounds like the pickiest eater and perfectionist I’ve ever heard of, insists that British cattle breeds taste the best. Nicolette says they’re happy to share what they’ve learned through years of experimentation with anyone that asks!

[Randal · Rating 4 out of 5]

A strong argument for the necessity of cattle as a source of human food, this book does an excellent job countering widespread misunderstandings and fallacies concerning beef production and consumption. Such a quick read and easily accessible by anyone, it should definitely be read by those who never come into personal contact with the production of their own food.

The only reason I didn't give it five stars is because Niman often loses the thread of her own argument as she digresses into other areas. Specifically, she spends a bit too much time in places maligning other aspects of agriculture (which admittedly do deserve it) without following up on the beef side of the issue. Still, it is well worth the read for anyone interested in the sustainability and ecological responsibility of our food supply!

[Paige Gordon · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book offers an extremely compelling argument of the case for raising grass-fed beef on small, family owned ranches, as one of the most important and effective means for ensuring the health of the planet, the animals themselves, and the humans who raise and eat them. As a former lawyer, Nicolette’s arguments are well thought out, thoroughly researched, and presented in a logical way that clearly states her case and does a more than adequate job demolishing some of the old rhetoric about why beef is bad for us and our planet. If you are at all interested in the science behind the benefits of raising and eating cattle, this book is a must read!

Favorite Quote: “More to my point, non-industrialized farms and ranches, especially those with animals, create an incomparable living environment for humans, one that is formative for both individuals and the nation. Because engaging in agriculture is one of the best ways for people to stay connected with the natural world, the country benefits by having a sizable portion of its population living and working on farms and ranches. As a nation, something intangible, yet vital, is slipping away as the number of farming and ranching families declines. It is diminishing our national character.
Daily, physical, outdoor labor that’s connected to the land, dependence on weather and the elements, and the intense focus on the health and well-being of animals and plants all combine to make farming and ranching vastly different from living in the country while telecommuting to an urban job. Life on a farm or ranch strengthens bodies, enlivens minds, and and enriches souls. Simply put, the farm environment cannot be created without farms. And it is a human environment eminently worth protecting.”

[Danielle · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well written book that addresses each point against eating meat and absolutely refutes them. Additionally, Niman also argues against the idea that growing crops is entirely eco-friendly and completely free of any animal cruelty. She takes the simplistic arguments against meat and reminds us that what we grow and consume is necessarily complex because our Earth and our bodies are complex.
There are a few sections of the book that, while not taking away from her argument, add nothing and make this long book even longer. Talking about how farm kids are better in every way than city kids isn't important to the argument that beef is can and should be healthy for both humans and the environment.
Even with a few unnecessary tangents this book is a well researched and well argued defense of raising and eating cattle.

[Sarah · Rating 5 out of 5]

A thoroughly researched book on the health and sustainability of beef - a exoneration of the vilification of beef for the harms of factory-farming and a thorough debunking of the myth that reducing beef consumption would in any way help the problem of food shortages. Some spoilers: very little grain is fed even to grain-fed cows and it is not suitable for human consumption and cattle are able to make use of land utterly unsuitable for crops.

Interestingly, the author remains a vegetarian because she has never had the desire to eat meat, but she fully supports the consumption of meat and believes it is healthful to do so.

[Nick · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this as a direct attempt to challenge myself re. my own strong (negative) beliefs about beef production and consumption. However, this book was not nearly as contrarian as I had expected, rather I agreed with essentially all the points raised*. I.e. Animals are a deeply integral part of sustainable ecological practice (which involves eating them) and beef is a very healthy addition to a balanced diet.

*The caveat to all of these points, which Niman does explicitly state numerous times, is that this is grass fed, free range beef. There are almost no defensible arguments for massive scale industrialized meat production. But that is a pretty goddamn big caveat in my opinion.

[Mikel · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is really well written and researched. I was a pescatarian for many years after reading a report on how much land and food was used to produce one beef stear. However, Nicolette clearly illustrates how misleading that report was. Most land used for animal forage is not suited for agriculture. I did not help one single person get more to eat by giving up beef and pork. We can make a much larger difference by purchasing beef and pork from local sustainable ranchers. Which is what we will now be doing.

Again, this book is really well researched! I highly recommend it if you are considering, or have already, given up eating beef.

[Craig Carter · Rating 5 out of 5]

..

This is an excellent discussion about the relevance of beef to soil, water and human health. Highly recommended. Needs to be read by everyone who has an interest in landscape regeneration.

[Gavin Kirk · Rating 5 out of 5]

The most important book I've read this year. Dispells the myths of anti-livestock farming and demonstrates convincingly how grazing animals play an important role in stemming soil erosion, thus improving biodiversity and capturing carbon.

[Sofiya · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book shines when the author discusses her personal experience with cattle and her husband’s cattle ranch.

The discussion about how grazing by cattle is good for the land is okay, but honestly if you want a better more in-depth exploration of that topic the book Holistic Management is the way to go. And if you want to read a story about someone who grazes cattle to improve the land then the book Dirt to Soil is the way to go.

But everything else is bleh.

Especially the section about the nutrition of beef was horrible. I do not deny that meat can be eaten as part of a healthy diet. However, the science that the author chooses to support this claim is shoddy at best (although nutritional science is weak in general). She also goes on a giant tangent about how sugar is terrible, processed meat is bad, and then somehow gets to support a low carb diet (she literally cites the book Wheat Belly *facepalm*).

Especially when she discusses science sh*t hits the fan. She uses weak science and then uses the weak science to try to support a poorly connected claim. For example, she uses her giant tangent on how sugar is bad to support that eating meat isn’t bad for health. Yes, sugar is probably bad for health, but it being bad doesn’t say anything about whether meat is good or bad for health. There are so many claims created like this it’s hard to pinpoint them all. And many of the claims created like this are problematic and sources she selects are extremely cherry picked. There is also a double standard where science that doesn’t support her claim is criticized for its methods but the science she selects to support her claims are not held to the same level of scrutiny. I don’t necessarily believe that all her claims are wrong, I just think the way she went about supporting her claims was weak or that there is not enough research at the moment to fully support those claims.

She also literally says “not eating meat because you care about health or the environment is a bad reason.” Sure, eating meat doesn’t necessarily have to be bad for your health or the environment, but as of now MOST of the meat consumed produced is factory farmed processed meats.





Also, there is a really weird part where she basically shames women who don’t breastfeed their babies. This book is all over the place.

[Emily · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really appreciate how in depth Niman went into this topic. Many books like this seem to reiterate the same points over and over and over, mostly filled with opinions or cherry-picked data. I didn't feel that way at all about Niman's book. It's comprised of two parts: rejecting the idea that livestock destroys the environment and rejecting the idea that beef is bad for our health. I knew the health aspects already and have read a few other books on the topic, so that content wasn't new for me. But the livestock defense was all new information, relayed clearly and with plenty of sources to back everything up. Niman isn't saying eating meat has no environmental impact – it's the way factory farms are producing meat (and agriculture) that's destroying the enviornment. She also notes that even a sustainable farm will have a slightly negative impact on the enviornment, just not as catastrophic as many think.

This book was amazing. So why 4 stars? Her audiobook, which she recorded by herself, sounds like it was recorded on a 2000s flip phone. Sometimes, Niman is whispering, clearly recording at night when people are trying to sleep. Other times you hear her rustling pages or someone sighing in the background. It's just unprofessional and kept me from listening for too long at a time.

[Ester Serraz · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author takes the world-extended view of Cattle being the main aspect involved in environmental and health issues and guides you through each an everyone of the topics related to it. It does a great job dismantling old assumptions around sustainability, agriculture and meat suggesting and intensely explains the huge difference between meat industrialization and farming and each one's role in the world ecosystem.

Though most parts are well sustained in data, others might be understood as the author's opinion. Still, in those cases she keeps an honest and clear approach.

It doesn't have the answer for all the upcoming question around meat production but for me there's no doubt it's a well documented and eye-opening book.

[Emme · Rating 4 out of 5]

A must read for everybody. I found it a bit tedious and repetitive at times but I totally understand the need for emphasis, iteration and different perspectives on everything she's saying.
Regenerative agriculture is the way to go. I wonder how much more destruction we need to cause in order to understand it. We cannot keep producing/consuming the way we do it today. We cannot continue to live a life in which 'we have no time' to assess and understand what we are putting into our bodies. I just wish everybody will see that and take action, get involved, demand governments and authorities for a change. We must strive for quality over quantity, for a better quality of life.

[Ella · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well researched, but at times also personal this book provides an accessible and persuasive argument for why beef is not the villain that many try to make it out to be. From the environment to health this book challenges many preconceived ideas and the evidence or lack there of for them, while providing insights into the research that supports beef. Putting forward an argument for beef that is perhaps farmed differently, but is good for the environment and for people.

[Viktor Lototskyi · Rating 4 out of 5]

In some parts too detailed, slow or derailed, but overall very interesting and factual book.

Talks about falsely inflated impact of beef on global warming and how good beef and all parts of the cattle animals for the humans are in general.

A big part is dedicated to the benefits of growing cattle on pastures, which if done right, makes a lot of sense for animals, people and nature.

At least for myself I now know the difference between grain and grass-fed beef is not just words.

[Mason Laurence · Rating 4 out of 5]

I sought to learn the nutritional benefits to beef and how keeping it in our diet is greatly beneficial. Not only did i walk away with this nutritional knowledge, but i also learn that beef cultivation is more ecological and better for the earth than crop raising. This book addresses nearly every misconception about meat and dairy, and presents the real truth with decades of academic and empirical research.

[Stephanie · Rating 3 out of 5]

A well written defense in favor of sustainable meat production. The short of it is know your producer and their methods for raising their beef. It is possible to purchase beef that has been sustainably raised that does not contribute to desertification of the west, but it requires researching your sources.

[Zachary Rudolph · Rating 4 out of 5]

“He concluded that holistic grazing could sequester between 25 to 60 tons of carbon per hectare per year in semi-arid grasslands ... The total potential for capturing soil organic carbon in grasslands is around 88 to 210 gigatons, which translates to approximately 41 to 99 ppm atmospheric CO2.”

[Alli Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quite dense but chock full of interesting information. It shows pretty clearly how a lot of hot button topics around beef are misapplied to pasture raised cows, and should be treated as very different topics.

[Sarah · Rating 3 out of 5]

The bias is quite obvious when reading. However, many good points were addressed and I appreciated the arguments made. Makes a dry topic almost a light read which can be quite difficult to do with agricultural topics.

[Greg Mueller · Rating 5 out of 5]

Must read if skeptical about some of the environmental impact claims you've heard about beef.

[Budd Margolis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant, very informative and well organised! I will now eat grass-fed beef with confidence!