In gastronomy, red meat usually refers to darker-colored meat, like beef, bison, venison, lamb, duck, and goose. Nutritionally, the meat is red because it contains myoglobin, an iron-containing protein that carries oxygen from the blood to the muscles. The higher the concentration of myoglobin, the redder is the meat. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, pork and veal are also categorized as red meat, whereas chicken is considered a white meat.
In the last few decades, you have heard a boatload of bad press about red meat, in particular, beef, and how it is bad for your health. But watch out, haven't the experts said the same about eggs and then they changed their minds? Likewise, they said that partially hydrogenated vegetable oils and a high carbohydrate diet were good, and then subsequently found that they were actually bad.
Beef has always been the most widely consumed red meat in America. In the following, you will learn about the good and bad of eating beef and whether the experts are right or wrong again.
Grass-fed beef has a much lighter carbon footprint than conventional beef. Much of the carbon footprint of conventional beef comes from growing grain to feed the animals, which requires fossil-fuel-based fertilizers, pesticides, and transportation.
Grass is a perennial plant. When you rotate the cattle on grass, the grazing cuts the blades which spurs new growth, while the trampling helps work manure and other decaying organic matter into the soil, turning it into rich humus. The plant's roots also help maintain soil health by retaining water and microbes, and healthy soil keeps carbon dioxide underground and out of the atmosphere. Through rotational grazing, land degradation can be reversed, turning dead soil into thriving grassland.
Further, farmers do not need to use fertilizers or pesticides to maintain their pastures, and need no energy to produce what their animals eat other than what they get free from the sun.
When you put the cow where it belongs - on grass, that cow becomes not just carbon-neutral but carbon-negative. Researchers estimate that with proper management, ranchers and farmers can achieve a 2% increase in soil-carbon levels on existing agricultural, grazing, and desert lands over the next two decades. (Note: It is estimated that a 1% increase over vast acreages can be enough to capture the total equivalent of the world's greenhouse-gas emissions.)