“Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.” Mark Twain, 1835–1910.
Mark Twain probably never heard the term global warming. But his famous quote on distorting facts would seem to have been tailor-made for how the livestock industries have been blamed for much of the world’s environmental ills. Two years ago the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization issued a report stating that “cattle-rearing generates more global warming greenhouse gases, as measured in CO2 equivalent, than transportation.”
Since that damning U.N. report, the conclusion has been repeated in numerous ways by a variety of anti-livestock organizations. For instance, an Internet search using the phrase “cattle and global warming” produces 1.3 million results — and most of them suggest that eliminating meat from your diet is one way to stop climate change.
Specifically, the U.N. report claims that the livestock sector accounts for 9 percent of carbon dioxide deriving from human-related activities and 37 percent of all human-induced methane, which has 23 times more warming potential as carbon dioxide. The report also said livestock now use 30 percent of the earth’s entire land surface, including 33 percent of the global arable land used to produce feed for livestock.
Of course, groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals take the U.N. report at face-value and use it as a propaganda tool to further their no-animal-use agenda. They take facts that fit their agenda and turn them into headlines such as the following: “American meat eaters are responsible for 1.5 more tons of carbon dioxide per person than vegetarians every year.”
Nearly every activity contributes to the production of greenhouse gases, especially in our post-Industrial Revolution society. Conveniently omitted in such reports are facts that would contradict the analysis published in the U.N. report. Take organic foods, for instance. Consumers are told that organic foods are healthier, more nutritious and better for the planet. Those claims are predominantly false.
It’s true organics aren’t grown or raised with the benefit of traditional fertilizers, pesticides or, in the case of animals, hormones or antibiotics. But according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, that doesn’t make them any safer or healthier, and they could be more damaging to the environment than conventionally raised food.
Cows in an organic dairy, for example, produce about 8 percent less milk than cows in a conventional dairy. That means it takes more cows to produce the milk consumers want and, therefore, more cow emissions. Additionally, a single organically raised cow produces 16 percent more greenhouse gases than a conventionally raised cow.
The same is true for beef cows. Organically raised steers take longer to reach slaughter weight, which means they produce more methane. And grass-fed cattle produce nearly twice as much methane as cattle fed grain diets.
Critics of the beef industry often cite the amount of corn consumed to produce the steaks Americans desire. And it’s true America produces more grain-fed beef than any country in the world — but we’re remarkably efficient at dong so. In a white paper titled “Fifty years of pharmaceutical technology and its impact on the beef we provide to consumers,” Dr. Thomas Elam and Dr. Rodney Preston described some significant improvements in beef production between 1955 and 2005. Cattle in feedlots improved their feed conversion ratio from 8.0 in 1955 to 6.2 in 2005, which helped reduce the acres of corn needed to produce 100 pounds of beef by 69 percent.
During that 50-year span, cattle feeders increased the number of fed cattle marketed from 11.973 million head to 28.62 million head and, in so doing, increased the number of bushels of corn fed from 424 million in 1955 to 1.394 billion bushels in 2005. But acres of corn required for all fed cattle declined 6 percent from 10.1 million acres to 9.48 million acres.
Talking Points
Data from the U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency’s April 2007 report, “U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks,” with data through 2005, suggests that U.S. livestock grazing, feeding and manure management systems are superior to those in other parts of the world.
-
EPA data shows that livestock contribute less than 2.4 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions while fossil fuels combustion contributes 80 percent.
-
The EPA says that from 1990 to 2005, methane emissions from beef cattle operations have declined 3 percent.
-
The largest methane gas emitter, the EPA says, is solid-waste landfills, accounting for 24 percent of all methane emissions.
-
The U.N. report claims that livestock contribute 37 percent of human-induced methane, but the EPA says animal agricul-ture accounts for 27 percent of U.S. methane emissions, and methane accounts for less than 8 percent of total greenhouse gases.
-
Overall, the EPA says, from 1990 to 2005, emissions of methane from all sources decreased 11.5 percent.
Although the EPA’s data is specific to the United States, Dr. Martin J. Hodson, principal lecturer in environmental biology at Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, England, says cattle are directly responsible for a relatively small proportion of global warming. However, indirect effects from cattle production coming from fertilizer manufacture, land use changes and processing are much greater. Still, Hodson says cattle’s global warming footprint is not as heavy as environmentalists claim.
-
Methane is responsible for 24 percent of anthropogenic global warming.
-
Of that, ruminants are responsible for 26.4 percent of methane.
-
So, ruminants are directly responsible for 6.3 percent of global warming.
Hodson says that a major problem is that the largest share of methane production is from poor countries and livestock fed on poor-quality feed. Methane from cattle can be reduced by:
-
Tweaking diet and genetics.
-
Increasing the digestibility of feedstuffs.
-
Advanced technologies in development, such as stimulation of certain bacteria to decrease hydrogen production, decreasing certain protozoa, and vaccination, to reduce methanogens.
Walking Points
Feeding practices can reduce methane production from cattle, according to research at the University of Manitoba. Animal scientists Dinah Boadi and Karin Wittenberg say that when animal production efficiencies are improved — through proper nutrition, management, reproduction or genetic selection — the amount of feed required to maintain an animal is reduced by the diversion of more feed energy to production. As a result, there’s a drop in methane per unit of meat or milk produced. Boadi and Wittenberg suggest the following to reduce methane production.
-
Test feed and balance rations to suit the stage of production of animals.
-
Manage bunk feeding to prevent underfeeding or overfeeding of animals.
-
Maintain proper health, efficient reproduction and genetic selection.
-
Use production-enhancing agents such as implants. Improved animal productivity reduces methane production per unit of product by 25 to 30 percent.
-
Use high-quality forages (such as immature forages and legumes) to increase feed efficiency and reduce methane production by 20 percent.
-
Grind or pellet low-quality forages to improve utilization by cattle, which can decrease methane production per unit of feed intake by 20 to 40 percent.
-
Use of ionophores improves feed efficiency and reduces methane production.
-
Add fats or oils to diets of high production animals. Feedlot trials at University of Manitoba suggest that adding 4 percent canola oil to high concentrate diets can reduce methane production by 33 percent.
Comments (0) Leave a comment