Fly Control
BVD Resources
Cow Calf
Baby Calf Heatlh
Cattle Feeding
New research shrinks beef’s shadow
- NMSU to host youth ranch management camp
- Assessing how you stand financially
- 2012 Alltech Symposium to envisage the world of 2050
- Organization makes generation donation in support of farm safety
- Money ahead before a calf hits the ground?
- Brent crude ends near $123/bbl, 9-month high, on Iran
- USDA website supports America’s future farming generations
- Rains green things up, but hay, grazing still in short supply
- Corn and wheat futures post good gains on Wednesday
- Cold Storage: Beef in freezers up 4 percent from last year
- Feedyard margins – Wow! Packer margins – Ouch!
- Traits that add value to calves
- Fed cattle to new records; feeders, boxed and retail beef advance
- Online weather resources
- Fewer farms and bigger farms
- Farm safety expert: Know what's in proposed child labor law
- D.C. Watch: Obama budget cuts farm programs
- Fading La Nina may be too late for southern U.S. drought
- Iowa State University releases animal-ag research report
- Commentary: A matter of triage
- No more pizza sticks and red sauce
- Worker shortage puts billions of ag production in jeopardy
- Beef’s carbon footprint gets trimmed in video, webinar
- Commentary: 'Get your paws off our laws!'
- NCBA: Partnering with extremist groups bad news for US ag
- Colostrum: What makes it work for the calf?
- EPA advanced E15 availability
- Commentary: HSUS (finally) under scrutiny
- Jolley: Five Minutes with Bill Donald, the exit interview
- Jolley: Five Minutes - John Nalivka & the shrinking cattle herd
The infamous number was 18. That’s the percentage of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) the UN Food and Agricultural Organization claimed are due to livestock. And, the UN said in their landmark study released five years ago, “This is a higher share than transport.”
It was hogwash, of course, and the claims were challenged by several scientists until even one of the UN report’s authors, Pierre Gerber, acknowledged last year that the analysis was inaccurate.
Unfortunately, the damage to the livestock industries was already done. The faulty UN report (Livestock’s Long Shadow – Environmental Issues and Options) became the basis upon which anti-animal agriculture activists built entire campaigns against producers and consumers.
For instance, the Meatless Monday campaign specifically encourages eliminating meat from your diet one day a week to “reduce your carbon footprint.” As evidence of the need, the Meatless Monday campaign says: “The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization estimates the meat industry generates nearly one-fifth of the man-made greenhouse gas emissions that are accelerating climate change worldwide.”
Five years later, the discredited UN report is still being used, though the message has morphed from “livestock,” the word used by the UN, to “meat industry,” the descriptor used by Meatless Monday. “Meat industry,” in this case, implies big, and modern, and therefore bad.
Combating a myth such as the one unleashed on your industry by the UN takes more than one swing of the bat. It requires an ongoing effort to dispel misconceptions about livestock production. That perception was improved dramatically this week as Jude Capper, Ph.D., Washington State University, provided some new numbers we should all commit to memory: 33, 12, 19 and 9.
New research by Capper published in this month’s Journal of Animal Science shows that raising a pound of beef in the U.S. today uses significantly fewer natural resources than 30 years ago. Specifically, Capper’s study documents that each pound of beef raised in 2007 used 33 percent less land, 12 percent less water, 19 percent less feed and 9 percent less fossil fuel energy than equivalent beef production in 1977. Waste outputs were similarly reduced, shrinking the carbon footprint of beef by 16.3 percent in 30 years.
According to Capper’s research, “The Environmental Impact of Beef Production in the United States: 1977 compared with 2007” (Journal of Animal Science, December 18, 2011) improvements in the way cattle are raised and fed in the United States between 1977 and 2007 yielded 13 percent more total beef from 30 percent fewer animals. Raising more beef from fewer animals maximizes natural resources while providing essential nutrients for the human diet. As the population increases, it is crucial to continue the improvements demonstrated over the past 30 years to meet demand for nutrient-rich beef while reducing resource use and mitigating environmental impact. Turning back the clock on these advancements is not the solution to feeding a world population that recently reached 7 billion and will grow to 10 billion by the year 2050, concludes Capper.
“As the number of mouths to feed increases and the quality of diets in many areas around the world improves, the demand for nutrient-rich protein like beef will increase,” Capper was quoted in a news release from NCBA. “At the same time, resources like land, water and fossil fuels will become increasingly scarce. These realities are like two trains speeding toward each other on the same track. If we listen to alarmists shouting at us to slow down, we could face a head-on collision of epic proportions. The only way to avoid this disaster is to accelerate the pace of progress.”
Capper attributes much of the reduction in beef’s environmental footprint to raising cattle on grass pasture before finishing them on an optimal balanced diet of grasses, grains and other forages in a feedyard. According to previous research conducted by Capper, each pound of grain-finished beef requires 45 percent less land, 76 percent less water and 49 percent less feed and at the same time generates 51 percent less manure and 42 percent fewer carbon emissions than grass-finished beef.
“As we work on solutions for the future it is important to understand how far the U.S. livestock industry has come in reducing its environmental footprint in the recent past and how this significant reduction was achieved,” says Capper. “The facts are in. Improved cattle diets in the feedyard and responsible use of science-based technologies to improve the ability of cattle to convert feed to pounds of beef, reduces the amount of land, water and fossil fuels it takes to raise beef. “
Capper says focusing resources to provide more nutrient rich foods like beef, which provides more than 10 percent of the daily recommended value of ten essential nutrients and vitamins for less than ten percent of daily calories (based on a 2,000 calorie per day diet), is a critical success factor in meeting nutrition needs at home and abroad.
”Making the best use of resources like land, water and energy to raise nutrient-rich beef is the key to sustainability,” Capper says. “The result is delicious, healthful beef you can feel good about.”
Comments (15)
Leave a commentRobert
Report AbuseWhat the tree hugging eco nuts seem to forget is if we return this country to the exact condition we found it
when Columbus landed here, instead of cattle, hogs and chickens, there would be millions of head of buffalo
across the plains, deer, elk, etc., in unbelievable numbers. You think those critters never fart?
Brent Kim
Report AbuseHi Robert,
You raise a good question. The best historical estimates put the number of bison roaming the Great Plains at 30 million. In 2008, the USDA reported the U.S. cattle inventory at 96 million head. That’s roughly three times as many large ruminants alive in the U.S. today (not accounting for moose and their ilk).
I can't speak for all tree huggers, but I advocate for healthy ecosystems largely because humans depend on them for survival. Nothing nutty about protecting human health.
Ed
Report AbuseAccording to Hristov 2011 (http://jas.fass.org/content/early/2011/12/15/jas.2011-4539) "The low estimate (30 million) was proposed by McHugh (1972) and was based on the presumed number of animals the available range could support. The high population size (75 million) was based on estimates by the great naturalist and writer Ernest Thompson Seton (Dary, 1989). The medium population size in Table 1 (50 million) was an approximate average of the low and high estimates." Of course bison are not the only ruminants to be considered. Indeed, recent work by Scott (2010 ) implicates bison as a factor responsible for the collapse of the Pleistocene megafauna. If true, ruminant numbers may have been even greater.
Ed
Report AbuseAccording to Hristov 2011 (http://jas.fass.org/content/early/2011/12/15/jas.2011-4539) "The low estimate (30 million) was proposed by McHugh (1972) and was based on the presumed number of animals the available range could support. The high population size (75 million) was based on estimates by the great naturalist and writer Ernest Thompson Seton (Dary, 1989). The medium population size in Table 1 (50 million) was an approximate average of the low and high estimates." Of course bison are not the only ruminants to be considered. Indeed, recent work by Scott (2010 ) implicates bison as a factor responsible for the collapse of the Pleistocene megafauna. If true, ruminant numbers may have been even greater.
Maxine
Report AbuseGiven the reality of methane production by termites, WHY is the UN wasting precious time on cattle with their negligible production????
jacquescaldwell
Report AbuseIf you are looking for freebies like myself the best place online to get is "Get Official Samples" You can qualify easily with out credit card.
Brent Kim
Report AbuseThis comment raises a few questions: “According to previous research conducted by Capper, each pound of grain-finished beef requires 45 percent less land, 76 percent less water and 49 percent less feed and at the same time generates 51 percent less manure and 42 percent fewer carbon emissions than grass-finished beef.”
How could raising cattle on a feedlot require less feed than raising them on pasture? I welcome any insights.
It is also worth noting that Capper does not account for the benefits of carbon sequestration in his model of pasture-based systems.
Robert S Lawrence
Report AbuseCapper's findings are interesting although they beg the question of sustainability. The 33, 12, 19, and 9 numbers we are encouraged to remember are all about reductions from a very high and unsustainable use of resources and production of greenhouse gases to a lower lever of unsustainable use of resources and greenhouse gases. While this is a good thing, the combined effects of a high meat diet on human health and on the environment remain negative. As a public health professional I hope we move from Meatless Monday to further reductions of meat consumption, and the meat that remains in our diet should be pasture based, non-feedlot beef.
Ed
Report AbuseThe question of “sustainability” like the use of ecological “health” above, is a nebulous term with questionable value. Since this is central to your argument, these terms also need to be addressed. Vucetich and Nelson 2011 state, “Aside from the challenges of how we can become sustainable, contention continues to simmer over basic issues such as what it even means to be sustainable, and what new knowledge is required to become sustainable.” While Hernshaw et al. 2010 finished a review on ecosystem health by commenting “It might have been thought that ecosystem health, an ecological concept could be demarcated by ecological means, but this seems not to be so.” Due to the many definitions of each term, their use in meaningful dialog requires definition. Without definition, meaning of these terms is left to the imagination of the reader and their particular bias.
Like all foods the effect of meat on human health is dependent on multiple factors. In a review of the risks and benefits of red meat consumption McAfee 2010 wrote “In conclusion, moderate consumption of lean red meat as part of a balanced diet is unlikely to increase risk for CVD or colon cancer, but may positively influence nutrient intakes and fatty acid profiles, thereby impacting positively on long-term health.” When taken out of context greater concern may be required for rice diets. Recent research suggests eating rice may cause “skin lesions, cancers, and cardiovascular disease, and there is increasing concern about the effects of low-dose exposures.” Furthermore rice fields emit between 708 MtCO2eq of methane each year (Lu 2005), along with large amounts of nitrous oxide and ozone. All contribute to global warming.
The point is that we can pick and choose published data to support different biases. However, identifying and solving real problems is more efficiently conducted using an unbiased and objective approach.
Ed
Report AbuseThe quote on the health concerns of eating rice was published by Diane Gilbert-Diamond with the Children’s Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Center at Dartmouth, and seven colleagues. This work was published in the last issue of PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences).
BW
Report Abuse(can't seem to get the Reply feature to function properly...)
Brent, the feedlot cattle will require less feed because the higher quality feed results in more efficient weight gain. For instance, consider two calves that each weigh 600lbs and must reach 1200lbs before they are ready for harvest. During this time, they will eat approximately 20lbs of feed each day. The grass contains less energy for the calf and has many relatively indigestible components (hemicellulose, lignin, etc.). Depending upon the quality of the grass, it is likely that--after physiologic maintenance requirements are met--the calf's daily weight gain may not exceed 1.5lbs. That means the calf would need 400 days on grass to make the 600lb gain. The calf would therefore require (400d x 20lbs) 8,000lbs during this phase of its life.
On the other hand, the more nutritious ration in the feedlot would support a daily gain of perhaps 3.5lbs. This calf would reach the target weight in just 172 days, having consumed only 3,440lbs of feed. The greater concentration of dietary energy and protein allows more to be allocated to growth, once daily maintenance needs are met. This calf not only ate less feed, but there were 228 fewer days of water use and waste production.
Hope this example cleared things up a little, Brent!
Ron
Report AbuseThis article is a based on a comparison mentality... "We only killed 40 people today, Yesterday we killed 100." It costs ten calories of fossil fuel for one calorie of beef this is not sustainable. The 30 million bison eat foods that make them carbon neutal... It is great that the Factory Farm group is getting better. But I doubt it is because they care about anything but the cost of their inputs.. These will continue to rise until the factory farmer is gone.
bobfell
Report Abuseto Ron from Michigan u r wrong
it was 300 million bison ten times the number of cattle. Due to different behavior Bison have a larger carbon footprint. For example they wallow, so that digging in the soil releases CO2 as well as the fact that they tend to dig at the soil more in general. Now the bison are larger than cattle, and they migrated over great distances so they would consume far more feed. Remember what goes in , also comes out. So the fact that there were 3 times as many bison as cattle, and they were larger and consumed far more feed would mean they would release FAR more methane than domestic cattle.
Maxine
Report AbuseIf, as the negative focused folks assume, the (mythical) 'factory farmers' truly did exist, and truly are focused more on profit than anything else, they would be politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, DC
Maxine
Report AbuseIt true that the mythical "factory farmers" existed, and were solely interested in making a profit, they would not be farmers, they would be politicians and bureaucrats in Washington, DC!!!
Some do love to ignore the fact that more than 98% of all farms in the USA are owned and operated by FAMILIES! Some are competitive, some are proud of the work they do, some are trying to help the world by producing safe, wholesome, tasty food. What is it the 'producers' of negative comments give society????