Summer 2012 Animal Welfare Approved Newsletter

AWA Newsletter Technical
Mike Suarez
Grassfed cattle at Rain Crow Ranch, MO. Grassfed farming has a potentially vital role to play in helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
through carbon sequestration, where carbon dioxide is absorbed by the growing pasture and locked in the soil within the plant’s root system.
Grassfed Beef
is Greener—And
That’s a Fact
Feeding cattle on grass throughout their life-cycle is
the most environmentally sustainable way to raise beef,
according to a new report from the UK’s National Trust.
By peter mundy, writer/editor
As concerns over global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
and the potential impact of climate change have intensified,
the agricultural industry has come under significant
scrutiny—and not without good reason.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—
the world’s leading body for the assessment of climate
change—declared that modern agriculture was responsible
for contributing more than 20 percent of all global manmade
GHG emissions in the form of carbon dioxide,
nitrous oxide, and methane. Similarly, a 2010 report by
the U.S. National Research Council on the future of U.S.
farming also vilified the livestock industry for its role as
the largest contributor of nitrous oxide and methane gas
in the U.S., along with the well-known pollution problems
associated with nitrogen and phosphorus in fertilizers,
manure spills and pesticides which have infiltrated surface
water and rivers.
The growing consensus for urgent action to reduce
global GHG emissions to avoid catastrophic climate
change has led to calls by some for a dramatic reduction
in—or even an outright end to—red meat production
and consumption. It is only relatively recently, however,
that scientists and policymakers have started to publicly
recognize the important distinctions between the different
types of beef production, and particularly the potential role
of a growing number of pasture-based farmers and ranchers
who are (quite literally) farming against the grain.
Mike Suarez
Slowly but surely, feedlot and confinement livestock
production systems have been singled out as being largely
responsible, both directly and indirectly, for the vast majority
of agriculture’s GHG emissions. At the same time, momentum
is now building behind the role of grassfed and pasture-based
farming systems in providing a truly sustainable source of
animal protein, as well as contributing to carbon sequestration
and helping to mitigate global GHG emissions.
Comparing GHG EmissionS
In response to mounting criticisms, proponents of industrial
farming systems have increasingly made the case that
intensive cattle systems—where large numbers of cattle are
confined in feedlots and fed a grain-based diet—are actually
much more efficient and environmentally friendly than
pasture-based farming systems.
Numerous commentators and organizations have
attempted to “debunk” the myth that grassfed beef is more
environmentally friendly by arguing that feeding animals
so they grow as quickly as possible actually increases the
efficiency of production by reducing the amount of GHG
emitted per pound of meat produced. Indeed, proponents of
such intensive farming systems argue that energy use and
GHG emissions per pound of beef is increased three-fold
in grassfed beef cattle; as a result, they claim the intuitively
environmentally friendly grassfed option has a far higher
resource and environmental cost.
Unfortunately, this argument continues to find fertile
ground among policymakers and the beleaguered livestock
farming community. Indeed, the prevailing opinion within the
agricultural industry is still that intensive farming systems
are somehow more “modern” and more “efficient” than
pasture-based systems. To fuel the growing global appetite
for meat and dairy products, and to feed the world’s hungry,
farmers are told that they must further intensify production.
As many readers will already be aware, however, AWA
has long made the case that such arguments just don’t
stack up—primarily because they consistently fail to take
8