A Look at a Global Concern:
The Current Problems, Potential Solutions, and One Family’s Future... The Cattle industry.
We are moved by passion and ambition – not a blind ambition, in this case, but one of positive aspiration. For my family, that is a move into the cattle industry. We are planning a new venture, a new family business, a move.
In doing so, we consider far more than just the well-being of a successful small family business, and the proper care of each animal. We see our choices reaching far further – the environment. We think outside the box and look to implement and even develop new techniques if need be. Our goal – our vision – is to turn a small livestock operation into something that is sustainable, practical, and environmentally friendly. More often than not, we hear what is wrong, not what we can do to change it. Now, it’s time to look at it from a doers’ perspective.
Of course we will be small; our impact will be minimal regardless. But we often hear that a change begins with each of us. We now consider what we as a family business can do to make a small change.
According to a 2006 report from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, livestock are responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions. That also includes all livestock-related effects, including transportation, deforestation, fertilization, and feed. The primary problem with the cattle themselves is that they are enteric ruminants. What that means is they ferment their food in the digestion process, producing methane as a byproduct. Methane is responsible for approximately 4-9% of all greenhouse gases, however is considered one of the more destructive.
There are other gases that contribute to climate distress and are related in part to the livestock industry. The most commonly found greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide (CO2), which is produced by transportation and clearing of land. Additionally, there is some nitrous oxide (N2O) produced by both livestock manures, and chemical fertilizers used to grow the grains “required” by current methods. It is notable that N2O emissions from “agricultural soil management” (the 2007 figure was 207.9 TgCO2 eq.) are roughly 15 times those of manure management (at 14.7 TgCO2 eq.).
A major part of the current debate is between grain fed (meaning feedlot) and grass fed production of beef. Currently, 80% of beef is finished in feedlots. While feedlots generally produce less methane per cow then those set to graze, there are some hefty side effects. Primarily, it takes grain to “finish” a beef cow – and that grain must come from somewhere. Generally, it must be grown, transported and then distributed, and each step of the way relying on petroleum products. The cattle themselves are given antibiotics and hormones to adapt to their new and unnatural diet and conditions. Finally, the cattle are sent off for processing – which burns up more fossil fuels in transportation; leaving behind mass amounts of manure left to decompose, emitting more methane and N2O.
Entirely grass-fed cattle do produce more methane, since their high-fiber, low protein diet requires more processing. However, they do not require grain. “Naturally grown” grass-fed beef, in addition, do not require antibiotics, or hormones. Also, since the cattle set out to graze generally have more room per cow, many problems such as manure management have less effect; or at least are dissipated and spread over a greater area. When combined with sustainable practices such as pasture rotation, the manure can even be used to benefit the soil.
However, grass-feeding practices also have their flaws. Larger operations such as those in Brazil replace sensitive ecosystems with grazing land. This land is short lived at such high use, so those operations continually need to expand. Additionally, the most common method is to burn the forest to produce grasslands. This burning emits tremendous amounts of CO2. Worse yet, trees are one of the greatest sinks, or absorbers of CO2, so nature’s ability to recover from the increased emissions is greatly reduced.
At this point, one would ask: “Well then, what’s the point?” The first point is that we are omnivores – and while yes, we can survive without any meat, I managed fine for the first eight years of my life; meat is a natural part of the human diet as has been for as long as we have been upright. The position of consuming meat is a greater debate probably better addressed elsewhere, but safe to say for now that man is an omnivore, and we do consume meat. Therefore, we are more responsible in addressing the most efficient methods of providing such meat and feeding the people.
On a small scale, when the livestock are grown, fed, and consumed without transportation or chemical intervention, the overall impact is greatly reduced – but there is still room for improvement.
A major step towards solving the problem of livestock-related emissions would be to limit cattle production and feeding to local and natural sources. Currently, land usage and land use change have the largest impact of all. Not only would it decrease cattle-related emissions by about 25%, but it would also preserve whole ecosystems and allow the original vegetation to retain its role as a CO2 absorber.
The next largest source of pollutants is from manure management; specifically thru storage and deposition. In an organic/resource-friendly setup, that same manure would instead be reused in place of synthetic fertilizers, hence further increasing efficiency and reducing environmental impact.
The third largest source is the cows themselves, mainly in methane. In fact, cattle produce about 38% of the world’s methane. Scientists are currently researching different ways to reduce methane, from simply breeding for more efficient bovines, to changing chemical compositions of the rumen (ranging from the equivalent of Alka-Seltzer, to actually changing the digestive processes). Additionally, it may be possible to use natural resources (such as garlic, according to a Popular Science article) to kill some of the bacteria responsible for methane production. These advancements are becoming more known and more available, but their usage is not extensive yet.
By utilizing natural grazing environments, instead of burning them out and creating them, the largest single source of greenhouse gasses would be greatly decreased. Secondly, by providing a healthy, balanced, and nutritious diet, in absence of both unnatural feed, and potentially harmful antibiotics and hormones, meat quality could prove superior. Finally, with sustainable grazing practices, soils would not be depleted and would instead probably benefit from the moderate and controlled grazing. Additionally, by reusing the manure, it would be possible and beneficial to cut out the usage of chemical fertilizers.
It is a global problem, and without action, we will have far more problems to deal with then we do now. It is not something we should – or can – overlook. It will not go away on its own, but with a conscious effort on everybody’s part, we can put it back in proportion. If we can’t stop it, we need to at least slow down this runaway train. “Everything in moderation,” as the saying goes, and it is particularly true here. By being able to curve our more destructive tastes and techniques, we will be decreasing the impact on the environment.
It will take more work and thought, but the need is too great to do otherwise. A small operation will have little actual effect, but it is a personal contribution, and it sets a good example; a model to follow. We’re not going to be the first, and hopefully not the last. But at least we can end each day doing what we want to – and doing the best we possibly can; for us, the cattle, and the earth. That is our goal.
Sources:
US Environmental Protection Agency:
http://www.epa.gov/rlep/faq.html#1
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/index.html#ggo
http://www.epa.gov/nitrousoxide/sources.html
http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html
Journal of Animal Science:
“Direct measurements of methane emissions from grazing and feedlot cattle”,
By L. A. Harper, O. T. Denmead, J. R. Freney and F. M. Byers
http://jas.fass.org/cgi/content/abstract/77/6/1392
“Methane emissions from beef cattle: Effects of monensin, sunflower oil, enzymes, yeast, and fumaric acid”
By S. M. McGinn, K. A. Beauchemin, T. Coates and D. Colombatto
http://www.animal-science.org/cgi/content/abstract/82/11/3346
“How Cows (Grass-Fed Only) could Save the Planet”
Time Magazine
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1953692-2,00.html#ixzz0e4dZIL0T
“Grassfarming Benefits the Environment”
http://www.eatwild.com/environment.html
“Livestock’s Long Shadow”
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livestock's_Long_Shadow