Environmental  Consequences  of  Industrialized  Beef  Produc8on  

Renjie  Butalid  Ins8tute  for  Social  &  European  Studies  

Kőszeg,  Hungary  Fall  2010  

Overview  

•  According  to  the  UN  Food  &  Agriculture  Organiza8on,  current  global  meat  consump8on  is  at  approximately  280  million  tons  per  year1;  this  figure  is  expected  to  double  by  2050  when  the  world’s  popula8on  is  expected  to  reach  9.8  billion.2  

•  In  this  part  of  the  presenta8on,  we  will  focus  our  discussion  on  the  industrialized  produc8on  and  consump8on  of  beef  in  North  America,  and  its  subsequent  environmental  effects  through  the  con8nued  prolifera8on  of  concentrated  animal  feeding  opera8ons,  or  factory  farms.  

•  According  to  the  US  Department  of  Agriculture,  in  2009,  approximately  56.1  million  metric  tons  of  beef  were  consumed  globally,  with  the  largest  consumers  of  beef  in  the  world  being  the  United  States,  followed  by  the  European  Union,  Brazil  and  China.3  

•  However,  in  per  capita  terms4,      -­‐  Argen:na  is  the  largest  consumer  of  beef  at  ~65.6  kgs  of  beef  per  

person  per  year    -­‐  United  States  is  3rd  at  ~40.7  kgs  of  beef  per  person  per  year    -­‐  Canada  is  6th  at  ~31.7  kgs  of  beef  per  person  per  year    -­‐  Mexico  is  8th  at  ~24.1  kgs  of  beef  per  person  per  year.    

•  Since  the  1950’s,  this  increase  in  meat  consump8on  globally  has  been  encouraged  by  the  prolifera8on  of  concentrated  animal  feeding  opera:ons,  or  factory  farms,  with  some  80  percent  of  growth  in  the  livestock  sector  coming  from  mass  industrial  produc8on  systems  that  consume  vast  amounts  of  feed  and  energy.5    

Industrialized  Beef  Produc:on  in  North  America  

•  These  factory  farms  are  large,  high-­‐density  facili8es  where  hundreds  to  thousands  of  caale  are  confined  in  small  spaces  and  fed  mainly  on  a  diet  of  grains.  These  grains  range  from  cereal  grains  like  corn,  barley  and  wheat,  to  legume,  hays  (clover,  soybeans,  alfalfa)  and  grass  hays  (coastal  Bermuda,  fescue  and  blue  grass);  6  all  with  the  purpose  of  reducing  costs  for  the  producers  through  the  achievement  of  economies  of  scale.  

•  Since  caale  in  these  factory  farms  are  oden  confined  in  very  8ght  spaces,  drugs,  which  include  an8bio8cs,  are  oden  mixed  in  with  the  caale  supply  feed  and  water,  to  promote  growth  and  to  keep  the  caale  from  geeng  sick.    

Photo  credit:  hap://www.epa.gov/region7/water/cafo/index.htm    

Factory  Farms  &  CaKle  Feed  

•  The  con8nued  use,  or  misuse  of  an8bio8cs  such  as  Cephalosporins  as  growth  promoters,  not  only  in  caale  farms  but  in  poultry  and  pork  farms  as  well,  has  led  to  a  drama8c  increase  in  the  resistance  of  an8bio8cs  among  people  in  North  America,  Europe  and  Asia.7  These  an8bio8cs  are  important  to  us  because  they  have  the  ability  to  knock  out  a  wide  range  of  hard-­‐to-­‐treat  human  ailments  such  as  urinary  tract  infec8on  and  pneumonia.  If  we  are  growing  increasingly  resistant  to  an8bio8c  drug  treatment  because  of  the  food  we  eat,  this  poses  a  huge  public  health  risk  for  us  all.  8  

Photo  credit:  hap://animalblawg.wordpress.com/2010/05/07/missouri-­‐court-­‐of-­‐appeals-­‐keeps-­‐friends-­‐close-­‐and-­‐cafos-­‐closer/  

•  In  the  beginning  of  the  20th  century,  most  animals  were  pasture-­‐raised  on  family  farms.  However,  by  2003,  82  percent  of  the  caKle  in  the  United  States  alone  were  produced  by  just  four  industrial  producers.9  Some  of  the  main  underlying  factors  behind  this  transi8on  from  small  family  farms  to  large  agribusiness  producers,  include  the  development  of  nitrogen  fer8lizers  as  well  as  the  availability  of  cheap  corn  made  plen8ful  by  government  subsidies  that  guaranteed  a  set  price  for  corn.10  

•  At  a  8me  when  land  for  grazing  and  feed  crop  produc8on  occupies  roughly  30  percent  of  the  land  surface  of  the  planet,  the  con8nued  prolifera8on  of  these  concentrated  animal  feeding  opera8ons  will  ul8mately  lead  to  direct  compe88on  for  already  scarce  land,  water  and  other  natural  resources,  not  to  men8on  the  nega8ve  environmental  consequences  arising,  from  loss  of  biodiversity  and  deforesta8on,  to  the  acidifica8on  of  terrestrial  ecosystems  and  emissions  of  greenhouse  gases.11  

Environmental  Consequences  of    Industrialized  Beef  Produc:on  

Deforesta:on  and  Biodiversity  Loss  •  As  previously  men8oned,  land  used  in  

agricultural  produc:on  occupies  approximately  30  percent  of  the  planet’s  land  surface.  As  meat  demand  increases  worldwide,  including  the  demand  for  beef,  even  more  forests  will  be  cleared  for  addi8onal  livestock  ac8vity  and  crop  produc8on.  As  a  serious  consequence,  na8ve  species  are  being  pushed  out  of  their  habitat  and  biodiversity  is  being  lost.12  

Photo  credit:  hap://www.flickr.com/photos/16725630@N00/1524189000/    

Deple:on  of  Water  Resources  •  Aside  from  deforesta8on  and  loss  of  biodiversity,  there  is  also  the  

serious  issue  of  water  deple8on  as  a  result  of  con8nued  industrialized  beef  produc8on.  Approximately  2,500  gallons  of  water  are  required  to  produce  a  pound  of  beef,  compared  to  22  gallons  to  produce  a  pound  of  tomatoes.13  This  figure  takes  into  account  the  amount  of  water  needed  to  harvest  the  grain  to  be  fed  to  the  caale,  the  water  the  caale  need  to  drink,  as  well  as  the  water  required  at  slaughter.  

Major  Contributor  to  Greenhouse  Gas  Emissions  •  According  to  a  report  published  by  the  UN  FAO  in  2006,  livestock  

produc8on  causes  18  percent  of  all  global  manmade  greenhouse  gas  emissions,  which  is  more  than  all  transporta8on  services  combined.14  This  figure  takes  into  account  the  fossil  fuels  required  in  feed  produc8on;  carbon  dioxide  emissions  from  forests  cut  down  for  addi8onal  livestock  ac8vity  and  crop  produc8on;  carbon  dioxide  emissions  from  the  transporta8on  of  animal  products;  and  nitrous  oxide  and  methane  emissions  from  caale  belching  and  manure.  

Air  and  Water  Pollu:on  •  Livestock  raised  in  factory  farms,  including  caale,  produce  an  enormous  

amount  of  manure  most  of  which  is  stored  in  large  manure  holding  lagoons.  The  runoff  of  this  waste  into  surface  and  groundwater  has  contaminated  drinking  water  in  many  areas  across  North  America;  some  manure  lagoons  have  also  given  way,  sending  millions  of  gallons  of  raw  waste  into  streams  and  estuaries.15  The  runoff  of  manure,  which  contains  nitrogen  and  phosphorus,  eventually  reaches  larger  water  bodies  where  they  can  cause  eutrophica:on,  the  prolifera:on  and  ensuing  death  of  algae  robbing  the    the  water  of  oxygen,  crea8ng  dead  zones  where  no  living  creatures  can  survive.16  

Led:  Aerial  view  of  working  hog  manure  holding  lagoon  in  Iowa,  USA.  

Photo  credit:  hap://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/05/indiana-­‐taxpayers-­‐clean-­‐up-­‐abandoned-­‐manure-­‐lagoon.php    

Are  there  sustainable  alterna:ves?  

•  Given  all  of  the  nega8ve  environmental  consequences  surrounding  concentrated  animal  feeding  opera8ons,  do  sustainable  alterna8ves  exists?  

•  The  answer  is  yes,  sustainable  alterna8ves  to  the  industrialized  produc8on  system  of  beef  do  exist,  such  as  smart  pasture  opera8ons  (SPOs)  producing  pasture-­‐raised  beef.17    

•  In  fact,  the  demand  for  pasture-­‐raised  beef  is  growing  in  the  US,  as  is  the  demand  for  pasture-­‐raised  milk  and  cheese  products.18    

Photo  credit:  hap://organicgarden.blogspot.com/2010/03/grass-­‐fed-­‐cows-­‐save-­‐earth.html    

•  Smart  pasture  opera8ons  take  advantage  of  low-­‐cost  grass  grown  on  carefully  managed  pastures,  requiring  less  maintenance,  energy,  pes8cides,  and  water  than  industrial  beef  produc8on.  The  smaller  amount  of  manure  produced  also  fer8lizes  the  land,  avoiding  water  and  air  pollu8on.  Grass-­‐fed  caale  are  also  healthier  and  more  gene8cally  diverse,  helping  to  prevent  the  spread  of  disease.  In  addi8on,  grass-­‐fed  beef  is  healthier  to  eat;  grass-­‐fed  beef  and  dairy  products  have  less  total  fat  and  higher  levels  of  good  omega-­‐3  faay  acids  compared  to  those  from  animals  fed  a  grain  diet.19  

•  And  finally,  on  an  individual  consumer  level,  one  way  that  we  can  reduce  the  environmental  impact  of  the  industrial  produc8on  of  livestock,  is  to  simply  reduce  our  meat  consump8on,  as  recommended  by  Dr.  Rajendra  Pachauri,  chair  of  the  UN  Intergovernmental  Panel  on  Climate  Change.20  In  addi8on,  according  to  researchers  at  the  University  of  Chicago,  if  Americans  were  to  reduce  their  meat  consump8on  by  just  20  percent,  it  would  be  as  if  everyone  switched  from  a  standard  sedan  to  an  ultra-­‐efficient  hybrid  vehicle.21  

References  •  1  U.N.  Food  and  Agriculture  Organiza8on  (FAO),  “Meat  and  Meat  Products,”  Food  Outlook,  June  

2008.  

•  2  UN  FAO  –  Food  Needs  and  Popula8on  hap://www.fao.org/docrep/x0262e/x0262e23.htm    

•  3  USDA  Economic  Research  Service  hap://www.ers.usda.gov/news/BSECoverage.htm    •  4  Marfrig  Group  Meat  Sector  

hap://www.mzweb.com.br/marfrig/web/conteudo_en.asp?idioma=1&8po=5911&img=2904&conta=44  

•  5  European  Commission  Green  Week  –  2.9  Biodiversity  and  meat  consump8on  hap://ec.europa.eu/environment/greenweek/session/29-­‐biodiversity-­‐and-­‐meat-­‐consump8on.html  

•  6  Lawrence,  John  et  al.,  Beef  Feedlot  Systems  Manual  Iowa  Beef  Centre,  Iowa  State  University  2006  

•  7  Miller  McCune  Playing  Chicken  with  An<bio<c  Resistance  August  2009  hap://www.miller-­‐mccune.com/health/playing-­‐chicken-­‐with-­‐an8bio8c-­‐resistance-­‐3533/    

•  8  The  Pew  Charitable  Research  Trusts  An<bio<c-­‐Resistant  Bacteria  in  Animals  and  Unnecessary  Human  Health  Risks  hap://www.savean8bio8cs.org/resources/PewHumanHealthEvidencefactsheet7-­‐14FINAL.pdf    

•  9  Cassuto,  David  N.  “The  CAFO  Hothouse:  Climate  Change,  Industrial  Agriculture  and  the  Law”  Animals  &  Society  Ins8tute  Policy  Paper  2010  

•  10  Ibid  •  11  European  Commission  Green  Week  –  2.9  Biodiversity  and  meat  consump8on  

hap://ec.europa.eu/environment/greenweek/session/29-­‐biodiversity-­‐and-­‐meat-­‐consump8on.html    

References  (con8nued)  •  12  Ibid  

•  13  Robbins,  John.  2,500  Gallons  All  Wet?  EarthSave  Healthy  People  Healthy  Planet  hap://www.earthsave.org/environment/water.htm    

•  14  UN  FAO,  Livestock’s  Long  Shadow,  Environmental  Issues  and  Op8ons  (Rome:  2006)  •  15  Indiana  Taxpayers  Pay  to  Clean  Up  Abandoned  Manure  Lagoon  May  2009

hap://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/05/indiana-­‐taxpayers-­‐clean-­‐up-­‐abandoned-­‐manure-­‐lagoon.php    

•  16  Gurian-­‐Sherman,  Doug  –  CAFOs  Uncovered  –  The  Untold  Costs  of  Confined  Animal  Feeding  Opera<ons  Union  of  Concerned  Scien8sts  April  2008  

•  17    Union  of  Concerned  Scien8sts  Pasture-­‐based  Ques<ons  FAQ  hap://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/solu8ons/smart_pasture_opera8ons/greener-­‐pastures-­‐faqs.html    

•  18  Na8onal  Sustainable  Agriculture  Informa8on  Service  CaVle  Produc<on:  Considera<ons  for  Pasture-­‐based  beef  and  dairy  Producers  2006  

•  19    Union  of  Concerned  Scien8sts  Pasture-­‐based  Ques<ons  FAQ  hap://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/solu8ons/smart_pasture_opera8ons/greener-­‐pastures-­‐faqs.html    

•  20    UN  says  eat  less  meat  to  curb  global  warming  The  Guardian  UK  September  2008  hVp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/07/food.foodanddrink  

•  21  Eshel,  Gidon  and  Pamela  A.  Mar8n.  Diet,  Energy  and  Global  Warming  Earth  Interac8ons  Volume  10  (2006)