Beef Production More Sustainable Now, WSU Expert Says
EPOnline.com
Jul 26, 2010
Advances in productivity over the past 30 years have reduced the carbon footprint and overall environmental impact of U.S. beef production, according to a new study presented by a Washington State University researcher.
In “Comparing the environmental impact of the US beef industry in 1977 to 2007,” assistant professor of animal science Jude L. Capper revealed that improvements in nutrition, management, growth rate and slaughter weights, have significantly reduced the environmental impact of modern beef production and improved its sustainability.
“These findings challenge the common misconception that historical methods of livestock production are more environmentally sustainable than modern beef production,” said Capper in a presentation on July 14 at the American Society of Animal Science meeting in Denver. Read More
There are plenty of people trying to eliminate animal agriculture by spreading misinformation about it’s impact on the environment. The truth of the matter is that animal agriculture has greatly reduced the environmental impact over the last few decades. But it doesn’t stop there. The improvement that we have seen is continuing into the future. We depend on a healthy environment to raise healthy livestock which is why farmers and ranchers are some the greenest people around. ~Troy
Showing posts with label carbon footprint. Show all posts
Showing posts with label carbon footprint. Show all posts
Monday, July 26, 2010
Monday, June 21, 2010
Reporting the Hype, Not the Facts
Chefs now offering low-carbon diets to help save the planet
In the effort to save the planet from carbon emissions, chefs are saying eat less feedlot beef. That's because feedlot beef is by far the biggest creator of carbon gases. Fed on corn instead of the grass it was meant to eat, cows simply belch and pass wind a lot, creating much of the CO2 that's harming the earth. Bon Appétit Management Co. and other corporate food-service operators are turning to lower-carbon foods like chicken in an effort to change eating habits while reducing their carbon footprints.
By Paula Bock
SO YOU THINK trading in your gas guzzler for a hybrid will save the planet?
Try cutting back on cheeseburgers! And mangos! And fish flown in "fresh" from the southern hemisphere!
Old millennium: Low-carb diets. The new cool: Low-carbon diets. As in eat green. As in healthy for the environment. As in reduce global warming by minding what you swallow.
Just ask the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. A few years ago, it released a study showing that livestock cause more harm to the environment than all global transportation systems combined. Numero Uno emission emitter? Beef.
If Americans reduced meat consumption by just 20 percent, a University of Chicago study found, it'd be like all of us switching from a standard sedan to an ultraefficient Prius. A Japanese study estimated that raising 2.2 pounds of beef creates the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide as driving an average European car for 155 miles or burning a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days.
Producing a pound of feedlot beef creates the equivalent of 14.8 pounds of CO2. By comparison, a pound of pork creates the equivalent of 3.8 pounds of CO2; chicken, the equivalent of 1.1 pounds.
Why do cattle have such a huge carbon hoof print? Surprisingly, it's not so much because of transport from feedlot to fast-food joint or land cleared for grazing or even the chemical fertilizers used to grow the feed, though all that also adds up.
It's largely because cornfed cattle pass a lot of gas. Read More
Here’s another example of activism as compared to journalism. If this reporter had done some actual research as opposed to regurgitating common misconceptions, they would have learned there’s a different story to be told. For example, the writer seems to think that cattle will only produce methane if they are being fed a grain based diet. Methane is a byproduct of rumination, not the diet. There is also evidence that suggests grain fed beef actually produce less emissions over their lifetime compared to other production methods. Along with that, even though rumination produces methane, that is the process that allows us to convert indigestible forages into human consumable protein. It allows us to utilize the vast majority of land on this planet that doesn’t allow for farming. The University of Chicago study that is cited is the same one that Michael Pollan used to cite as well until the authors of that study clarified that that wasn’t true. It’s another example of the sad state of journalism today.
In the effort to save the planet from carbon emissions, chefs are saying eat less feedlot beef. That's because feedlot beef is by far the biggest creator of carbon gases. Fed on corn instead of the grass it was meant to eat, cows simply belch and pass wind a lot, creating much of the CO2 that's harming the earth. Bon Appétit Management Co. and other corporate food-service operators are turning to lower-carbon foods like chicken in an effort to change eating habits while reducing their carbon footprints.
By Paula Bock
SO YOU THINK trading in your gas guzzler for a hybrid will save the planet?
Try cutting back on cheeseburgers! And mangos! And fish flown in "fresh" from the southern hemisphere!
Old millennium: Low-carb diets. The new cool: Low-carbon diets. As in eat green. As in healthy for the environment. As in reduce global warming by minding what you swallow.
Just ask the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. A few years ago, it released a study showing that livestock cause more harm to the environment than all global transportation systems combined. Numero Uno emission emitter? Beef.
If Americans reduced meat consumption by just 20 percent, a University of Chicago study found, it'd be like all of us switching from a standard sedan to an ultraefficient Prius. A Japanese study estimated that raising 2.2 pounds of beef creates the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide as driving an average European car for 155 miles or burning a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days.
Producing a pound of feedlot beef creates the equivalent of 14.8 pounds of CO2. By comparison, a pound of pork creates the equivalent of 3.8 pounds of CO2; chicken, the equivalent of 1.1 pounds.
Why do cattle have such a huge carbon hoof print? Surprisingly, it's not so much because of transport from feedlot to fast-food joint or land cleared for grazing or even the chemical fertilizers used to grow the feed, though all that also adds up.
It's largely because cornfed cattle pass a lot of gas. Read More
Here’s another example of activism as compared to journalism. If this reporter had done some actual research as opposed to regurgitating common misconceptions, they would have learned there’s a different story to be told. For example, the writer seems to think that cattle will only produce methane if they are being fed a grain based diet. Methane is a byproduct of rumination, not the diet. There is also evidence that suggests grain fed beef actually produce less emissions over their lifetime compared to other production methods. Along with that, even though rumination produces methane, that is the process that allows us to convert indigestible forages into human consumable protein. It allows us to utilize the vast majority of land on this planet that doesn’t allow for farming. The University of Chicago study that is cited is the same one that Michael Pollan used to cite as well until the authors of that study clarified that that wasn’t true. It’s another example of the sad state of journalism today.
Friday, March 19, 2010
More Fur in Fashion
Designers embrace fur despite animal rights concerns
March 18, 2010,
Toronto Star,
Debra Black
Despite the recession and the animal rights movement, fur is once more returning to the fashion runways of both Europe and North America.
In New York recently almost two-thirds of the fashion designers at Fashion Week showed work using fur, according to the New York Times. It was widely popular in Europe.
And with Toronto’s LG Fashion Week for Fall/Winter 2010 on the horizon fur will also be front and centre – with the gala fashion show on March 28 the debut of a fur collection of coats, clothing and accessories.
The collection is the brain child of Izzy Camilleri, a Canadian designer known for the red fox coat she designed for Meryl Streep’s character in ‘The Devil Wears Prada’, and Adrian Mainella, a fashion journalist and image consultant.
Mainella believes the fashion industry has once more embraced fur because it has a low carbon footprint compared to some synthetic textiles. “People keep it for a lifetime typically,” he said. “A synthetic coat gets donated or thrown away.” The average Canadian, he said, will have between 35 and 50 winter coats made from synthetic materials and not biodegradable. Read More
There is nothing wrong with using our natural resources in a responsible manner and fur is a fantastic resource for humans to use. Many times this actually benefits the species where fur comes from. If you look at animal populations, the ones that are hunted for meat or fur many times have some of the highest populations as well.
March 18, 2010,
Toronto Star,
Debra Black
Despite the recession and the animal rights movement, fur is once more returning to the fashion runways of both Europe and North America.
In New York recently almost two-thirds of the fashion designers at Fashion Week showed work using fur, according to the New York Times. It was widely popular in Europe.
And with Toronto’s LG Fashion Week for Fall/Winter 2010 on the horizon fur will also be front and centre – with the gala fashion show on March 28 the debut of a fur collection of coats, clothing and accessories.
The collection is the brain child of Izzy Camilleri, a Canadian designer known for the red fox coat she designed for Meryl Streep’s character in ‘The Devil Wears Prada’, and Adrian Mainella, a fashion journalist and image consultant.
Mainella believes the fashion industry has once more embraced fur because it has a low carbon footprint compared to some synthetic textiles. “People keep it for a lifetime typically,” he said. “A synthetic coat gets donated or thrown away.” The average Canadian, he said, will have between 35 and 50 winter coats made from synthetic materials and not biodegradable. Read More
There is nothing wrong with using our natural resources in a responsible manner and fur is a fantastic resource for humans to use. Many times this actually benefits the species where fur comes from. If you look at animal populations, the ones that are hunted for meat or fur many times have some of the highest populations as well.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Feedlot Beef Greener
AUSTRALIA: Feedlot beef could be “greener” than grass-fed
Posted: February 9th, 2010 - 7:05am
Source: Meatingplace
Beef produced in feedlots has a smaller carbon footprint than meat raised exclusively on pastures, according to a University of New South Wales study published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology.
The study's life cycle analysis found that feedlot beef production generated slightly less greenhouse gas per kilogram of meat than grass-fed beef. Results from one supply chain studied showed feedlot production had a carbon footprint of 9.9kg of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per kilo of "hot standard carcass weight" (HSCW). Grass-finished beef produced 12kg CO2e per kg/HSCW.
The study, commissioned by Meat and Livestock Australia, looked at three operations: a beef producer, a sheepmeat producer and an organic beef producer.
Feedlot beef production, in which cattle are finished by being fed a diet of grain for the few months preceding slaughter, is often criticized for the resources and energy it consumes.
However, study co-author Matthias Schulz said in a news release the feedlot was found to produce meat more efficiently, effectively offsetting the greenhouse impact of the additional transport and feed production needed.
"Grain-finished cattle have a more efficient weight gain which completely offsets their higher individual carbon footprint," he said. "The other main reason for the better greenhouse performance of grain-fed beef is the superior digestibility of the feed and the associated reduction in methane emissions, and these digestion-related methane emissions are the main source of greenhouse gas from the livestock industry."
The study also compared data from Australian beef and sheep meat operations to studies conducted in Europe, the United Kingdom, the United States, Africa and Japan, and found Australian operations compared favorably. Read More
The UN Report called Livestock’s Long Shadow basically agreed with these findings. It concluded that American animal agriculture is a model for the rest of the world and helps mitigate climate change. This is the same report that anti-agriculture groups like to try using against us, apparently without reading it. The great news for consumers is this, there are plenty of choices for you to pick from. Whether you want a niche or conventionally produced product, it’s available.
Posted: February 9th, 2010 - 7:05am
Source: Meatingplace
Beef produced in feedlots has a smaller carbon footprint than meat raised exclusively on pastures, according to a University of New South Wales study published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology.
The study's life cycle analysis found that feedlot beef production generated slightly less greenhouse gas per kilogram of meat than grass-fed beef. Results from one supply chain studied showed feedlot production had a carbon footprint of 9.9kg of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per kilo of "hot standard carcass weight" (HSCW). Grass-finished beef produced 12kg CO2e per kg/HSCW.
The study, commissioned by Meat and Livestock Australia, looked at three operations: a beef producer, a sheepmeat producer and an organic beef producer.
Feedlot beef production, in which cattle are finished by being fed a diet of grain for the few months preceding slaughter, is often criticized for the resources and energy it consumes.
However, study co-author Matthias Schulz said in a news release the feedlot was found to produce meat more efficiently, effectively offsetting the greenhouse impact of the additional transport and feed production needed.
"Grain-finished cattle have a more efficient weight gain which completely offsets their higher individual carbon footprint," he said. "The other main reason for the better greenhouse performance of grain-fed beef is the superior digestibility of the feed and the associated reduction in methane emissions, and these digestion-related methane emissions are the main source of greenhouse gas from the livestock industry."
The study also compared data from Australian beef and sheep meat operations to studies conducted in Europe, the United Kingdom, the United States, Africa and Japan, and found Australian operations compared favorably. Read More
The UN Report called Livestock’s Long Shadow basically agreed with these findings. It concluded that American animal agriculture is a model for the rest of the world and helps mitigate climate change. This is the same report that anti-agriculture groups like to try using against us, apparently without reading it. The great news for consumers is this, there are plenty of choices for you to pick from. Whether you want a niche or conventionally produced product, it’s available.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Ag's Carbon Footprint Getting Lighter and Lighter
Carbon footprint of cattle shrinks with productivity
By Drovers news source Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Discussion of the environmental impact of animal agriculture is very different when you talk in terms of productivity instead of individual animals, according to one of the newest members of the Washington State University Department of Animal Sciences.
“You can’t just talk about ‘the cow,’” said Jude Capper, assistant professor of animal science. “We have to think about it on an output basis, whether it’s milk, beef, pork or poultry. From 1944 to 2007, the carbon footprint of the cow has doubled, but during that same time period, the carbon footprint per gallon of milk has decreased by more than two-thirds.”
Capper said milk production has grown from approximately 5,000 pounds per cow in 1944, when there were approximately 25.6 million dairy cows in the United States, to approximately 20,000 pounds per cow in 2007, when there were just 9.2 million dairy cows in the nation.
She attributes this increased sufficiency to advances in nutrition, genetics and management that allow cows to perform to their fullest potential. For example, rbST, a protein hormone that increases milk production allows enough milk to be produced to fulfill demand using fewer cows.
That reduction in animals alone has had a huge environmental benefit, Capper said, especially in terms of reducing methane and carbon dioxide emissions associated with global climate change.
“For example, if we produce 10 billion pounds of milk from cows given rbST, it’s like taking 112,000 cars off the road or planting 83.5 million trees,” she said. “The bottom line is if we improve productivity, we reduce our carbon footprint per gallon of milk.” Read More
As with many topics these days, the family farmer has become the favorite target of the global warming crowd. They continually cite a UN study which clearly does not represent how small the impact US agriculture makes. Nor do they show how much agriculture has lessened their impact over the last several decades. So even though it maybe easy for some folks to claim that agriculture is a big polluter, remember this, agriculture is the single biggest source of food and fiber in the world. If you can do without either of these then by all means continue trying to force it off this planet.
By Drovers news source Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Discussion of the environmental impact of animal agriculture is very different when you talk in terms of productivity instead of individual animals, according to one of the newest members of the Washington State University Department of Animal Sciences.
“You can’t just talk about ‘the cow,’” said Jude Capper, assistant professor of animal science. “We have to think about it on an output basis, whether it’s milk, beef, pork or poultry. From 1944 to 2007, the carbon footprint of the cow has doubled, but during that same time period, the carbon footprint per gallon of milk has decreased by more than two-thirds.”
Capper said milk production has grown from approximately 5,000 pounds per cow in 1944, when there were approximately 25.6 million dairy cows in the United States, to approximately 20,000 pounds per cow in 2007, when there were just 9.2 million dairy cows in the nation.
She attributes this increased sufficiency to advances in nutrition, genetics and management that allow cows to perform to their fullest potential. For example, rbST, a protein hormone that increases milk production allows enough milk to be produced to fulfill demand using fewer cows.
That reduction in animals alone has had a huge environmental benefit, Capper said, especially in terms of reducing methane and carbon dioxide emissions associated with global climate change.
“For example, if we produce 10 billion pounds of milk from cows given rbST, it’s like taking 112,000 cars off the road or planting 83.5 million trees,” she said. “The bottom line is if we improve productivity, we reduce our carbon footprint per gallon of milk.” Read More
As with many topics these days, the family farmer has become the favorite target of the global warming crowd. They continually cite a UN study which clearly does not represent how small the impact US agriculture makes. Nor do they show how much agriculture has lessened their impact over the last several decades. So even though it maybe easy for some folks to claim that agriculture is a big polluter, remember this, agriculture is the single biggest source of food and fiber in the world. If you can do without either of these then by all means continue trying to force it off this planet.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Innovation & Technology Helping To Feed The World
White Paper Examines Role of Agricultural Innovations in Meeting World Food Crisis
Thu Sep 10, 2009 1:06pm EDT
Agricultural Innovations Can Ensure Affordability, Supply, Safety and Sustainability
GREENFIELD, Ind.--(Business Wire)— Does agriculture need technology to help meet the growing worldwide demand for safe, nutritious and affordable food? The answer is a resounding "yes," according to Jeff Simmons, author of a white paper titled "Technology's Role in the 21st Century: Food Economics and Consumer Choice." In his paper, Simmons provides a comprehensive review of the growing challenge of feeding the world's population, including both historical data and projections that underscore the absolute necessity for new and existing technologies in food production.
"Already, an estimated 963 million people do not have enough to eat, and by 2050, we will need to produce 100 percent more food than we do now," says Simmons. "We can't achieve that by merely adding farmland or increasing crop intensity. But, we can use technology-such as advances in nutrition, disease and pest control, and livestock management-to increase productivity. Having said that, it's imperative that we use only those innovations that have a neutral or positive effect on the environment; to do otherwise is to sacrifice our long-term survival in favor of short-term gains."
Simmons concludes that technology is an important key to meeting the global demand for food and consumer choice for three reasons. First, technology enables food producers to provide more high-quality grains and protein sources using fewer resources. For example, a combination of best-management feeding practices and efficiency-enhancing feed ingredients enables today's cattle growers to use two-thirds less land to produce a pound of beef than it takes to produce a pound of beef from "all-natural," grass-fed cattle.
Second, technological innovation can help keep food affordable while ensuring maximum consumer choice - especially in developing nations. While some countries' well-designed organic systems can provide better yields and profits than traditional systems, on a global scale, organic foods come with a premium that many consumers can't afford.
Finally, technology can help minimize the global environmental impact of increased food production. For instance, modern beef-production techniques actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions per pound of beef by 38 percent compared with "all-natural" production methods, according to a 2007 study by the Hudson Institute. Moreover, technologies such as livestock feed ingredients can help significantly reduce animal waste production that threaten vital water resources, particularly in developing nations where modern pollution-control standards are not in use. Read More
Most of our consumers don’t realize the huge gains in efficiency that agriculture has made over the last 100 years. We are producing incredible amounts of food with a fraction of the inputs. It’s trendy today to blast conventional agriculture and make wild claims about how it’s not sustainable but the reality is much different. Because of the accomplishments we’ve made in increasing our food production capabilities, America enjoys the safest, most affordable food supply.
Thu Sep 10, 2009 1:06pm EDT
Agricultural Innovations Can Ensure Affordability, Supply, Safety and Sustainability
GREENFIELD, Ind.--(Business Wire)— Does agriculture need technology to help meet the growing worldwide demand for safe, nutritious and affordable food? The answer is a resounding "yes," according to Jeff Simmons, author of a white paper titled "Technology's Role in the 21st Century: Food Economics and Consumer Choice." In his paper, Simmons provides a comprehensive review of the growing challenge of feeding the world's population, including both historical data and projections that underscore the absolute necessity for new and existing technologies in food production.
"Already, an estimated 963 million people do not have enough to eat, and by 2050, we will need to produce 100 percent more food than we do now," says Simmons. "We can't achieve that by merely adding farmland or increasing crop intensity. But, we can use technology-such as advances in nutrition, disease and pest control, and livestock management-to increase productivity. Having said that, it's imperative that we use only those innovations that have a neutral or positive effect on the environment; to do otherwise is to sacrifice our long-term survival in favor of short-term gains."
Simmons concludes that technology is an important key to meeting the global demand for food and consumer choice for three reasons. First, technology enables food producers to provide more high-quality grains and protein sources using fewer resources. For example, a combination of best-management feeding practices and efficiency-enhancing feed ingredients enables today's cattle growers to use two-thirds less land to produce a pound of beef than it takes to produce a pound of beef from "all-natural," grass-fed cattle.
Second, technological innovation can help keep food affordable while ensuring maximum consumer choice - especially in developing nations. While some countries' well-designed organic systems can provide better yields and profits than traditional systems, on a global scale, organic foods come with a premium that many consumers can't afford.
Finally, technology can help minimize the global environmental impact of increased food production. For instance, modern beef-production techniques actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions per pound of beef by 38 percent compared with "all-natural" production methods, according to a 2007 study by the Hudson Institute. Moreover, technologies such as livestock feed ingredients can help significantly reduce animal waste production that threaten vital water resources, particularly in developing nations where modern pollution-control standards are not in use. Read More
Most of our consumers don’t realize the huge gains in efficiency that agriculture has made over the last 100 years. We are producing incredible amounts of food with a fraction of the inputs. It’s trendy today to blast conventional agriculture and make wild claims about how it’s not sustainable but the reality is much different. Because of the accomplishments we’ve made in increasing our food production capabilities, America enjoys the safest, most affordable food supply.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)