Eco-benefits of Growth Eco-benefits of Growth Promoting PharmaceuticalsPromoting Pharmaceuticals

Alex Avery,Director of Research and Education

Hudson Institute

Hormones: Why?Hormones: Why?• Increase total volume of beef produced

from limited resources.

• Reduces costs. More muscle, less fat, and less pollution per pound of beef produced.

• 99.5% of U.S. beef feedlot production utilizes supplemental hormones.

• Six hormones approved and used since 1950s: three natural and three synthetic.

Hudson AnalysisHudson Analysis• Used real-world beef finishing criteria and

production results from a study commissioned by Iowa State University’s Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture.(calving/weaning stages essentially

identical between organic and conventional)

• Used UN IPCC Greenhouse gas emissions factors

• Compared organic grass-based beef finishing with conventional feedlot finishing -- with and without supplemental growth hormones

• Production estimates consistently conservative

Beef Hormone Eco-BenefitsBeef Hormone Eco-Benefits• Reduce the land required to produce a

pound of beef by 67 percent.

• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from beef finishing by 40 percent.

• More beef with less grain at lower cost.

Hormones allow land to be used Hormones allow land to be used more efficientlymore efficiently

5.04

1.991.64

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Organic grassGrain finishing w/ohormones

Grain finishingwith hormones

Land needed to produce1lb of beef(acre-days)

52.3

43

17

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Equivalent "Miles Per Acre"

Organic grass

Natural grain

Conventional grain

Land-use Efficiency of finishing systems

Beef Eco-Analysis:Beef Eco-Analysis:Global WarmingGlobal Warming

• Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions estimates included emissions from feed production, but not feed transport or product transport.

• Recent comprehensive Japanese analysis says feed transport is roughly 10% of total GHG emissions for each pound of beef. This is higher than for U.S. (due to 3-5X longer feed transport distances), but indicates that it is a relatively minor component.

Beef and GHG EmissionsBeef and GHG Emissions• Organic grass-fed produced 40% MORE CO2-

equivalent greenhouse gases per pound of beef than grain-fed.

• Key is methane, which is 23X more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.

• Grass-fed cows produce ~2X more enteric methane which overwhelms higher CO2 emissions in feedlot system from fertilizer production, field crop operations, feed transport, etc.

Who Agrees with Hudson?Who Agrees with Hudson?

• UN FAO states: “. . . by far the largest share of emissions come from more extensive systems.”

• “The most promising approach for reducing methane emissions from livestock is by improving [productivity and efficiency] of livestock production.

• “The basic principle is to increase the digestibility of feedstuff,”

• Translation: Finish beef animals on grain, not grass

FoodwatchFoodwatch and German Institute for and German Institute for Ecological Economy ResearchEcological Economy Research

• August 2008: “The production of one kilo of grass-fed beef causes the same amount of emissions as driving 70.4 miles in a compact car. Because of more intensive production methods, producing one kilo of conventional beef is the equivalent of driving only 43.9 miles.”

• Translation: Conventional = ~40% less!!!

Organic False Claims of Lower Organic False Claims of Lower GHG EmissionsGHG Emissions

• Organic/animal rights activists claim organic produces 40% fewer GHG emissions [Ogino versus Cederberg and Stadig, 2007]

• False comparison of Swedish grass-fed beef production to specialty Japanese Kobe beef production, in which Japanese cattle fed 2X longer than U.S. and feed is shipped 18,000+ miles

Ogino (cited by HSUS) says:Ogino (cited by HSUS) says:

• In noting that the Japanese beef fattening system GHG emissions were 2X more than U.S. estimates: “The contribution of the [Japanese system] to global warming . . . was therefore larger that that of the U.S. feedlot system, which seemed to be due to the much longer feeding length of the Japanese system.” [emphasis added]

GHG Emissions: Land factorGHG Emissions: Land factor• Two recent papers on biofuels in Science and Nature

raise a critical issue: If policies or farm practices result in forest/habitat clearance – the net result is a significant increase in GHG emissions. So . . .

• Grass-based/organic beef GHG emissions are even HIGHER than direct numbers because they would REQUIRE land clearance to equal beef production (or forced veganism!)

• Assuming equal GHG emissions (as several analysis indicate), land clearance would add roughly 60% to organic/grass-fed beef emissions

Low Productivity = Land Clearing Low Productivity = Land Clearing = More GHG= More GHG

• Searchinger et al. (2008, Science) say cleared land emits ~10,400 lbs of GHG/acre/year, calling it “carbon debt.”

• 2007 U.S. used 13.3 million acres to produce cattle feed.

• Grass-fed would require extra 26.6 million acres.

• 26.6 million X 10,400 = extra 276.6 billion lbs GHG emissions

Total GHG emissions with Total GHG emissions with carbon debt for U.S. beefcarbon debt for U.S. beef

Conventional

22 lbs GHG per lb of beef (Johnson et al.)

X 22.16 billion lbs beef

= 487.5 billion lbs GHG

Grass-fed/Organic

22.3 lbs of GHG per lb of beef (Swedish)

X 22.16 billion lbs beef

= 494.2 billion lbs

PLUS 276.6 billion lbs from carbon debt

= 770 billion lbs GHG