Beef: It's What Affects Global Warming
Ashley Thompson | May 10, 2006 07:23 PM | Link
The Kansas Beef Council is honoring the state’s $6 billion industry, beef production, by declaring the month of May “Kansas Beef Month.” Restaurants around the state will feature new creative beef entrees. Zesty radio ads will be promoting with pride an industry that has been a part of the state’s identity since the early Kansas City stockyard era. After all, Kansas is the top cattle processing state in the nation, with 7 million head processed in 2005. It may be known as the “Wheat State,” but the wheat industry actually brings in less than half the revenue of the cattle industry. Kansans are proud of this “cash cow” industry.
“This month is to draw on the significance of the cattle industry to our state’s economy,” said Todd Johnson, executive director of the Kansas Beef Council. “There’s a long history here, and a lot of success.”
Does eating meat aid in global warming? Researchers from the University of Chicago say so. photo from macveg.com That success, however, could be aiding in global warming. Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin, professors of Geophysical Sciences at the University of Chicago, researched and conducted data analysis of diet, energy and global warming. According to their tabulations, 6 percent of the greenhouse gases emitted in the United States are from meat production. In other words, if we were a strictly vegetarian society, the amount of gases that trap heat in the atmosphere would be 94 percent of its current value. Their report reached mainstream media in April, spurring a debate about whether such numbers are significant. For Kansas, one of the top cattle producers in the country, this means that global warming catalysts are right here, on small landlocked farms, away from threats like hurricanes that are arguably results of the greenhouse effect. However, few expect a drastic change in the American diet any time soon, even as the effects of global warming continue to rise.
Scientifically, it’s clear that a carnivore diet is less energy-efficient. Each step on the food process has a 10 percent efficiency rate. The first step is the food producers, or the plants. The next phase on the meat-eating ladder is feeding the plants to the livestock. Then, that livestock is fed to humans. If that middle step were cut out, the world’s crops could conceivably support 10 times more humans.
"We've been aware of this for a while," said Johannes Feddema, associate professor of geography at the University of Kansas. Feddema has done extensive research on global warming and land surface changes. "Whether or not you eat meat makes a big difference in terms of your energy use."
Chris Brown, assistant professor in geography and environmental studies at the University of Kansas, simplified the concept to students in his Principles of Environmental Studies class with a relatable situation.
“You’re taking out the middle man. Think of how much money you save, for example, if you go directly to a warehouse to buy something instead of through a retailer. You’re going to get a much better deal.”
The middle man won’t be going anywhere any time soon. The average American consumes 55 pounds of beef annually. In the United States alone, 182 million tons of methane are emitted from agriculture each year, with 172 million of those tons directly due to livestock. Approximately 173 million tons of agriculture-related nitrous oxide are emitted per year.
In Kansas, the meat packing industry creates more than 18,000 jobs, and the state has 32,000 cattle farms. These farms can, however, partake in environmentally friendly tactics to curtail the harmful emissions of methane and carbon dioxide and the use of fossil fuels. Joel DeRouchey, an environmental specialist in Kansas State University’s department of animal science and industry, said one of the most helpful ways is simply preventing the land from containing large pile ups of manure.
“The manure can run off into nearby lakes and ponds on the property, and it also emits quite a bit of methane,” DeRouchey said. “A lot of farms are careful to do this, but a lot of farms also aren’t.”
Pamela Martin, one of the co-authors of the study, said the effects of methane emissions were largely ignored compared to other aspects of the fight on global warming. Methane is, in fact, more potent and harmful to the atmosphere than carbon dioxide, but less of it is emitted.
“Our point was to bring attention to the fact that food production is associated with a significant amount of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions in the United States,” Martin said. “Our personal dietary choices can significantly affect personal emissions budgets.”
Vegetarian Food Pyramid. photo from www.westbrae.com Although a more plant-based diet is healthier for the environment, many Americans have qualms about giving up nutritional sources they think can only be found in animal products. B12, for example, maintains a sheath around nerve fibers and promotes normal growth of bone cell activity. Ann Chapman, registered dietician at Watkins Health Center, said going vegetarian requires research of what food can replace those important nutrients found in animal foods.
“Honestly, you can just take vitamin supplements in many cases, including B12,” Chapman said. “One concern with a vegetarian diet is it’s usually lower in calories because it’s very rich in fiber, which fills you up more quickly.”
In Kansas, a place that dedicates an entire month to its cattle industry, eating less meat requires stepping out of comfortable food boundaries, Brown said. He is not a vegetarian, but he does limit his beef intake.
“It’s sort of an identity of Kansas. People have to change a sense of who they are,” Brown said. “But it can be done. Don’t take meat out of your diet entirely, but when you do eat it, for the sake of the environment, try eating grass-fed meat.”
Debbie Yarnell, owner of Homespun Hill Farms near Baldwin, feeds and finishes all her beef with an all-grass diet. They are never in a feedlot, and she doesn’t allow her cattle to defecate or urinate in her property’s pond. Although she started out running her farm this way for moral reasons, she’s learned over the years that her methods are friendlier to the environment. Because the cattle are never in confinement, “you never get this big, sloppy manure mess you’d get otherwise,” Yarnell said.
The grain-fed versus grass-fed issue is debatable, DeRouchey said. The environmental friendliness of the facility also has to do with whether there is a water source, or if the cattle use a water trough. Grass- feeding cattle does not determine the amount of manure run-off in that water source. But Yarnell makes sure to plot manure around the pastures to avoid both run-off and a build up.
Despite the efforts of Yarnell and other small farms in Kansas, many large facilities in other areas of the state hold more than 100,000 cattle in very small confinement. Beyond the obvious malodorous issues, the manure run off and methane emissions in these lots are both unavoidable and detrimental. There’s concrete evidence that changes in climate directly correlate with methane emissions. Scientists find methane in bubbles on the surfaces of polar ice sheets.
“It’s proven that human activity changes the environment, and it’s proven that beef production is a part of what is causing these changes,” Feddema said.
Despite the mounting evidence from his research and other sources, Eshel said he doesn’t foresee any significant change in the American diet.
“Our report produced a lot of attention, but basically people just do what they do,” Eshel said. “People aren’t going to stop eating meat just because Professor Joe Somebody from Chicago wrote a paper.”
Feddema said the only possibility for a decrease in meat consumption is through self-interest, as obesity becomes more and more of a problem. But he agreed with Eshel’s outlook.
“I sure haven’t seen the burger stand lines here getting any shorter,” Feddema said.