Ecobenefits of Growth Promoting Pharmaceuticals

1
Eco-benefits of Growth Promoting Pharmaceuticals
Alex Avery, Director of Research and
Education Hudson Institute
2
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.

3
Hudson Analysis

• Used real-world beef finishing criteria and
  production results from a study commissioned by
  Iowa State Universitys 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

4
Beef 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.

5
Hormones allow land to be used more efficiently
6
(No Transcript)
7
Beef Eco-AnalysisGlobal 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.

8
Beef 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.

9
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

10
Foodwatch and German Institute for Ecological
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!!!

11
Organic False Claims of Lower GHG 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

12
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

13
GHG 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

14
Low Productivity Land Clearing 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

15
Total GHG emissions with carbon 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