Grassfed Beef Can SOLVE Global Warming

October 14, 2009 | 18 Comments

Post image for Grassfed Beef Can SOLVE Global Warming

This post is part of the Blog Action Day for Climate Change
and Fight Back Friday hosted by FoodRenegade!

150 years ago, much of the Great Midwest was still covered with prairie grassland, providing valuable grazing land and habitat for thousands of plant and animal species, including millions of elk, bison and deer. These lands also supported natural environmental processes like carbon sequestration and seasonal flood control.

When Americans first settled the Midwestern prairies, they killed off the natural ruminants that lived there and began to farm highly fertile, virgin soil that was 10 percent organic matter. However 150 years of converting our grasslands to farms has cut that vital organic matter by more than half and released more carbon dioxide—the leading driver of global warming—into the air than any other source, including transportation or coal-fired power plants.

In the spring of 2008, the upper Midwest experienced catastrophic flooding which caused dislocations, massive erosion of precious topsoil, and billions of dollars in property damage. This is mostly due to the fact that plowed fields shed rainwater almost as fast as a parking lot does; the soil can only absorb, at most, about 1 1/2 inches of rain in an hour. A permanent pasture however can absorb as much as 7 inches of rain in an hour.

That’s the difference between flooding and no flooding.

Today nearly all of America’s original grasslands have been converted to genetically engineered corn and soybeans, two crops that are enormously destructive to the environment because they require massive amounts of fresh water, pesticides and petroleum-based fertilizers to grow. And sadly, these crops are mostly used to feed livestock; it takes 15 pounds of grain to make 1 pound of beef.

dreamstime_8640755

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO)

Most U.S. beef is produced from cows living in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), where grain-fed cows become sick from eating a diet unnatural to them, and emit large amounts of toxic methane into the air—further contributing to global warming. The concentrated lagoons of manure that these feedlots produce pollute rivers, streams and other fresh water sources, not to mention the horrid stench destroying quality of life for every person who lives near them. Additionally, the conditions in these feedlots are so poor that cows have to be treated with antibiotics and hormones simply in order to survive, which inadvertently creates the conditions whereby E. coli outbreaks, antibiotic-resistant superbugs, and other health problems more easily emerge.

Vegetarians have their environmental argument against today’s beef right: the highly industrialized way in which we raise cattle is both unhealthy and extremely unsustainable. The irony of all of this is that the very prairie we destroyed to grow grains to feed cattle was already the perfect, natural habitat for raising healthy, happy cows.

A conventionally farmed corn or soybean field is a major source of greenhouse gases, but a permanent pasture is a pump that pushes carbon back into the soil where it increases fertility and builds topsoil. According to a recent Scientific American article “Future Farming: A Return to Roots?” production of high-input, annual crops such as corn and soybeans release carbon at a rate of about 1,000 pounds per acre, while perennial grasslands can store carbon at roughly the same rate. Therefore, converting half the U.S. corn and soy acreage to pasture might cut carbon emissions by as much as 144 trillion pounds—and that’s not even counting the reduced use of fossil fuels for vehicles, machinery, fertilizers and pesticides that would also result.

That’s enough carbon sequestration to offset the emissions from all the cars, trucks and other vehicles on the planet!

Carbon Farming

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, enhancing the natural processes that remove CO2 from the atmosphere is thought to be the most cost-effective means of reducing atmospheric levels of CO2. Scientists agree that organic matter in topsoil is on average 50 percent carbon up to one foot in depth, and bumping that upward by as little as 1.6 percent across all the world’s agricultural land could potentially reverse the problem of global warming.

In other words, if we were to restore the soil fertility of the Great Plains that we destroyed in the last 150 years, atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide could be reduced to pre-industrial levels within 10-15 years.

Whether it’s cows, elephants, bison or antelope, grass requires regular destruction of its top leaves to promote root growth. It requires grazers to chomp down trees and shrubs so it won’t be overshaded, and it further requires significant amounts of their waste to fertilize the soil. This system, which evolved over millions of years, is what sequesters carbon naturally.

The central idea of carbon farming is to move the animals frequently—as once happened with wild herds chased by predators—so grasses are not gnawed beyond the point of natural recovery and plant cover remains to fertilize the land and sequester carbon. The sequestration process works like this: The grasses, forbs and herbs in a field take in carbon from the atmosphere; the animals eat, fertilize and trample them into the soil, where the carbon is absorbed, feeding the roots of the plants; new plants sprout, and the process is repeated over and over again, absorbing more and more carbon.

Carbon farming is, simply put, an attempt to recreate the natural, evolutionary conditions of a commons even under the structure of private property and modern life, in order to reverse the effects of global climate disruption.

But what about the argument that meat-eating is a major cause of global warming due to massive emissions of nitrous oxide, methane and other greenhouse gases from livestock operations? What may be true of feedlots is absolutely wrong about grass-fed livestock. Raising cattle (or other ruminants) on polycultural, permanent pasture mimics a natural system wherein the methane and other gas emissions are mitigated by the carbon sequestration in the soil, just as occurred across grasslands and savannahs for thousands of years before human interference.

The elimination of grazing animals from the Earth’s grassland ecosystems is in part what got us into this global warming mess in the first place. Grazing animals provide fertilizer, root stimulation, pest control, organic matter improvements and nutrient capture services to soils and plants in grassland ecosystems—they’re supposed to be there by the billions. If humans had better control over our own emissions, or were managing the planet’s plant cover better, the animals wouldn’t be a problem.

Scientists and ranchers alike, including the Nobel Prize-winning  U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), see carbon farming through managed intensive grazing as a way to phase out feedlots and all of the environmental and health problems they cause.

Crafting Carbon Sinks

It’s very simple: If we convert from grain-fed back to grass-fed cattle, and use managed intensive rotational grazing methods to maintain healthy, high-quality prairie, we can turn millions of acres of genetically engineered, heavily sprayed row crops into carbon sinks, and use permanent pasture to pull carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and slow global warming, as well as conserve water.

By converting corn and soybean fields to permanent pasture—permaculture modeled on the tallgrass prairie species that were the native cover a century ago, grassfed beef producers have found they can make more profit than the corn and soybeans yielded before. Part of this is a result of lower or no costs for inputs such as fertilizer, fuel, GMO seeds, pesticides, tractors and machinery. Additionally, farmers that create successful carbon sinks through their grazing operations can also qualify for payments under “cap and trade” programs and other offset and conservation subsidies.

And on properly recovered land, most graziers can finish about two steers per acre. That is almost precisely the acreage it takes to grow the grain to finish those same steers in a feedlot. This whole system makes economic sense, acre by acre. More than half of our total grain crop goes to feed livestock, so it follows that we can convert the same percentage of the 150 million acres used to grow corn and soy back into permanent pasture and lose not one ounce of meat production. At the same time, we can produce healthier meat and shift the massive federal subsidies for corn and soybean production to a better use.

Humans Working With Nature

Sequestration is not a marginal idea but rather a central effort keep the planet from tipping over into ecological uncertainty. One reason why carbon farming and other sequestration methods have gotten little attention in the fight against global warming is because they represent a new idea in environmental policy—the idea that solving our ecological crisis means not just stopping human interference with nature, but also on humans taking positive steps to undo the damage already here.

We are slowly learning that human enterprises work best when they imitate and participate in enhancing Nature’s diversity—a basic tenet of Permaculture. Early in the rise of organic farming, we mistakenly assumed we could sustain ecological diversity by raising a dozen or so different tilled crops on a small farm—forgetting that an acre of prairie contains hundreds of species of plants and animals that work cooperatively to sustain the local ecosystem. Many organic farmers learned from these early mistakes and brought animals back into the equation. Managed properly, ruminants and fowl help control weeds and insects, cycle nutrients, build soil, and provide a use for waste and failed crops. Healthy ecosystems—both wild and cultivated—must include these animals.

We now understand that honoring this principle is vital to the very life of our planet. Humans are part of nature, we are part of ecosystems. We can be part of the solution. If the solution to global warming involves large herds of hoofed animals moving through landscape in natural ways that take carbon out of the atmosphere and into the soil, then it would behoove us to start right away.

Even if you don’t eat meat, returning ruminants like buffalo, cows, goats, sheep and fowl to a restored natural grassland habitat could effectively SOLVE our global warming problem.

Models and Markets Can Move Us Forward

The good news is that many pioneering farmers and ranchers (like Joel Salatin of Polyface Farms or African environmentalist Allan Savory) are already healing the earth by successfully raising bison, cattle and dairy cows on polycultural grassland—an enterprise that can scale up quickly because the prototypes prove the model works. According to Mother Earth News, “…it is not unrealistic to think that we could convert millions of acres of ravaged industrial grain fields to permanent pastures and see no decline in beef and dairy production in the process.”

Doing so would give us:

  • a more humane livestock system,
  • a healthier human diet,
  • less deadly E. coli,
  • elimination of feedlots and the manure lagoons they produce,
  • a bonanza of wildlife habitat nationwide,
  • enormous savings in energy,
  • virtual elimination of pesticides and chemical fertilizers on grazing lands,
  • elimination of the catastrophic flooding that periodically plagues the Mississippi Basin,
  • more vibrant rural communities where farmers and ranchers can earn a decent living with less work and fewer expensive inputs, and
  • a dramatic reduction in global warming gases, possibly reducing our carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane emissions to pre-industrial levels.

The American Grassfed Association, a network of almost 400 graziers, is behind this effort. Their label certifies that their beef came from cattle that ate only grass from pastures, not feedlots, received no hormones or antibiotics in their feed, and were humanely raised and handled. This emerging marketing network has already placed grass-fed animal products in co-ops, health food stores and supermarkets across the nation.

This quiet revolution against industrial farming practices has been fueled by growing consumer demand. Consumers are willing to pay a premium for grass-fed beef, dairy and poultry simply because we know it’s significantly healthier than its conventional grain-fed counterpart, and because we don’t like the pollution, cruelty and antibiotics inherent in the concentrated feedlots that dominate the industry currently.

In a market economy driven by consumer demand, purchasing pasture-raised meat, dairy and eggs in lieu of their grain-fed counterparts is the only way we are going to attain the many environmental benefits of carbon farming and reduce global warming.

A Return to Roots

It is no coincidence that in the past 75 years as our diets modulated to include large quantities of industrial meat and refined carbohydrates, diseases like obesity, heart disease, diabetes and cancer have reached epidemic levels. Pasture-raised animal products are substantially cleaner, leaner and lower in the omega-6 fats that are linked to obesity and heart disease. Pasture-raised animal products also are much higher in Vitamins A, E and D as well as beneficial omega-3 fats and conjugated linoleic acids (CLA), both of which reduce the risk of cancer and heart disease and promote weight loss. And, perhaps most importantly, grass-fed beef just tastes better.

While it is true that a lot of environmental good would come from reducing the world’s consumption of industrially produced meat, the reality is that the number of people who eat meat is only growing. When living on grasslands and savannahs as they were meant to, animal foods are healthful and traditional parts of the human diet that we have relied on and enjoyed for our entire existence on this planet. So if we hope to avert climate change and enjoy a good hamburger in the future, it is incumbent upon us to restore our prairies and raise our animals in the most humane and environmentally beneficial way possible, which, it turns out, is they way nature had designed all along.

For more information on solving global warming through restoring grassland ecosystems:


Free Delivery and 15% off with code AFF15 through this link!

{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }

Samuel Kaymen June 3, 2010 at 12:58 pm

One item not addressed: Since most of the population in the US is a graet distance from the grasslands; What about the carbon emission from the processing, freezing, transportation, distribution, retail marketing , freezing and packaging, etc. I would really like to see the numbers on this externality. Thank you.

Reply

Dawn Gifford June 8, 2010 at 9:40 pm

Hi, thanks for commenting!

The carbon emissions you mention will continue to exist as long as we have centralized, industrial production of our food. The carbon emissions for producing, processing, freezing, transportation, distribution, retail, etc. exist for almost all the food we eat currently. In fact, the industrial production of inedible crops meant for processing—like soy, corn and palm oil—is more environmentally devastating than the production of any other food I can think of.

The only way around this is to eat as locally as is possible, given the climate you live in. Local grassfed, rotationally-grazed meat, eggs and dairy can be produced anywhere there is grass. (It is increasingly common to find them at farm markets across the nation.) In fact, meat and dairy is the sometimes the only food that can be produced on Vermont’s steep, rocky land, and the state has a thriving dairy industry because of it.

Best,
Dawn aka Small Footprint Mama

Reply

AWA November 17, 2009 at 5:22 am

Here’s a blog we just posted on the same topic.

http://www.animalwelfareapproved.org/2009/11/16/beware-of-bad-science/

Reply

donny October 31, 2009 at 7:37 pm

Grain-fed beef produces less greenhouse gases than grass-fed beef.
That pretty much sinks the idea of sustainable beef.

http://fanaticcook.blogspot.com/2009/02/grass-fed-cattle-have-bigger-carbon.html

Reply

Dawn Gifford October 31, 2009 at 7:49 pm

Thanks for commenting!

I am seldom so direct, but I have to say that it is patently false that grassfed beef emits more greenhouse gases than corn-fed feedlot beef. The blog post you reference has omitted critical information in understanding how raising grassfed beef properly is not only greener than feedot beef, but if done using the best agroecological methods, can actually remediate global warming by sequestering tons of carbon. Even the commenters in your link point out this fact. Additionally grasslands need grazers for both to be healthy.

For reference, please consult the sources listed at the bottom of my article, in particular the Scientific American article and the United Nations IPCC study. Also please see the recent op-ed in the New York Times called “The Carnivore’s Dilemma”.

Each explains in different ways why the carbon footprint of grass-fed beef is not only significantly smaller than grain-fed, but can also often be smaller than that of the average vegetarian diet too.

Best,
Dawn @ Small Footprint Family

Reply

Diet and Weight Loss October 26, 2009 at 6:50 am

The global warming has happened in the past few years and is evident from the rise in mean temperature of the earth’s atmosphere. The main causes for the global warming are attributed to release of green house gases by human activities. The main gases contributing to green house effect are carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane and nitrous oxide. The largest producers of these gases are the thermal power plants, which burn the fossil fuels and produce these gases in large quantities. The second biggest sources of these green house gases are the road vehicles and industries.

Reply

ethanappleseed October 19, 2009 at 1:48 pm

Thanks Dawn! Excellent article.

Have you seen the work that Carbon Farming Tennessee is doing? They just hosted the first Carbon Farming Course last month, and are piloting a new Community-Supported Research Initiative to gather grassroots (literally!) data. Check it out over at http://carbonfarming.wordpress.com

Reply

Dawn Gifford October 19, 2009 at 3:07 pm

Thanks for this link!! I look forward to learning more about this. I am so glad there are classes on this too so farmers who want to transition to grass farming with livestock can do so.

Reply

Dara October 17, 2009 at 12:54 pm

Excellent article Dawn! I’m in the middle of reading The Vegetarian Myth and she draws the same conclusions that you do here. Thanks so much for the fabulous work.

Reply

Dawn Gifford October 17, 2009 at 11:36 pm

Thanks for your comment and the complement! I look forward to reading The Vegetarian Myth. My copy has been on backorder for some time. I guess it is very popular. I’ve heard amazing things about Keith’s writing, and interviews with her are excellent.

Reply

Peter Talus October 16, 2009 at 6:55 pm

Are you CRAZY?

Do you really think that if the concentrated beef farms distributed all those animals to large “grass” pasture land that it would solve the problems that they created?

At least by concentrating the animals it allows for the majority of land to be more environmentally productive. Do the math.

Reply

Dawn Gifford October 16, 2009 at 7:19 pm

Actually, the Nobel-prize winning IPCC and many other scientists and farmers have already done the math, which is enumerated and referenced in my article. I am merely reporting on their findings. The math works out strongly in favor of returning cows to pasture for multiple reasons. And since U.S. agriculture currently produces almost 4000 calories per person (twice what one needs), as long as we quit building townhouses on farmland, we will have plenty of food moving forward for us and for export to other countries.

We would only need convert the land that is currently used to grow corn and soy to feed livestock anyway back to pasture, and feed cows and other animals their natural diet. It’s a one-for-one exchange and a win for the environment, the animals, the farmer, and human nutrition. As Wendell Berry said (and I paraphrase), by taking farm animals off pasture, we have taken a perfect, natural solution to nutrient cycling and divided it neatly into two problems.

In Argentina, they use a clever 8 year rotation, grazing cattle and chickens on grassland for five years. Then they grow crops on those pastures on soil made so fertile by the cows that they don’t need to use any additional fertilizer for the next three years of rotation.

Nature created a codependent, symbiotic system of grassland, ruminants, fowl and other animals that we have disrupted with industrial agriculture, releasing tons of greenhouse gases every year in the process. Monocrop, industrial agriculture accounts for a third of greenhouse gas production, no matter what you grow. The only reason cows were removed from pastures and into feedlots was because farm policies that favored food producers like Cargill made the price of corn worth less than it cost to produce, so commodity farmers had to grow as much as possible to make ends meet (plus receive subsidies). This also made corn and soy cheap for beef producers to feed their cows, despite the fact it is not a natural diet for them and causes harm to their rumens.

In a world where cheap oil is gone and fertilizers and pesticides made from fossil fuels will soon no longer be able to prop up industrial monocultures, transitioning our agriculture to a polycultural system that mimics natural ruminant/grassland systems is a way to solve multiple environmental and economic problems. It is crazy to think we can continue to farm industrially and not pay the price in human and environmental health.

Reply

EcoYogini October 16, 2009 at 11:34 am

This is an AWESOME article. Extremely well written, succinct and thoughtful. Thank you so much for writing this and phrasing it so eloquently.

I’m assuming that other than being a vocal consumer on this issue- we can write our local political leaders? I have heard of urbanites joining farming associations in order to help support and educate themselves about their local agricultural practices.

Reply

Dawn Gifford October 16, 2009 at 7:32 pm

Thanks for your comment! We are currently subsidizing corn and soy farmers to produce a surplus in order to keep prices low. However this surplus ends up as GMO high-fructose corn syrup and other corn and soy derivatives in almost all packaged foods. The environmental and health cost for this type of farming is vast.

We should be subsidizing farmers for creating biodiversity and environmental stewardship on their land, for using best practices that support human, animal and ecosystem health. Anything anyone can do to let decision makers know that their constituents to do not support subsidizing environmental destruction for the sake of cheap junk food is a step forward.

Reply

Leave a Comment

{ 4 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: