Your reading list

Beef production not as bad as UN says: study

Reading Time: 3 minutes

Published: June 16, 2011

,

CALGARY – Frank Mitloehner was skeptical when he read claims that the world’s livestock produce 18 percent of global greenhouse gases, more than all the trucks, cars, trains, planes and ships in the world combined.

He investigated and said he found that his skepticism was justified.

Mitloehner, an associate professor of animal science at the University of California, Davis, found that 2.8 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions in the United States can be attributed to livestock, compared to 26 percent from transportation.

He published his findings in a report that refuted the 18 percent figure provided in a 2006 United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization report.

Read Also

Pigs inside a transport trailer on a highway.

Hogs’ transport stress called costly

Poor trailer design and transportation stress are killing pigs and costing the pork industry millions of dollars in penalties, meat quality downgrades and failed welfare audits, according to research by a federal scientist.

Mitloehner told a May 19 beef cattle conference in Calgary that data on feedlot production in California shows modern processes are not as damaging to the environment as the general public might think.

“What the public of course does not appreciate is, if you compare all the different production stages within the beef industry across California, the one with by far the smallest carbon footprint is the feedlot,” he said. “By far the smallest.”

Mitloehner said the grass-fed beef sector is the largest contributor. Animals in that process eat more roughage, from which they produce more methane than they do from grain.

As well, feedlot animals are finished in 14 months while grass-fed animals require a much longer finishing period, allowing the latter group to contribute more greenhouse gases per animal.

Mitloehner acquired his data by putting animals in bubble enclosures that measure all incoming and outgoing air.

He and his team have tested dairy and beef cattle at various life stages, as well as their waste and their feed, and analyzed the resulting green- house gases and other volatile organic compounds.

It’s not the first time he has questioned such data.

When an inventory of smog forming gases in California listed dairy cows as the number one source, followed by broiler chickens at number 18 and range cattle at number 20, Mitloehner was skeptical.

“How in the world can that be, that dairy cows produce more smog forming gases than cars and trucks?”

The list had far reaching implications for the dairy industry, because it prompted legislation to install digesters to control greenhouse gas emissions at great expense.

However, Mitloehner’s investigation found that data used to compile the emissions list was more than 70 years old.

Nor was there any reliable data to justify the placement of broiler chickens on the list.

His research was designed to provide accurate numbers to regulators, including measurements of greenhouse gas output from animals at different life stages.

“It’s relevant because our regulators said, ‘well, we don’t really know how much a calf produces but if a calf weighs one-tenth of a feedlot steer finishing weight, then we just assume its emissions are one-tenth.’ These assumptions are fundamentally flawed.”

Mitloehner’s research found that a calf with an undeveloped rumen does not produce the same amount of gas as a mature animal, and supplied specific numbers.

Other findings showed silage is the biggest emitter of smog forming gases on dairy farms and is a greater emitter than cows or manure lagoons.

Mitloehner and his team also tested emissions from cattle treated with various growth promotants, including ionophores, hormone implants and beta-agonists.

A study on 160 Black Angus steers showed marked differences in emissions of various gases. One finding showed reduced methane and ammonia production in animals treated with beta-agonists because of their affect on nitrogen use.

Other treatments affected amounts of other gas production.

Mitloehner published a paper refuting the FAO report, which has since published corrections to numbers initially put forward in a report called Livestock’s Long Shadow.

In his paper, Mitloehner said the initial FAO numbers were compiled by adding up emissions for livestock production from farm to table, “including the gases produced by growing animal feed; animals’ digestive emissions; and processing meat and milk into foods.

But its transportation analysis did not similarly add up emissions from well to wheel. Instead, it considered emissions only from fossil fuels burned while driving.

He also said intensive livestock has created efficiencies that have reduced greenhouse gas production because it takes fewer animals to produce a given unit of product.

About the author

Barb Glen

Barb Glen

Barb Glen is the livestock editor for The Western Producer and also manages the newsroom. She grew up in southern Alberta on a mixed-operation farm where her family raised cattle and produced grain.

explore

Stories from our other publications