How Eco Friendly is Grass Fed Beef?

You may be surprised to learn that there’s more argument about the eco-friendliness of grass fed beef than you’d expect.  The main reasons for this are that people are using different definitions of eco-friendly and measuring different aspects of the beef production process.

The Complicated Carbon Footprint Question

Many discussions of beef’s environmental impact at a global level focus on carbon footprint.  This is probably due to the discovery that livestock accounts for a staggering 18 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions (Marshall, 2010).

The methane that the cattle themselves emit is part of the problem.  According to a recent Australian study, “emissions from grass-fed cows were about 20 percent higher than grain-fed.”  Grain is more easily digested by cattle, producing less gas.  In addition, grain-fed animals also grow to market weight faster, so they’re emitting methane for less time (Marshall, 2010).

However, even if grass fed cattle do produce more methane, that isn’t the only consideration when deciding which feed method produces less greenhouse gasses in total.

As Michael Pollan (The Omnivores Dilemma) explains: “Much of the carbon footprint of beef comes from growing grain to feed the animals, which requires fossil-fuel-based fertilizers, pesticides, transportation” (Abend, 2010).

To put it another way,

Grasses are perennials…that means they grow back year after year and there’s not a lot of fuel used to produce the grasses…when you feed animals grain you really mean you’re feeding them corn and corn is an annual.  And that means every year you have to plow, plant, fertilize, spray, harvest it, dry it and grind it. (Gellerman, 2008)

Grass-fed cows may also be sequestering carbon within pastures via the grazing cycle, but according to Christopher Weber of Carnegie Mellon, it is extremely difficult to quantify this effect and it may vary widely with local conditions (Marshall, 2010).

Ultimately, the lower carbon footprint question ignores the bigger environmental picture.

Weber goes on to say:

In terms of air pollution, water pollution and odor, concentrated feedlots are a disaster.  In terms of other environmental impact, there is no question that grass fed is better.  My problem is that people really play on the carbon footprint angle, when it’s really not clear. (Marshall, 2010)

Grass-fed cattle need fewer antibiotics and other chemicals than grain-fed cattle (Marshall, 2010).  These items also have their own environmental production and transport costs.

The Ecological Implications of Importing Beef from New Zealand

Though we’ve already discussed how difficult it is to accurately assess the net carbon emissions of cattle production, the emissions of grain production are often higher than emissions caused by transporting beef a significant distance.

According to David Tisch at the College of Agriculture and Technology at the State University of New York at Cobleskill “All the inputs of fuel to produce the grain result in more carbon dioxide emission than even transportation 2,000 miles” (Gellerman, 2008).

Sources:

Abend, L. (2010, January 25). How Cows (Grass-Fed Only) Could Save the Planet. Retrieved July 11, 2011, from Time Magazine: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1953692,00.html

Gellerman, B. (2008, February 8). Math on the Range. Retrieved July 11, 2011, from Living on Earth: http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=08-P13-00006&segmentID=4

Marshall, J. (2010, January 27). Grass-Fed Beef Has Bigger Carbon Footprint. Retrieved July 11, 2011, from Discovery News: http://news.discovery.com/earth/grass-fed-beef-grain.html