Change the How, Not the Cow

In the US alone, there are more than 30 million beef cattle. Keep this number in mind for the end of this post.

On this week’s deep-dive, we talk about:

Changing the How, Not the Cow

Several weeks ago, we put out an article about the deep ties between America’s corn and America’s beef. 

If you’re new here, here’s the TLDR version:

Corn covers over 90 million acres of farmland in the US. We throw refined portions of that crop into over 75% of products in grocery stores, but the vast majority ends up as feed for livestock — typically cows in feedlots.

Cows didn’t evolve eating starchy stuff like corn. They evolved eating grass. With a grain-rich diet, these animals deal with a trove of health issues, often leading to an overload of antibiotics to mask the problem.

In the aftermath of our article, we received a healthy dose of commentary from pro-grain beef producers.

In almost every instance, we heard the same thing: the negatives from feedlots are still better than grass-fed operations that produce more greenhouse gases, therefore making grass-fed beef worse for the planet.

If you eat beef, maybe you’ve heard the same.

But as I learned in grad school, narratives are easy to control with math. There are few statements as relevant to this issue as, “There are three types of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

Today, we separate myth from reality.

But first, we’re clarifying another narrative.

American Beef Isn’t The Enemy

The US produces a lot of beef — the most in the world, actually.

With that #1 spot, American ag receives a lot of heat for contributing to emissions. The common narrative frames US beef producers as the enemy of climate goals worldwide.

Before we talk about the fallacies of America’s grain vs grass argument, we want to highlight a critical fact:

The US produces more beef than any other nation, and we accomplish that monumental feat with the lowest rate of GHG emissions globally.

Countries like Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, and India produce significantly less beef while producing 2x, 2x, 3x, 2x, and 9x more greenhouse gases, respectively.

Even more astounding, we do that while using a suboptimal grain diet in 97% of our cattle. America’s beef operators deserve more credit, regardless of their feed choices.

Feedlots vs Fields

When cattle operators argue for feedlots, they claim grain-fed cows produce fewer emissions than grass-fed cows.

And they’re right… in a way.

Cows are bacteria factories. They don’t “eat” corn or grass. They break it down for bacteria in their vast digestive system. Then they eat the bacteria.

Because grass is more fibrous than corn, bacteria take more time to work their magic on grass and produce more gas as a byproduct. As cows eat, they burp or fart this byproduct into the air. This byproduct is called ‘enteric methane’, and grass-fed cows produce more enteric methane than grain-fed cows.

As the studies that support feedlots proffer, that’s the end of the argument.

But like most of you, we don’t have a stake in feedlots, and we’re not incentivized to agree.

The equation isn’t as simple as what a cow eats. How, when, and where a cow eats are equally relevant.

Thanks to the work of researchers at Michigan State, we have a direct comparison between cows raised in a regenerative, mob-grazed system to those raised in feedlots.

The Real Emissions Equation

What’s a regenerative, mob-grazed system for raising cattle?

There are subtle variations, but the typical pattern copies how cows evolved on open plains, including the implications of predators chasing them around.

In a nutshell, cows aren’t allowed to open graze massive fields. They’re constrained to smaller paddocks and move to new areas with greater frequency.

As a result, they eat most of the available grass without killing it. When they’re moved from the paddock, the grass has enough above-ground material to stay in photosynthesis, which pulls carbon from the air and deposits it into the soil with deep roots. Even better, cows poop. The carbon from their poop follows a similar path into the ground.

In one swoop, massive amounts of carbon sink into the soil, and soil increases in depth and fertility. More grass grows, and more carbon sinks. It’s a regenerative cycle, meaning it’s net negative from a carbon perspective— not just ‘sustainable’ or neutral.

On the other end of the spectrum, feedlots constrain cows to dirt paddocks. Cattle aren’t moved, so the soil compacts and nothing grows. Instead of pulling carbon in with green grass, exposed dirt releases carbon. When it rains, that dusty soil turns into mud, and the poop, dust, and water slurry flows off of the land into waterways. It’s not neutral, it produces carbon.

When all of these variables are factored into an equation with the emissions from transportation, feed production, and processing, the comparison isn’t much of a comparison.

Feedlot cattle produce roughly 6.12 kg CO2-equivalent per kg carcass weight. With an average carcass weight of ~340 kg (750 lbs), each of these cows produces nearly 2,100 kg CO2-equivalent — more than two tons of GHGs per cow.

Meanwhile, the equation for our grass-fed cattle returns an average value of -6.65 kg CO2-equivalent per kg carcass weight. If we use the same carcass weight as our grain-fed comparison, we find a net of -2,261 kg CO2-equivalent, meaning these grass-fed counterparts sequester more greenhouse gases than they produce.

Using Cows for Good

Even with a better equation to substantiate the comparison, we have to pay attention to the real world.

In the past, you couldn’t run a ranch without labor. Feedlots are the current standard because they provided an opportunity to manage more cattle with less labor and input costs. Labor costs money, produces headaches, and often limits the bottom line. That’s a real problem.

But we don’t live in 1980, and technology exists that can leverage our beef industry into something more productive than just beef.

My favorite example of these advances is the GPS-powered collars that constrain cattle to pre-determined paddocks and signal multiple moves per day. It’s a system that one person can manage without stepping into a field. Instead, you can use cows to heal soil and produce high-quality food without leaving your desk.

With the technology in place, all we need are motivated individuals to make the change.

Hopefully, that’s you.

See you next week, fellow earthlings.

— Permacultured

Forwarded this email? Click here to sign up.