GHG Conversations with a Vegetarian

Subject: Grass-finished Beef Methane Emissions

James,

I recently read your article, “Bellying up to Environmentalism” in The Washington Post. I generally, agree with your premises, but question your dismissal of alternative pasture-based livestock production as an environmentally sound and humane alternative to the industrial CAFO model. I was driven to email you after being intrigued with your sources for many of the facts you presented in the article.

I have extensively researched grass-finished beef both in the university and independently, and currently work for an organization promoting environmentally sustainable grazing systems in Kansas. Many of the numbers and percentages you present in your article are so drastically outside the existing research literature that I am familiar with, that I am very curious what your sources are for the facts you presented in your article.

One particular fact that you presented is of particular interest to me. You stated that grass-finished beef produces four times the amount of methane that grain-finished beef produces. I have personally been searching for research studies making this very comparison. There does not seem to be much literature on this, but what little research I found was very inconclusive. Some studies pointed to the lower average gains of grass-finished beef implying that grass-finished beef will be slightly older at slaughter, thus producing more methane over their lifespan. Other research indicates that a high roughage diet may shift the microbe community in the cattle’s gut, reducing methane eructation.

So, if there is research out there suggesting grass-finished beef produces 4-times the amount methane than grain-finished beef, I would like to know of this research. From a net greenhouse grass emissions standpoint, I think a convincing argument could be made for grass-finished beef has a net GHG emission lower than grain-finished beef and most grain production. Grass-finished beef produced from perennial pastures with legumes (removing the need for nitrogen fertilizer), ends up being carbon neutral due to the tremendous carbon sink of a healthy perennial grassland and the minimal fossil fuels need in the production life cycle.

I would be honored if you would share your sources of information with me.

Thank you,

Jason Schmidt
Kansas Rural Center
Topeka, Kansas
_______________________________________________________________

Subject: RE: Grass-finished Beef Methane Emissions

Jason,

Below is just some of the info I relied upon for my methane info. Please let me know if/why anything below is wrong. I'm well aware that "grass fed" is a blanket term that might obscure more than it reveals. But writing for the popular press does not allow for splitting hairs and making qualifications--generalizations are inevitable. It is thus in all sincerity that I ask you to tell me why you think I was wrong to cite the figure as a general reflection of the whole. II write about this stuff all the time and would hate to make the mistake again, if indeed I was mistaken. I don't spend a lot of time researching this--in fact none. I rely on others. So, thanks.
James



For overall GHG emissions I relied on a 2008-9 study by Dalhousie University scientist, Nathan Pelletier. His work is summarized in this article: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/40934/title/AAAS_Climate-friendly_dining_..._meats. An excerpt:

Many environmentalists have argued that finishing up the fattening of beef cattle on corn is worse for the environment than cattle that are raised solely on pasture grass. Pelletier says his team’s analysis finds that at least from a climate perspective, the opposite is true. “We do see significant differences in the GHG intensities [of grass vs grain finishing]. It’s roughly on the order of 50 percent higher in grass-finished systems.”When an audience member questioned whether he had heard that right, that grass-fed cattle have a higher carbon footprint, Pelletier reiterated, “higher. Yes.” The reason: “It’s related to the much higher volumes of feed throughput and associated methane and nitrous-oxide [GHG] emissions.” He added that most pastures were highly managed, and subject to “periodic renovations and also fertilization.” Finally, with grass-fed cattle “there is also a high [grass] trampling rate. So the actual land area that you need to maintain magnifies that [GHG] difference,” Pelletier said. As for the methane problem specifically--I relied on this: http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/08-fighting-cow-methane-at-the-source, as well as the work of John Robbins, who writes,

And there are other environmental costs [with grass fed]. Next to carbon dioxide, the most destabilizing gas to the planet's climate is methane. Methane is actually 24 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and its concentration in the atmosphere is rising even faster. The primary reason that concentrations of atmospheric methane are now triple what they were when they began rising a century ago is beef production. Cattle raised on pasture actually produce more methane than feedlot animals, on a per-cow basis. Then there's this, from a 1999 Journal of Animal Science piece: http://jas.fass.org/cgi/content/abstract/77/6/1392 (note this line: "These measurements clearly document higher CH4 production (about four times) for cattle receiving low-quality, high-fiber diets than for cattle fed high-grain diets.")
And Here's this by Peter Singer, who felt comfortable putting the figure at 3x:

To the Editor:Nicolette Hahn Niman (“The Carnivore’s Dilemma,” Op-Ed, Oct. 31) is simply wrong in suggesting that grass-fed beef produces less methane than feed-lot meat. It is the other way around, with grass-fed animals producing up to three times more methane. It may be true that in some trials scientists have found ways to reduce methane emissions from cattle, but until these methods are in widespread use, they are simply not relevant to the consumer choices we face.In any case, globally, only 8 percent of all meat is produced in natural grazing systems, and there is little available unforested land suitable for such systems. To replace factory-farmed meat without further tropical forest destruction is impossible. Hence the call to cut down or eliminate meat-eating, especially beef, should be supported by everyone concerned about the future of our planet.Peter SingerGeoff Russell Barry Brook New York, Nov. 3, 2009Peter Singer is a professor of bioethics at Princeton University and the author of “The Ethics of What We Eat.” Geoff Russell is the author of “CSIRO Perfidy.” Barry Brook is a professor of climate change at the University of Adelaide, Australia
___________________________________________________________________

Subject: RE: Grass-finished Beef Methane Emissions

James,

Thank you very much for your quick and honest response to my email. I appreciate your openness and the sources you shared with me.

The study by Harper et al., 1999 proposed a convincing argument for grass-fed beef emitting more methane than grain-fed beef. However, I noticed a serious flaw in the study. The pasture grazing in the study was very low in forage quality (Crude protein between 3.5% to 11.7% with low digestibility). This forage quality is well below the quality needed for finishing beef cattle, while the grain diet was a high quality finishing diet. It is likely that finishing beef cattle would actually lose weight on pasture of this poor quality, and would have to eat large quantities just for maintenance. The study concludes that feed quality has a greater influence on CH4 production than previous studies have indicated. Six other studies cited found much smaller differences between grain-fed and grass-fed methane emission, although Harper et al. claims the differences between other studies and this study may be due to different CH4 measurement procedures.

I would argue that the poor pasture quality may have been the largest factor contributing to the 4-fold difference in methane production. The study does suggest that cellulose fermentation from forage diets produces more methane than carbohydrate digestion from grain diets, but I suggest a high quality forage diet required for finishing beef cattle with high digestibility and crude protein levels around 20% would increase ruminal passage leading to methane emissions similar to a grain diet. DeRamus et al. (J Environ Qual. 2003 Jan-Feb;32(1):269-77) reports that heifers grazing high quality ryegrass produced one-tenth the amount of methane than heifers grazing low quality bermudagrass and bahiagrass. Similarly, an ongoing study in Vermont reported in The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/us/05cows.html?_r=3&adxnnlx=1244226134-VCIralBRQR6L/gumIykDvA&pagewanted=all) is investing high quality spring grasses as forages that will potentially lower methane emissions below those of grain diets. In addition, tannin-rich forages or tannin supplements decrease methane emissions (Beauchenmin et al., 2007 – J Anim Sci 2007.85:1990-1996).

I am still searching for net life cycle GHG emission from healthy grazed grasslands. I found some preliminary research from the Netherlands (Jacobs et al., 2007), but the study still hadn’t factored cattle emissions into the equation for grasslands. A follow up study to this research by Soussana et al. (Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 121 (2007) 121–134) studied 9 sites in Europe and concluded that even with accounting for the methane emissions of grazing ruminants, grasslands are still CO2-C equivalent sink.

As for other arguments for grass-finished beef being better for the environment, I see increasing grazing management skills among grass-finished beef producers. Missouri research now indicates that well managed rotational grazing can be more efficient at harvesting grass than even mechanical harvesting. Grass-finished beef producers also must maintain high forage quality, perennial forages, and low-inputs (no or very little fertilizer and pesticides) to stay profitable and to produce a satisfactory product.

I do stand corrected that there is convincing research out there concluding that methane emissions are higher on a per cow basis for grass-fed compared to grain-fed cattle. However, I think these differences can be greatly exaggerated, and can be (and are) mitigated with high quality forage diets. I do strongly believe that cattle finished on a healthy perennial grassland will have a much lower net GHG emission than feedlot finished cattle, not to mention all the other environmental and health benefits, and hope to see more research in this area.
Personally, I would like to see large areas of the Great Plains region converted back to grasslands in the near future. Ecological speaking this region needs grasslands and grazers to be a balanced and healthy ecosystem.

Thank you for your interest in our food. I fully agree that our personally habits of how we eat have a huge impact on our environment and we need to closely examine where our food comes from and how it is produced. Please do not hesitate to ask me question about grass-finished beef in the future.

Thank you,

Jason Schmidt

Critique of Modern Agriculture

I believe modern conventional agriculture, like many other modern industries, is pointed in a highly unsustainable direction. Socially, the “get big, or get out” mentality that has driven agriculture for the past 75 years is depopulating our rural communities, and requiring ever increasing capital investments that make entering agriculture risky and difficult. From an energy perspective, we are at the end of cheap fossil fuels that has driven almost every aspect of modern agriculture – replacing manpower and horsepower with machines, replacing biological controls with fossil fuel-derived chemicals, and replacing natural fertility (crop rotation, legumes, and animal manure) with fossil fuel-derived fertilizer. And, finally, modern agriculture has become one of the most environmentally destructive industries polluting our air and water, destroying the health of our soil, eroding our top soil, and producing large quantities of nutritionally void food. The rise in grain production has particularly revolutionized livestock agriculture, leading to many unintended consequences.

New technologies, subsidies, and cheap fossil fuels have helped fuel a huge increase in the production of a few grain commodities. Bomb-making military research during WWI and WWII developed ammonium sulfate and ammonium phosphate out of natural gas. After the wars, the industry found these fossil fuel-derived chemicals were also excellent inorganic fertilizers. The adoption of inorganic fertilizers and subsequent development of highly responsive crops to increased nitrogen fertilizer led to the “Green Revolution.” During this period, huge strides were made in increased crop production with the aid of fossil fuels for fertilizer and labor.

To find markets for these commodities, international trade practices known as “dumping” flooded developing countries with cheap commodities, destroying the development of local sustainable farming in many countries. Cheap by-products like high-fructose corn syrup have come to dominate ingredients in our supermarkets leading directly to a national and international pandemic of obesity. The biofuel industry was developed as a “green” fuel (unfortunately, it takes about the same amount of fossil fuels to produce a similar amount of ethanol). And, livestock have been rounded up off the land and concentrated in confinement operations to make space for more grain production and be fed well over 50% of the cheap grain produced in the U.S.

Ruminants such as cattle and sheep have uniquely co-evolved with grasslands, and each needs the other for a healthy ecosystem. Cattle have highly evolved 4-compartment guts with a host of microbes to efficiently utilize grass and fiber as their primary source of nutrition. Cattle can thrive on a 100% grass diet, especially when grass is managed for high energy and crude protein. Grassland ecosystems also appear to thrive when properly grazed. This means being regularly rested to simulate natural migrating herbivores.

The ruminant gut is also incredibly flexible and the microbe community can be altered to digest a starch-based diet. Modern agriculture, with its glut of cheap grain, realized that consistently higher animal production can be achieved by switching cattle to a starch (grain)-based diet, thus effectively ending the millennia of co-evolution between grasslands and ruminants. With our subsidized cheap grain, the U.S. is the only country in the world to adopt such widespread grain-feeding to cattle. Most every other country in the world and throughout human history has determined it to be more economical to allow the animal to harvest her own food through grazing. Even in the U.S., only during the “finishing” faze for beef and for higher income potential industries like dairy has it been considered economically advantageous to feed grain. Even still, during cycles of higher grain and fuel prices, there is renewed interest in removing grain from cattle’s diet.

This move of industrial agriculture to intense grain production and confinement animal operations has had a host of unintended environmental consequences. This system has removed grasslands and grazing from the landscape and has replaced the landscape with monocultures fertilized, planted, sprayed, harvested, and feed with fossil fuels and lots of human labor. It’s amazing that this system is deemed more efficient with all these steps than the cow putting her face to the ground and harvesting her own meal! Farming has since become one of the biggest contributors to green house gas (GHG) emissions and contributors to global climate change. Monocultures of crops have destroyed the health of the soil, where billions of microbes need complex ecosystems in the soil to stay healthy. Chemical fertilizers of the macro nutrient (N,P,K) have increased yields that mine the soil of the hundreds of micro nutrients which are not replaced, making crops far less nutritious. Chemical fertilizers and pesticides have also destroyed the health of the soil and water. Fields that have very little crop rotation and even fewer perennial crops in the rotation, with very few grass buffers are losing top soil through erosion, destroying the long term health of the land and rivers. Animals concentrated on small areas lead to ground water contamination and runoff polluting our ground and surface water with unsafe levels of bacteria and nutrients.

The “Green Revolution” was not intended to have such negative consequences. But, unfortunately, whenever humans throughout history have attempted to live outside the rules of nature, humans usually end up at the losing end of the equation. Depending on the use of a finite amount of stored energy below the ground (fossil fuels) is shortsighted and increasingly proving to have many unintentional consequences. Farming must become increasingly efficient and productive using only current energy and working within the rules of nature. Modern conventional agriculture is moving in an opposite direction, conquering and manipulating nature through biotechnology, extensive precision agriculture technology, and ever higher inputs of non-renewable energy. Conventional farmers are also losing intellectual autonomy and becoming increasingly squeezed as the agri-business industry is requiring an ever increasing share in the farmer’s profits (higher seed costs, more expensive technology and equipment, crop insurance, chemical costs, “expert” advice, etc.). This conventional model is moving in the opposite direction of long-term sustainability in spite of the occasional adoption of environmentally helpful management practices such as no-till agriculture (that has now been co-opted by the chemical companies as a means to promote increased pesticide use). Thus, the alternative agriculture movement must create a parallel trajectory for the future of agriculture that looks quite opposite from conventional agriculture, burrows heavily on agriculture knowledge prior to the “Green Revolution”, but also adopts new scientific methods of increased production and profit while farming with nature.

A few thoughtful quotes...

“The time to argue about the wisdom of liquidating the resource base of the planet is over.” – J. Michael Fay, essay “The Redwoods Point the Way” in National Georgraphic, October, 2009

“The present agricultural economy, as designed by the agribusiness corporations, uses farmers as expendable “resources” in the process of production, the same way it uses the topsoil, the groundwater, and the ecological integrity of the farm landscape.” -Wendell Berry, essay, “Stupidity in Cencentration”

Jim Gerrish Grazing Workshop

Below are a few highlights from a recent grazing workshop I attended co-sponsored by the Kansas Rural Center featuring Jim Gerrish. Gerrish has been influential in revitalizing interest in rotational grazing, and is a well known instructor and practitioner on Management Intensive Grazing (MiG). Much of his thoughts on rotational grazing were not new to me, but I appreciated hearing him speak and thought he had some good perspectives on grazing agriculture.

Themes from the day:

1. Our goal as grazers is to maximize the grass “solar panel”
2. Managing cost rather than increased production will have a bigger impact on profit
3. Diversity leads to greater stability
4. Sustainability for ranching/farming means moving away from reliance on iron (equipment) and oil (fuel and fertilizer). We have zero control over the price of equipment and fuel, with costs likely to continue rising

MiG (Management Intensive Grazing) thought and concepts:

1. Poor rotational grazing can be worse than continuous grazing
2. Flexible approach to rotational grazing to deal with numerous variables
3. Manage forages to meet changing animal nutrient needs
4. Balance forage supply
5. Available forage allocated based on animal requirements

On the need to reduce winter hay feeding and maximize grazing:

· The main determinate of profitability is not herd size, but annual cow cost (feed costs, cow depreciation, and labor).
· Winter feeding costs are the single biggest expense for cow-calf operators.
· The cost of hay production is often higher than the cost of buying hay. Rarely is the true cost of hay production as low as $60/ton, and usually closer to $100/ton.
· The availability of hay and hay making equipment has determined the length of winter feeding, not forage availability. The average length of winter hay feeding is 130 days in Minnesota, Missouri, and Mississippi, proving it’s not length of grazing season, but availability of hay that determines winter feeding.

The Bottom Lines of Farming

The “bottom line” refers to the net income of a business or, more broadly, the profitability of a business. I once heard an individual make the claim that farming has numerous bottom lines, with profitability being only one. In this case, a bottom line is a factor or value that we consider in our farming enterprise.

Most professions probably have more bottom lines than simply profitability ranging from personal satisfaction, to ambition, to social responsibility. However, I would argue that farming has and should have more bottom lines than most professions. Farming should always keep profitability as an important bottom line, but most farmers would admit that you have to be in agriculture for more than just the money.

Lifestyle is often stated as a reason for farming. Raising a family in a rural environment and living close to the land is a noble bottom line. Being one’s own boss is another reason stated for farming. However, I would question whether modern farmers who have such enormous debt burdens to manage are truly independent. Cultural and family responsibility can be a bottom line that brings individuals back to the farm. I know this has come into play for me as I feel the responsibility to return to the home place as a 4th generation farmer on the same land. I am excited about the prospect, but have to admit there are easier climates and cultures for starting a grazing dairy than in the middle of Kansas.

I tend to diverge somewhat from some of the conventional bottom lines that I perceive many farmers adhering to. First, some bottom lines that I perceive, but do not agree with:

· Get big or get out: This bottom line is easily understood from the perspective that equipment continues to get bigger and more expensive and commodity prices do not adjust for inflation. Thus, as expenses continue to rise, profit margins become narrower requiring more production to theoretical maintain a similar income. Unfortunately, this also means that in a money losing year, big farms lose lots of money. More theoretically, I would argue that our SUV, Big Mac culture is obsessed with size. From a rural community perspective, get big or get out is a death sentence requiring ever fewer farmers and local business. What if we would focus on reducing costs and increasing profitability on a per acre basis rather than on a whole farm basis? What if we would hold quality of life and the environment on equal footing as the profitability bottom line? Would the “get big” mentality pass all three of these bottom lines?

· New technology is always good: I think many conventional farmers are more in love with their new tractors and GPS devices than they are with the land that grows their crops. Farmers have the very unique and important responsibility of being stewards of the land. I may be old fashioned, but I believe technology tends to separate us from being able to listen to the land. With our ever larger tractors, on-board computers, and chemicals, we become conquerors rather than stewards of the land. There is no possible way to see how many earthworms there are in the soil (which is a basic indicator of the health of our soil) from atop our huge machines that require us to move across huge tracts of land. Technology allows us to ignore biological processes and efficiencies within nature. Of course, my favorite example is grazing versus putting up hay. Putting up hay tends to maximize yield, but does not maximize forage quality and robs the land of nutrients. Also, with even the most optimistic numbers, hay production rarely breaks even when actual equipment costs, labor costs, fuel costs, and fertilizers costs are taken into account. In most regions of the United States, cattle can graze at least 10 months out of the year with good management, recycle the vast majority of all the nutrients removed through grazing, and harvest their food for free. I will conclude my technology rant, by admitting that new technology can have its rightful place on a farm as long as the environmental, quality of life and profitability bottom lines are valued above technology.

Now, here are a couple of bottom lines I hope to adhere to as a farmer:

· Environment: Valuing the health of the land and animals, I believe, is one of the primary responsibilities of farmers. Maintaining the health of the land will ensure the sustainability of farming generations to come. I believe, only the best farmers will be good stewards of their natural resources, which can be measured through the health of their soils, the quality of the water the passes through the land they farm, the health of their livestock, and hopefully, eventually we can measure how farming practices contribute to the quality of the air.

· Quality of Life: Valuing how the farming enterprise impacts the quality of life of farm families would seem to be important, but is all too often overlooked in the quest for profitability and increased production. I believe asking how quality of life will be impacted should be a leading question when making any large decisions about the farm.

Many more bottom lines could and should be discussed. This is only a start to a discussion critiquing current bottom lines and establishing which bottom lines I hope to value as a farmer.

Oil Addiction

Call me a pessimist or apocalyptic, but our society has a serious problem on our hands. We are addicted to oil, or more generally, fossil fuels. Most of us could not function normally for more than a couple seconds without fossil fuels that power our computers and lights, provide the energy and material to manufacture everything we own and use, and provide us with the fuel to transport us. Over the past 250 years humans have replaced natural or current sources of energy with fossil fuels (stored carbon) for all our basic functions. This discovery of fossil fuels has fueled huge advances in human comfort, health, industry, transportation, and food production.

These advances would not be a problem if our ever increasing dependency/addiction to fossil fuels would not have us pointed in a rapidly approaching collision course. Actually, we are approaching a dual collision with dwindling reserves and with human caused environmental changes. The previously perceived limitless reserves of carbon under our feet from millions of years of decomposing organisms is now proving not as limitless in the face of our voracious appetite for energy. New studies now predict that we have already used up all of the most easily accessible and largest oil reserves. This point is called peak oil when the maximum rate of oil extraction has been reached. Oil will increasingly become more difficult and expensive to extract and will slowly diminish, while human demand for oil continues to exponentially increase. As Wes Jackson states, our use of oil is increasing faster and faster. Half of all oil ever used has been burned since 1980. One quarter of oil ever used has been burned since 1994. We are at a tipping point with oil (maybe not yet with coal) where consumption is going to start out pacing production.

With all these millions of years of stored carbon being released into the atmosphere in a matter of decades, it is completely rational to expect a major climatic change similar to other points in earth’s history when the atmospheric conditions were dramatically altered (i.e. – volcanic eruptions and meteorite collisions that led to ice ages and mass extinctions). We don’t know the exact point at which we will start seeing dramatic climatic changes, or what these changes actually will be, but it is quite clear that we will and are beginning to see the anthropogenic induced changes that may be far more costly to our species than simply running out of oil. Though I am not a climatologist, I think scientists are increasingly becoming aware that it won’t be as simple as global warming. Once the polar ice caps have disappeared, which will disrupt the oceans currents, weather conditions will be significantly altered. In summary, we have not a clue what we may be ultimately have put in motion since no other organism has ever so dramatically altered the natural equilibrium of our planet. In a sense, with the discovery of fossil fuels, humans have been living beyond the natural capacity of earth’s resources. Now, we are due for a correction whether we are prepared or not.

Like most addictions, it is very hard to admit we have a problem and even harder to change. I am dumfounded by the flat out denial by so many individuals I cross paths with. And, then with those who accept the inevitability of climate change, very few individuals are actively exploring how to change their lifestyles. Even amongst those of us who proclaim to be exploring alternatives to our fossil fuel addictions, there is not a single individual who I know that can claim to have fully been weaned off of fossil fuel reliance.

Where does that leave me on my quest to find sustainable farming systems that are not reliant on fossil fuels? What saddens me is that we have thousands of years of experiences with both successful and failed models of sustainable agriculture systems that are not reliant on fossil fuels, which we have blindly chosen to ignore over the last 75 years. With increased scientific understanding of soil and plant biology and chemistry, I have no doubt that we can find efficient systems that work with nature to feed the world. Instead, with our current farming practices, we have chosen to ignore (actually fight against) natural systems with the aid of fossil fuels. We now view the soil as a dead medium (which we have to keep dead) to grow our nutritional void crops. We use large machinery powered by oil to spray chemicals (derived from fossil fuels) that kill all undesirable (and most desirable) organisms to clear the way for planting the genetically modified seeds which are developed and patented by the chemical companies. Instead of using biologic sources to boost soil fertility and control pests, we now dump on fossil fuel-derived fertilizers (nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium). Our crops are harvested, transported and processed all at the expense of huge quantities of fossil fuels. At the end of the production line, it is very unclear whether we are farming crops or oil. This system has made the farmer slave to the chemical and oil companies, and unable to be an independent steward of the land.

Then we move on to livestock agriculture which the vast majority of our corn produced in the U.S. ends up feeding. Ruminants (cattle, sheep and goats) where brilliantly designed to harvest and utilize roughage (grass and forbs) as their primary nutritional source. Grasslands and ruminants co-evolved together and are mutually dependent on each other. For example, the hooves of ruminants are designed to dig grass seeds into the ground encouraging germination. The microbes in the stomach of ruminants have specifically evolved to digest roughage and cannot survive when diets are altered to starch (grain)-based diets. However, with the advent of fossil fuel-based industrial agriculture and the ability to produce huge quantities of cheap grain, it was deemed more efficient to pen livestock up, plow up the pastures for crops, and switch ruminant diets from forage-based to corn-based. Yes, animals get fat faster and produce more milk by shoving huge quantities of cheap calories down their throats. But, we enact violence against the natural system, starving those brilliant ruminal microbes that turn otherwise indigestible lignin into fuel for the animal, destroying that beautifully co-evolved grassland-grazer ecosystem, and ignoring the free energy of having the four-legged beast harvest her own meal from a previous perfectly balanced ecosystem that needs no chemical fertilizer or pesticide.

I don’t know if farming practices based on biologics and current energy can feed 10 million people, but I do know that the fossil fuel-based agriculture industry that is enacting fairly directs acts of violence against our environment is not going to continue feeding us for long. While fossil fuel-based agriculture has only been around for about 75 years, agriculture has fed humans for millennia. Thus, we have a long history to build on and new sciences to apply to learn to farm with nature rather than against nature.

Livestock Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from cattle have been receiving increased attention recently. Cattle contribute to 14% of all GHG emissions and 17% of all methane emissions. Methane is a potent GHG 25 times more potent than CO2. Industrial agriculture proposes that increasing efficiency (faster rates of gain or more milk production with the use of higher energy diets, growth hormones, and other additives) is the solution for reducing GHG emissions for livestock production. A recent Cornell study funded by Monsanto (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/06/27/0802446105.full.pdf) concluded that conventional dairies that use rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone) reduced the global warming potential of the dairy industry compared to conventional dairies that do not use rBGH and organic dairies. Numerous individuals have cited this study as flawed and biased, largely due to the claimed increases in milk production from the adoption of rBGH that have never been realized from the industry as a whole. U.S. milk production never significantly spiked during the years of reported widespread use of rBGH by dairy farmers.

Rather than looking towards new technologies to solve livestock GHG emissions, I believe the solution may lie in grazing grasslands. I would like to see a study comparing the net GHG emissions of a well managed rotationally grazed dairy or beef herd compared to a confinement dairy (with or without rBGH) or beef feedlot. I would hypothesis that with the carbon sink of a perennial pasture and the lower use of fossil fuels in production systems, grazing dairy and beef cattle (despite higher methane emissions due to lower milk production/gains per animal) would have net GHG emissions (CO2-C equivalent) significantly lower than confinement operations (with or without rBGH). There are very few studies I have found researching the GHG exchanges for grazed grasslands. Soussana et al. (Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 121 (2007) 121–134) studied 9 sites in Europe and concluded that even with accounting for the methane emissions of grazing ruminants, grasslands are still CO2-C equivalent sink.

The scientific community needs researched studies that will address best possible agricultural strategies for improving air quality and reducing contributions to global climate change. I have a bias towards grazing systems, believing not only in the numerous environmental benefits of well managed grazing systems, but also the possibility of an economically viable alternative to adopting the newest technologies of industrial agriculture. Unfortunately, grazing natural grasslands does not have the backing of industry dollars, reducing the potential of innovative research.

Quest for Sustainability

For the past decade, I have been on a quest to discover viable sustainable alternatives for the way we feed ourselves. I believe modern cultures' ever increasing dependency on a fossil fuel-based economy has led to an unsustainable and environmentally degrading system of living.

My interest in sustainable agriculture was first peaked as I became interested in helping disadvantaged rural communities overseas. In my mind, the best way to alleviate poverty and hunger was to build food security by encouraging sustainable farming practices.

Growing up on a relatively conventional family dairy and crop farm in Kansas, I did not come to question the sustainability of North American agriculture until years after my interest in sustainable agriculture overseas. My parents encouraged my continued education, creative thinking, and global travel. This led me to explore environmentally and economically sustainable farming practices in an international context, which eventually led me to question the farming systems I grew up knowing. So, over the past number of years, I have been exploring alternative farming systems that, in my opinion, best point agriculture in a more environmentally, economically, and socially sustainable direction.