Gaining perspective on livestock’s shadow

How long is your shadow? The answer, of course, depends, and differs whether you are standing on the equator at high noon, or on a mountaintop at sunset. Likewise the “shadow” or carbon footprint of livestock production depends on where and how you measure it.

Frank Mitloehner, PhD., an animal scientist and air-quality specialist at the University of California, Davis, Agricultural Air Quality Center, helped participants in the annual NIAA conference gain perspective on environmental impacts of livestock production. Perspective on the issue has been a rare commodity since 2006, when the U.N.’s Food and Agricultural Organization released its report titled “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” which claimed animal agriculture generates 18 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, exceeding that of the transportation sector.

Mitloehner and other scientists since have demonstrated the fallacy of those conclusions, but the figures have become embedded in public consciousness and continue to appear in the popular press.

First, Mitloehner addresses differences in production practices around the world, and how they influence livestock’s carbon footprint. Land-use change, he says, is a key component in a comprehensive analysis. In some parts of the world, particularly South America, Africa and Southeast Asia, expansion in livestock production has come at the expense of considerable deforestation. As a result, greenhouse-gas emissions increase while at the same time, the carbon-storing properties of forests are lost. Also, in many of these developing nations, livestock production is extensive, while their transportation infrastructure is under-developed. So a lifecycle analysis will show that GHG emissions associated with livestock (including land-use change) are relatively high, and could exceed those of transportation.

The picture is far different in developed countries such as the United States. Here we see annual net gains in forested land, rather than deforestation, and more intensive, rather than extensive livestock production. Efficiencies in production systems allow more meat or milk production per animal and per land unit, meaning less GHG emissions. Grain feeding for cattle, for example, reduces methane emissions compared with those from grass finishing, although much of the public believes otherwise. At the same time, we have a well-developed transportation sector that generates enormous GHG emissions. In the United States, Mitloehner says, total GHG emissions for a unit of meat production are about one-tenth of those in Brazil. Emissions from generating electrical power account for about 31 percent of the U.S. total, according to EPA estimates, while transportation accounts for 26 percent and livestock about 3 percent.

1. NCBA Op-Ed: ADUFA/AGDUFA reauthorization advances in the House
2. Will this summer be a repeat of 2012?
3. Alltech Symposium challenges agribusiness to make an impact
4. Reduce your risk when commingling calves
5. Penn State Dairy Team schedules “Tools for Teams” webinars
6. Ouch — I stuck myself!

1. Arcanobacterium pyogenes renamed
2. Cornell genetic testing process cuts costs by up to 75 percent
3. Parnell launches FDA-approved reproductive hormone
4. Zoetis, Texas Tech partner in Salmonella research
5. USDA approves newly formulated PULMO-GUARD vaccine for cattle
6. Reducing stress at branding time

1. Meat industry associations quick to attack the new MCOOL rule
2. Seven jobs more dangerous than farming