The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Video: How Beef Farmers Can Reduce Their Carbon Footprint
By Daisy Dunne and Tom Prater
Eating less meat is one way to cut beef emissions. However, scientists have also started to look at ways that farmers can reduce the carbon footprint of beef before it reaches the plate.
Making a Meal
The beef industry contributes to climate change in several ways.
Cows are ruminants, meaning that their stomachs contain specialized bacteria capable of digesting tough and fibrous material such as grass. The digestive process causes cows to belch out methane—a greenhouse gas that is around 25 times more potent at trapping heat than CO2.
Beef production is the leading cause of deforestation in many regions, accounting for 60 percent of forest loss across Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, Indonesia, Malaysia and Papua New Guinea in 2011. The removal of trees causes CO2 to be released into the atmosphere.
In addition, grazing cattle need plentiful supplies of grass—meaning farmers often use nitrogen fertilizer on their fields to stimulate plant growth. The production of nitrogen fertilizer causes the release of CO2 and the potent greenhouse gas nitrous oxide (N2O).
In total, emissions from livestock account for around 14.5 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, with beef production accounting for just under half of this figure, according to the UN's Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO).
Carbon footprints of meat productionChart by Rosamund Pearce. Data source: FAO
In Devon, a county in south-west England, agricultural scientists at Rothamsted Research farm are exploring various avenues that could be taken to reduce this figure.
In a recent study, published in Journal of Cleaner Production, the researchers studied whether cow feed can influence the size of the animals' carbon footprints.
The unique 60-hectare beef farm is akin to a giant scientific experiment, with researchers closely monitoring all of the "inputs" and "outputs" of the farm system.
The inputs include cow feed, while outputs include manure, the amount of weight gained by the animals and the run-off of nutrients, such as nitrogen. The region's uniquely chalky soils prevent liquid from seeping into the earth—making it possible for the scientists to collect nutrient run-off using a network of pipes.
This close monitoring allows the researchers to keep a record of the carbon footprint of each animal reared on the farm, explained Graham McAuliffe, a Ph.D. student at the farm and the University of Bristol. He told Carbon Brief:
"Usually, when you calculate a carbon footprint, it's based on an average statistic from either a herd, a regional level or a national level, but what we're able to do here at the farm platform is to calculate that carbon footprint on a timescale—so, every two weeks—but also on an individual animal basis."
The farm is split into three equally sized plots, known as "farmlets." The plots represent three typical farming systems used for beef production, McAuliffe said:
"Our first system is 'permanent pasture'—which is, essentially, 'business as usual.' It doesn't get reseeded, it doesn't get ploughed and it gets conventional nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium fertilizer applications.
"Our second system is 'white clover,' which is a pseudo-organic system. Because clover has nitrogen-fixing nodes in its roots, we're able to minimize or avoid inorganic nitrogen fertilizer on the soil."
The third plot used is a pure grass system, which was also treated with nitrogen fertilizer, he added.
Bird's-eye view of Rothamsted Research farm in Devon, showing three experimental pasture systemsMap by Tom Prater. Data source: McAuliffe et al. (2018)
For six years, the researchers collected data from cows grazing on each farmlet. Each autumn, 30 calves (Charolais x Hereford-Friesian breed) entered each farmlet at the point of weaning.
The chart below shows the carbon footprint (in CO2 equivalent) for the average cow grazed on the permanent (left), white clover (middle) and pure grass (right) plots. The chart also shows the carbon footprint of the "best" and "worst" performing animals on each farmlet.
Carbon footprints (CO2e) of the average, "best" and "worst" cows grazing on permanent pasture (left), white clover (middle) and pure grass (right)Source: McAuliffe et al. (2018)
The results show that cows fed on white clover tend to have the smallest carbon footprints, while cows from the permanent pasture and pure grass plots have the largest.
This is because the white clover system did not require the use of nitrogen fertilizer, McAuliffe said:
"The white clover system can have a lower carbon footprint because we don't put nitrogen on it. That not only avoids the emissions associated with applying nitrogen fertilizer, but it also means that the upstream emissions from the production of nitrogen fertilizer are also avoided."
However, even within each farmlet, some cows had larger carbon footprints than others, the results show.
The cows with the largest carbon footprints, known as "poor performers," take longer to gain weight than others, McAuliffe said. Because of this, these cows must spend longer on the farm before they are sent to slaughter—meaning they spend more time emitting methane.
It is still not clear why some cows are lower performers than others, McAuliffe said. However, it is likely that genetics play a role in the differences between animals, he added:
"I would say a lot of it has to do with the environment, it has to do with genetics, it could be animal health—an animal might be poorly so it's not consuming enough grass."
Following their results, the researchers plan to carry out an experiment to see if genetic selection could be used to produce cows with lower-than-average carbon footprints.
Selective breeding is a common technique in agriculture and involves breeding two animals with desirable characteristics (two cows with high milk yields, for example). If the trait has a genetic basis, there is a higher chance that the offspring will inherit it.
Though more research is needed, it is possible that breeding cows with a lower climate impact could help beef farmers to cut their emissions, McAuliffe said:
"If you've got a farm that's got a lot of animals that are performing really poorly and replace them with animals that don't require a lot of time on the farm to get to a finishing weight, I think it's fair to say that the farm would be able to reduce its overall carbon footprint."
Chewing the Fat
The findings offer promise for cutting emissions from beef production, said Dr. Tara Garnett, a scientist from the University of Oxford's Food Climate Research Network, who was not involved in the study.
However, cutting emissions from beef production "can only take us so far," she said. Last year, Garnett published a report finding that cutting down on global meat consumption would be the best way to tackle emissions. She told Carbon Brief:
"There are things to do on the production side to moderate greenhouse gas emissions from the farming sector, but they will only get you so far. High-consuming individuals and countries need to be cutting back on the amount of meat that they consume."
Reposted with permission from our media associate Carbon Brief.
- Substituting Beans for Beef Would Help the U.S. Meet Climate Goals ... ›
- Less Beef, Less Carbon | NRDC ›
- Here's how much giving up beef helps — or doesn't help — the planet ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
‘Companies Should Not Be Allowed to Use Hazardous Ingredients in Products People Use’: Michelle Pfeiffer Speaks Up for Safer Cosmetics
The beauty products we put on our skin can have important consequences for our health. Just this March, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned that some Claire's cosmetics had tested positive for asbestos. But the FDA could only issue a warning, not a recall, because current law does not empower the agency to do so.
Michelle Pfeiffer wants to change that.
The actress and Environmental Working Group (EWG) board member was spotted on Capitol Hill Thursday lobbying lawmakers on behalf of a bill that would increase oversight of the cosmetics industry, The Washington Post reported.
By Julia Conley
Scientists at the United Nations' intergovernmental body focusing on biodiversity sounded alarms earlier this month with its report on the looming potential extinction of one million species — but few heard their calls, according to a German newspaper report.
The climate crisis is a major concern for American voters with nearly 40 percent reporting the issue will help determine how they cast their ballots in the upcoming 2020 presidential election, according to a report compiled by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.
Of more than 1,000 registered voters surveyed on global warming, climate and energy policies, as well as personal and collective action, 38 percent said that a candidate's position on climate change is "very important" when it comes to determining who will win their vote. Overall, democratic candidates are under more pressure to provide green solutions as part of their campaign promises with 64 percent of Democrat voters saying they prioritize the issue compared with just 34 percent of Independents and 12 percent of Republicans.
President Donald Trump has agreed to sign a $19.1 billion disaster relief bill that will help Americans still recovering from the flooding, hurricanes and wildfires that have devastated parts of the country in the past two years. Senate Republicans said they struck a deal with the president to approve the measure, despite the fact that it did not include the funding he wanted for the U.S.-Mexican border, CNN reported.
"The U.S. Senate has just approved a 19 Billion Dollar Disaster Relief Bill, with my total approval. Great!" the president tweeted Thursday.