Tuesday, July 20, 2010

What to tell environmental activists about agriculture…


The next time an environmental activist, or even just a curious consumer, asks you about the greenhouse gas emissions from modern production agriculture, direct them to this study, conducted by Stanford University.

The study reviewed how the advances in high-yield agriculture achieved during the so-called Green Revolution have not only helped feed the planet, but also have helped slow the pace of global warming by cutting the amount of biomass burned - and the resulting greenhouse gas emissions - when forests or grasslands are cleared for farming. Stanford researchers estimate those emissions have been trimmed by over half a trillion tons of carbon dioxide.

A few major points that research found:
  • Yield improvements reduced the need to convert forests to farmland.
  • Researchers estimate that if not for increased yields, additional greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from clearing land for farming would have been equal to as much as a third of the world's total output of greenhouse gases since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution in 1850.
  • For every dollar spent on agricultural research and development since 1961, emissions of the three principal GHG - methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide - were reduced by the equivalent of about a quarter of a ton of carbon dioxide - a high rate of financial return compared to other approaches to reducing the gases.
  • Researchers found that without the advances in high-yield agriculture, several billion additional acres of cropland would have been needed.
  • Comparing emissions in the theoretical scenarios with real-world emissions from 1961 to 2005, the researchers estimated that the actual improvements in crop yields probably kept GHG emissions equivalent to at least 317 billion tons of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, and perhaps as much as 590 billion tons.
  • Without the emission reductions from yield improvements, the total amount of GHG pumped into the atmosphere over the preceding 155 years would have been between 18 and 34 percent greater than it has been.
To read more, the paper was released last week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

“Renewable energy” (aka ethanol) and the beef with the livestock industry

In doing research for my job the other day, I came across the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association’s 2010 Policy Issues. Their top five issues for 2010 are:
  1. Death Tax
    1. NCBA supports a dual-track policy to: 1) increase the exemption level and decrease the rate of taxation; and 2) provide an overall exemption for agriculture.
  2. Antibiotics
    1. Cattle producers support the responsible and judicious use of antibiotics as an important tool to prevent, control and treat disease in cattle.
  3. Food Safety
    1. Cattle producers’ top priority is to produce the safest and highest quality beef in the world.
  4. Government Intrusion in the Marketplace
    1. Cattle producers, like other businesses, support free-market principles in the buying and selling of their products.
  5. Environment
    1. Cattle producers take pride in serving as good stewards of the land, while producing a safe, affordable and abundant food supply to feed the world’s growing population.
Overall, I agree with these issues! As a member of NCBA myself, I’m glad they are working on issues as they do affect all cattle producers.

Something else that affects all cattle producers is the future of renewable energy and besides NCBA’s 2010 top-five policy issues, they have a list of “Fact Sheets” on issues that they generally support or oppose. One of those being renewable energy. I find the handout about NCBA’s position on renewable energy to be “fluffy”.

They boldly state that “NCBA Supports Renewable Energy in America.” This is where I say, “Great!”
But reading further, they state their concern over higher blends of ethanol, the high price of corn that ethanol has created and the fact that it is going to take more acres of corn (that we don’t have) to grow enough corn for livestock feed and ethanol production. Their concerns are valid, but they also fail to mention several facts on the increase of the price of corn besides ethanol, and the fact that farmers are utilizing more technology to grow more feed on less land than ever before!

However, the biggest ERROR that comes out of this information is that one thing was left out – the corn co-product made from ethanol production: distillers grains. Not once was this alternative feed source mentioned. Why? Extensive research by Iowa State, Nebraska and Kansas State show that distillers grains have an apparent energy value equal to corn grain when fed to finishing cattle at levels ranging from 10% to 20% of total ration dry matter. DDGS also is palatable and readily consumed by cattle. Feeding DDGS does not change quality or yield grades of carcasses. More here.

Distillers grains are being fed all over the country and we even have enough to export overseas. Cattle feeders benefit not only from its nutrient value for cattle, but it is a cheaper feed source, especially during summer months. This oversight needs to be corrected because it is a piece of the puzzle when it comes to the corn-livestock-ethanol triangle.

I could also go off on the fact that this information “Fact Sheet” as it is described, is titled “Renewable Energy” and it doesn’t even mention other forms of renewable energy: wind energy, water energy, soy biodiesel, algae ethanol production, etc., but I’ll save it for another time. In the corn industry, all of these forms of renewable energy are our friends as we know ethanol is not the silver bullet – but it is one part of the solution to our dependence on foreign oil and meeting the demands of a “green revolution”. 

Friday, July 9, 2010

At the end of the day, nobody cares more about cattle than the person that gets up every day to take care of them

I've been meaning to post this article and have finally gotten around to it! I have heard Dr. Dan Thomson, Director of the Beef Cattle Institute and Associate Professor in the College of Veterinary Medicine at Kansas State University,  speak before about animal welfare, and he contributes a very good perspective specific to the beef industry.

In this interview with Chuck Jolley, Dr. Thomsen says, "We see welfare assessments and production standards being developed and implemented by numerous groups. The beef industry is stepping forward to make its own assessment for cow/calf, stocker and feedlot. If we in the beef industry don't continue to step forward, the standards and assessment tools will be written by someone that is not engaged in agriculture."

He also makes a great point on the difference between animal rights and animal welfare - which is commonly used interchangeably, "Animal rights is a belief that animals have the same rights as humans. Animal welfare is animal husbandry. Animal welfare is tending to the livestock through nutrition, health and environment.

Animal rights people are for the welfare of animals. Animal welfare however does not include a philosophy that animals should be held in the same light as humans."
To read the more of the interview, please click here.