Beefed Up Environmental Impact

Did you know that the equivilant of 2.2 pounds of beef is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution than driving for 3 hours while leaving all the lights on back home? Just when you think the rap-sheet on consuming beef couldn’t get any worse, researchers from Japan’s National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science have released their calculations of the impact a few pounds of consumable beef has on the environment. And it doesn’t smell too rosy.

The research was gathered by investigating the commercial beef production industry which includes the common practice of cattle “fattening” in order to offer prime cuts of meat to a demanding market. Commercial cattle farms put extra effort into rearing and “fattening” their calves in order to bear the highest return on their meat. To ensure the most amount of beef per cow, farmers purchase and import specially-grown feed that spikes growth in the calves. The levels of energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production and transportation of this special feed is the starting point of the researchers calculations, which was determined to be two-thirds of the total environmental impact of the study.

Adding to their starting point of measure, the researchers accounted for the management of the cattle on the farm, including the amount of methane released into the atmosphere as a by-product of the cows eating the specialized feed. They also factored the levels of sulfur dioxide and phosphate introduced to the soil through the cattle’s waste products. Finally, researchers factored the amount of energy (in joules) the entire process consumed. Their conclusion? Raising a calf in standard commercial farming practice (by Japanese beef production standards) results in the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the average car every 550 miles, and matches burning enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days.

The study’s results failed to account for regular intra-farm logistics, such as operating farm equipment, or transporting the eventual ready-for-market meat. Obviously, this further environmental impact remains to be calculated but would be rather substantial in itself.

Reactions to the findings have generated alternatives to current standard practice in the beef-production industry. One option would be to shorten the length of time it takes to raise a calf to time of slaughter. Shortening it by one month could cut the overall numbers reported in the study by nearly 6%. Another option would be to improve waste management on the farms, as well as seeking more fuel-efficient transportation and processing facilities. And then of course there is the call for localized, organic beef farming which strays from these traditional practices by feeding cattle grass rather than specialized, concentrated feed and ultimately reduces the levels of methane produced by the cows. Organic farming techniques also reduce soil and water impact on the local community by not utilizing chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Organic farms also cut energy consumption by almost 85% less than traditional farms. Further, by locally-grown organic meat reduces the greenhouse gasses emitted and energy consumed by not having to process and prepare the meat for shipping and storage as well as not actually transporting the meat far from the farm.

Organic, locally-grown meat may help to counteract the environmental impact of the larger beef production industry worldwide, but with the majority of consumers still driving to super markets purchasing mass-produced meat transported hundreds to thousands of miles in plastic foam containers demanding the energy to regulate shipping and storage temperatures, we should all take notice of these recent findings and think twice about our own purchases. And this applies to more than just beef. Buying local and fresh (be it fru