Column of the Month
July 2010

Todd Domer
Vice President,
Communications

Don't sleep with the enemy

     There is a group of food elitists in this country whose goal is to politicize consumer choices. The messages from this food cult are driven by opinion and void of fact. Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser are among the elitist leaders ranting about the evils of the modern food production system in movies, books, television talk shows and newspapers. They are driving an unhealthy debate within agriculture that has us picking sides.
     Market segmentation has created this opportunity for elitists to divide and conquer. Farmers and ranchers wisely have reached out to meet consumer demand by offering a variety of choices. Within the beef industry, there is conventional grain-fed beef, which represents the vast majority of production, as well as narrower markets for grass-finished, organic and natural. Catering to these different tastes is just smart business. It helps the beef industry maintain a larger market share and builds demand. The problem comes when the food elitists, some ranchers serving niche segments and marketers up the chain disparage other segments of beef production to gain an advantage. For example, this group publicly claims corn-fed finishing systems are less environmentally sustainable than finishing cattle on pasture. While that may sound accurate to some, including consumers, science indicates otherwise.
     Washington State University Assistant Professor of Animal Science Jude Capper conducted a life-cycle analysis to quantify the environmental impact of grain-fed versus grass-finished beef. For starters, differences in the two production systems aren’t as radical as the food elitists want us to believe. About 50% to 75% of a conventionally raised beef animal’s life is spent on grass. Grain inputs are used only during the 120- to 180-day finishing period. By contrast, certified grass-fed beef animals are finished on pasture without using supplemental grain as feed.
     According to Capper, the elitists take only a superficial view of the energy inputs required to raise and harvest corn in a conventional system compared to animals grazing pastures. While this would appear to show grass-finished beef has a lesser environmental impact, Capper said the conclusion relies on three erroneous assumptions:
     1) the animals have equal energy requirements; 2) the animals take the same time to finish; and 3) animals in both systems produce the same quantities of greenhouse gas emissions from enteric fermentation.
     Capper’s research analysis shows beef steers finished on pasture have an additional energy requirement for the physical activity involved in grazing, thus increasing total daily maintenance energy requirements. The growth rate of steers on pasture also is lower than those finished on grain. This increases the length of the finishing period, each day of which incurs a maintenance cost. Finally, grass-based diets promote greater ruminal acetic acid production, increasing enteric methane output.
     She makes the case that with all life-cycle analyses, environmental impact should be expressed per unit of food produced. In this case, total energy use (including energy for animal maintenance and growth; energy for growing grain and pasture; energy for manufacturing corn fertilizer; and energy for food transport), methane production and land use per pound of beef must be considered. In the end, Capper’s study demonstrated total energy use is 2.5 times higher, methane output is 2.8 times higher and land use is 12.6 times higher in grass-finished systems compared to grain-fed. She said the increase in resource use per unit of beef produced in grass-fed systems demonstrates the popular perception of sustainable "is very much at odds with the true picture."
     Grass-fed cattle typically finish at lighter weights than conventional cattle. To produce a comparable amount of beef, Capper projects it would take 1.27 grass-fed steers to replace each corn-fed steer. This would increase total energy needs, land requirements and greenhouse gas emissions.
     Spotlighting Capper’s study is not meant to create further division in the beef sector. The intent is to illuminate a problem. Food elitists and their politically driven claims are the enemy, whether you’re raising grass-fed or conventional beef. They’re driving a wedge in the beef industry that weakens our position. As an industry, we need the variety of production systems to meet consumer demand. Pitting one against the other in the marketing arena will confuse and alienate beef consumers.
     We all have many more reasons to stick together than jab each other in the eye in front of our customers. All beef is safe. All beef is nutrient-rich, with eight times more vitamin B-12, six times more zinc and three times more iron than skinless chicken breast. Beef, whether grass-fed or grain-finished, has a distinct flavor consumers love.
     Avoid the trap food elitists have set for us. Remaining whole partners makes us sustainable in the long-run.