

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.