Eco-benefits of Growth Promoting Pharmaceuticals

1. Eco-benefits of Growth Promoting Pharmaceuticals Alex Avery, Director of Research and Education Hudson Institute

2. Hormones: Why? • Increase total volume of beef produced from limited resources. • Reduces costs. More muscle, less fat, and less pollution per pound of beef produced. • 99.5% of U.S. beef feedlot production utilizes supplemental hormones. • Six hormones approved and used since 1950s: three natural and three synthetic.

3. Hudson Analysis • Used real-world beef finishing criteria and production results from a study commissioned by Iowa State University’s Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture.(calving/weaning stages essentially identical between organic and conventional) • Used UN IPCC Greenhouse gas emissions factors • Compared organic grass-based beef finishing with conventional feedlot finishing -- with and without supplemental growth hormones • Production estimates consistently conservative

4. Beef Hormone Eco-Benefits • Reduce the land required to produce a pound of beef by 67 percent. • Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from beef finishing by 40 percent. • More beef with less grain at lower cost.

5. Hormones allow land to be used more efficiently

7. Beef Eco-Analysis:Global Warming • Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions estimates included emissions from feed production, but not feed transport or product transport. • Recent comprehensive Japanese analysis says feed transport is roughly 10% of total GHG emissions for each pound of beef. This is higher than for U.S. (due to 3-5X longer feed transport distances), but indicates that it is a relatively minor component.

8. Beef and GHG Emissions • Organic grass-fed produced 40% MORE CO2-equivalent greenhouse gases per pound of beef than grain-fed. • Key is methane, which is 23X more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. • Grass-fed cows produce ~2X more enteric methane which overwhelms higher CO2 emissions in feedlot system from fertilizer production, field crop operations, feed transport, etc.

9. Who Agrees with Hudson? • UN FAO states: “. . . by far the largest share of emissions come from more extensive systems.” • “The most promising approach for reducing methane emissions from livestock is by improving [productivity and efficiency] of livestock production. • “The basic principle is to increase the digestibility of feedstuff,” • Translation: Finish beef animals on grain, not grass

10. Foodwatchand German Institute for Ecological Economy Research • August 2008: “The production of one kilo of grass-fed beef causes the same amount of emissions as driving 70.4 miles in a compact car. Because of more intensive production methods, producing one kilo of conventional beef is the equivalent of driving only 43.9 miles.” • Translation: Conventional = ~40% less!!!

11. Organic False Claims of Lower GHG Emissions • Organic/animal rights activists claim organic produces 40% fewer GHG emissions [Ogino versus Cederberg and Stadig, 2007] • False comparison of Swedish grass-fed beef production to specialty Japanese Kobe beef production, in which Japanese cattle fed 2X longer than U.S. and feed is shipped 18,000+ miles

12. Ogino (cited by HSUS) says: • In noting that the Japanese beef fattening system GHG emissions were 2X more than U.S. estimates: “The contribution of the [Japanese system] to global warming . . . was therefore larger that that of the U.S. feedlot system, which seemed to be due to the much longer feeding length of the Japanese system.” [emphasis added]

13. GHG Emissions: Land factor • Two recent papers on biofuels in Science and Nature raise a critical issue: If policies or farm practices result in forest/habitat clearance – the net result is a significant increase in GHG emissions. So . . . • Grass-based/organic beef GHG emissions are even HIGHER than direct numbers because they would REQUIRE land clearance to equal beef production (or forced veganism!) • Assuming equal GHG emissions (as several analysis indicate), land clearance would add roughly 60% to organic/grass-fed beef emissions

14. Low Productivity = Land Clearing = More GHG • Searchinger et al. (2008, Science) say cleared land emits ~10,400 lbs of GHG/acre/year, calling it “carbon debt.” • 2007 U.S. used 13.3 million acres to produce cattle feed. • Grass-fed would require extra 26.6 million acres. • 26.6 million X 10,400 = extra 276.6 billion lbs GHG emissions

15. Conventional 22 lbs GHG per lb of beef (Johnson et al.) X 22.16 billion lbs beef = 487.5 billion lbs GHG Grass-fed/Organic 22.3 lbs of GHG per lb of beef (Swedish) X 22.16 billion lbs beef = 494.2 billion lbs PLUS 276.6 billion lbs from carbon debt = 770 billion lbs GHG Total GHG emissions with carbon debt for U.S. beef