The beef with beef

Something most people don’t know about me is that I am a 7th generation Oregonian. Maybe this explains my deep love for Oregon and the fact that I’ve chosen to continue to live here in my adult life.

The woman seated in the front row here is my direct ancestor, Keturah Belknap. She was a part of the wagon train that came to Oregon in 1848. This photo was taken about 60 years after her arrival in Oregon, when she was nearly 90 years old. She is seated here with some of her children and grandchildren.

Keturah’s journal is considered one of the most detailed accounts from the Oregon Trail. In another pioneer’s journal she was described as a “little woman but she wore the pants on that train.” I kinda love that.

My family has been here ever since.

So, while not native, we have some deep roots in, and a strong love for the history and beauty of this place.

When the pioneers arrived in Oregon, they desperately needed food and shelter and they got to work using the resources they found.

Settlers cleared land to graze animals and built homes…

and just like the rest of the country and the world, the population began to boom.

A major consideration, when discussing the climate impact of humans, and particularly that of the food systems, is the population of the planet. On November 15, 2022, the world’s population reached 8 billion people. The global population is expected to reach 9 billion in 2037, that is not far away.

In 1900, around the time that the photo of my ancestor, Keturah, and her family were taken, there were only 1.6 Bill people on the planet. Our global population is currently 5x what it was in 1900. It’s no wonder that our greenhouse gas emissions have increased to feed, house, and supply this many humans. It makes sense that this exponential growth of the human population has had it’s impact on the planet.

A study published in the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, highlights the impact humanity has upon biodiversity and wildlife on Earth. It reports that human race has caused the loss of 83 percent of all wild animals that have ever existed, and 50 percent of all plant species.

Another report, released last year, said that within the past 50 years alone, an estimated half of animals on Earth were lost to industrialization. 50 years. That means that since 1973 we have lost 50% of all animals.

I like this info graphic because it shows proportionally, how few WILD mammals are left, compared to domesticated livestock to feed humans, and humans.

At one time, there were no domesticated livestock and far fewer humans (remember, 5x fewer in just 1900). We have thrown things way out of balance with this drastic shift.

Sadly, the same is also true for the birds! 70% of all birds on this planet are being raised for food, rather than living in the wild.

This shift in the natural balance of animals from mostly non-human, wild animals, to livestock and humans is not only responsible for biodiversity loss of other animals, but we are also seeing negative impact on plant life and the landscape itself.

In this photo series, we see a riparian ecosystem – which, for those who do not know, is an area along the banks of a stream or river. The photos on the left show the areas in 1990, during the last year that cattle were allowed to graze in this area in Antelope, OR.

The photos on the right show the same areas, 24 years after cattle were removed. You can see that the wetland vegetation has returned and now dominates the previously invasive grasses. The stream is shaded, reducing and restoring water temperatures for native species, by the plants, and the waterway is once again providing excellent habitat.

In addition to the production of greenhouse gasses, The production of beef is also problematic for water quality, sensitive and endangered species, and even the soil structure itself.

Many are all well-aware of the horrible life of an animal in a CAFO (confined animal feeding operation). And thankfully, in recent years, there has been a public awakening to the issues surrounding animal welfare and CAFO meat (and diary) production. So, those who can afford it are making, what they consider, to be a more responsible switch to “free-range” and “grass-fed” beef, thinking it’s better for the animals, so it must also be better for the environment. They are trying to “do the right thing” while continuing to eat beef.

Buzz words like “regenerative agriculture ” are also being used to describe some free-ranging grass-fed beef, in order to greenwash the process. Proponents of ”regenerative cattle ranching” are claiming that these non-native ruminants are a suitable replacement for native grassland species like buffalo and elk. Unfortunately, regenerative agriculture does not work with non-native species, like cows. As we can see above, they destroy the ecosystems on which they are released.

I live in Oregon, where we have both some of the largest dairy CAFOs in the country AND permissive public lands cattle grazing allowances on the eastern 2/3 of the state. The battle between 1) the demand for meat and dairy 2) the ethics and natural resource contamination and use in CAFOS, and 3) free-ranging non-native animals on the land - is an ongoing one here, but we aren’t alone.

The heavy vertical line to the left of Texas indicates the boarder of “the west” from the “great planes” (which is the center section that is mostly green, states). Note the amount of public lands in the western area of the US. The areas shaded in the reddish brown are public lands.

 85% of public lands in the western US are grazed by domestic livestock, which only account for 1.6% of all US beef production in the country.

Bison and Elk, which are native species to many of these grassy areas in the west, have been shown to have a positive herd impact on grasslands, whereas cows do not.

The grazing of these non-native ruminants on public lands causes significant influence to climate change in a number of ways.

1)They contribute to greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) due to their digestive process and manure deposit, 2)They defoliate native plants, 3)Trample vegetation and damage soil structures, 4)And spread exotic species, thereby accelerating landscape shifts and encourage proliferation of invasive plants and animals.

Additionally, Ranchers see native predators like wolves and cougars as a threat to their herds on these public lands, and are often lobbying for increased hunting tags and outright culling of natural predator numbers in order to protect their livestock herds. This reduction in natural predators further throws off the natural balance of species.

The impact of cattle is not the same or an acceptable alternative for native species, and is not regenerative to the land.

Globally, animal products provide only 18% of our calories but use 83% of our total farmland, and are responsible for ~60% of GHGE from the food sector.

This graph shows just how resource-intensive animal agriculture is compared to plant-food sources. See the drastic drop in resources to the left of that dotted vertical line?

Animals require a lot of space and use a lot of resources for 18% of global calories.

Kauffman JB, Beschta RL, Lacy PM, Liverman M. Livestock Use on Public Lands in the Western USA Exacerbates Climate Change: Implications for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation. Environ Manage. 2022;69(6):1137-1152. doi:10.1007/s00267-022-01633-8

According to an article titled ”Livestock Use on Public Lands in the Western USA Exacerbates Climate Change”, the authors found that the social costs of the carbon produced by ranging cattle on public lands are >$500m/year.  This is ~26x greater than the fees collected by the managing federal agencies for the permissions to graze the cows.

This means that the degradation of the public lands and waters, and loss native species and biodiversity by these animals grazing is essentially subsidized, and costs American taxpayers hundreds of millions each year.

This chart is pulled directly from the study, and lays out the impacts of grazing cattle on lands. These impacts include: Removal of foliage, trampling of the land and soil structure, dispersal of exotic and invasive plant species, and dispersal of urine feces on the land.

All of these things together alter fire cycles, increase erosion, change the soil’s ability to hold water, create competition between native and invasive species, and increase greenhouse gas emissions due to simplified vegetation dispersal, lower biological diversity, degraded waterways, and carbon release into the atmosphere.

These impacts further exacerbate climate change, lower an area’s resistance to climate change and the ability to sequester carbon, while also producing more GHG emissions.

When we talk about GHG emissions from cattle, it’s important to remember that they produce Carbon Dioxide, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide, not just C02.

The GHG emissions on public lands in the western US (from just the bodily functions of cows - which we saw pictured in the last image, is equivalent to 2.3m passenger vehicles (that’s about the same number of all cars and commercial vehicles in the whole state of Arizona), and would require 6.1m hectares (this is an area about the size of the entire state of West Virginia) of US forests to sequester the emissions.

And Remember… these numbers also do not account for the additional GHGE from the other cattle related emissions, such as trucking the livestock to slaughter, fencing, water developments, hauling mineral supplements and water, rangeland reseeding from overgrazing, and invasive species management.

It is estimated that the removal of cattle on public lands in the western US alone would avoid 186 premature human deaths, 52 million hours of lost labor from extreme heat, and nearly 42 million lbs. of crop losses, do to just the climate impact from this small group of animals.

This grazing of this 1.6% of US beef impacts both human wellbeing and the future of other agriculture sectors. Based on this information, the focus should not be on shifting from CAFO to free-range cow products, but rather, a complete shift away from cattle production all together.

This is a photo from one of the 2020 wildfires in Oregon that destroyed  more than 4,000 homes and tore through 1.1 million acres.

Oregon's average temperature has increased by 2.2ºF (1.2ºC) since 1895 – that’s 11 years after my great, great, great, great grandmother arrived with her wagon train. This 1.2 deg cel increase, we are dangerously close to the 1.5 deg increase we have been warned about by leading climate scientists for decades.

If current trends in global emissions persist, Oregon's average temperature will increase by 5ºF (2.8ºC) by 2050 and 8.2ºF (4.6ºC) by 2080, blowing past even the worse case scenarios predicted in climate reports.

https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/climate-change-or.pdf

Overwhelming evidence shows that the overconsumption of meat is bad for human and environmental health, and that moving towards a more plant-based diet is more sustainable.

The top pie charts in the image above shows the division of agricultural land use in our current system. Note, nearly 70% of all the land is used to pasture animals, 13% is used to grow food to feed those animals, and only 17% is used to grow crops for human consumption.

If we transition to a plant-based food system, we would only need to increase our land for growing crops for human consumption from 17 to 22.6% of all existing agricultural land. This would allow the remaining land that had previously been used for pasture and animal-crops to be restored, rewilded, and truly regenerated by natural processes and native species.

This transition would restore critical habitats, drastically reduce contamination of waterways, and support the biodiversity we so desperately need back for healthy ecosystems.

Even if we didn’t transition to a fully plant-based/vegan food system, but instead JUST replaced beef with beans in the US, we could free up 42% of US cropland, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and accomplish 60-75% of the carbon reduction target for the agriculture sector, with just this single swap.

The overconsumption of meat affects social, environmental and economic sustainability due to the long-term environmental consequences. In light of the climate emergency and the rapidly increasing double burden of malnutrition, there has never been a more important time in human history to transform our food system for the sake of humans, nature, and our environment.

So, how do we feed a human population that is projected to reach 10 billion by 2100?

According to a report in the Lancet, this plate graph shows the percentages that are recommended by the commission as a sustainable consumption pattern for humans moving forward. While not entirely plant-based, this would be HUGE win for human health and the environment.

Note how 50% of the plate is filled with non-starchy vegetables, ~15-20% is whole grains, ~10-15% is plant-sourced protein, and less than 10% is animal-based foods. I would love to see this become a reality and the new norm, and dietary recommendation for Americans. Or even better, a fully vegan diet.

You can move toward a sustainable and healthy diet. Yes, it’s important for individual health, but the food choices humans make are even more important for the future of our planet. The solution is consuming drastically less meat, and eating more plants.

References

Roser, M., Ritchie, H., Ortiz-Ospina, E., & Rodés-Guirao, L. (2013, May 9). World population growth. Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth

Murray-Ragg, N. (2020, December 15). 60% of all mammals on Earth are livestock, says New Study. LIVEKINDLY. https://www.livekindly.com/60-of-all-mammals-on-earth-are-livestock-says-new-study/

Dutkiewicz, J., Rosenberg, G. N., Martin, N., Vettese, T., Carter, N., Hope-D’Anieri, C., Featherstone, L., Aronoff, K., Cummins, E., & Taft, M. (2023, June 23). The myth of regenerative ranching. The New Republic. https://newrepublic.com/article/163735/myth-regenerative-ranching

Kauffman JB, Beschta RL, Lacy PM, Liverman M. Livestock Use on Public Lands in the Western USA Exacerbates Climate Change: Implications for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation. Environ Manage. 2022;69(6):1137-1152. doi:10.1007/s00267-022-01633-8

Animal-based foods are more resource-intensive than plant-based foods. World Resources Institute. (2016, April 20). https://www.wri.org/data/animal-based-foods-are-more-resource-intensive-plant-based-foods

Written by Tina Kohlman and AERICA BJURSTROM. (n.d.). Feeding for efficiency: Dietary impacts on greenhouse gas production. Dairy. https://dairy.extension.wisc.edu/articles/feeding-for-efficiency-dietary-impacts-on-greenhouse-gas-production/

Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). EPA. Climate Change and Oregon https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/climate-change-or.pdf

Carter, N. (2023, May 24). Can “local meat” be a part of a Sustainable Future Food System? Plant Based News. https://plantbasednews.org/news/environment/locavore-diet-future-food-system/

Hamblin, J. (2018, October 23). If everyone ate beans instead of beef. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2017/08/if-everyone-ate-beans-instead-of-beef/535536/

The Planetary Health Diet. EAT. (2021, April 7). https://eatforum.org/eat-lancet-commission/the-planetary-health-diet-and-you