One Step Forward, Two Steps Back
Ahhhhh…
That’s the sound of me taking in a big ol’ breath of fresh air.
On October 21, a New York Times headline popped up in my email that read “Belching Cows and Endless Feedlots: Fixing Cattle’s Climate Issues.” I thought, “oh no, a mainstream media article from a big source blasting cattle for ruining the environment again… I’ll dig out my ‘cattle and climate’ rebuttal and brush it up for a response to New York Times.”
I was fully prepared to read about cattle contributing to 18 percent of our greenhouse gas emissions, or emitting more than all of transportation combined, or farmers burning down and clearing the Amazon to plant crops to feed to cattle.
However, much to my surprise in the second paragraph, one of my favorite rebuttals — the great upcycling beef cow — was introduced. Sure, the article was quick to point to the fact that the process of upcycling feedstuffs is not suit for human consumption into the best protein on the market releases methane — “a potent planet-warming gas.” We’ve acknowledged that fact in our industry and we are working to reduce the impact as much as possible, and the article made that clear.
It also went on to say “cattle are far from the largest source of greenhouse gases… Their total contribution is dwarfed by the burning of fossil fuels for electricity, transportation, and industry.” Next, as any trustworthy article should, it cited statistics from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rather than some old, far-fetched and long debunked “research.” As the industry has cited many times before, the EPA calculates that beef cattle account for approximately 2 percent of total U.S. emissions.
I also appreciate the fact that the author took the time to explain the difference between methane emissions and carbon emissions. This is a rebuttal I have used in the past because it is critical to separate the two when looking at the greater greenhouse gas emissions and global warming picture. Cattle release methane while burning fossil fuels, for example, releases carbon dioxide which remains in the air for much longer. As the article explained, the methane cycle is relatively short and within about a decade, it breaks down and returns to the earth as carbon dioxide stored in the soil to inhibit plant growth.
“In effect, the animals are recycling carbon over a short time frame…” the article read.
Another thing that separates this article from those of the past that paint us in such a bad light are the sources. I have wondered and written multiple times how an article about the beef industry fails to cite any sources from within our industry. This article did just that — which is probably why it got our story right for once. Multiple Texas feedlot owners and operators of all sizes were interviewed along with Dr. Alan Rotz with the USDA Agriculture Research Service, a Texas A&M AgriLife scientist, and a West Texas A&M ag business professor.
These sources said the beef industry is always working to be more sustainable but said a major shift to feedlots has already made much improvements. The article explained to our consumer that finishing cattle in the feedlot takes less time, therefore reducing the impact of each finished animal on the environment by shortening their lifespan. It also explained that high grain diets like those fed in a feedlot produce fewer emissions.
The author carefully told of the evolution of cattle feeding, from grazing pasture year-round and toughing out hard winters, to introducing lots where the cattle would eat grains in the off season. It explained the typical lifecycle of a beef animal from a calf on pasture, to a backgrounding operation, then to a feedyard.
The article also explained in detail of the feeds used in a feedlot ration. I appreciated that he pointed to the fact that feeders often seek out byproducts of other food making processes to feed to cattle, further highlighting efficiency and upcycling. In all, the article said, about 60 percent of the diet at Cactus Feeders is made up of product inedible to humans.
It’s such a nice change to see an article that points to many of our industry’s rebuttals to the all-too-often ill-informed consumers from the get-go. And the fact that this article comes from a publication like the New York Times helps us steer from the argument that us ag publications are biased to our industry.
It’s my hope that this article is read far and wide — and trusted. But skimming through the 440 comments by readers, I’m afraid the point was missed by many. Instead of thanking our industry for working to be more sustainable each day and reduce our carbon footprint, many readers instead focused on the “cruelty” of penning the cattle up in the name of “efficiency.” Of the approximate 200 comments I read, about 20 made constructive comments about the work being done in agriculture to be more sustainable. Most were proud vegans pointing out cruelty, ill health effects of red meat consumption, and the bigger problem of land use, soil tillage, and water waste. Many commenters even said the 2 percent emissions was a straight up lie and reverted back to the 15 percent figure our industry has been trying to correct for years.
It just goes to show that falling to the defense side for so many years is going to take decades of recovery efforts – one good article won’t cut it. We finally have a mainstream media article that puts the beef industry on offense but the consumer who has read so many mistruths about beef production for so many years attacked the article and only argued against it rather than taking the time to consider some of the very valid points it brought to the table.
I breathed a sigh of relief when reading the article but shook my head in frustration when reading the comments. Our industry got one step ahead with the New York Times article, but at the pace of one step forward and two steps back, we have a never-ending job ahead of us. Keep beating that drum, telling that story, and maybe one day it will be trusted.