Livestock's Long Shadow - by Kevin Dunham, friend of the Farm

Our very regenerative neighbor, a dairy cow that contributes to our Maxwelton Valley food system while she also improves soil quality and thus carbon management.

Back in 2006 the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the UN released an extensive report around global livestock production titled Livestock’s Long Shadow. It is a several hundred page report detailing the environmental impacts, and to some extent nutritional and social impacts, of livestock while offering potential improvements to the sector. Some of these improvements include:

·       Reducing or eliminating subsidies to prevent overproduction and incentivize better efficiency and resource management

·       Limiting and reversing land degradation through “... soil conservation methods, silvopastoralism, better management of grazing systems, limits to uncontrolled burning by pastoralists and controlled exclusion from sensitive areas.”

·       “...restoring historical losses of soil carbon through conservation tillage, cover crops, agroforestry . . . with additional amounts available through restoration of desertified pastures.”

·       Improving biodiversity through conservation and integration of livestock producers with landscape management

I am in full support of these improvements as a way forward, and I practice many of these tools on our tiny livestock farm. These are key principles of regenerative agriculture. I wish that these suggestions had swirled through the media and onto policy makers desks, but unfortunately, they didn’t. The one claim of this entire report that has been cited over and over again is that livestock are responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions globally, higher than transportation. This has led to quite a significant denouncement of meat eating in the public conversation on climate change in the US. However, there are several issues with this number directly as well as the context in which it is invoked.

The first is that in the report’s analysis they compared emissions from a full life-cycle analysis of livestock (feed production, fertilizer production, enteric fermentation, manure management, soil emissions, farm vehicles, etc.) to just the direct emissions from transportation vehicles (tailpipe emissions). In order to have a more accurate comparison you would have to factor in emissions for everything else that goes into transportation, from the manufacturing of cars, trucks, planes, ships, and trains as well as road maintenance and construction, airports, oil drilling and refining, etc. So, as a percentage, the number is inaccurate.

Secondly, making policy changes, and food choices for that matter, based on international statistics obscures the realities of the specific region or country being discussed. For example, the entire North American livestock sector is responsible for 1.2% of global emissions (link p. 44). It produces roughly 20% of global beef on just one-third of that number. If you are importing a steak every week from South America where deforestation is occurring that’s one story, but if you’re a general consumer in the US your footprint is much lower because the American system is so efficient. The articles, discussions, and research directed at an American audience using this global number of 18% are everywhere, and they are misleading those who are making policy or just wanting to make the most meaningful lifestyle choices.

None of this is to say that the livestock sector in the US is environmentally benign and should be left alone. It is still woven into our industrial agriculture system in need of a paradigm shift. My intention is to show that focus on livestock in the climate conversation here in the US is a distraction from energy use, transportation, industry, and fossil fuels. Not to mention it is an indispensable, nutrient dense food source that has potential to revive our soils at an accelerated rate if used wisely.

One solution the report is a proponent of is increased intensification of livestock production. This means more Controlled Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs); getting the animals off the land and into large facilities run by wealthy corporations. If my tone isn’t obvious, I’m not totally on board with this idea. I work with animals every day, and their well-being is a top priority when I make management decisions on the farm. It also doesn’t solve our topsoil loss problem. Their argument from a climate perspective is basically to increase production with less animals and export the intensive US/Europe models to meet the growing demand for animal products around the world. What isn’t taken into account is the growing knowledge, practices, and data from the regenerative agriculturalists where animal emissions are being hugely offset through soil improvement in more extensive systems. (Granted, many of these have been developed and studied after the report was written). That’s the direction I want the conversation to go and what I’ll be dipping into next time.

I’ll sign off with a quote from the conclusion of Livestock’s Long Shadow, hopefully as inspiration and empowerment to find a good meal.

“Consumers, because of their strong and growing influence in determining the characteristics of products, will likely be the main source of commercial and political pressure to push the livestock sector into more sustainable forms.”