Slaughter and Processing for Grass-fed Beef

Cows graze on a grass field at a farm in Schaghticoke, N.Y. The grass-fed movement is based on the idea of regenerative agronomics. John Greim/LightRocket via Getty Images hibernate caption

toggle caption

John Greim/LightRocket via Getty Images

Cows graze on a grass field at a subcontract in Schaghticoke, Due north.Y. The grass-fed movement is based on the thought of regenerative agronomics.

John Greim/LightRocket via Getty Images

For the environmentally minded carnivore, meat poses a culinary conundrum. Producing it requires a great deal of land and water resources, and ruminants such as cows and sheep are responsible for half of all greenhouse gas emissions associated with agriculture, according to the World Resources Institute.

That's why many researchers are now calling for the world to cut back on its meat consumption. But some advocates say there is a way to eat meat that'southward better for the planet and better for the animals: grass-fed beef.

But is grass-fed beefiness really greener than feedlot-finished beef? Let'south parse the science.

What's the difference between grass-fed and feedlot beef?

Feedlot calves begin their lives on pasture with the moo-cow that produced them. They're weaned later six to nine months, then grazed a bit more on pasture. They're then "finished" for about 120 days on high-free energy corn and other grains in a feedlot, gaining weight fast and creating that fat-marbled beef that consumers like. At nigh 14 to xviii months of age, they are sent to slaughter. (Ane downside of the feedlot system, equally we've reported, is that a diet of corn tin atomic number 82 to liver abscesses in cattle, which is why animals who eat it receive antibiotics as role of their feed.)

In a grass-fed and finished scenario, cattle spend their unabridged lives on grass. Since their feed is much lower in energy, they are sent to slaughter subsequently — between xviii to 24 months of historic period, after a finishing flow, withal on grass, of 190 days. Their weight at slaughter averages about 1,200 pounds compared with virtually 1,350 pounds for feedlot animals.

What's the environmental argument for grass-fed beef?

The grass-fed movement is based on a large thought, one known equally regenerative agronomics or holistic direction. It holds that grazing ruminant populations are fundamental to a healthy ecosystem.

Think of the hordes of bison that once roamed the prairies. Their manure returned nutrients to the soil. And because these animals grazed on grass, the country didn't take to be plowed to constitute corn for feed, so deep-rooted grasses that foreclose erosion flourished. Had those iconic herds notwithstanding been around in the 1930s, the argument goes, they would have helped prevent the catastrophe of the Dust Bowl.

4th-generation Oregon rancher Cory Carman runs a 5,000-acre grass-fed beef cattle operation, where grazing is key to restoring ecosystem rest. "Agricultural livestock are this incredible tool in promoting soil wellness," she says. "The longer you can manage cattle on pasture range, the more than they tin contribute to ecosystem regeneration."

Returning cattle and other ruminants to the state for their entire lives can result in multiple benefits, according to organizations like the Savory Institute, including restoring soil microbial diversity, and making the land more resilient to flooding and drought. It can boost the food content and flavor of livestock and plants. And because grasses trap atmospheric carbon dioxide, the grass-fed system can also help fight climate change. Merely it does require more land to produce the same corporeality of meat.

Every bit Shauna Sadowski, head of sustainability for the natural and organic operating unit at General Mills, puts it, "Our electric current model is an extractive ane that has left our surroundings in a country of deposition — eroded soil, polluted h2o. Nosotros take to change the entire paradigm to use natural ecological processes to gather nutrients and build the soil."

Which type of beef has the smaller environmental footprint?

It's complicated.

To mensurate the environmental impact of a farming arrangement, scientists rely on studies known as life-cycle assessments (LCAs), which take into business relationship resources and energy utilise at all stages.

A number of past studies take found lower greenhouse gas emissions associated with the feedlot arrangement. I reason is that grass-fed cows proceeds weight more slowly, so they produce more methane (mostly in the form of belches) over their longer lifespans.

Paige Stanley, a researcher at the University of California, Berkeley, says many of these studies have prioritized efficiency — high-energy feed, smaller country footprint — every bit a way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The larger the animal and the shorter its life, the lower its footprint. But she adds, "We're learning that there are other dimensions: soil health, carbon and landscape wellness. Separating them is doing u.s. a disservice." She and other researchers are trying to figure out how to incorporate those factors into an LCA analysis.

Stanley co-authored a recent LCA study, led by Jason Rowntree of Michigan State University, that establish carbon-trapping benefits of the grass-fed approach. Some other contempo LCA study, of Georgia's holistically managed White Oak Pastures, establish that the three,200-acre farm stored enough carbon in its grasses to offset not only all of the methane emissions from its grass-fed cattle, merely also much of the farm'due south total emissions. (The latter study was funded past General Mills.)

Linus Blomqvist, manager for conservation, food and agriculture for the Oakland, Calif.-based Breakthrough Found, however, defends feedlot finishing, pointing out that the deviation betwixt the ii systems is simply the last 3rd of the grass-fed cattle's life. Does the actress amount of pasture fourth dimension sequester and then much carbon that it offsets the reward of the feedlot? "We don't actually accept very proficient prove for that," he says.

Alison Van Eenennaam, a specialist in animal genomics and biotechnology at the University of California, Davis, says grass-fed makes more sense in a state similar Australia, which has a temperate climate, large tracts of grassland and no corn belt. Merely in the U.South., which does have a corn belt that suffers from cold winters, she believes grain finishing is the more efficient way to produce beefiness.

Which brings us to our next point.

Do y'all know where your grass-fed beef came from?

Most 75% to 80% of grass-fed beefiness sold in the U.Southward. is grown abroad, from Commonwealth of australia, New Zealand and parts of Due south America, according to a 2017 report from the Stone Barns Heart for Food and Agriculture. Those countries have the advantage of "vast expanses of grassland, low-input beef that is not finished to a high level and is very inexpensive," says Rowntree — fifty-fifty with the cost of shipping it halfway around the globe. Most of what comes from Australia is footing beefiness, not steaks, because the end result of their finishing process tends to be tough.

Many U.S. customers who want to support local nutrient are likely unaware of the strange origin of near grass-fed beefiness. By police, if meat is "candy," or passes through a USDA-inspected plant (a requirement for all imported beef), it can be labeled as a product of the U.Southward.

"But does it benefit the American farmer?" Rowntree asks, comparing this marketplace to the sheep industry, "which lost out to imports from Commonwealth of australia and New Zealand."

The popularity of grass-fed beef is pulling U.S.-based multinational companies into the market as well, which will drive prices down farther. Meat processor JBS U.s. now has a grass-fed line, Tyson Foods is planning a Texas grass-fed programme and earlier this year, Perdue appear it was getting into the market.

Which organisation is better for animal welfare?

To many grass-fed advocates, this is 1 of the primary reasons for switching to grass-fed beefiness. After all, cows evolved to alive this style.

"I've been on feedlots farms that have outstanding beast welfare, and I've been on pocket-size farms that would make you lot cringe," Rowntree says. But he adds, "Managing cattle on pasture in a grass-finishing system to me epitomizes animal welfare."

Nancy Matsumoto is a journalist based in Toronto and New York City who writes about sustainability, nutrient, sake and Japanese American civilization. Yous can read more than of her work hither.

lairdfultentreske.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/08/13/746576239/is-grass-fed-beef-really-better-for-the-planet-heres-the-science

Share this post