Food Miles: Another Wrench in the Spokes of Environmental Educators

As with any aspect of the food system, there are nuances. I've struggled with the issue of beef consumption, and what it means to me as person who cares about my impact on the environment. My conclusions, having lived in Alberta and also Arizona, is that grass-fed beef does not have the same impact as grass-fed/feedlot beef. A lot of the food miles and GHG impacts of beef consumption relate to the production of grain to feed the beef. If the beef is grass-fed, these calculations do not apply. This may help you to re-work the focus of your workshop.

The challenges of reducing the environmental impact of food production are different in every place, which is the flip side of challenging people to eat local. My belief is that the workshops or educational products we make have to start with where people are at ... and in Alberta (and other places), beef ranching is a cultural, historical legacy; in most of Alberta, the environment cannot be turned to other kinds of food production without huge inputs of fertilizer and/or water (which is in limited supply in the near-desert conditions); grass-fed beef is more nutritious and less fatty than feedlot beef; and so on. If we start by assisting people to be more conscious of what they are eating, without criticizing the components of their diet, they may begin the exploration about reducing the amount of beef they consume, and replacing that protein source with other sources less high on the food chain.

Bev Suderman
Canada

Oops, I meant to say that grass-fed beef does not have the same impact as grain-fed/feedlot beef ...

Bev Suderman
Land Use Planner
Canada

Hi Everyone,

This (vitally important) issue is complex and nuuanced - and full of cultural and ethical pothooles. Here in Australia eating beef and lamb is cultural too (well - for one ethnic group anyway!). Personally I'm mostly veggo (more Australian slang) and the only meat I eat at home is kangaroo. Kangaroos don't have the devastating impact on our fragile, ancient soils that hard-hooved animals do (there are no native hooved animals here) - and landscape changes over the last 200 years have favoured the large species that we eat (we don't eat the endangered ones!!) Ethically, I believe that kangaroos suffer a lot less than animals raised on farms / feedlots and killed in slaughterhouses. However, until recently kangaroo meat was used only for pet-food, and is still a rare item in restaurant menus. Indicentally, I'm NOT in favour of exporting kangaroo-meat - that would be missing the point of eating local - but I am interested in the concept of replacing energy-intensive sourcees of meat with abundant wild / feral animals (rabbit, anyone?)

Lorna

Lorna Jarrett
university of wollongong
Australia

About the beef meat issue - a very useful book and a great read too is 'Omnivore's Dilemma' - New York Times columnist writes about where and how Americans get their food (applies pretty much worldwide to developed countries) and seeing that as a species we can eat just about anything, what are the ethical choices surrounding that appetite. He stays at one point on a very sustainable farm where cattle are a key part of the managed micro-ecosystem - all based on farming grass - and the farmer doesn't even allow his meat to be Fedex'd out - people come from miles around to him. It's the feedlot system - based on industrial farming inputs (fertilizer/pesticides/GMO/fossil fuel) which generates very high yields of maize or corn - that are most profitably used to farm beef. Grass-fed beef sold locally /regionally is ecologically fairly benign when its an integral part of a farm or area's ecosystem.



Hugh Tyrrell
Green Edge
Canada

Thanks a lot for the input! Sometimes I forget how much less of an impact red meat has when the cows are solely fed grass. That would be a great option to promote in workshops. I guess I will have to hunt for some irregular beef farmers in Alberta as I believe most cattle ranchers use grain in the final stages to bring their cows up to weight. Also, I like the idea about eating LESS meat. Doctors say that we eat over 3 times the healthy recommendation, which is only 30kg per year. North Americans eat just over 100 kg of meat on average per year. This is not healthy. Thanks again for the suggestions, they are much appreciated.

Remi Charron
Outreach Representative
Alberta Government (Environment)
Canada
www.onesimpleact.alberta.ca

Just one brief comment on one small point of the omnivore's dilema. Would it not make more sense ecologically for the farmer to fedex meat out with one van in a fuel efficient vehicle (are you listening Fedex?)than to have many people drive for miles each in a separate automobile.

And one short comment on native species like the Kangaroo. The native counterpart in Alberta is the bison. Yes..it has hooves, but the Prairie ecosystem has adapted to hoofed animals and the native plants and animals can do o.k. with it.



Norm Ruttan
President
iWasteNot Systems
Canada
www.iwastenotsystems.com

Remi:

I don't think there is data to support your assertion about lower impact of grass feeding. Comparative assessment is always difficult because the significance of envirnomental impacts is in the eyes of the beholder. Overgraving strips the land of habitat even if there is no grain involved. Arid areas are more prone to overgrazing. Grazing affects plant ecosystems. With climate change California artic/alpine are already under pressure and grazing is another impact. I would say skip the meat if you can, otherwise eat it infrequently.

Rod Miller

Firstly, I did not make that assertion (read above), though I know it to be generally true. I also know that overgrazing is a significant issue, but it is no excuse to, then, feed cows grain or corn. Cows were not meant, through evolution, to eat these foods. Maybe the issue is having too many cattle per area.

Rob, regarding your comment: "I would say skip the meat if you can, otherwise eat it infrequently." Please don't post a comment if you have not read most of the preceeding comments, especially the first post where I talk about how controversial meat topics can be in Alberta.

One further comment, this thread is starting to get way off topic, so if you would like to post something, try to match your answer DIRECTLY to what my original question was. Also, please read the article first so that you know what I'm talking about; it's a good one!

Remi Charron
Outreach Representative
Alberta Government (Environment)
Canada
www.onesimpleact.alberta.ca

I read the article and I feel free to say reducing meat is better than trying to trade-off grass vs. grain. I live in cow country too, but I am not a local official there. The real point of my post for you is that using comparative life-cycle impact studies is alway a slippery basis for making policy. It is better to focus the individual on reducing their quantifiable impacts. For example, in my area smog is a problem so I bought a prius and try to use public transport. I buy from local growers because they can tell me and I can see what their impacts are. Other agriculture it is more difficult to quantify even if they are grown in the central valley of California. I can reduce the impacts of my property by limiting what I put on my landscape that will ultimately leach out.

It is a very useful point to understand that it will always be subjective to say the some transportation impact is worse than some local habitat impact. This is why it is better to tie the process to one of personal resonsiblity and decision regarding the individual controlable impacts.

Hope this helps.

Rod Miller

Rod Miller

We have a program in Virginia called "Hunters for the Hungry" http://www.h4hungry.org/index.htm


Steve Gorzula
United States

Farming methods make all the difference between meat which is "sustainable" versus meat which is "not sustainable". The Carbon Farming movement in Australia has beef producers who are using conservation farming practices (the movement calls it "Carbon Farming"), which actually produce carbon positive beef, i.e. more carbon is sequestered in the soil than is released into the atmosphere). The farmers use "cell grazing" techniques which emulate natural savanna type herd feeding patterns , and graze the cattle on deep rooted perennials which sequester carbon and nitrogen in the soil.
One amazing example of this is in Western Australia, in sandy soil which has had big problems with salinity and erosion under "traditional" farming methods. These innovative farmers have reduced erosion to zero, have brought salinity under control, and have been able to produce an income in the significantly drier years that the West has experienced in recent times (the records show that climate change has already hit the hardest in that region of Australia). At the same time, they are now producing carbon positive beef, flying in the face of all of the "anti beef" science and rhetoric of the IPPC.
The tragedy of all of this is that because soil sequestration was not included in the Kyoto Protocol (unlike tree sequestration), these farming practises are not being recognised or rewarded in the current carbon trading environment. Instead, we have farming land being purchased by corporate carbon trading entities, taken out of food production and being planted fence to fence with trees. This is an alarming trend, given that the FAO is advocating a 50% increase in food production to feed the world's population of 9 billion by 2050.
This, together with low levels of investment in soil science over the past two decades, means that the Carbon Farming movement is having to fight hard to get its achievements and research recognised.
With regard to beef, it is time for us to start making a distinction between "carbon negative beef" and "carbon positive beef", and to start rewarding innovative farmers who are working hard to put food on our tables now and to ensure that future generations can also put food on their tables.
I am happy to take this offline with anyone who is interested in learning more.

Andrea Koch
Sustainability Consultant
Australia

For three generations, the Salatin family has practiced sustainable method checkboard farming, moving grass fed cows in to a new section each day followed by chickens approximately 72 hours who eat the grubs and produce rich omega 3 eggs. It is fascinating to read how it can be accomplished on a small scale, not like the mega cattle feedlots. The Salatins let Mother Nature do her thing. People who are concerned about their source of food come to Polyface to buy meat and eggs. The Polyface farm is also featured in the movie Food Inc. Both Pollan and writer Eric Scholosser of Fast Food Nation are co-producers of Food Inc. It is well done and informative. Read this book and see the movie. Pollan also has written extensively about food.

Susan Marsland
United States

Yes, I have seen the movies and I am familiar with Pollan's work. Though I have not read 'In Defense of Food' or 'The Omnivore's Dilemma', both have been highly recommended to me a number of times. The sequestration thing is very interesting and I'm glad that beef farmers are starting to see the negative impacts of poorly planned grazing and/or grain/corn feeding their livestock. These are great tips to follow up on. Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this thread. I really appreciate it and keep posting if you have something to add.

Remi Charron
Outreach Representative
Alberta Government (Environment)
Canada
www.onesimpleact.alberta.ca