|
|
Conventional ag production has economical, environmental advantages
With little or no new farmland to exploit, farmers will have to become more productive in the future in order to continue to provide feed, food and fiber for the world, according to Alex Avery, director of research and education for the Hudson Institute. "Global food demand will at least double, and more likely triple, over the next 50 years," he told a group at the Feeding Quality Forum held in South Sioux City, Neb., Nov. 10. Avery said population growth is not the only factor in world food demand, though. Affluence and wealth have just as much importance in the need for food. "When people have more money, the first thing they buy is food and more higher-quality food," he said. "Everyone has always thought Indian people had mostly vegetarian diets because of religious reasons, but it is more because of economic reasons." China and India's total meat production continues to be on the rise to help meet their needs. A recent study showed the Chinese national meat consumption is expected to more than double between 2008 and 2040 to 2050, with only about 10 percent of that increase due to population growth. "The population around the world isn't rising all that much. Increased demand is more attributed to rising affluence and dietary changes per capita," he said. With the increase in affluence, he said this also leads to the need in other demands besides higher-quality food--clothing, pet food, and beer demands rise as well. These all add to an increase in the need and competition of agriculture land for other products. All of these increases in needs mean a boost in the demand for ag products; yet, the total land available for raising those products is not on the rise. "It is important to let the consumers know that we in agriculture know how to raise animals the best way, for their pocket book," said Avery. "We need to show them that we continue to produce more product with less land because we have made continual strides in technology to allow for that." Factors in change Avery said globalization and trade have reduced the overall cost of goods and benefited consumers in developing countries for the past 30 years, but that may change for the next 30 years. "There are two ways to meet global food demand growth--one, by taking more land from nature for farms. And two, by producing more per acre or per animal," he said. "If we still achieved the yields of 1960, an additional 15 to 20 million square miles of farmland would be needed to produce today's food supply. "That area would include the land area of North and South America and half of western Europe," he said. Avery suggested becoming educated from multiple sources when it comes to food production. "Farming's future is a battle for the hearts and minds of urban consumers and we need to know the right answers to be able to continue to produce the food needed for the world," he said. He said organic production isn't necessarily more nutritious, healthier, safer, better for the environment or more sustainable. Organic corn and wheat production has been shown to have lower yields. Lower yields mean more land is needed to produce the same amount of grain, thus leading to more habitat destruction instead of habitat protection. "It would require manure from an additional 6 to 8 billion cattle to replace current use of 80 million metric tons of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer with organic nitrogen fertilizer," he said. "According to University of Manitoba numbers, the total global cattle population is currently 1.2 billion cattle." Avery said organic production is not the realistic solution for modern agriculture. "If agriculture was to go completely organic, there would be a 47 percent decrease in production and we would need a lot more land, which isn't realistic." Agriculture impacts Modern technology has allowed farmers to continue to produce more on less land, yet he said environmental activists don't look at the big picture. "These people want us to drive the fuel-efficient automobiles, yet when it comes to agriculture we are supposed to go back to using the 1950s model. It has to be realistic and productive for agriculture. That includes raising crops and livestock using technology we have learned," said Avery. Hormones in beef is another issue that Avery explained, "Nearly every feedlot in the U.S.--99.5 percent of them--utilizes hormones to achieve faster growth and greater muscling to increase their productivity. In essence, hormones conserve land, habitat, water and nutrients." The use of hormones increases total volume of beef produced from limited resources and reduces costs, leading to more muscle, less fat and less pollution per pound of beef produced. Since 1950, six hormones have been approved and used--three natural and three synthetic. The Hudson Institute analyzed real-world beef finishing criteria and production results from a study commissioned by Iowa State University's Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture; used United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change greenhouse gas emissions factors; and compared organic grass-based beef finishing with conventional feedlot finishing, with and without supplemental growth hormones. The analysis showed the use of beef hormones in the conventional feedlot system reduced the land required to produce a pound of beef by 67 percent; reduced greenhouse gas emissions from beef finishing by 40 percent; and more beef was produced with less grain at a lower cost, thus producing less animal wastes. "Hormones allow land to be used more efficiently," said Avery. "In a grain-finished system with the use of hormones, 1.64 acres of land is needed per day to produce one pound of beef. A grain-finishing system without the use of hormones requires 1.99 acres per day and an organic grass system requires 5.04 acres of land per day." Avery put the results in terms everyone could understand by comparing the land use of the finishing systems to gas efficiency of vehicles. The organic grass system had the equivalency of 17 miles per acre, while a natural grain system was 43 miles per acre and a conventional grain system with the aid of hormones was 52.3 miles per acre. "It would be about like the organic production was a Hummer and the conventional production was a Civic Hybrid car," he said. "Considerable differences, yet the consumers don't hear that story." The analysis showed organic grass-fed beef produced 40 percent more carbon dioxide-equivalent greenhouse gasses per pound of beef than grain-fed beef. "The key is methane, which is 23 times more powerful of a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. More grass means more methane," he said. "Grass-fed cows produce about two times more enteric methane, which overwhelms higher carbon dioxide emissions in feedlot systems from fertilizer production, field crop operations, feed transport, etc." Avery said others agree with this analysis. The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization stated, "The most promising approach for reducing methane emissions from livestock is by improving productivity and efficiency of livestock production. The basic principle is to increase the digestibility of feedstuff." "The translation of that is to finish beef animals on grain, not grass," said Avery. Be aware Avery said it is always important to be aware of information that is released regarding organic and greenhouse gas emission claims. "Activists claim one thing, yet usually are falsely comparing production. For example, comparing Swedish grass-fed beef production to specialty Japanese Kobe beef production, in which Japanese cattle are fed two times longer than U.S. (cattle) and feed is shipped over 11,000 miles, would not be an equal comparison," he said. The same has shown true in modern dairy production with the carbon footprint of the average U.S. dairy cow doubling since 1944. "Farmers have been doing what is right for the land, their animals and for the environment. Now it is just important for them to spread their message," he said. Jennifer Bremer can be reached by phone at 515-833-2120, or by e-mail at jbremer@hpj.com.
Copyright/Privacy
Copyright 1995-2012. High Plains Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. Any republishing of these pages, including electronic reproduction of the editorial archives or classified advertising, is strictly prohibited. If you have questions or comments you can reach us at High Plains Journal 1500 E. Wyatt Earp Blvd., P.O. Box 760, Dodge City, KS 67801 or call 1-800-452-7171. Email: webmaster@hpj.com |
|
