Issues regarding cattle1, environmental resource use and impacts

I. Claim: Cows are a major cause of global warming

a. What is the conventional wisdom?
i. From Cowspiracy and similar popular sources– livestock agriculture responsible
for “51% of all worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.” [1, 2]
ii. “The livestock sector is a major player [in climate change], responsible for 18
percent of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2 equivalent. This is a
higher share than transport.” [1, 3]
b. Contradictory Evidence
i. Statements in FAO’s Livestock’s Long Shadow were retracted and updated to
correct mistakes in methodology.
ii. FAO update of percent of global GHG emissions due to livestock: 14.5%. [4]
iii. EPA estimate of percent of US GHG emissions from [5]
1. all of agriculture = 9%
2. Livestock agriculture = 4%
3. Beef industry = 2%
iv. If animal agriculture were eliminated in the US, we’d reduce greenhouse gas
emissions in the U.S. by 2.6 percent, and 0.36 percent globally. [6]
1. However, there is a cost: unbalancing food ecosystem and the potential
for essential dietary nutrients deficiencies. [6]
v. The U.S. healthcare industry is estimated to produce 10% of U.S. greenhouse
gas emissions, making it the “world's 7th largest producer of CO2.” [7, 8]2
vi. Recent research indicates that the Global Warming Potential estimates of
methane from cattle and other ruminants has been overestimated. [9]
II. Claim: Cows occupy land that could produce food for human consumption
a. What is the conventional wisdom?
i. Agricultural land used for beef production could more efficiently be used to
produce plant foods
b. Contradictory Evidence - Cattle live on lands where plants cannot be cultivated
i. “Agricultural land” is not the same as “crop land.” Crop land is a classification of
that portion of agricultural land (or farmland) that is suitable for cultivation. In
the United States, 43% of the farmland is classified as cropland. [10]
ii. The majority of a cow’s life is spent on pasture or rangeland. More than 85
percent of the land where cattle are grazed in the U.S. is not suitable for

1
Cows are ruminants – What are ruminants, anyway? Ruminants are animals belonging to one of two
suborders (Ruminantia and Tylopoda) of herbivorous even-toed hoofed mammals (such as sheep, oxen,
deer, and camels) that chew the cud and have a coplex 3- or 4-chambered stomach.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ruminant

2
Comparisons between studies of this type must be treated carefully to ensure that the methodologies are
compatible. The relevant point is that the health care system itself has an environmental impact that should be,
but frequently isn’t, accounted for in discussions of food system sustainability.

Peter J. Ballerstedt, PhD Ver. 1, Jan 22, 2019 Page |1

 growing crops because it is too rocky, steep and/or arid to support cultivated
agriculture. [8, 9]
iii. Less than 4% of the Earth’s surface is classified suitable for cultivation, while
almost a quarter is deemed suitable for some form of ruminant animal
production (14% rangeland and 10% forest)[10]. So 4-6 times the amount of
arable land can only produce food for humans if we use it for ruminant animal
agriculture. [10, 11]
III. Claim: Cattle compete with humanity for food resources.
a. What is the conventional wisdom?
i. Feed fed to cattle could be fed to humans directly
b. Contradictory Evidence - The feed fed to cattle is largely not the same food that’s fed to
humans
i. Cattle often graze the residues of grain harvest (the stalks and leaves left in the
field after harvest), eat byproducts from milling grains for flour production (e.g.
wheat midds), cottonseed leftover from cotton production, and distillers grains
leftover from brewing, distilling and ethanol, and soy meal from oil and
biodiesel production. [11, 12]
ii. Globally, 86 percent of the feed that livestock consume is inedible to humans
(byproduct and leftover plant matter). [11, 13]
iii. Human-inedible plants and leftovers make up nearly 90 percent of feed needed
to produce a U.S. grain-finished beef animal. Less than 10 percent of this feed is
grain. [14]
iv. Cattle produce 19% more protein that is edible for humans than they consume.
[12]
IV. Claim: Cows do not efficiently convert feed to food for humanity’s use.
a. What is the conventional wisdom?
i. It takes 10 pounds of human-edible grain to produce 1 pound of beef
b. Contradictory Evidence
i. The pounds of human-edible grain fed per pound of meat from cattle is equal
to the amount fed to chickens and lower than that fed to pork (2.5 vs. 3.5).
[15]
V. Claim: Too much water is consumed by cows.
a. What is the conventional wisdom?
i. Figures as high as 2,500, even 8,000 gallons of water required to produce one
pound of beef are cited. [1, 16]
b. Contradictory Evidence
i. Water use varies with region, but in the U.S.it takes, on average, fewer than 450
gallons of water to produce pound of boneless beef (excluding processing). [17]
In the eastern US, where feed crops and pasture are not typically irrigated, the
figure is approximately 25 gallons of water to produce one pound of boneless
beef. [18] For perspective, there are 27,154 gallons per acre inch (an acre is
~209 ft x 209 ft). Average annual precipitation in New York City is 45 inches, or
more than 1.2 million gallons per acre.

Peter J. Ballerstedt, PhD Ver. 1, Jan 22, 2019 Page |2

 ii. Water consumed by crops and livestock isn’t destroyed. It can be recycled via
respiration by plants and animals to the atmosphere as water vapor. Water
excreted by animals as urine and dung can also evaporate or infiltrate into the
soil where it is available for plant growth.
VI. Claim: Plant-based diets are “better for the environment.”
a. What is the conventional wisdom?
i. Plant-based diets would result in less environmental impact
b. Contradictory evidence
i. Humans, like all animals, are heterotrophs3. Put simply, we must consume other
organisms, either plants or animals, as our food supply. The production of either
of those foodstuffs affects the environment. Currently, the percent of U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions from non-animal agriculture is greater than from
animal agriculture (5% vs 4%, respectively). [5]
ii. When the environmental footprint of animal products is based upon the
content of essential amino acids in foods “The production of protein-containing
animal foods would retain a (much) lower environmental impact than that
previously estimated, approximately lying within the range of that of most foods
of vegetal origin, because of the higher quality of animal proteins.” [19] If all of
the other nutrients animal products provide are considered simultaneously, the
environmental footprint favors animal-sourced food production.
iii. Eliminating animal agriculture, especially ruminant animal agriculture, would
require an expansion of crop production that would result in cultivation of
marginal lands that should be conserved as grasslands. [6]
iv. Ninety percent of the feed a typical grain-finished U.S. beef steer consumes
throughout its life is not directly-utilizable by humans. [14]
v. The grain that is fed as part of a ration during the finishing phase is efficiently
converted into protein[10, 12, 13].
vi. The “Least Harm” principle suggests we consume diets including large
herbivores, rather than vegan diets. [20]
vii. The cultivation, or tilling, of soil degrades soil structure, and reduces soil organic
matter content by exposure to oxidation. It also makes the soil more susceptible
to water and wind erosion. Some degree of tillage is required for annual crops.
Ruminant animal agriculture primarily depends upon perennial grasslands. [21]
VII. Swapping meat for plant-based diets would have no impact on human health.
a. What is the conventional wisdom?
i. Calories from plant-sources and animal-sources are metabolically equivalent
ii. Plant-source protein is equivalent to animal-source protein
iii. Rich in phytonutrients
iv. We need plant fiber
v. Plant-sourced foods are “nutrient dense”
b. Contradictory evidence

3
Heterotrophic organisms “require complex organic compounds of nitrogen and carbon (such as that obtained
from plant or animal matter) for metabolic synthesis” (https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/heterotrophic).

Peter J. Ballerstedt, PhD Ver. 1, Jan 22, 2019 Page |3

 i. Animal-sourced foods are superior sources of nutrition for humans. [22]
Isocaloric quantities of plant- and animal-source foods will not have the same
metabolic effects in humans. [23] 4
ii. Animal-sourced foods are much higher in true protein than plant-sourced foods.
Humans cannot utilize the non-protein nitrogen contained in plants. Ruminants,
on the other hand, can convert this into high-quality animal protein. [24, 25]
The biological value of protein in foods from animals is about 1.4 times that of
foods from plants. [12] The quantity and quality of protein is thought to help
regulate food intake in humans (and other animals). [26]
iii. Many essential minerals are not adequately supplied by plant-source foods due
to their absence and/or low bioavailability. [27] The need for phytonutrients
(e.g. antioxidants) is higher on plant-sourced diets. [23] 4
iv. Despite the existence of dietary guidelines for plant fiber intake, the need for
plant fiber in the human diet is not well-established. [23, 28-30] 4
v. “Nutrient Dense”, as defined by in the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for
Americans is explicitly low fat (they do not consider natural fat in animal
products a nutrient). [31] In terms of quantity and quality of nutrients per
calorie consumed (arguably a more rational definition), beef and other animal
products are truly nutrient dense. [32, 33]
VIII. When properly managed, can cattle benefit the environment?

In addition to the reasons already stated,

i. Grasslands, the largest biome on terrestrial earth, must be either grazed or

burned to maintain them in healthy condition. [25] Appropriately managed
grazing seems the preferable option.
ii. Research is demonstrating the ability of well-managed grazing systems to
sequester carbon as organic matter in soils. [34, 35], even becoming a large net
greenhouse gas sink. [36]
iii. The role of grasslands in promoting healthy watersheds is well understood. [37]
IX. Claim: Animal agriculture is wasteful
a. Conventional wisdom
i. Animal agriculture is more wasteful and less efficient than the production of
edible plants.
b. Contradictory evidence
i. Food waste is a critical issue in the challenge meeting the needs of 9.5 billion
people by 2050. [38] One report estimated the amount of food lost (wasted)
across all stages of the production, distribution, and consumption stages at 40%,
with the least loss occurring for the meat and milk categories (22% and 20%,
respectively), far below that for grain products and fresh fruits and vegetables
(38% and 52%, respectively). [39]. These losses are not included in estimations
of efficiency and environmental impact.

4
The author is using Taubes (2008) as a short-hand introduction to a broad body of nutritional study. The text is
well referenced, providing thorough citations to enable additional research.

Peter J. Ballerstedt, PhD Ver. 1, Jan 22, 2019 Page |4

 XI. Claim: Beef production and deforestation
a. Conventional wisdom
i. The primary cause of deforestation is the creation of pasture for beef cattle.
b. Contradictory evidence
“Pasture” is frequently a stage in land transformation from forest to cropland. The data
from the Brazilian frontier state of Mato Grosso suggests that soy production for
biodiesel, feed and food production played a significant role in deforestation. [40] The
expansion of soy production in this region during the beginning of this century displaced
previously cleared pasture, although the rate of forest clearing has declined recently for
a number of reasons (regulations, legislation, improved agricultural practices).

Peter J. Ballerstedt, PhD Ver. 1, Jan 22, 2019 Page |5

1. Cowspiracy. The Facts. [cited 2018 September 20]; Available from:
https://www.cowspiracy.com/facts/.
2. Goodland, R., et al., Livestock and climate change: What if the key actors in climate change are...
cows, pigs, and chickens? 2009.
3. FAO, Livestock’s long shadow, H. Steinfeld, et al., Editors. 2006, Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations.
4. Gerber, P.J., et al., Tackling climate change through livestock: a global assessment of emissions
and mitigation opportunities. Tackling climate change through livestock: a global assessment of
emissions and mitigation opportunities., 2013.
5. EPA. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks. 2018 [cited 2018 September 20];
Available from: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-
and-sinks.
6. White, R.R. and M.B. Hall, Nutritional and greenhouse gas impacts of removing animals from US
agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2017: p. 201707322.
7. US healthcare system is a top producer of greenhouse gas emissions, in Becher's Hospital
Review. 2016.
8. Eckelman, M.J. and J. Sherman, Environmental Impacts of the U.S. Health Care System and
Effects on Public Health. PLOS ONE, 2016. 11(6): p. e0157014.
9. Allen, M.R., et al., A solution to the misrepresentations of CO2-equivalent emissions of short-
lived climate pollutants under ambitious mitigation. npj Climate and Atmospheric Science, 2018.
1(1): p. 16.
10. NASS, U., Census of Agriculture, 2012. 2011. 2012.
11. Capper, J.L., et al., Animal Feed vs. Human Food: Challenges and Opportunities in Sustaining
Animal Agriculture Toward 2050. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, 2013. 53: p. 1-
16.
12. CAST, Animal Agriculture and Global Food Supply. 1999, Council on Agricultural Science and
Technology.
13. Mottet, A., et al., Livestock: On our plates or eating at our table? A new analysis of the feed/food
debate. Global Food Security, 2017. 14: p. 1-8.
14. Medicine, N.A.o.S.E., Nutrient requirements of beef cattle. 2016: National Academies Press.
15. Coffey, C., The Efficiency of Beef Produciton, in AG News and Views. 2001, The samuel Roberts
Noble Foundation.
16. Capper, J.L., The environmental impact of beef production in the United States: 1977 compared
with 2007. Journal of Animal Science, 2011. 89: p. 4249-4261.
17. Beckett, J.L. and J.W. Oltjen, Estimation of the water requirement for beef production in the
United States. Journal of animal science, 1993. 71: p. 818-826.
18. Asem-Hiablie, S., et al., Management characteristics of beef cattle production in the eastern
United States. The Professional Animal Scientist, 2018. 34(4): p. 311-325.
19. Tessari, P., A. Lante, and G. Mosca, Essential amino acids: master regulators of nutrition and
environmental footprint? Scientific Reports, 2016. 6: p. 26074.
20. Davis, S.L., The least harm principle may require that humans consume a diet containing large
herbivores, not a vegan diet. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 2003. 16: p. 387-
394.
21. Brady, N.C. and R.R. Weil, The nature and properties of soils. Rev. 14th ed. 2008, Upper Saddle
River, N.J. ; Columbus, Ohio: Pearson Prentice Hall. xvi, 975 pages, 18 pages of plates.

Peter J. Ballerstedt, PhD Ver. 1, Jan 22, 2019 Page |6

22. Ottoboni, A. and F. Ottoboni, The Modern Nutritional Diseases and How to Prevent Them. 2013:
p. 304.
23. Taubes, G., Good Calories, Bad Calories: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom on Diet, Weight
Control, and Disease. 2007.
24. Church, D.C., The Ruminant Animal: Digestive Physiology and Nutrition. 1993.
25. Van Soest, P.J., Nutritional ecology of the ruminant. 2nd ed. 1994, Ithaca: Comstock Pub. xii, 476
p.
26. Simpson, S.J. and D. Raubenheimer, Obesity: The protein leverage hypothesis. Obesity Reviews,
2005. 6: p. 133-142.
27. Ortega-Barrales, P. and M.L. Fernández-de Córdova, Meat, in Handbook of Mineral Elements in
Food, M. de la Guardia and S. Garrigues, Editors. 2015, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. p. 599-619.
28. Ho, K.-S., et al., Stopping or reducing dietary fiber intake reduces constipation and its associated
symptoms. World Journal of Gastroenterology: WJG, 2012. 18(33): p. 4593.
29. Peery, A.F., et al., A high-fiber diet does not protect against asymptomatic diverticulosis.
Gastroenterology, 2012. 142: p. 266-272.e1.
30. Peery, A.F., et al., Constipation and a low-fiber diet are not associated with diverticulosis. Clinical
Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 2013. 11: p. 1622-1627.
31. HHS and USDA. 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 8th Edition. in 2015 – 2020 Dietary
Guidelines for Americans (8th edition). 2015.
32. Binnie, M.A., et al., Red meats: Time for a paradigm shift in dietary advice. Meat Science, 2014.
98: p. 445-451.
33. Williams, P., Nutritional composition of red meat. Nutrition & Dietetics, 2007. 64: p. S113-S119.
34. Machmuller, M.B., et al., Emerging land use practices rapidly increase soil organic matter.
Nature Communications, 2015. 6: p. 6995.
35. Teague, W.R., et al., The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture's carbon footprint in North
America. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 2016. 71: p. 156-164.
36. Stanley, P.L., et al., Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in
Midwestern USA beef finishing systems. J Agricultural Systems, 2018. 162: p. 249-258.
37. Heath, M.E., R.F. Barnes, and D.S. Metcalfe, Forages : the science of grassland agriculture. 4th
ed. 1985, Ames, Iowa, U.S.A.: Iowa State University Press. xiv, 643 p.
38. FAO, Global food losses and food waste - Extent, causes and prevention. 2011.
39. Gunders, D., Wasted: How America Is Losing Up to 40 Percent of Its Food from Farm to Fork to
Landfill. 2012, NRDC.
40. Macedo, M.N., et al., Decoupling of deforestation and soy production in the southern Amazon
during the late 2000s. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2012. 109(4): p. 1341-
1346.

Peter J. Ballerstedt, PhD Ver. 1, Jan 22, 2019 Page |7