It seems that the green movement has chosen beef as their poster child for all that is wrong with agriculture. I agree that overconsumption of any one thing, including beef, is likely to have negative effects on health and that livestock produce methane, an important greenhouse gas. Most of the vilification though appears to stem from high profile news stories about livestock production in feedlots.
However, I am continually amazed to see cattle and wildlife convert the inedible semi-arid grasslands that surround where I live in Montana into something that I can use (meat and leather) and provide incomes for others in the region. I certainly could not survive by eating native plants from the northern steppe mixed-grass prairie but ruminant livestock can. This makes me think that a piece of the production cycle is likely being overlooked by the critics of livestock production as they selectively choose to portray the industry as one dimensional. Here in Montana (ranking in the top 10 cattle production states), most cattle are supported by grasslands (i.e. rangelands) for a considerable portion of the year. Our extreme winters require that many receive supplementation (hay) in the winter but use rangelands during much of the year. In fact, the production cycle has been set to maximize utilization of the natural rangeland forges/NPP (i.e. late winter/early spring calving) to build the bulk of a cow while they are mostly just maintained over winter. We still have feedlots but they are rare relatively to rangeland fed beef production systems. Although you can cherry pick examples of how livestock grazing degrades regional rangelands (probably mostly from other regions), most producers (& BLM) in the region have adopted grazing management that is sustainable. This region historically had bison, so the grasslands are resistant to grazing. In many respects, the livestock are now functional analogs to bison (see http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/04-1958). I suspect bison also emit methane. To have a sustainable business and maintain the numerous multi-generational ranches in the region, livestock producers HAD to develop sustainable practices since the days of the open range, overgrazing, and forage exploitation are long gone. This has helped to maintain relatively natural and diverse grasslands throughout the region that probably don't look that different from what they did ~120 years ago when bison grazed the region (but who really knows). This region has found what appears to be a balance between maintaining considerable natural habitat and wildlife while also providing food and fiber that provide incomes and maintain livelihoods to those in rural communities. In most cases, I would say the livestock industry is an important partner in maintaining natural lands and wildlife in this region much more than an antagonist. Most livestock operations here make money by selling cattle that are exported to other states and likely end up on feedlots at the later stages of their production cycle (e.g. 8 months or more prior to slaughter) [I know that uses fossil fuels]. They are moved to feedlots to improve their meat quality which is now part of market expectations. However, much of their body was built off of resources from natural grasslands. I suspect it is inaccurate to assume that most cattle on feedlots have been their for their entire lives eating corn. Someone out there probably has an actual statistic for the % of American beef that have spent at least a portion of their lives on rangelands. So lets not get too caught up in negative stereotypes and not forget that livestock production systems are diverse and some help to support natural systems that other forms of agriculture/development would likely degrade while still providing food, fiber, and incomes. Kurt Kurt Reinhart, Research Ecologist USDA-ARS Fort Keogh Livestock & Range Research Laboratory 243 Fort Keogh Road Miles City, MT 59301 USA email: [email protected] Office: (406) 874-8211 Fax: (406) 874-8289 educational website: http://iecology.net -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kevin McCluney Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 8:50 PM Subject: Are ecologists the problem? I recently attended the 2009 annual meeting of the Ecological Society of America (ESA). The theme of this year's meeting was sustainability. There were many great talks on this subject and a few truly pessimistic ones. One speaker proposed that human beings are, by our very nature, destined to consume and reproduce as much as possible, and despite our best efforts, this will lead to our own demise. During the same talk the speaker also asked, "who is responsible?" He answered his question by saying that we at this conference are just as much a part of the problem as anyone else. Is this true? I know I myself have taken many steps to lower my footprint and many other ecologists have as well. For instance, at last year's ESA meeting in Milwaukee there was an interesting occurrence at local restaurants. The first night of the conference I had a really good veggie burger at one restaurant. I went back later in the week for another. The waitress apologized... they were all out. She went on to explain that the manager had heard our conference was coming to town, so bought extra ahead of time, but ran out of those quickly anyway. The manager then went to the local grocery store and bought more. But alas, by the time I returned, they had run out of those as well. Further, when I dine with friends at ESA meetings, I often find that more than half the table orders vegetarian entrees. Why does eating vegetarian matter so much? Modern, industrialized livestock production is one of the more environmentally destructive human endeavors. It contributes roughly one fifth of all our greenhouse gas emissions, more than all cars, and these gases are major contributors to the rapid climate change we're experiencing. Livestock production also may, in certain cases, be leading to deforestation and destruction of important ecosystems, as well as to pollution of rivers, lakes, and even oceans. In addition, we all know that basic ecological principles hold that it takes less resources to raise plant based food sources than meat based, since energy is lost as you move up the food chain. Thus we can feed more people and use fewer resources on a plant-based diet. All this caused the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently to proclaim that the best thing a person could do to reduce their impact on climate change was to eat a more plant- based diet. My wife and I haven't stopped at eating low on the food chain. We've also joined community supported agriculture, where we buy a share of produce from a local farm. The farmer gets upfront economic security and we get very affordable, local, fresh organic produce. We pay just $18 per week for a large bag of food. At this price we can afford to supplement our diet with additional organic items from the grocery store. We've also taken a variety of other steps, from riding my bike to work, to offsetting car and air travel through renewable energy from an independently certified company, to buying 100% of our electricity from renewable sources through our local utility for as little as $15 per month. While we may not be reaching the small ecological footprint of those in many third world countries, we've done our best to come in line with our planet's limits while maintaining a decent quality of life. So, are ecologists just as much a part of the problem as everyone else? Are all ecologists the same? What are the variety of lifestyle choices made by ecologists? Not only would the answers to these questions provide a response to the ESA presenter, but I think the answer would be interesting to a wide audience. I propose that ESA conduct a poll of members, asking questions about lifestyle choices and demographics, comparing ours to that of the general public. If we are not different, this would be a bit of a wake-up call. However, if we are different, then perhaps some of our lifestyle choices would be informative to understanding how to achieve a more sustainable society. If there is one thing I learned from a cultural anthropology course I once took, it was that there isn't just one right way to live. Human cultures throughout the world are very diverse. But, from the inside of one culture it is often very hard to see other ways to live. Let us not be trapped in our culture, but seek a better understanding of all the ways of living, so that we might find a more sustainable path. -- Kevin E. McCluney Graduate Student School of Life Sciences Arizona State University Tempe, AZ 85287-4601
