Posts

4 things you should know about beef production and the environment

/15 Comments/in , /by

Canadians care about the environment, and want the facts. When it comes to the beef industry, it’s easy to find information about the environmental impacts of beef production, such as greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from the digestive processes of cows. But it can be hard for Canadians to find balanced information – to learn, for instance, that beef production can also be good for the environment in a variety of ways.

Here are four ways beef production benefits the environment:

  1. Much of the land used for grazing cattle is unsuitable for crop production – for instance because it is too hilly, too stony, too boggy or too dry.
  2. Grasslands help maintain watersheds, sequester carbon, prevent erosion and support biodiversity.
  3. Much of the grain used by feedlots is not of a high enough quality for human consumption.
  4. Feedlots are able to use otherwise wasted by-products, such as waste from grain ethanol plants.

To help explain the environmental impact of the Canadian beef industry, Beef Advocacy Canada produced the following video which shows how beef production can actually be good for the environment:

As you can see, protecting the environment is a top priority for Canada’s beef producers. But there’s always more that can be done.

Striving for improvement

To find out how the beef industry is working to improve its environmental impacts, we spoke with Reynold Bergen, science director at the Beef Cattle Research Council. Reynold explained that the development and adoption of new production technologies, more efficient feeds and improved animal care has benefited people, cattle and the environment.

“Raising a kilogram of Canadian beef today generates 15 per cent less greenhouse gas than 30 years ago,” said Reynold. “We can also produce as much beef as we did 30 years ago using 29 per cent fewer cattle, and using 24 per cent less land.”

Check out the ways our members make environmental stewardship a priority in ‘How Alberta’s cattle feeders are helping protect the environment’, ‘Taking the heat off meat: the truth about GHG emissions’ and ‘The beef industry and sustainability: how are we doing and where could we improve?’

4 ways proposed changes to the Canada Food Guide could be bad for our health

/13 Comments/in , /by

For 40 years, Health Canada has urged Canadians to follow its dietary guidelines, and using the Canada Food Guide is considered a basic reference when it comes to healthy eating.

As we learn more about nutrition and health, it makes sense that recommendations will change over time, and the Guide should be kept updated. But recently proposed changes have many people, including doctors, worried.

Of particular concern to Canada’s beef industry is a recommendation that Canadians eat less meat. They are encouraged to replace animal proteins with plant-based proteins, partly for health reasons and partly for environmental considerations.

Why 717 Canadian physicians disagree with Health Canada

In July 2017, a group of 717 Canadian physicians and allied health professionals sent an open letter to the Canadian Office of Nutrition Policy and Promotion expressing their concerns about several aspects of the new Guide, including the recommendation to eat less red meat. These health professionals have been successfully using food and diet to help reverse disease and made the following points:

    • The Guide continues to recommend reducing consumption of saturated fats, despite “essentially overwhelming evidence now that saturated fat is not harmful in the diet and does not cause heart disease, but rather that the low fat dietary pattern has very likely caused harm”.
    • The caution against red meat does not stand up to “rigorous clinical trial data which does not demonstrate any negative health consequences from eating meat.” The physicians cited a recent review which shows no negative influence on cardiovascular risk factors with red meat intake of more than 0.5 servings per day.

“The advice to eat less red meat may already be having some unintended consequences. A recent report by Public Health England shows that 25% of working age women do not have enough iron in their diet, and that almost half of teenage girls are at risk of iron-deficiency anemia. Encouraging all population groups to eat less red and processed meat … is not helpful and places women at risk of iron deficiency and related anemia.”

You can read the full letter here.

Four ways the new Guide could be counter-productive

    1. The Guide plans to eliminate the meat category and replace it with a proteins category. The implication that all proteins are created equal is misleading – red meats are the best source of high-quality, dietary protein relative to caloric intake.
    2. Red meats are an excellent part of a balanced diet because they are so rich in nutrients such as zinc, iron and Vitamin B12.
    3. Saturated fats are now known to play an important role in a healthy, balanced diet.
    4. Dietary guidelines should be first and foremost about nutrition, rather than environmental considerations.

Why environmental considerations don’t belong in nutritional recommendations

Nutrition and the environment are diverse issues that should not be confused. According to Tom Lynch-Staunton, issues manager for the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, “it’s absolutely important for us as an industry to look at ways to improve our environmental impacts, but the food guide should be about nutrition; about human health, which is complex enough.”

“The Guide should provide recommendations for a variety of different diets so that people can get the best nutrition possible, and not confuse that with other issues such as the environment.”

Tom also explained that the environmental impacts of agriculture as an industry are incredibly complex.

“It’s very misleading to look at one measurement, such as greenhouse gas emissions per pound of beef,” he said. “Although the data suggests that cattle produce the most methane emissions of any livestock, we also know that cattle can provide great benefits to the environment – they use food sources that we can’t use, such as feed grains or crop residues, and they are able to graze natural grasslands that aren’t very well suited to farming crops or vegetables. We also know that grasslands promote biodiversity, providing wildlife habitat, a water filtration system and nutrient dispersion, as well as storing huge amounts of carbon.”

You can read about some of the research into greenhouse gas emissions in these blog posts:

Emissions research part 2: helping cattle feeders reduce their impact on the environment, and on their neighbours

/14 Comments/in , /by

Last week on this blog we talked about a research project that is helping us understand the greenhouse gas emissions from feedlots. We explained why the project was needed and what it studied.

This week we continue our conversation with Dr. Sean McGinn of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to find out how the study will help Canada’s cattle feeders minimize their impact on the environment.

Early results

The study showed that 14 per cent of the ammonia emitted at feedlots is redeposited in the immediate vicinity of the feedlot, and reemitted into the atmosphere.  “That 14 per cent is a large amount considering a typical feedlot emits one to two tonnes of ammonia per day,” said Sean. However, it is worth noting that the amount of ammonia in the soil decreased by 50 per cent over a distance of just 200 metres.

Sean explained that the implications of this depositing and reemitting of ammonia is a mixed bag of good, bad and indifferent:

    • Improved crop production – if ammonia falls in soils that are low in nitrogen it can actually reduce the need for fertilizer and increase crop production.
    • Damage to ecosystems – when ammonia is deposited to a natural ecological surface – where plants have adapted to a specific nitrogen content in the soil – the loading of these ecosystems with ammonia can disrupt the plant composition.
    • No effect on feedlot odours – ammonia concentrations are often thought to contribute to feedlot odour, but the concentrations, even close to the feedlot, are well below the detection threshold concentration (as documented by atmospheric health studies) – feedlot odour is not related to ammonia release.
    • Neutralizing of atmospheric acids – when ammonia is emitted into the atmosphere, it can be transported long distances where it has a role in neutralizing atmospheric acids.
    • Potential for exacerbating respiratory problems – where the acids are in high concentration (associated with cities) and where animal agriculture is established, there is an accumulation of fine aerosols that causes respiratory problems for people living in the area. This can be seen in the Fraser Valley of B.C.

Moving forward

Feedlot operators are serious about operating sustainably and responsibly. With new measurement tools in place, it means our industry is better placed to minimize its effects on the environment, and also to help inform public policy.

As Dr. Karen Koenig, another researcher at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, explains in her article, ‘New methane and ammonia mitigation options in the pipeline’, there are immediate changes feedlot operators can make to reduce the ammonia emissions from their operations:

    • The amount of ammonia emitted from manure can be reduced by changing the amount of crude protein fed to cattle.
    • There are also new forages available that contain substances known to bind nitrogen in manure. “In research we look for win-win results that not only benefit the environment, but also increase efficiencies,” Sean noted. “The retention of valuable nitrogen in manure can result in a savings of thousands of dollars each day in fertilizer costs, while helping reduce atmospheric dispersion.”

To learn more about the research project, check out part one of this series, and be sure to read this earlier blog post, ‘What do you know about cows and GHG emissions?’.