There's good news in store if you like beef. A study by Washington State University found that the environmental impact of beef has decreased substantially since 1977. The findings detailed significant reductions in several aspects of livestock farming, including feed, water use and fossil fuel energy.
A mixed diet with beef takes a large environmental toll. A study by the University of Chicago quantified it at 2.52 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. That is about nine percent of the average person's carbon footprint. While nine percent may not seem like a lot, other more obvious contributors are not far ahead, including home electricity at approximately 12 percent.
Breaking Down the Costs
The entire process of meat production is costly. For comparison, a study by AgResearch broke down the cost as it relates to sheep farming in New Zealand. Researchers estimated that up to 80 percent of the carbon footprint is at the farm stage. This means that there is plenty of room for even more improvement, based on the Washington State University findings.
Both industries made strides toward reducing their environmental costs. The beef industry study found a carbon footprint reduction of 16.3 percent. The sheep industry study documented a 22 percent drop. While these findings are encouraging, a vegetarian lifestyle still trumps them all.
Cost of a Vegetarian Diet
A study published by Vegetarian Times estimated that nearly eight million Americans are vegetarians or about 3.2 percent. Of that number, about one million follow a vegan diet. The difference in the carbon footprint of these lifestyles is significant.
A vegetarian diet has a substantially smaller carbon footprint because of the absence of meat. The Vegetarian Times study estimated this diet saves about one ton of carbon dioxide equivalents a year. A vegan diet that eliminates all animal products saves two tons.
Even if you are not ready to give up steak just yet, you still can shave off a significant amount off of your carbon footprint by adopting a part-time vegetarian diet. If you saved your steak dinner for the weekends, you'd save 0.7 tons.
The Future of Beef
There is another thing to consider regarding a diet with beef. One of the concerns with animal products is the risk of foodborne illnesses. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that there were nearly 50 million cases in 2011, resulting in 3,037 deaths. Herein lies the connection between the carbon footprint of beef and food safety.
Cattle fed a grass-based diet have a lower environmental impact than grain-fed livestock. The costs of producing grain are higher than pasture or hay production. The benefit lies in the fact that grass-fed beef produce fewer acid-resistant E. coli bacteria, explains a study by the USDA Agricultural Research Service.
These findings represent a win both for the consumer and the agricultural industry. The consumer benefits with a safer product, and the farmer saves costs. The environment also benefits if the future of beef continues to follow this course.
Sources:
- Capper, J. (2012). The environmental impact of beef production in the United States: 1977 compared with 2007. Journal of Animal Science, 89(12), 4249-4261. doi:10.2527/jas.2010-3784
- Dunn, C. (2012). Eat a Vegetarian Diet, Reduce Your Carbon Footprint by a Ton. TLC. Retrieved from http://planetgreen.discovery.com
- Eishel, G., & Martin, P. (2006). Diet, Energy and Global Warming. Earth Interactions, 10, Paper No. 9. Retrieved from http://pge.uchicago.edu
- Russell, J., Diez-Gonzalez, F., & Jarvis, G. (2000). Potential effect of cattle diets on the transmission opathogenic Escherichia coli to humans. Microbes and Infection, 2(1), 45-53. doi:10.1016/S1286-4579(00)00286-0
- Vegetarianism In America. (2008).Vegetarian Times. Retrieved from http://www.vegetariantimes.com
