Beef production in the Americas, particularly in South America, is an important economic activity with far-reaching cultural and social effects, as well as significant implications for global food and nutritional security.
In 2022, the Americas produced 33.9 million tons of beef, representing 49 per cent of total global production. Of the amount produced by the region, 35 per cent was destined for export.
Small- and medium-scale producers in Latin America and the Caribbean generate more than 60 per cent of the total production of beef, poultry and pork in the region. Likewise, they produce more than 99 per cent of meat from other species that are an important part of the diet of rural communities (rabbits, goats, sheep and camelids), as well as other basic foods of high nutritional value, such as dairy products, which are essential in combating persistently high levels of malnutrition.
In Central America, for example, close to 86 per cent of livestock operations are small farms, rearing between 4 and 20 animals on less than 18 hectares. Moreover, nearly 65 per cent of agricultural practitioners in the region derive part of their livelihood from the livestock sector.
For many experts, the levels of livestock production impose an environmental cost that has sparked debate and international controversy. Some have laid the blame for environmental degradation squarely on cattle.
Prestigious academic centres in the Northern Hemisphere have spun a narrative that must be examined objectively.
In 2018, an article published by two Oxford University scientists in the journal Science, using data from 119 countries, argued that the beef value chain has a disproportionate impact on levels of greenhouse gas emissions, land and water resource use, as well as environmental pollution.
For example, it concluded that, globally, production of a kilogramme of beef versus a kilogramme of wheat emits 63 times more carbon, uses 83 times more land, creates 10 times as much deforestation of native forests, utilises 8.5 times more fresh water and pollutes the environment 42 times more.
Undoubtedly, these figures may be particularly significant in countries and regions where beef production must compete with other economic sectors for the same scarce resources, such as land and water, which given their importance is reflected in international reports and debates.
The media and documentaries have disseminated this data widely to a public that is keenly aware of environmental issues. Moreover, publications of respected entities have reported that livestock value chains are responsible for between 14.5 to 18 per cent of global carbon emissions, more than half of which are from beef cattle and other ruminants.
All of this has prompted environmental activist groups, academics and supporters of meat-free diets to intensify campaigns criticising livestock production and promoting the substitution of vegetables for meat (particularly beef).
Can this narrative be extrapolated to all the livestock regions of the world? Well, clearly, there are two problems we must resolve, one of them discursive and the other methodological.
The discursive problem is that the focus of attention has been misdirected, as is the case with greenhouse gas emissions. Interested campaigns have sought to convince some of the public that cattle are the main culprit for global warming and not the fossil fuel that society itself generates, and which is responsible for 75 per cent of global emissions.
The methodological issue is more complex, because it is the specialists who must determine what and how we measure. The Carbon Footprint is a well-publicised metric throughout the Northern Hemisphere, which is used to quantify levels of emissions per ton of meat produced. It is the sum of all the carbon emitted by each link of the production chain—from primary production to processing, packaging, transportation, retail distribution, etc.
Based on this logic, each kilogramme of meat that reaches the supermarket shelf has a much higher carbon load than when it left the farmgate. Thus, the contribution of the primary producer is diluted, and he/she loses identity, due to the emissions that occur elsewhere in other links of the chain.
However, there are other sides to the problem (here we can mention, without addressing it in depth, the fact that animal protein is an essential nutrient that is critical to healthy human development, and that, for example, to obtain the equivalent protein level one would need 454 grammes of black beans versus 85 grammes of good steak).
Given the fact that the Carbon Footprint only estimates emissions without considering carbon sequestration and storage in plants and soils, it is disregarding an important factor: mitigation.
This leads us to another complementary metric: the Carbon Balance, which estimates the difference between the carbon that a rural farm system emits versus what it stores. The Carbon Balance provides a valid option to award livestock producers for effective management, having learned how to mitigate emissions.
Another methodological problem is related to the methane that beef cattle emit. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas with a contribution to global warming that is 30 times greater than that of carbon dioxide (CO2).
However, carbon dioxide remains in the environment 100 times longer than methane and the carbon in the methane molecule is not of fossil origin but is the product of biological recycling. Pastures capture atmospheric carbon through photosynthesis and the cattle metabolise the grass and return it to the atmosphere as methane. Thus, although cattle emit methane, when best practices are applied, the net carbon balance is zero.
If we revisit the article published in Science, we see that the results do not consider the variable of intensification. There is a variety, a wide variety of cattle production systems on the planet.
Recent research results indicate that per hectare, extensive livestock production, when practiced sustainably—mainly in South America—has a much lower environmental impact than intensive production. In practice, by not competing with other human activities for land or for water, the impact of livestock production becomes insignificant.
In conclusion, figures relating to intensive livestock production do not apply equally to the planet’s extensive systems. Beyond the narrative, there are other realities that must be considered rather than basing judgements on partial information.
Manuel Otero is the Director General of the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA)
Ernesto Viglizzo is the Corresponding Member of the National Academy of Agronomy and Veterinary Sciences of Argentina.
The post Cows and the environment: Between the reality and the narrative appeared first on Barbados Today.
