The beef industry acts as a microcosm of the ecological changes that need to be made in food and agriculture.
Peter Nomeland
The future of our planet may rely on cattle. That’s not a typo. Many climate scientists and experts believe that crucial changes in the beef and dairy industries are needed to meet the demands of climate action projections provided by organizations such as the United Nations (U.N.) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The bottom line is that things need to change.
In early 2019, U.S. Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ed Markey reintroduced the Green New Deal. This comprehensive economic policy proposal takes a big-picture approach, mostly focusing on fossil fuel emissions and the future of energy. Many right-wing pundits and politicians have chosen to focus on an unfounded claim that the bill would decrease the beef industry to a fraction of its size as a consequence of the methane or — for lack of a better phrase — “cow farts” this industry produces.
In actuality, the bill is relatively light on U.S. agriculture, focusing more on fossil fuels and large-scale energy solutions. However, it does state that the proposal will work alongside U.S. ranchers and farmers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pollution.
Hamburgers and steaks seem to be safe, even if this long-shot bill were to pass; but what will the future of beef look like? Even if the grim projections of our planet’s future outlined by the U.N. and other scientific experts don’t come to fruition, society will still have to make significant changes to our daily lives to curb the dangers that climate change will cause. None of these changes may be as straightforward as the changes to our food or, more importantly, how that food is made.
There have been numerous studies done on what the agriculture business should do in order to be more eco-friendly and sustainable. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), agriculture accounts for around nine percent of all carbon emissions in the United States, with the beef and dairy industries responsible for nearly two-thirds. Climate experts are trying to change this by looking into new ways to farm to reduce emissions.
Mike Miles, a farmer in Luck, Wisconsin, said that cows can actually be a part of the solution. Miles runs a farm that utilizes “regenerative agriculture,” which is designed to improve soil health and promote carbon sequestration. “This is really going to be the future of agriculture,” Miles claimed. The practice places a special emphasis on water management, the amount of fertilizer used on a daily basis, and other things focused on minimizing climate harm.
Not only will this practice improve the soil and make for a more eco-friendly and ethical way of farming, but it’s also a more cost-efficient way for new farmers to get into the industry. “There’s not a lot of investment; it’s the best way for new farmers to get into agriculture,” Miles said.
So why is this not a widely accepted new-age way of farming in a climate-weary world? “Farmers are slow to change their practices,” Miles said.
The price of some parts of regenerative agriculture can have a strong impact on whether farmers adopt the practice, said Erin Courtus, a professor of bioproducts and biosystems at the University of Minnesota. “Anytime you change practices, there can be some increased costs. Some people don’t have that luxury because of time or cost constraints, but sometimes it’s necessary,” she stated.
In theory, more investment and regulation would be required to make the type of large-scale change the Green New Deal proposes while allowing smaller farmers to still have agency over their business. Until then, the pressure is on individual farmers and businesses to decide how to manage their farms in an eco-friendly and cost-efficient manner.
Experts claim that to accomplish this, support from other business sectors is required. “I think it’s putting a lot of pressure on agriculture to figure out the ways of sequestering carbon that have to offset not only what agriculture is producing, but also offset what’s happening from fossil fuels,” said Michael Schultz, head of animal science at the University of Minnesota.
Schultz has observed improvements over the years in cattle agriculture and says that strides have been made in aspects like optimizing production. More meat, milk and dairy products can be produced from a single cow today than in past years, meaning fewer cows — and cow farts.
The types of cattle food farmers use also has an impact on emissions. Researchers at the University of California, Davis, led by Frank Mitloehner, have come to the conclusion that the diet of cattle, especially from the feed used on large-scale farms, is crucial in determining the amount of methane produced per cow. These changes won’t rid the world of hamburgers, UC Davis argues in its findings, but they will drastically alter U.S. cattle farming practices. While some farmers are hesitant, many are optimistic about what the future entails.
Kelly Tope — the founder of Farmaste, an animal sanctuary that rescues displaced farm animals in Lindstrom, Minn. — was initially not optimistic about ethical and environmental changes in agriculture. “I used to say when I first came into the sanctuary business and first became vegan that nowhere in my lifetime are we ever going to see a large change like this,” she said. “Over the past five years, I actually had to kind of eat those words.”
While veganism does not play a prominent role in the discussion of climate change, the increased number of “beyond meat” products offers a sliver of hope that there may be a beef alternative. “Seeing the people starting to get on board with it, that’s going to help continue to enact true change,” Tope said.