Free-Range Pasture Systems Not a Viable Solution

The following is part 2 of a four-part post by guest contributor Harold Brown. See the first part here. -SE

I have noticed a few things in recent articles and conversations that I would like to share my two cents on.

First, many people think that if we do give up eating meat, whether for health, environmental, or ethical/moral reasons, we will be overrun with feral farm animals. The reality is that all farm animals are purpose-bred. I seriously doubt that the world will stop eating animals and their by-products by the end of the week, which means we have to look at animal agriculture for what it is: a food supply system. In other words, as demand goes down, the herd and flock densities go down. Nearly all farm animals are artificially inseminated, regardless of the size of the operation. AI (artificial insemination) not only guarantees impregnation, but also allows for controlling the genome or bloodline with the most favorable traits and genetics. This is highly desirable to animal producers. If a producer doesn't have the demand, then he/she will not be calling the AI guy as often. Some farm animals, if they were to become feral, wouldn't be able to survive in most of the United States. Humans have manipulated their structures to the point that, say, pigs no longer have the back fat to allow them to survive cold winters. Quite honestly, the farm animals we recognize today are mere caricatures of their ancestors. Shadows of what God created. Now some people will say that the heritage breeds will be the answer. Not really, and here is why.

I have read discussions about managed grazing and pasture management. Generally speaking, land has to be "managed" because livestock are destructive to grasslands and pastures, and most grasslands are marginal for forage. That is why we have the feedlot system to make up for what the interior and far West lack. Sure they will poop and put some nutrients back in the soil, but even with multi-species rotational grazing, the net effect is depletion of native plants, pollution of waterways (unless riparian rights are being strictly enforced), soil compaction, and loss of habitat for free-living animals.

To claim that cattle are necessary for soil fertility is an open admission that they are four legged compost bins. But here is the biggest problem. So many authors, organizations, and experts recommend that we institute free-range, pasture-based systems for all farm animals. I'm here to tell you it can't be done.

Let's apply a little common sense. At any given time there are in excess of 10 billion farm animals living in the U.S. What would happen if we turned them all out to pasture? The consensus among most in communities such as Change.org is that CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations) are bad and should be done away with. But even with CAFOs, we are, at the moment, in a land-use deficit situation because of livestock production. According to the USDA, 86% of everything we grow in the United States is put down the throat of farm animals. How do we make up this deficit? The sea: about 50% of all marine life that is taken from the sea, and that is not fed back to fish, is fed to farm animals as protein supplement or used for fertilizer to grow feed crops. Even with open pasture systems, and if there was some way to reclaim tillable land for pasture, there are simply too many farm animals and not enough land. And the problem is only going to get worse. Animal product consumption is still rising, which means more animals requiring more space, more water, more resources. And again, the loss of habitat for free-living animals.

Back to the contention that grass-fed beef is better for the environment than feedlot-finished. Recent research that was done at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, has shown that the opposite is true. According to their research comparing GHG (greenhouse gases) intensities of grass- vs. grain-finishing, it is roughly on the order of 50% higher in grass-finished systems. Why? It is due to the much higher requirement of feed throughput per animal associated with methane and nitrous oxide (GHG). Open pastures for grass-fed cattle require high management and are subject to periodic fertilization and renovation. The reason for renovation is to mitigate diseases like Johne's disease and parasites. There is also a problem with soil compaction so that the actual land you need to maintain magnifies the GHG difference. There is a calculus to beef production; on feedlots cattle are on pasture for about 12 months and then moved to feedlots to be finished (fattened) for about two months. That is to say that a cow who has a normal lifespan of about 20-30 years is slaughtered at 14 months old. On grass-fed operations it takes longer to bring a steer to optimal slaughter weight on body confirmation. It takes about two years. This means more time having an impact on the land, water, air, and wildlife. Can we now see the reason grass-fed cattle may have a bigger impact on the environment?

---
Up next: Growing global population, the export of the Western diet, and aquaculture.

Top: USDA photo

Next, see part 3, "Cattle Culture, Aquaculture, and Export of the Western Diet," and part 4, "Veganic Farming: A Sustainable (and Compassionate) Solution."