Being Passionate About Both Agriculture and the Environment Go Hand-In-Hand

Written by: Constance Cullman   |   April 22, 2020

Environmental footprint

Every year when Earth Day rolls around, I celebrate the marvels that our environmental ecosystems are.  The abundance of biodiversity on our planet is one to celebrate. Biodiversity keeps our planet healthy and simultaneously provides us with countless opportunities to harness nature to provide the feed, food, fiber and fuel needed to sustain our society. It is an amazing balance that also requires anyone involved in agriculture to wisely use our resources and conserve them for our future.

Strangely though, every year, I am asked how I can be both a passionate proponent of agriculture AND a passionate environmentalist. I was raised by a father who not only believed in the importance of producing food, but also viewed our duty to protect our environment as a privilege. So, to me, it is a puzzling question until you look at the messages bombarding the public saying that you cannot have both a productive food supply and a healthy environment.

“If you repeat something enough times, it becomes accepted truth.” No one is quite sure who originally expressed this idea but it has been used by individuals advancing agendas for decades – if not centuries.  We face those “accepted truths” in agriculture. One of the more recent accusations is that, because of methane emissions, meat consumption is a major contributor to global warming and an irresponsible diet choice. This accusation has repeatedly been exposed as false but it is one that refuses to give ground to overwhelming scientific evidence.

In its report, “U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released 2018 data that shows that U.S. farmers and ranchers continue to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per unit of production. The entire U.S. agriculture sector accounts for less than 10% of total U.S. emissions. In reviewing EPA’s numbers, the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) found that if credit was given to agriculture for the carbon sequestrated by the industry, it would be even lower. 

But what about livestock? AFBF’s "Market Intel" report, based on EPA’s analysis, details the per-unit reduction of methane from livestock since 1990. During this 30-year period, swine emissions per unit of pork produced fell more than 18%, dairy emissions per unit of milk declined by almost 25% and emissions per unit of beef production fell nearly 8%.  Wait…what? I thought livestock production was a major source for greenhouse gases?

Not true, says other scientists. In a study by researcher Mary Beth Hall of the U.S. Dairy Forage Research Center and Professor Robin White of Virginia Tech share that if everyone in the United States were to give up meat once a week, it would only result in a 0.3% decrease in GHG emissions. If Americans were to become 100% vegan, we would see a 2.6% reduction in GHGs. It is not zero, but it is certainly not the major reduction one would assume it would be from the constant barrage of messages to eliminate meat consumption. Eliminating meat would also mean forgoing an efficient source of protein and essential micro- and macronutrients, which are not found in plants.

University of California-Davis researcher Frank Mitloehner also points out that livestock are “upcyclers” that convert plant cellulose we can’t digest into foods for humans. Due to the biogenic carbon cycle and unlike fossil fuels, methane emissions from livestock do not add to the global warming challenge.

While celebrating Earth Day this year and the abundance our planet provides, it is my hope that our society’s new-found appreciation for scientists extends to questioning assertions against animal agriculture and to not accept them just because they have heard them so many times. Perhaps the world’s most famous scientist would agree - “The important thing is to not stop questioning,” – Albert Einstein.