Archives for posts with tag: livestock

Western Australian Pig Cruelty

November 2, 2014 //

Aussie Farms is an animal rights group exposing the cruel reality of pig farming in Australia. They go far behind the veneer of “feel good” advertising campaigns such as those of major supermarket chain, Coles, featuring celebrity chef, Curtis Stone. (See “Pig Cruelty with Curtis and Coles“. [1])

A recent exposé of Aussie Farms (its thirty-second overall, and the first in Western Australia) was said by the group to be of the Narrogin Piggery, owned by Craig Mostyn Farms, which is a division of Craig Mostyn Group. [2] The company has an impressive list of directors and executives, and its CEO, David Lock, was named Agribusiness Leader of the Year in the 2012 NAB Agribusiness Awards for Excellence. [3]

On the “Policies and Regulations” page of Craig Mostyn’s website, the following comments appear under the heading “Prevention of Cruelty to Animals” [4]:

Each state has legislation aimed at protecting the welfare of animals. In Western Australia, Craig Mostyn operates under the Animal Welfare Act 2002, which prohibits an act of cruelty on an animal. It also requires that a person in charge of an animal exercise reasonable care to prevent such acts occurring.

Section 19(1) of the Act, part of the “Cruelty to animals” section, simply says (in addition to specifying the relevant penalties), “A person must not be cruel to an animal”.

Something Craig Mostyn has omitted from its statement is the fact that the Animal Welfare Act contains the following exemption (Section 25, “Defence – code of practice”):

It is a defence to a charge under section 19(1) for a person to prove that the person was acting in accordance with a relevant code of practice.

The relevant code in this case is the Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Pigs (3rd Edition).

Which practices are exempt, based on the fact that they are permitted under the code?

Here are some examples:

life-long confinement indoors;
confinement in a sow stall, with insufficient room to turn around, for up to 16.5 weeks, day and night;
confinement in a farrowing crate, with insufficient room to turn around or interact with piglets, for up to 6 weeks, day and night;
tail docking without anaesthetic;
ear notching without anaesthetic;
teeth clipping without anaesthetic;
castration without anaesthetic.

However, part 4.5.1 of the code states:

Faeces and urine must not be permitted to accumulate to the stage where there is no clean area for pigs to lie down.

It seems that the code may have been interpreted rather loosely in this instance. That’s because the pigs in the images shown here appear to have been forced to live in their own excrement. In nature, pigs are clean animals, who avoid defecating or urinating where they sleep. They roll in mud or muddy water in order to cool down in hot weather, and to remove parasites.

The standards shown in the images are inconsistent with the following statement from Craig Mostyn’s website (with my underline).

Operating under the Linley Valley Pork brand, Craig Mostyn is the largest pork supplier in Western Australia servicing the domestic and export markets. Our pigs are grown under industry best practice, with the highest standard of animal welfare.

Some other points to consider

The company’s free range brand was the first in Australia to be accredited under the RSPCA’s “paw of approval” program. The Age newspaper has reported that the RSPCA earns a royalty equal to 2 percent of sales in relation to such accreditations. [5] Major problems have been exposed with other brands accredited by the RSPCA on the “Free Range Fraud” website of Animal Liberation Victoria. [6]
It’s Nambeelup piggery was allegedly exposed by Aussie Farms soon after Narrogin. Aussie Farms stated, “as is typical in many Australian pig farms, sows are confined to small cages on hard metal floors for weeks at a time, with their dead piglets left nearby”. [7]
Aussie Farms has reported that Craig Mostyn is a part-owner of Linley Valley Abattoir, a large pig slaughterhouse in Western Australia that kills around 500,000 pigs per year. [8] It stuns pigs in a carbon dioxide chamber, which has been shown to be excruciatingly painful, despite industry claims to the contrary. (See “When does ‘cruel’ not mean ‘cruel’?“) [9]
The company is a major supplier to Coles. If some of Coles’ so-called “sow stall free” pork is supplied from the Narrogin piggery, and conditions are as bad as indicated here, then one needs to ask what benefits are being achieved for pigs.
It also supplies Woolworths “Select” brand products.

Conclusion

No matter how reputable the livestock industry participant appears to be, the only way for consumers to ensure they are not contributing to cruelty is to avoid consuming animal products.

Author

Paul Mahony (also on Twitter, Scribd, Slideshare and Viva la Vegan)

References

[1] Mahony, P., “Pig cruelty with Curtis and Coles”, Terrastendo, 13th January, 2013, https://terrastendo.net/2013/01/13/pig-cruelty-with-curtis-and-coles/

[2] Aussie Farms, “Narrogin Piggery”, October, 2014, http://www.aussiepigs.com/piggeries/narrogin

[3] NAB Business Research and Insights, 12th March, 2013, “A transformation success story – Craig Mostyn”, http://business.nab.com.au/a-transformation-success-story-craig-mostyn-2951/

[4] Craig Mostyn Group, “Policies and Regulations”, http://www.craigmostyn.com.au/about/policies-and-regulation/

[5] Smith, A., “RSPCA stamp ‘dupes buyers'”, The Age, 9th January, 2012, http://www.theage.com.au/business/rspca-stamp-dupes-buyers-20120108-1pq6z.html

[6] Animal Liberation Victoria, “Free Range Fraud”, http://freerangefraud.com/

[7] Aussie Farms, “Nambeelup Piggery”, October, 2014, http://www.aussiepigs.com/piggeries/nambeelup

[8] Aussie Farms, “Craig Mostyn Farms”, http://www.aussiepigs.com/abusers/craig-mostyn

[9] Mahony, P., “When does ‘cruel’ not mean ‘cruel’?”, Terrastendo, 31st August, 2014, https://terrastendo.net/2014/08/31/when-does-cruel-not-mean-cruel/

Images

Aussie Farms, http://www.aussiepigs.com/piggeries/narrogin/photos

Note

This article first appeared on the website of Melbourne Pig Save on 2nd November, 2014.

Acknowledgement

Thanks to Melbourne Pig Save co-founder, Karina Leung, for her recent post on this issue on the group’s Facebook page, which prompted the writing of this post.

Tags Animal Rights, Free range, livestock, Pigs

Categories Animal Rights

The 3 percent diet

September 9, 2014 //

Key climate change problems with livestock

I’ve mentioned previously that the link between livestock production and climate change involves many inter-related factors, including:

livestock’s inherent inefficiency as a food source;
the massive scale of the industry, including tens of billions of land animals slaughtered annually;
land clearing for feed crops and pasture;
extensive grazing on open rangelands, with resultant degradation and loss of soil carbon;
greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, along with other warming agents such as black carbon.

In various respects, many official figures under-report livestock’s climate change impacts. The under-reporting occurs because relevant factors are either: (a) omitted entirely; (b) classified under non-livestock headings; or (c) considered but with conservative calculations.

Greenhouse gas emissions intensity

In my April, 2014 article “Some myths about meat“, I referred to a November, 2013 report by the Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), showing the emissions intensity of beef and other commodities. [1, 2] Emissions intensity represents the kilograms of greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram of product. The FAO report included some of the factors that are generally not allocated to livestock in official figures, including relevant land clearing.

For figures used in that article, I applied two additional factors, namely: (a) emissions per kilogram of end product (“retail weight”), rather than (as reported) emissions per kilogram of carcass weight; and (b) 20-year “global warming potential” (GWP) for methane, rather than (as reported) the 100-year figure.

I also compared the emissions from livestock to those from an incredibly emissions intensive product, aluminium. Some key points: (a) Aluminium smelting has at times consumed 16 percent of Australia’s electricity generation; (b) That’s particularly significant when you consider that Australia’s economy is the 12th largest in the world; (c) The emissions intensity of Australia’s aluminium smelting is 2.5 times the global average due to the fact that the electricity is primarily derived from coal. [3, 4, 5].

In June, 2014, researchers from Oxford University released their estimates of emissions intensity for a wide range of food products, as shown in Figure 1. The Oxford study was based on information that had previously been provided by around 55,000 participants ranging from high meat eaters to vegans. Consistent with findings elsewhere, the researchers reported that the emissions intensity of plant-based products was far lower than that of the animal-based alternatives. [6]

Figure 1: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity of Food Products Consumed in the UK (Oxford study)

I have used many of the Oxford figures, along with figures from the FAO for beef, chicken and pig meat, to create the comparison outlined in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity of various commodities

Daily and weekly greenhouse gas emissions

Using the emissions intensity figures referred to above, I have calculated the emissions of some alternative daily food choices. The only difference between those choices are the foods enclosed in borders in Figure 3(a). Calories ranged from around 2,300 (fish-based) to around 2,600 (beef-based). Figure 3(c) shows the weekly emissions based on various combinations.

Figure 3 (a): Alternative food mixes

Figure 3 (b): Daily greenhouse gas emissions of alternative food mixes (identified by key distinguishing ingredient)

Figure 3 (c): Greenhouse gas emissions of alternative food mixes (sample food intake for one week identified by key distinguishing ingredient)

The 3 percent factor

The lowest-emissions choice (plant-based) results in around 3 percent of the emissions of the highest (based on grass-fed beef). Of course, people are unlikely to eat grass-fed beef every day, but the charts highlight the extent to which food choices can affect our overall greenhouse gas emissions.

Could a plant-based diet result in zero dietary emissions?

The person regarded by many as the world’s pre-eminent climate scientist, Dr James Hansen, has reported (with research colleagues) a maximum annual sequestration (absorption) potential of 1.6 gigatonnes of carbon through reforestation. [7] That equates to around 5.9 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide per year. [8] (Global carbon emissions in 2012 were 9.7 gigatonnes, equivalent to 35.6 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide.) [9]

Assuming that all those who currently eat meat converted to a plant-based diet, there would be around 5.8 billion new vegetarians globally, being the current population of around 7.3 billion less an estimated 1.5 billion who are already vegetarian. [10] Assuming that those people’s subsequent dietary greenhouse gas emissions were 2 kg per day on average, in aggregate they would be emitting around 4.2 gigatonnes of greenhouse gases through their diet annually. That is less than the 5.9 gigatonnes sequestered through reforestation, much of which would arise from the general transition to a plant-based diet.

On that basis, the benefit to be derived from those people converting to a plant-based diet, simply in terms of reforestation, may be greater than their ongoing diet-related emissions.

What about chicken and fish?

While emissions from diets featuring chicken and fish are comparable to the plant-based alternative, those two commodities in their own right are around three to four times as emissions intensive. They also involve other massive environmental problems, including destruction of oceanic ecosystems and waste from around 60 billion chickens bred and slaughtered annually.

Conclusion

We face a planetary emergency in the form of climate change, yet the critical issue of diet seems to be effectively ignored by most environmental campaigners. It’s time for those people and others to wake up and address the issue before it’s too late.

Author: Paul Mahony (also on Twitter, Slideshare and Scribd)

Updates

4th April, 2015: The retail figures attribute all carcass weight emissions to retail cuts of meat. If emissions are also attributed to other products that may be derived from the carcass, utilising fat, bone and the like, then the emissions intensity of the retail cuts will be around 28 percent lower than those shown here. For example, the maximum figure for grazed beef would be around 208, rather than 291 kg CO2-e/kg product, while the weekly diet based on grass-fed beef would be around 307 rather than 422 kg CO2-e/kg product. On that basis, the lowest-emissions choice (plant-based) would result in around 4.7 percent of the emissions of the highest (based on grass-fed beef). These figures ignore emissions from meat processing beyond the carcass stage, which would be relatively insignificant.

References

[1] Mahony, P. “Some myths about meat”, Terrastendo, 16th April, 2014, https://terrastendo.net/2014/04/16/some-myths-about-meat/

[2] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “Tackling climate change through livestock: A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities”, Nov 2013, http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/resources/en/publications/tackling_climate_change/index.htm; http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3437e/i3437e.pdf

[3] Hamilton, C, “Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of Climate Change”, (2007) Black Inc Agenda, p. 40

[4] The World Bank, GDP Ranking, 8th May, 2014, http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/GDP-ranking-table

[5] Turton, H. “Greenhouse gas emissions in industrialised countries Where does Australia stand?”, The Australia Institute, Discussion Paper Number 66, June 2004, ISSN 1322-5421, p. viii, https://www.tai.org.au/documents/dp_fulltext/DP66.pdf

[6] Scarborough, P., Appleby, P.N., Mizdrak, A., Briggs, A.D.M., Travis, R.C., Bradbury, K.E., & Key, T.J., “Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK”, Climatic Change, DOI 10.1007/s10584-014-1169-1, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-014-1169-1

[7] Hansen, J; Sato, M; Kharecha, P; Beerling, D; Berner, R; Masson-Delmotte, V; Pagani, M; Raymo, M; Royer, D.L.; and Zachos, J.C. “Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?”, 2008, Open Atmos. Sci. J., 2, Supplementary Material, p. xvi, doi:10.2174/1874282300802010217, http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

[8] IPCC Working Group III: Mitigation, IV Units, Conversion Factors, and GDP Deflators, http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg3/index.php?idp=477

[9] CO2Now.org, Global Carbon Emissions, http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/CO2-Now/global-carbon-emissions.html

[10] Leahy, E., Lyons, S., Tol, R.S.J., “An estimate of the number of vegetarians in the world”, ESRI Working Papers, The Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), 2010, http://hdl.handle.net/10419/50160 and http://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/50160

Image: © Gkuna | Dreamstime.com – Grazing Cows Photo

Tags climate, climate change, environment, livestock, sustainability

Categories Climate Change, Environment

When does “cruel” not mean “cruel”?

August 31, 2014 //

Definition of “cruel” (Oxford dictionary): Wilfully causing pain or suffering to others, or feeling no concern about it.

Many people and organisations who use animals as units of production seem to use the word “cruel” in a different way to those at the Oxford Dictionary.

Here’s an example.

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (POCTA) Act, Victoria, Australia

This is an extract from the website of the Victorian Department of Environment and Primary Industries (with my underline): [1] [Footnote 1]

“There are a number of exemptions built into the POCTA Act for activities undertaken in accordance with other legislation, codes of practice made under this Act, and the Livestock Management Act Standards. However this does not permit cruelty to occur.”

How could the department, which is responsible for administering the local prevention of cruelty to animals legislation, justify saying that the arrangements do not permit cruelty to occur? A small sample of the “activities” it refers to are outlined below. Would they be acceptable if performed on a conventional companion animal, such as a dog or a cat?

Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Pigs (3rd Edition) [2]

The code, like other codes, is used as the basis of legislation in various states. It permits the following practices, most of which apply routinely to the vast majority of pigs (where relevant) used for food:

life-long confinement indoors;
confinement in a sow stall, with insufficient room to turn around, for up to 16.5 weeks, day and night;
confinement in a farrowing crate, with insufficient room to turn around or interact with piglets, for up to 6 weeks, day and night;
tail docking without anaesthetic;
ear notching without anaesthetic;
teeth clipping without anaesthetic;
castration without anaesthetic.

Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Domestic Poultry (4th Edition) [3]

The code permits:

life-long confinement indoors, including cages;
beak trimming of chickens without anaesthetic;
removing the snood of turkeys (the skin drooping from the forehead) without anaesthetic;
removing terminal segment of males’ inward pointing toes without anaesthetic;
killing of “surplus” chicks (mainly male) in the egg industry through gassing with CO2 or by “quick maceration”. (The Oxford defines “macerate” as “soften or become softened by soaking in a liquid“. In the case of chicks, there is no soaking in liquid. They are sent along a conveyor belt to an industrial grinder while still alive.)

Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines for Cattle [4]

The standards permit:

castration without anaesthetic if under six months old or, under certain circumstances, at an older age;
dehorning without anaesthetic if under six months old or, under certain circumstances, at an older age (see video below);
disbudding (prior to horns growing) without anaesthetic. Caustic chemicals may be used for that process under certain circumstances, including an age of less than fourteen days;
hot iron branding without anaesthetic (see video below).

Please also see comments regarding the dairy industry below.

National Animal Welfare Standards for Livestock Processing Establishments [5]

The standards allow stunning prior to slaughter by: pneumatic captive bolt guns; controlled atmosphere (CO2) stunning; and electrical stunning
They state that CO2 concentration should be greater or equal to 90% by volume, and no less than 80% when gaseous mixtures are used. (Variations are allowed following a
monitoring and verification procedure that demonstrates effective stunning.)

Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Livestock at Slaughtering Establishments [6]

Like the standard referred to above, in respect of pigs, the code allows stunning prior to slaughter by: pneumatic captive bolt guns; controlled atmosphere (CO2) stunning; and electrical stunning.
It notes that the CO2 concentration recommended in Europe is 70% by volume, and that the recommendation may need to be modified for Australian conditions as experience with local conditions increases.

Evidence of a standard procedure in action: CO2 stunning of pigs

Activist group, Aussie Farms, says that the great majority of pigs in Australia are stunned using the CO2 method. [7]

Many people may wrongly believe that the process is free of pain and stress for animals. They may rely on statements from people such as free range farmer, Tammi Jonas of Jonai Farms, who has said that the pigs are lowered into a carbon dioxide chamber and rendered immediately unconscious. [8] An undercover video released by Aussie Farms appears to show otherwise. It is from the Corowa, New South Wales establishment of major pig meat producer, Rivalea. Jonai Farms reported in June, 2013 that they were sending their pigs to another Rivalea facility, Diamond Valley Pork in Laverton, near Melbourne.

Here’s an edited version of the Aussie Farms video, released by Animals Australia.

Some thoughts from Professor Donald Broom, Cambridge University

Aussie Farms sought comments in relation to the video from Donald Broom, Emeritus Professor in the Department of Veterinary Medicine at Cambridge University. Some of his points [9]:

The use of CO2 stunning represented a major welfare problem, as the gas is very aversive to pigs.
The extreme reactions were typical for pigs lowered into a high concentration of CO2. The welfare of the animals was very poor for 20-40 seconds.
The best gas to use in the stunning chamber is argon, or a mixture of argon and up to 20% CO2. Pigs do not detect argon, so are stunned without being aware of the gas.
For financial reasons, efforts are generally made to reduce the time taken to unconsciousness so CO2 is often used. It is somewhat cheaper than argon.

From Professor Broom’s comments, it would appear that there are options available that would cause less stress to pigs than high concentrations of CO2, and that many in the industry may be avoiding those methods for financial reasons.

What does the industry say about another cruel process, confinement in sow stalls?

Sow stalls are cages used for pregnant pigs. They are so small that the pigs are unable to turn around. They can be confined that way, day and night, for the full term of their pregnancy, around 16.5 weeks. The Australian industry’s so-called voluntary ban on sow stalls, scheduled to commence in 2017, will still allow them to be used for up to eleven days per pregnancy, and will not be binding on individual producers. [10] The industry has not indicated any action in respect of farrowing crates, which are more restrictive than sow stalls, and can be used for weeks before and after birth.

Referring to sow stalls, Andrew Spencer, CEO of Australian Pork Ltd, has said [11]:

That’s pig heaven, sow stalls are good for pigs . . .

Sow stalls are more than okay, they’re fantastic, and sows love them.

Spencer argues that the stalls protect sows from other sows who may be aggressive. The problem is that they become aggressive due to the ongoing confined conditions. Who would enjoy spending their life indoors? The industry’s response seems to be to apply one form of cruelty in order to overcome problems created by another.

The position of a major retailer, Coles

Coles is one of Australia’s largest supermarket chains. It is part of the Wesfarmers group, which is the seventh largest company on the Australian Stock Exchange, with a market capitalisation of around $49 billion. [12]

It has gained signficant PR mileage in recent times by a decision to become “sow stall free”. However, the move only applies to “Coles Brand” fresh pork and local and imported ham and bacon. The relevant producers are still permitted by Coles to use sow stalls for up to twenty-four hours per pregnancy. (I assume they rely on the producers to act in good faith in that regard, as it’s difficult to imagine an audit program that would ensure they complied.)

On 22nd November, 2012, John Durkan, then merchandise director (now managing director) of Coles was asked the following question: [13]

In terms of animal cruelty, do you think your customers are aware . . . of the legalised cruelty that still exists in terms of mutilation of piglets, for example, without anaesthetic? That is tail docking, ear notching, teeth clipping, castration, etc., and should consumers be made aware of those sorts of things to help their [purchasing] choices?

Extract of Durkan’s response:

What they do want to know is that there is no cruelty to animals, that they’re treated well . . .

If, as John Durkan says, customers “want to know that there is no cruelty to animals, that they’re treated well”, then why are the animals from whom Coles’ products are extracted treated cruelly as standard practice?

A basic requirement of efficient markets is fully informed buyers and sellers. Coles and other retailers should either inform their customers of the practices involved in supplying their products, or sell only cruelty-free products.

Additional comments on the dairy industry

Cows are continually impregnated in order to produce milk. However, the milk is intended for humans, so the cow and calf are separated almost immediately after birth, with the calves either going back into the dairy industry, to veal production or almost immediate slaughter. This process is an inherent component of dairy production and seems almost unimaginably cruel to the cow and calf.

Apart from the cruelty aspects, it seems bizarre that humans are the only species that consumes mammalian milk beyond a young age, and the only one to routinely consume the milk of another species. Consuming cows’ milk is natural for calves, but not for humans.

A short video on the issue of forced separation can be seen at the bottom of this page.

The RSPCA and potential mandatory reporting

The RSPCA in Australia has recently called for mandatory reporting of animal cruelty. The organisation’s Chief Executive, Heather Neil, has said: [14]

But there are some people who, by the nature of their role, are expected to know what animal cruelty is and when action should be taken. These people should have a legal obligation to report cruelty when they see it.

Although the RSPCA may not have identified the issue itself, its proposal highlights the strange dichotomy that exists between legal and non-legal cruelty. The organisation’s proposal is presumably aimed at non-legal cruelty, without seeming to acknowledge the horrific extent of the legal variety.

Conclusion

This article has barely scratched the surface of the cruelty that is endemic in the commercial use of animals. Double standards abound, including within the consumer population. The type of exemptions referred to here are common in other jurisdictions.

Although we like to believe that we live in a civilised society, our practices in relation to animals seem to indicate otherwise. Much of the problem arises from social, cultural and commercial conditioning, and could end with some compassionate, objective thinking.

The choice is ours.

Author: Paul Mahony (also on Twitter, Slideshare and Scribd)

Footnote:

At the beginning of 2015, responsibility for administering the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals legislation was transferred to the newly formed Agriculture Victoria, within the Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources. The reference and link were updated on 13th January, 2016.

References

[1] Agriculture Victoria, Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources, http://agriculture.vic.gov.au/agriculture/animal-health-and-welfare/animal-welfare/animal-welfare-legislation/prevention-of-cruelty-to-animals-legislation (accessed 13th January, 2016). (The link has been updated from the Department of Environment and Primary Industries, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Legislation: Summary of Legislation, http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/agriculture-and-food/animal-health-and-welfare/animal-welfare/animal-welfare-legislation/prevention-of-cruelty-to-animals-legislation (accessed 26th August, 2014))

[2] Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Pigs (3rd Edition), http://www.publish.csiro.au/pid/5698.htm

[3] Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Domestic Poultry (4th Edition, http://www.publish.csiro.au/pid/3451.htm

[4] Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines for Cattle, http://www.animalwelfarestandards.net.au/cattle/

[5] Australian Meat Industry Council, “National Animal Welfare Standards for Livestock Processing Establishments”, Second Edition (2009), P6.2, p. 36 and http://www.amic.org.au/SiteMedia/w3svc116/Uploads/Documents/Industry%20Animal%20Welfare%20Standards.pdf

[6] Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Livestock at Slaughtering Establishments (2002), 2.6.2.8 – 2.6.2.10, p. 10, http://www.publish.csiro.au/pid/2975.htm and http://www.publish.csiro.au/Books/download.cfm?ID=2975

[7] Aussie Farms, Australian Pig Farming – the inside story, “Corrowa Piggery and Abbatoir”, http://www.aussiepigs.com/piggeries/corowa

[8] Jonas, T., Response of 6th June, 2013 to open letter from Melbourne Pig Save, http://www.melbournepigsave.org/open-letters

[9] Statement by Prof. Donald Broom: http://www.aussiepigs.com/documents/Pig%20slaughter%20video%20Broom.pdf

[10] Hatten, R., “Minister backflips on sow stall ban”, Sydney Morning Herald, 9th Nov 2012, http://www.smh.com.au/environment/animals/minister-backflips-on-sow-stall-ban-20121109-292lx.html

[11] 60 Minutes, Nine Network, “The Hidden Truth”, 20th November, 2009, http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=973831

[12] Smart Investor, Share Tables, Securities as at 30th April, 2014, published 8th May, 2014, http://www.afrsmartinvestor.com.au/share-tables/;jsessionid=B7AC5862FA6CEC4040C2EFCD4A587C00 (accessed 4th June, 2014)

[13] ABC Radio National Bush Telegraph and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry AgTalks event, “Australians don’t care where their food comes from, as long as it’s cheap and looks good”, 22nd November, 2012, broadcast on 26 November, 2012.

[14] McAloon, C., and Barbour, L., “RSPCA calls for laws to make reporting of animal abuse mandatory”, ABC Rural, 25th August, 2014, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-22/nrn-rspca-animal-laws/5689764

Main image: Courtesy of Aussie Farms, http://www.aussiefarms.org.au/; http://www.aussiepigs.com/

Video: Animals Australia, “World-first video: pigs being ‘put to sleep’ in ‘humane’ abattoir”, http://vimeo.com/93703613 and http://www.animalsaustralia.org/features/not-so-humane-slaughter/, based on video supplied to Aussie Farms, http://www.aussiepigs.com/piggeries/corowa/videos

Additional videos:

Dehorning cattle (Animals Australia)

http://www.animalsaustralia.org/issues/cattle-painful-procedures.php

Branding cattle (Animals Australia)

http://www.animalsaustralia.org/issues/cattle-painful-procedures.php

Forced separation of cow and calf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYJPbrxdn8w

Tags agriculture victoria, Animal Rights, Factory farming, Free range, livestock, Pigs

Categories Animal Rights

More on Savory, livestock and climate change

August 23, 2014 //

On 19th August, 2014, The Guardian newspaper published a response by L Hunter Lovins to an earlier article by George Monbiot, in which Monbiot criticised the intensive grazing practices promoted by Allan Savory. [1], [2]

In her response, Lovins referred to the high carbon stores of America’s Great Plains soils and the world’s native grasslands. She said, “They got that way by co-evolving with pre-industrial grazing practices: sufficient herds of native graziers, dense packed by healthy populations of predators.”

As I mentioned in my article “Do the math: There are too many cows!“, due to human-engineered intensive breeding programs, current livestock populations dwarf those of earlier times. We are not comparing apples with apples when considering past natural grazing practices relative to modern extensive and intensive livestock production systems. [5]

Lovins also cited Polyface farm in the US as evidence that Savory’s approach works. But how successful is Polyface?

In his book “CSIRO Perfidy“, Geoff Russell reported that the farm (with generous rounding) produces 45 tonnes of food from 60 hectares per year. Russell says, “any plant food or collection of plant foods will wallop the productivity of Polyface”. He indicated that, at the bottom end of the range, an almond farmer could generate 60 tonnes from 60 hectares, for double the protein content of Polyface’s production. [3]

Anyone concerned about obtaining (for example) sufficient protein from plant-based food production may be interested in this table from my article “Some thoughts on protein in a plant-based diet“ [4]:

Another example from Lovins was the Australian company, Sustainable Land Management (SLM). She did not provide a specific example of SLM’s work. However, the company’s website includes the single case study of “Padua“, involving two properties covering 44,000 hectares near Cunnamulla, Queensland. After acquiring the properties in 2012, the company created 200 paddocks by installing 580 kilometres of fencing, along with 98 kilometres of water pipes and 23 new water points.

In my article “Livestock and climate: Why Allan Savory is not a saviour“, I quoted Gerard Wedderburn-Bisshop, a former Principal Scientist with the Queensland Government Department of Environment and Resources Management Remote Sensing Centre [6]:

“Conservation grazing . . . does work in the more temperate regions where rainfall and feed production can support the cost of fencing, but is not a cure-all as is proposed. . . . What Savory does not mention is that intensive (cell) grazing is only viable where water points are close and labour is cheap. Temporary or permanent fencing is labour intensive, moving herds daily requires far more labour input than most operations can afford.”

Wedderburn-Bisshop’s comments regarding “conservation grazing” were based on an article by Associate Professor Ian Lunt of Charles Sturt University, in which he stated, “. . . managed grazing creates an open habitat that is suitable for plants and animals that cannot persist beneath tall, thick grass. This mechanism is only relevant in a small number of Australian ecosystems – particularly lowland grasslands and grassy woodlands on productive soils in areas of moderate to high rainfall. . . . Grazing is not required to maintain diversity in all grassy ecosystems, and is rarely needed in dry, infertile sites where low fertility constrains grass growth.” [7]

Although Savory’s approach may allow revegetation on a relatively small scale, subject to adequate water resources and livestock controls, it would never be sufficient to feed the masses.

Wedderburn-Bisshop has also referred to the “fence line effect” in northern Australia, whereby bare ground will often exist on one side of a fence, while on the other there is knee-high native grass. The bare side will generally be owned by a pastoral company seeking to maximise its financial return. It will have increased stocking rates during times of favourable rainfall, then taken too long to reduce those rates during drought. The land becomes degraded, and carbon stores are significantly depleted. [8]

Lovins seems to have softened the claims of Savory, in that she talks of his practices “countering” climate change, rather than “reversing” it. I wonder if she believes that Savory has overstated the potential benefits of his methods, and is subtly stepping away from his most elaborate claim.

Savory and his supporters, including Lovins, may be akin to those who support fossil fuels in relation to climate change, promoting methods such as carbon capture and storage. Their approaches tweak systems that are fundamentally flawed, when far more simple and effective solutions are readily available.

Author: Paul Mahony (also on on Twitter, Slideshare and Scribd)

Note: Protein chart updated 21st February, 2016.

[1] Lovins, L. Hunter, “Why George Monbiot is wrong: grazing livestock can save the world“, The Guardian, 19th August, 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/aug/19/grazing-livestock-climate-change-george-monbiot-allan-savory?

[2] Monbiot, G., “Eat more meat and save the world: the latest implausible farming miracle“, The Guardian, 4th August, 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2014/aug/04/eat-more-meat-and-save-the-world-the-latest-implausible-farming-miracle

[3] Russell, G., “CSIRO Perfidy”, Vivid Publishing, 2009, http://www.perfidy.com.au/

[4] Mahony, P., “Some thoughts on protein in a plant-based diet“, Terrastendo, 27th March, 2014, https://terrastendo.net/2014/03/17/some-thoughts-on-protein-in-a-plant-based-diet/

[5] Mahony, P., “Do the math: There are too many cows!“, Terrastendo, 26th July, 2013, https://terrastendo.net/2013/07/26/do-the-math-there-are-too-many-cows/

[6] Mahony, P., “Livestock and climate: Why Allan Savory is not a saviour“, Terrastendo, 26th March, 2013, https://terrastendo.net/2013/03/26/livestock-and-climate-why-allan-savory-is-not-a-saviour/

[7] Lunt, I., “Can livestock grazing benefit biodiversity?“, The Conversation, 19th November, 2012, http://theconversation.edu.au/can-livestock-grazing-benefit-biodiversity-10789, citing Lunt, I., Eldridge, D.J., Morgan, J.W., Witt, G.B., “ Turner Review No. 13 – A framework to predict the effects of livestock grazing and grazing exclusion on conservation values in natural ecosystems in Australia“, Australian Journal of Botany 55(4) 401–415, http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/BT06178 and http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/BT06178

[8] Mahony, P., “Omissions of Emissions: A Critical Climate Change Issue“, Terrastendo, 9th February, 2013, https://terrastendo.net/2013/02/09/omissions-of-emissions-a-critical-climate-change-issue/

Image: Cattle after Sunset © Joaobambu | Dreamstime.com

Tags climate, climate change, environment, holistic management, livestock, Savory, sustainability

Categories Climate Change, Environment

Savory and McKibben: Another postscript

August 7, 2014 //

In March and July, 2013, I posted articles on Allan Savory and Bill McKibben. I subsequently added a number of postcripts. Here’s another, posted as a stand-alone article.

If you don’t know of them, Savory promotes intensive livestock grazing systems, and McKibben is the founder of climate change campaign group, 350.org.

I was prompted to post this article by a high-profile critique of Savory’s work by Guardian columnist, George Monbiot, published on 4th August, 2014. (Monbiot covered much of the material that I had referred to in my own article.)

I was criticising Savory for the lack of scientific evidence to support claims that his form of intensive livestock grazing could reverse climate change and prevent desertification. I was similarly critical of McKibben for his lack of evidence and detail in promoting intensively grazed systems.

McKibben was supporting Savory’s approach during a 2013 visit to Australia. He also seemed to be doing so in a 2010 article in Orion Magazine, but did not specifically refer to Savory at that time.

Some time back, I became aware that supporters of Savory appear to have taken credit for much of the material used in McKibben’s article. They did so in an April, 2010 discussion within the Soil Age Google Group.

The discussion included or referred to Adam Sacks, Seth Itzkan and Jim Laurie. You can see them pictured with Savory on the Savory Institute Hubs page.

A note from Itzkan to Sacks within the Google Group discussion indicated the extent to which group members and/or acquaintances had assisted McKibben:

This article is a direct result of your [Sacks’s] interaction with him and the subsequent correspondences that you, me, and Jim [Laurie] had with him in the following weeks, both the general theme, as well as the particulars and specifically all the language about electric fences, dung beetles, predators, and of course ‘methane-loving bacteria’. He was profoundly influenced, and grateful for our influence, and I’m thankful to you for helping to make that connection.

As explained in my article on McKibben, the research on “methane loving bacteria” that Sacks referred to in a January, 2010 Grist article was subsequently found to be out by a factor of 1,000. A seemingly inadvertent error had occurred in reporting milligrams instead of micrograms.

I’m not aware of McKibben, Orion Magazine, Sacks or Grist correcting the articles. If they have not, then perhaps they should, particularly on such a critical issue.

Author: Paul Mahony (also on Twitter, Slideshare and Sribd)

References:

Mahony, P., “Livestock and climate: Why Allan Savory is not a saviour”, Terrastendo, 26 Mar, 2013, https://terrastendo.net/2013/03/26/livestock-and-climate-why-allan-savory-is-not-a-saviour/

Mahony, P., “Do the math: There are too many cows!“, Terrastendo, 26th July, 2013, https://terrastendo.net/2013/07/26/do-the-math-there-are-too-many-cows/

Monbiot, G., “Eat more meat and save the world: the latest implausible farming miracle“, The Guardian, 4th August, 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2014/aug/04/eat-more-meat-and-save-the-world-the-latest-implausible-farming-miracle?CMP=fb_gu

McKibben, Bill, “The only way to have a cow”, Orion Magazine, Mar/Apr 2010, http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/5339/

Sacks, A., “The Climate Solution: Got Cows?”, Grist, 31 Jan, 2010, http://grist.org/article/the-climate-solution-got-cows/

Image: Cattle at sunset © Anthony Brown | Dreamstime.com

Tags climate, climate change, environment, Factory farming, holistic management, livestock, Savory, sustainability

Categories Climate Change, Environment

Ag-gag: when a gag is not a joke

July 15, 2014 //

Imagine you are a meat-eating consumer who felt uneasy about the possibility of poor welfare standards at a major piggery. Would the following points help to allay your concerns?

The business had been supplying the giant supermarket chain, Woolworths for ten years, and at the time was supplying 20% of its fresh pork in your state.
The owner was appearing in Woolworth’s brochures as one of its “fresh food people”.
The piggery had passed a quality audit inspection just three months earlier.
A director and shareholder of the company that managed the piggery was also on the board of the peak industry organisation.

Based on that information, you might be willing to give the business the benefit of the doubt.

If you then found that the peak industry organisation was owned by producers and administered the quality accreditation scheme (including animal welfare aspects), some doubts might re-emerge.

All those facts applied in 2009, when animal activists entered the premises of Oliver’s Piggery in Winnaleah, Tasmania.

The activists thought conditions would be poor, but were shocked by what they found. Some key points: [1]

Three sows were destroyed by a vet soon after the activists gave police a copy of their video footage.
The sows were extremely emaciated, and unwilling or unable to stand.
Two had festering ulcers up to 12 centimetres in diameter, and one of that pair was unable to move because her snout was stuck under the bar of a mesh divider.
She could not reach food or water and her wounds were flyblown with adult and juvenile maggots.
Layers of faeces were deposited in group pig pens. The owner admitted the pens hadn’t been cleaned for two months.
More than 70 per cent of the 46 sows in farrowing crates had pressure sores on their sides needing treatment.

After the local RSPCA refused to become involved, the activists took their video to the police, who visited the piggery with the activists’ assistance. They charged the owner and the company that managed the piggery with aggravated cruelty offences, and both were eventually penalised by the courts. [2]

One of the two activists, Emma Haswell of Brightside Farm Sanctuary, appeared in numerous media outlets in relation to the matter, including “The Hidden Truth” on 60 Minutes (Nine Network). [3]

While Emma appears to have been widely regarded as a hero, her counterparts five years later are seemingly being demonised and targeted by potential “ag-gag” laws.

The animal advocacy group, Voiceless, describes ag-gag as “variety of laws which seek to hinder or ‘gag’ animal protection advocates by preventing them from recording the operations of commercial agricultural facilities.” [4]

Voiceless says that ag-gag laws generally target undercover investigators, whistleblowers and journalists, and may take the form of: (a) criminalising the undercover or covert surveillance of commercial animal facilities; (b) requiring that any footage obtained be turned over to enforcement agencies immediately rather than given to animal protection groups or the media; and (c) requiring potential employees of commercial animal facilities to disclose current or past ties to animal protection groups.

Within Australia, a relevant bill is before the Parliament of South Australia. Victoria’s Minister for Agriculture, Peter Walsh and the Minister for Primary Industries in New South Wales, Katrina Hodgkinson (with support from Federal Agriculture Minister, Barnaby Joyce) have announced that they intend introducing similar legislation. [5]

Ms Hodgkinson, has described animal activists entering commercial establishments as “akin to terrorists”. [6]

The South Australian bill includes penalties of $15,000 or 3 years imprisonment for individuals who use, communicate or publish material collected through the use of surveillance devices.

So, from a time in 2009 when the police and the courts supported an undercover investigation by animal activists, today politicians are seeking to turn the tables.

A Woolworths spokesperson said the situation at Oliver’s was unacceptable and that the activists’ tactics “obviously exposed a serious issue at the farm”. [7]

During the trial, the defence lawyer said, “What has in fact happened is that an animal activist has entered the farm without any invitation from Mr Oliver or the family and that is a concern.”

In his response, the magistrate said, “It might well have turned out to be in the public interest . . . “

It was certainly in the animals’ interests.

Shouldn’t that be the ultimate test?

Author: Paul Mahony (also on Slideshare, Scribd, and Twitter)

Footnote:

The potential move toward ag-gag laws in Australia may be a response to the relatively recent exposure of dozens of establishments by activist group Aussie Farms (including investigations by Animal Liberation ACT and Animal Liberation NSW) and the onging work of groups like Animal Liberation Victoria, responsible for dozens of investigations of its own, as shown on its “Free Range Fraud” website and elsewhere. Here are some relevant sites:

Aussie Farms, http://www.aussiefarms.org.au/

Aussie Pigs, http://www.aussiepigs.com/

Aussie Abattoirs, http://www.aussieabattoirs.com/

Free Range Fraud (Animal Liberation Victoria), http://freerangefraud.com/

References:

[1] Carter, P. “Ashamed to be a human being”, Tasmanian Times, 1st October, 2009, http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/article/emma-haswell-hero

[2] Stateline, ABC, “Pig Cruelty”, Presenter Airlie Ward, 8th May, 2009, http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/tas/content/2006/s2564758.htm

[3] 60 Minutes, Nine Network, “The Hidden Truth”, 20th November, 2009, http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=973831

[4] Voiceless, “Ag-gag” (undated), https://www.voiceless.org.au/the-issues/ag-gag (accessed 14th July, 2014)

[5] Voiceless, “Ag-gag hidden in new legislation”, 3rd July, 2014, https://www.voiceless.org.au/content/ag-gag-hidden-new-legislation and “Animal law in the spotlight: SA Bill acts as ‘ag-gag'”, 23rd June, 2014, https://www.voiceless.org.au/content/animal-law-spotlight-sa-bill-acts-%E2%80%9Cag-gag%E2%80%9D

[6] ABC News, “Animal rights activists ‘akin to terrorists’, says NSW minister Katrina Hodgkinson”, 18th July, 2013, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-18/animal-rights-activists-27terrorists272c-says-nsw-minister/4828556

[7] Carter, P., op. cit.

Image: Extract from “The Pig Files: Scales of Justice” (footage from Oliver’s Piggery), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpIrB6UOL7s

Further Reading and Viewing:

The Plight of Pigs: Oliver’s Piggery, Tasmania, https://terrastendo.net/2013/01/02/the-plight-of-pigs-olivers-piggery-tasmania/

Tags Animal Rights, Factory farming, livestock, Pigs

Categories Animal Rights

1,048

May 31, 2014 //

1,048.

That’s the number of chickens killed for human consumption.

Per minute.

In Australia.

In 2011/12.

That’s over 1.5 million per day.

That’s 551 million for the year.

4.5 percent of chicken meat was exported.

That left the equivalent of 526 million chickens.

To feed (at that time) around 22 million people.

That’s 24 chickens for every man, woman and child.

The industry predicts that the number will increase to 628 million in 2015/16.

Figure 1: Chicken meat production in Australia

That’s nearly 1,200 per minute.

That’s bizarre.

And obscene.

Chickens are beautiful and intelligent animals.

Not that beauty and intelligence should determine whether or not an animal is killed for food.

There is no need.

Apart from the slaughter process, chickens grown for meat suffer immense cruelty during their short lives.

Here’s a short clip of a sanctuary hen teaching and protecting her chick.

If you care to watch, perhaps think of a human mother teaching and protecting her young child.

Chickens and other animals used for food deserve much better than the horrendous lives we impose upon them. They are not here to serve humans.

Besides, by channeling grains through animals who are then killed to be eaten, we are causing other humans to starve due to the waste involved in an inherently inefficient system. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations reported in 2013 that 842 million people in 2011-13 were estimated to be suffering from chronic hunger.

After allowing for yield, 2.35 kilograms of grain needs to be fed to chickens to produce 1 kilogram of chicken meat. That’s equivalent to a loss of 57 percent.

The Australian Chicken Meat Federation has reported that chicken feed generally comprises 85-90 percent grains, such as wheat, sorghum, barley, oats, lupins, soybean meal, canola and other oilseed meals and grain legumes. The balance consists mainly of meat and bone meal and tallow.

We are also contributing massively to climate change and other environmental problems by causing far more resources (including land and fertiliser) to be used than would otherwise be required. As I have reported elsewhere, the greenhouse gas emissions intensity of chicken meat is many times that of plant-based alternatives of comparable nutritional value.

Bad for chickens.

Bad for people.

Bad for the planet.

If you haven’t done so already, isn’t it time to change?

Author: Paul Mahony (also on Slideshare, Scribd, and Twitter)

References:

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, “Australian Food Statistics 2011/12”, Table 2.4, Supply and use of Australian meats, http://www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/2269762/daff-foodstats-2011-12.pdf

Chicken’s feed conversion figure: Australian Chicken Meat Federation, Industry facts and figures, “Production Efficiency”, http://www.chicken.org.au/page.php?id=4 (accessed 7th May, 2014).

Chicken meat yield from live weight: United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, “Agricultural Handbook No. 697”, June, 1992 (website updated 10 September, 2013), “Weights, Measures, and Conversion Factors for Agricultural Commodities and Their Products”, http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/ah-agricultural-handbook/ah697.aspx#.U0ihR6Ikykw

Animals Australia “Broiler Chicken Fact Sheet”, http://www.animalsaustralia.org/factsheets/broiler_chickens.php (accessed 31 May, 2014)

Australian Chicken Meat Federation, “Growing Meat Chickens – Feed”, http://www.chicken.org.au/page.php?id=6#Feed (accessed 31 May, 2014)

Mahony, P., “The Electric Cow”, 27 May, 2014, https://terrastendo.net/2014/05/27/the-electric-cow/

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2013 “, http://www.fao.org/publications/sofi/en/

Images:

Main image created by author.

Chicken meat production chart: Australian Chicken Meat Federation, Industry Facts and Figures, Chicken Meat Production in Australia, http://www.chicken.org.au/page.php?id=4 (accessed 31 May, 2014)

Video:

Exerpt from “Peaceable Kingdom – the journey home” by Tribe of Heart, 2009, http://www.peaceablekingdomfilm.org/

Postscript 2nd June, 2014: Globally in 2011, we killed a staggering 110,000 chickens per minute for human consumption, or 58 billion in total. That’s around 105 times the number killed in Australia. Here is a list of slaughter numbers by animal, from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Tags Animal Rights, climate, climate change, Factory farming, livestock, sustainability

Categories Animal Rights, Climate Change, Environment

The Electric Cow

May 27, 2014 //

Most climate change campaigners focus on the fossil fuel sector.

While it’s essential that we move away from fossil fuels if we’re to avoid an ongoing climate catastrophe, we must also move away from animal agriculture.

The concept of the electric cow aims at providing some context to livestock’s greenhouse gas emissions by comparing such emissions to those of: (a) electricity generated by fossil fuels; and (b) aluminium smelting, the end product of which is known within the industry as “congealed electricity” due to its enormous energy requirements.

Here are some questions from the slideshow that’s included below:

“If cows ran on electricity, how much would we use in order to satisfy a nation’s demand for meat?”

“Specifically, what figure would we arrive at if it was based on their current level of greenhouse gas emissions?”

The answer is that, if cows and other farm animals ran on electricity instead of food, water and oxygen, and greenhouse gas emissions were used to measure usage, then our current level of electricity generation would be insufficient to supply Australia’s current food mix, even if we ceased using electricity for other purposes.

Textbox-sharpened

That’s in a country that relies primarily on coal-fired power and is one of the highest per capita emitters in the developed world.

If your daily food intake includes a 200 gram steak (less than half a pound) from a grass-fed cow, you may be generating around 60 kilograms of greenhouse gas. If you replace the steak with (for example) kidney beans, tofu and soy nuts (dried soy beans), you’ll get plenty of protein and produce less than 3 kilograms of greenhouse gas.

While it’s true that carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels will remain in the atmosphere for much longer than methane belched by cows and sheep, methane’s shorter-term impacts can become long-term to the extent that they contribute to us reaching climate change tipping points with catastrophic and irreversible consequences.

Land clearing is also a critical factor, resulting largely from livestock’s inherent and gross inefficiency as a food source, with the need to use far more resources, including land, than would be required if we generally adopted a plant-based diet.

Here’s the slideshow, followed by some details on Australia’s livestock-related methane emissions compared to those from its electricity generation.

http://www.slideshare.net/paulmahony101/the-electric-cow

Further details

Nearly 90 per cent of Australia’s electricity is generated from traditional fossil fuels, with 69 per cent from coal and 19 per cent from natural gas. [i] To provide some context, in terms of gross domestic product, Australia’s economy was ranked number 12 of 214 nations by The World Bank as at 8th May, 2014.[ii]

Figure 1: Australian electricity generation, by fuel type

Applying a 100-year “global warming potential” (GWP), Australia’s 2012 National Greenhouse Inventory reported 57.9 megatonnes of CO₂-equivalent (CO₂-e) methane emissions from livestock production.[iii] Assuming that 57 per cent of savanna burning was livestock related (the figure utilised in a 2003 report commissioned by the Australian Greenhouse Office), the figure increases to 62.7 megatonnes.[iv] That equates to 215 megatonnes of CO₂-e emissions using a 20-year GWP, which is more than the emissions from all electricity generation.[v] A similar approach was utilised in a 2007 article in Australasian Science titled “Meat’s Carbon Hoofprint”.[vi]

I have used the IPCC’s 20-year GWP for methane of 86 (including climate carbon feedbacks). That is a conservative figure relative to NASA’s estimate of 105.

Figure 2: Kilotonnes (gigagrams) of greenhouse gas emissions from electricity production and methane-related emissions from livestock (20-year GWP for methane)

The analysis shows that, even before allowing for factors such as land-clearing and nitrous oxide emissions from manure management, the emissions from animal agriculture in Australia are more than those from electricity generation, most of which is coal-fired.

Blog author

Paul Mahony

Note

This is post was updated on 9th July, 2014 and 15th October, 2015. The 2015 update comprised the inclusion of the material under “Further details”.

References

[i] Australian Government, Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics, “2013 Australian Energy Update”, Fig. 3 Australian electricity generation, by fuel type, p. 10, and Table 8, page 11, http://www.bree.gov.au/sites/bree.gov.au/files/files//publications/aes/2013-australian-energy-statistics.pdf and http://www.bree.gov.au/publications/australian-energy-statistics

[ii] The World Bank, GDP Ranking, 8th May, 2014, http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/GDP-ranking-table

[iii] Australian Government, Dept of the Environment, “National Inventory Report 2012 Volume 1”, Table 6.1 Agriculture sector CO2-e emissions, 2012, p. 257, http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/6b894230-f15f-4a69-a50c-5577fecc8bc2/files/national-inventory-report-2012-vol1.pdf (The precise figure is 57.892 tonnes.)

[iv] George Wilkenfeld & Associates Pty Ltd and Energy Strategies, National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990, 1995, 1999, End Use Allocation of Emissions Report to the Australian Greenhouse Office, 2003, Volume 1, Table 5.2, p. 83

[v] Australian Government, Dept of the Environment, op. cit., Figure 3.2: CO2-e emissions from electricity generation by fossil fuels, 1990–2012, p. 50.

[vi] Brook, Prof. Barry and Russell, Geoff, “Meat’s Carbon Hoofprint”, Australasian Science, Nov/Dec 2007, pp. 37-39, http://www.control.com.au/bi2007/2810Brook.pdf

Images

Tags climate, climate change, environment, livestock, sustainability

Categories Climate Change, Environment

No, humans are not at the top of the food chain

May 13, 2014 //

Despite what many of those who advocate meat-eating would like to believe, humans do not sit at the top of the food chain. In any event, it’s a food web rather than a chain, due to the many complex interactions involved.

An article commenting on our position in the food web was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) in late 2013. [1]

According to the head of the research team, Sylvain Bonhommeau of the French Research Institute for Exploitation of the Sea in Sète, “We are closer to herbivore than carnivore. . . . It changes the preconception of being top predator.” [2]

The article considered the trophic level of different species and nations. Trophic levels “represent a synthetic metric of species’ diet, which describe the composition of food consumed and enables comparisons of diets between species”.

A species’ trophic level is calculated as the average of trophic levels of food items in its diet, weighted by quantity, plus one.

If an animal were to eat nothing but cows, its trophic level would be 3, calculated as the sum of 2 (the cow’s trophic level as referred to below) and 1. The trophic level of another animal that were to only eat that animal would be 4, and so on.

Plants and other “primary producers”, such as phytoplankton, have a trophic level of 1. A species that consumes only plants, such as a cow or elephant, has a trophic level of 2. The trophic level of apex predators, such as polar bears and killer whales is 5.5.

The researchers reported that the global median human trophic level (HTL) in 2009 was 2.21, representing a 3 percent increase since 1961. The authors said, “In the global food web, we discover that humans are similar to anchovy or pigs and cannot be considered apex predators”.

Here’s how the rankings of a few species can be depicted, without attempting to display the complex interactions involved:

Figure 1: Some examples of trophic levels

A major concern in terms of the environment and the rights of animals is the increasing overall human trophic level, driven largely by growing levels of meat consumption in China and India. The authors stated, “With economic growth, these countries are gaining the ability to support the human preference for high meat diets”.

Figure 2: Trends in human trophic level (1961-2009)

Since 1960, we have seen a reduction in the percentage of plants in the human diet and a corresponding increase in the percentage of terrestrial and marine animals.

Figure 3: Percentage of plants and animals in the human diet

Some climate change implications

Animal agriculture is a key contributor to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. Land clearing for livestock grazing and feedcrop production, in addition to releasing massive amounts of carbon, has reduced the biosphere’s ability to draw down existing carbon. According to leading climate scientist, Dr James Hansen, we must reduce atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide to around 350 ppm (parts per million) if we are to overcome the threat of climate change. Massive reforestation and restoration of soil carbon is required in order to achieve that target. [3] In April, 2014, carbon dioxide concentrations reached 401.9 ppm. [4]

It seems ironic that China is contributing to the problem by increasing its meat consumption. The Chinese leadership would surely understand the extreme dangers posed by climate change, including a potential loss of dry-season water flows into key river systems due to the potential loss of glaciers.

Climate change author, David Spratt, has stated [5]:

“Taken together with those on the neighbouring Tibetan plateau, the Himalayan–Hindu Kush glaciers represent the largest body of ice on the planet outside the polar regions, feeding Asia’s great river systems, including the Indus, Ganges, Brahmaputra, Salween, Mekong, Yangtze and Huang He. The basins of these rivers are home to over a billion people from Pakistan to China. The Himalayas supply as much as 70 per cent of the summer flow in the Ganges and 50–60 per cent of the dry-season flow in other major rivers. In China, 23 per cent of the population lives in the western regions, where glacial melt provides the principal dry season water source. The implications of the loss of the Himalayan ice sheet are global and mind numbing, but such a calamity rarely rates a mention in Australia.”

Australia seems happy to help China to satisfy its growing taste for red meat by expanding its exports. [6]

The existence of critical environmental externalities in beef production means that the Chinese and other consumers of Australian meat are paying a fraction of the product’s true cost.

Meanwhile, the Chinese maintain a population of nearly 500 million pigs, which is just under half the global population. [7]. Those pigs consume enormous amounts of soy from overseas, including soy grown in the Amazon and Cerrado regions of South America. Both regions contain massive stores of carbon, which are released through land clearing for feedcrop production (including soy) and livestock grazing. [8]

Figure 4: Soybean Production, Consumption and Imports in China 1964-2011

China’s projected soy bean imports for 2014/15 are 72 million tonnes. The second-ranked importer is the European Union, with 12.5 million tonnes. [9]

With domestic production of 12 million tonnes, China’s total consumption in 2014/15 is 84 million tonnes, up from approximately 70 million tonnes in 2011 (including imports of 59 million tonnes).

Only around 10 percent of the soybeans used in China are consumed directly as food by humans. The other 90 percent are crushed, separating the oil and meal, with the latter widely used in animal feed rations. [8]

Some health implications

The PNAS paper categorised countries into five groups:

Low and stable HTLs (majority of sub-Saharan countries and most of Southeast Asia)
Low and increasing HTLs (several countries throughout Asia, Africa, and South America, including China and India)
Higher initial HTLs than group 2, with an increasing trend (Central America, Brazil, Chile, Southern Europe, several African countries and Japan)
High and stable HTLs until around 1990, when they began to decrease (North America, Northern and Eastern Europe, Australia, and New Zealand)
The highest overall HTLs and decreasing trends (Iceland, Scandinavia, Mongolia, and Mauritania)

Health concerns have been a key driver of HTL reductions in countries within Groups 4 and 5.

In Group 4, “the nutrition transition has reached a point where health problems associated with high fat and meat diets (i.e., high HTLs) have led to changes in policy and government-run education programs that encourage these populations to shift to more plant-based diets”.

The reductions in HTLs within Scandinavian countries (Group 5) “is due to government policies promoting healthier diets”.

Rising meat consumption in China and India is likely to lead to a marked increase in rates of diseases and conditions such as heart disease, certain cancers, obesity and diabetes. [10]

According to the American Dietetic Association, well-planned plant-based diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle. [11]

As such, the world’s human population could aim for a trophic level of 2, with critical environmental and health benefits, not to mention the reduction in animal exploitation and cruelty.

For Australian and New Zealand readers, you should be aware that The Medical Journal of Australia has reported: “In contrast to the United States . . . Food Standards Australia New Zealand permits only a limited number of foods to be fortified with vitamin B12. This includes selected soy milks, yeast spread, and vegetarian meat analogues such as soy-based burgers and sausages.” [12] Vitamin B12 was once more readily available than at present to those on a plant-based diet without fortification or supplementation, in a manner that was far more natural than the forced breeding practices and ecosystem destruction that characterise the animal agriculture sector, past and present. [13]

and have previously written, in relation to B12, that (a) destroying rainforests and other natural environs; and (b) operating industrial farming systems; purely for animal food products, is hardly natural. Sadly, in Australia, fortification of food products is not permitted to the same extent as in the USA. The Medical Journal of Australia has reported: “In contrast to the United States, where foods are extensively fortified with vitamin B12, Food Standards Australia New Zealand permits only a limited number of foods to be fortified with vitamin B12. This includes selected soy milks, yeast spread, and vegetarian meat analogues such as soy-based burgers and sausages.” (Zeuschner, C.L. et al., “Vitamin B12 and vegetarian diets”, MJA Open 2012; 1 Suppl 2: 27-32, 4 June 2012, https://www.mja.com.au/open/2012/1/2/vitamin-b12-and-vegetarian-diets) – See more at: http://freefromharm.org/health-nutrition/b12-magic-pill-veganisms-achilles-heel/#sthash.8N41mRvm.dpuf

I agree completely with your comments on the question of what is natural, and have previously written, in relation to B12, that (a) destroying rainforests and other natural environs; and (b) operating industrial farming systems; purely for animal food products, is hardly natural. Sadly, in Australia, fortification of food products is not permitted to the same extent as in the USA. The Medical Journal of Australia has reported: “In contrast to the United States, where foods are extensively fortified with vitamin B12, Food Standards Australia New Zealand permits only a limited number of foods to be fortified with vitamin B12. This includes selected soy milks, yeast spread, and vegetarian meat analogues such as soy-based burgers and sausages.” (Zeuschner, C.L. et al., “Vitamin B12 and vegetarian diets”, MJA Open 2012; 1 Suppl 2: 27-32, 4 June 2012, https://www.mja.com.au/open/2012/1/2/vitamin-b12-and-vegetarian-diets) – See more at: http://freefromharm.org/health-nutrition/b12-magic-pill-veganisms-achilles-heel/#sthash.8N41mRvm.dpuf

Conclusion

Overall global livestock production is proceeding at unsustainable levels, with no sign of slowing down. If we wish to retain a habitable planet, we must urgently address the issue of diet in addition to fossil fuels.

The time to act is now!

Footnote: None of the material contained in this article should be construed as representing medical, health, nutritional, dietary or similar advice.

Author: Paul Mahony (also on Twitter, Slideshare, and Scribd).

References:

[1] Bonhommeau, S., Dubroca, L., Le Pape, O., Barde, J., Kaplan, D.M., Chassot, E., Nieblas, A.E., “Eating up the world’s food web and the human trophic level”, Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1305827110 (2013)

[2] Hoag, H., “Humans are becoming more carnivorous”, Nature, 2nd Dec, 2013, doi:10.1038/nature.2013.14282, http://www.nature.com/news/humans-are-becoming-more-carnivorous-1.14282

[3] Hansen, J; Sato, M; Kharecha, P; Beerling, D; Berner, R; Masson-Delmotte, V; Pagani, M; Raymo, M; Royer, D.L.; and Zachos, J.C. “Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim?”, 2008. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf

[4] Earth System Research Laboratory, Global Monitoring Division, Up-to-date weekly average CO₂ at Mauna Loa, Week beginning on May 4, 2014 (401.9 ppm), http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html

[5] David Spratt,“Global Warming – No more business as usual: This is an emergency!”, Environmental Activists’ Conference 2008: Climate Emergency – No More Business as Usual, 10 October, 2008, reproduced in Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal, http://links.org.au/node/683

[6] Binsted, T., “Australia poised to benefit from China’s beef demand”, The Age, 24 April, 2014, http://www.theage.com.au/business/australia-poised-to-benefit-from-chinas-beef-demand-20140424-375pt.html

[7] FAOSTAT, Live Animals, 2012, http://faostat.fao.org/site/573/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=573#ancor, accessed 12 May, 2014. (Actual number: 471,875,000 of a global population of 966,170,968)

[8] Brown, L.R., “Full Planet, Empty Plates: The New Geopolitics of Food Scarcity, Chapter 9, China and the Soybean Challenge”, Earth Policy Institute, 6 November, 2013, http://www.earthpolicy.org/books/fpep/fpepch9

[9] United States Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service Approved by the World Agricultural Outlook Board/USDA Circular Series, “Oilseeds: World Markets and Trade”, May 2014, http://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/oilseeds.pdf

[10] Mahony, P., “If you thinks it’s healthy to eat animals, perhaps you should think again”, 12th February, 2013, https://terrastendo.net/2013/02/12/if-you-think-its-healthy-to-eat-animals-perhaps-you-should-think-again/

[11] Craig, W.J., Mangels, A.R., American Dietetic Association, “Position of the American Dietetic Association: vegetarian diets.”, J Am Diet Assoc. 2009 Jul;109(7):1266-82, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864

[12] Zeuschner, C.L. et al., “Vitamin B12 and vegetarian diets”, MJA Open 2012; 1 Suppl 2: 27-32, 4 June 2012, https://www.mja.com.au/open/2012/1/2/vitamin-b12-and-vegetarian-diets

[13] Capps, A., “B12: A Magic Pill, or Veganism’s Achilles Heel?”, Free from Harm, 11 April, 2014, http://freefromharm.org/health-nutrition/b12-magic-pill-veganisms-achilles-heel/

Figures:

Figure 1 – Prepared by author

Figure 2 – Bonhommeau, S. et al., op. cit., Figure 1 (A)

Figure 3 – ibid., Supporting Information, Figure 4

Figure 4 – Brown, L.R., op. cit., Figure 9–1 based on data from USDA, Production, Supply, and Distribution, electronic database, at www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline, updated 10 May 2012; D. H. Baker, “D.E. (Gene) Becker and the Evolution of the Corn-Soybean Meal Diet for Pigs,” Illinois Swine Research Reports (2003), pp. 101-04; Jack Cook, An Introduction to Hog Feeding Spreads (Chicago: Chicago Mercantile Exchange, 2009), p. 3.

Tags Cancer, climate, climate change, Diabetes, environment, Factory farming, Health, Heart disease, livestock, Obesity, Pigs, sustainability

Categories Climate Change, Environment, Health

Some myths about meat

April 16, 2014 //

There are many myths about meat consumption. I focus on two in this article, along with some related issues.

MYTH 1: BEEF PRODUCED FROM GRASS-FED COWS IS BETTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT THAN GRAIN-FED

It seems logical, doesn’t it? After all, eating grass is natural for a cow. But does that make it better for the environment?

Why wouldn’t you believe the myth when a supposedly authoritative source like the Australian Conservation Foundation says: “When you do buy meat, choose pasture or grass-fed sources over grain-fed ones.” [1]

To my knowledge, the ACF has not cited any sources to support that statement.

Similarly, no sources were cited by prominent climate change activist Bill McKibben of 350.org when he supported the idea of grass-fed cattle over the feedlot variety in his Orion Magazine article of 2010, “The Only Way to Have a Cow“. [2] He was maintaining that position during a speaking tour of Australia in June, 2013. [Footnote 1]

Emissions from grass-fed cows are multiples of the grain-fed alternative

On the other hand, Professor Gidon Eshel of Bard College, Annandale-on-Hudson, New York and formerly of the Department of the Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, has reported, “since grazing animals eat mostly cellulose-rich roughage while their feedlot counterparts eat mostly simple sugars whose digestion requires no rumination, the grazing animals emit two to four times as much methane”. [3]

In Australia, the CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) has also reported that cows produce significantly more methane when eating grass than when eating grain. It stated, “These measurements clearly document higher CH4 [methane] production (about four times) for cattle receiving low-quality, high-fiber diets than for cattle fed high-grain diets.” [4]

CSIRO scientists subsequently reported some reduction in methane emissions from northern Australian cattle herds, representing around half the country’s cattle population. [5] However, that would still leave grass-fed cows’ methane emissions as a multiple of grain-fed emissions.

What does the FAO say?

In November, 2013, the FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) reported a signficant difference in the greenhouse gas emissions intensity between beef derived from animals on “grazing” (or “grass-based”) feeding systems and those on “mixed” systems. [6] [7]

The emissions intensity of a product represents the kilograms of CO2-equivalent (CO2-e) greenhouse gas emissions per kilogram of product.

It seems reasonable to conclude that the FAO’s “mixed” figures included grain-fed cattle, as it confirmed “grass-based and mixed livestock production systems” are responsible for 100 percent of global beef production. (Reference 7, p. 24).

Cows are not fed grain exclusively. They have not evolved to consume it, and if it is used at all, they are generally only “finished” on it for the final one hundred days or so prior to slaughter.

For specialised beef (as opposed to beef from dairy cows), the FAO reported emissions intensity figures of 56.2 for mixed feeding systems and 102.2 from grazing systems.

Those figures were based on carcass weight. If we gross them up to allow for the fact that not all the carcass is used as end product for the dinner table, the figures increase to 77.2 and 140.2 respectively. That’s based on the US Department of Agriculture’s mid-range yield estimate of 72.8% for all beef, including ground beef for use in hamburgers and the like. [8]

We can also gross them up to allow for a 20-year GWP (global warming potential) for methane. Allowing for that factor (refer to additional comments below), the figures increase to 160.1 and 290.9 respectively.

Conventional measures of methane’s global warming impact measure it over a 100-year timeframe. However, methane breaks down relatively quickly in the atmosphere, with much of it doing so within around 12 years. That means the 100-year measure greatly understates its shorter-term impact, as it provides an average figure over a 100-year period, when much of the methane effectively did not exist during the final 88 years. In the chart below, I have used a 20-year GWP of 86 for methane, from the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report. It is up from the IPCC’s previous figure of 72, and allows for carbon-climate feedbacks. (Without those feedbacks, the IPCC now uses a figure of 84.) [9]

Researchers at NASA have estimated an even higher 20-year GWP for methane of 105. [10]

Although methane may have a shorter life than carbon dioxide (which remains in the atmosphere for many hundreds of years), its impact can be long-term if it contributes to us reaching tipping points that result in positive feedback loops with potentially irreversible and catastrophic consequences. On the positive side, the relatively short-term nature of methane’s impact means that action on livestock production can be one of the most effective steps available to us in dealing with climate change.

Respected climate change commentator, Joseph Romm, has quoted the IPCC [his underlines]:

“There is no scientific argument for selecting 100 years compared with other choices (Fuglestvedt et al., 2003; Shine, 2009). The choice of time horizon is a value judgement since it depends on the relative weight assigned to effects at different times.” [11]

Romm went on to say:

“Given that we are approaching real, irreversible tipping points in the climate system, climate studies should, at the very least, include analyses that use this 20-year time horizon.”

I have previously compared beef production to aluminium in order to add some perspective to its emission levels. Aluminium production is an incredibly emissions-intensive process. In recent times, it has consumed up to 16 percent of Australia’s electricity production [12], for less than: 1 percent of GDP (gross domestic product); and 0.1 percent of jobs.

In a 2003 report commissioned by the former Australian Greenhouse Office, its emissions intensity was reported as 20 kg CO2-e per kg of product. [13] The Australian Aluminium Council has reported a 2011 figure of 15.6 kg (rounded to 16 kg in the table below) for “primary aluminium production, not including emissions from alumina refining which are considered separately”. [14] It has stated that over 80 percent of smelting’s greenhouse gas emissions are indirect (electricity-related) emissions. The emissions intensity of Australian aluminium is more than twice the global average, due to the heavy reliance on coal-fired power. [15]

Here’s how beef production compares to aluminium and steel, based on: (i) carcass weight and standard 100-year GWP; (ii) retail weight and 100-year GWP; and (iii) retail weight and 20-year GWP. Beef’s figures vary by region. Those shown here are based on the global average.

Figure 1: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity

So, allowing for a 20-year GWP to more accurately reflect methane’s shorter-term impact, a kilogram of steak is 18 times as emissions intensive as a kilogram of Australian aluminium, and more than 30 times as emissions intensive as aluminium’s global average.

How do other foods compare?

The emissions intensity of the following foods have been reported to be less than 2 kg CO2-e per kg of product even (in respect of some) when transported overseas by boat: whole wheat; rice; carrots; potatoes; green beans; apples; oranges; and soy beans. [16] That is less than 0.7% of the top figure for beef from Figure 1. [Footnote 2]

MYTH 2: BUYING BEEF FROM LOCAL SOURCES IS ENVIRONMENTALLY-FRIENDLY

Why wouldn’t you believe this one, when the Australian Conservation Foundation says: “And be sure to support hardworking families in your community by buying from local farmers.”

Similarly, Bill McKibben has said that one of the most important measures for reducing the climate change impact of animal agriculture is to buy locally. He has said that when he’s at home, he tries to eat nothing produced outside the valley in which he lives.

But how effective is that approach in terms of beef?

The following image depicts the FAO’s breakdown of emissions from beef production (including beef from dairy cows), with “postfarm” emissions of 0.5 percent (including transport and processing) highlighted.

Figure 2: Breakdown of emissions from beef production (global average)

The main contributors are: enteric fermentation (which produces methane in a cow’s digestive system) 42.6%; manure-related emissions 23.1%; land use change through pasture expansion 14.8%; feed 10%; and fertilizer and crop residues 7.4%.

You can focus as much as you like on locally produced meat, but the relative positive impact is negligible.

Conclusion

Vested interest groups attempt to create the impression that beef and other animal products can be produced in an environmentally benign way. In reality, on the scale required to feed the masses, such products are unsustainable. A general shift towards a plant-based diet, along with a move away from fossil fuels, is essential if we are to overcome catastrophic climate change.

Footnotes:

1. I commented on Bill McKibben’s position in my article “Do the math: There are too many cows“. [17] He appeared to be supporting a key proponent of intensive grazing systems, Allan Savory, on whom I commented in my article “Livestock and Climate: Why Allan Savory is not a saviour“. [18] Savory’s methods, even if successful in some situations, would never scale up to the level required.

2. Soy beans and other products grown on land that had been cleared of rain forest for that purpose would have a higher emissions intensity figure than indicated here, but still tiny compared to beef. In any event, if such products were only grown for human consumption, we would almost certainly not need to encroach on forested areas in that way. Most soy is grown as part of the grossly and inherently inefficient process of transferring plant-based nutrients to food animals for human consumption.

3. This article first appeared on the website rabble.ca on 15th April, 2014, with the title “Why even grassfed and local beef isn’t sustainable“. This is a slightly expanded version.

4. Postscript 9th May, 2014: The figures in Figure 1 are based on the global average percentage split of the various factors contributing to beef’s emissions intensity. As methane’s percentage contribution would be higher in grazing systems than in mixed systems, the “20-Year GWP” figures may be under-stated for the former and over-stated for the latter. They are intended to be approximations only.

5. Postscript 4th April, 2015: The retail figures attribute all carcass weight emissions to retail cuts of meat. If emissions are also attributed to other products that may be derived from the carcass, utilising fat, bone and the like, then the emissions intensity of the retail cuts will be around 28 percent lower than those shown here. For example, the maximum figure for grazed beef would be around 209, rather than 291 kg CO2-e/kg product.

Author: Paul Mahony

Related articles: Climate Change and Animal Agriculture

Images:

Figure 2 adapted from Figure 7, p. 24, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “Tackling climate change through livestock: A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities”, Nov 2013, http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/resources/en/publications/tackling_climate_change/index.htm; http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3437e/i3437e.pdf

References:

[1] Australian Conservation Foundation, Green Home, “Eat less animal products”, http://www2.acfonline.org.au/category/green-eating/tips/eat-less-animal-products (accessed 14 April, 2014)

[2] McKibben, Bill, “The only way to have a cow”, Orion Magazine, Mar/Apr 2010, http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/5339/

[3] Eshel, G., “Grass-fed beef packs a punch to environment”, Reuters Environment Forum, 8 Apr 2010, http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2010/04/08/grass-fed-beef-packs-a-punch-to-environment/

[4] Harper, L.A., Denmead, O.T., Freney, J.R., and Byers, F.M., Journal of Animal Science, June, 1999, “Direct measurements of methane emissions from grazing and feedlot cattle”, J ANIM SCI, 1999, 77:1392-1401, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10375217; http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/77/6/1392.full.pdf

[5] Paterson, J., “CSIRO says cow methane emissions lower than first thought”, ABC Rural, 27 May, 2011, http://www.abc.net.au/site-archive/rural/news/content/201105/s3229224.htm

[6] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “Tackling climate change through livestock: A global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities”, Nov 2013, http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/resources/en/publications/tackling_climate_change/index.htm; http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3437e/i3437e.pdf

[7] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, “Greenhouse gas emissions from ruminant supply chains: A global life cycle assessment”, Nov 2013, http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/resources/en/publications/tackling_climate_change/index.htm; http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3461e/i3461e.pdf

[8] United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, Agricultural Handbook No. 697, June, 1992 (website updated 10 September, 2013), “Weights, Measures, and Conversion Factors for Agricultural Commodities and Their Products”, http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/ah-agricultural-handbook/ah697.aspx#.U0ihR6Ikykw

[9] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fifth Assessment Report, 2014, http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

[10] Shindell, D.T., Faluvegi, G., Koch, D.M., Schmidt, G.A., Unger, N., Bauer, S.E., “Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions“, Science 30 October 2009: Vol. 326 no. 5953 pp. 716-718 DOI: 10.1126/science.1174760, https://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5953/716.figures-only

[11] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Fifth Assessment Report, 2014, http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/, cited in Romm, J., “More Bad News For Fracking: IPCC Warns Methane Traps More Heat”, The Energy Collective, 7th October, 2013, http://theenergycollective.com/josephromm/284336/more-bad-news-fracking-ipcc-warns-methane-traps-much-more-heat-we-thought

[12] Hamilton, C, “Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of Climate Change”, (2007) Black Inc Agenda, p. 40

[13] George Wilkenfeld & Associates Pty Ltd and Energy Strategies, “National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990, 1995, 1999, End Use Allocation of Emissions Report to the Australian Greenhouse Office, 2003, Volume 1”, Table S5, p. vii

[14] Australian Aluminium Council Ltd, “Climate Change: Aluminium Smelting Greenhouse Performance”, http://aluminium.org.au/climate-change/smelting-greenhouse-performance (Accessed 14th April, 2014)

[15] Turton, H. “Greenhouse gas emissions in industrialised countries Where does Australiastand?”, The Australia Institute, Discussion Paper Number 66, June 2004, ISSN 1322-5421, p. viii, https://www.tai.org.au/documents/dp_fulltext/DP66.pdf

[16] Carlsson-Kanyama, A. & Gonzalez, A.D. “Potential Contributions of Food Consumption Patterns to Climate Change”, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 89, No. 5, pp. 1704S-1709S, May 2009, http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/89/5/1704S

[17] Mahony, P., “Do the math: There are too many cows”, 26 July, 2013, https://terrastendo.net/2013/07/26/do-the-math-there-are-too-many-cows/

[18] Mahony, P., “Livestock and Climate: Why Allan Savory is not a saviour“, 26 March, 2013, https://terrastendo.net/2013/03/26/livestock-and-climate-why-allan-savory-is-not-a-saviour/

Tags climate, climate change, environment, Factory farming, livestock, sustainability

Categories Climate Change, Environment

Western Australian Pig Cruelty

Some other points to consider

Conclusion

Author

References

Images

Note

Acknowledgement

The 3 percent diet

When does “cruel” not mean “cruel”?

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (POCTA) Act, Victoria, Australia

Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Pigs (3rd Edition) [2]

Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Domestic Poultry (4th Edition) [3]

Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines for Cattle [4]

National Animal Welfare Standards for Livestock Processing Establishments [5]

Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Livestock at Slaughtering Establishments [6]

Evidence of a standard procedure in action: CO2 stunning of pigs

Some thoughts from Professor Donald Broom, Cambridge University

The position of a major retailer, Coles

The RSPCA and potential mandatory reporting

More on Savory, livestock and climate change

Savory and McKibben: Another postscript

Ag-gag: when a gag is not a joke

1,048

The Electric Cow

Further details

Blog author

Note

References

Images

No, humans are not at the top of the food chain

Some myths about meat

Search

Recent Posts

Terrastendo

Terrastendo

Top Posts & Pages

Some other points to consider

Conclusion

Author

References

Images

Note

Acknowledgement

Share this:

Share this:

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (POCTA) Act, Victoria, Australia

Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Pigs (3rd Edition) [2]

Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Domestic Poultry (4th Edition) [3]

Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines for Cattle [4]

National Animal Welfare Standards for Livestock Processing Establishments [5]

Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Livestock at Slaughtering Establishments [6]

Evidence of a standard procedure in action: CO2 stunning of pigs

Some thoughts from Professor Donald Broom, Cambridge University

The position of a major retailer, Coles

The RSPCA and potential mandatory reporting

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Further details

Blog author

Note

References

Images

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Search

Recent Posts

Terrastendo

Top Posts & Pages