Churchville, VA—Stanford University recently startled the world with its conclusion that conventional high-yield farming is far better for the planet than low-yield farming. And this includes the First World’s current icon, organic farming. We know that high-yield farms need less land to produce the same amount of food, protecting the huge amounts of soil carbon that would be gassed off if we plowed more land for low-yield crops. However, the Stanford study says that high-yield farming may have saved 600 billion tons of CO2 emissions. That’s equal to one-third of the greenhouses gasses emitted from the whole industrial revolution since 1850!
“Our results dispel the notion that modern intensive agriculture is inherently worse for the environment than a more “old-fashioned” way of doing things,” said Jennifer Burney, lead author of the Stanford study.
And, that’s not all: Confinement feeding of livestock—that favorite whipping boy for Greens—also helps sharply reduce greenhouse emissions. I recently estimated it would take the land area of New Jersey for chicken “playgrounds” if we put all our birds outdoors. It would take the land area of Pennsylvania to raise our hogs on free ranges. Stanford should now estimate the soil carbon losses if we plowed those millions of additional hectares for animal “playgrounds.”
Indoor animals are also more comfortable, and thus need about 15 percent less feed per pound of protein produced, saving still more acres of land for Nature and still more carbon left in the soil.
Feedlot cattle, eating grain from high-yield fields, produce less methane in their guts than cattle digesting grass—because grass is harder to digest. Studies on beef cattle show methane emissions reduced by 38 to 70 percent.
Jude Capper of Cornell University reported last year (Journal of Animal Science, March 13, 2009.) that more milk, from higher-yielding cows that are fed more grain and less grass, have helped reduce the carbon footprint of the U.S. dairy industry by 43 percent since 1944.
“Interestingly, many of the characteristics of 1940s dairy production—including low milk yields, pasture-based management and no antibiotics, inorganic fertilizers, or chemical pesticides—are similar to those of modern organic dairy systems,” Capper notes.
Capper’s study also found that supplementing dairy rations with genetically modified rBST would use 2.3 million fewer tons of feedstuffs, need 540,000 fewer acres of land for crop production, and require considerably less chemical fertilizer and pesticides
Confinement feeding also protects our streams and rivers. The manure from outdoor animals washes into the nearest creek. The wastes from confinement animals are collected and used as organic fertilizer on crops.
Are confinement animals less happy? Probably not. Cattle, hogs and chickens are all prey animals, and they see safety in numbers. They like being together. Cattle graze and travel in herds. I’ve watched free-range turkeys, which always seemed to be huddled together in a corner of their pasture.
If the environmental movement really believes humans are warming the planet, these studies tell us that Greens must recant on their criticisms of high-yield farming and confinement feeding. They need to stop demonizing the chemical fertilizers, the pesticides, the confinement feedlots and the biotechnology which will be needed to produce twice as much food—from today’s farmed acres—in 2050.
Or is demonizing modern farming too important to fund-raising in the cities?
DENNIS T. AVERY, a senior fellow for the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC, is an environmental economist. He was formerly a senior analyst for the Department of State. He is co-author, with S. Fred Singer, of Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Hundred Years, Readers may write him at PO Box 202, Churchville, VA 24421 or email to cgfi@hughes.net
Resources:
Jennifer Burney, et al, “Greenhouse Gas Mitigation by Agricultural Intensification,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0914216107; 2010.
Jessica Marshall, “Grass-Fed Beef Has Bigger Carbon Footprint, Discovery News, Jan. 27, 2010.
Jude Capper, et al., “The Environmental Impact of Dairy Production: 1944 Compared with 2007,” Journal of Animal Science, March 13, 2009.
Wow…I don’t think I have ever seen such misinformation all in one article before this! You have got to be kidding to think that animals being confined to CAFO’s are better for the planet or just as happy!! What about all that manure run off that occurs when you have thousands of animals in one confined space? That is not better for the planet!!! For example, cows that are pastured mow the grass, and they fertilize the grass…the whole system right there! In feedlots, you have to harvest the food, store the food, feed them and then haul their manure away!! Or, it gets washed away into our sewer systems and then makes its way into the water, or worse, into other fields spreading the eColi that grassfed cows don’t have!! How is that good for the planet???? People need to wake up and realize that our food system has changed, and it’s not a pretty change. And with garbage like this going all over the place, you can bet that the health of people will continue to suffer!!
Wow. This article is so not right it isn’t even wrong. Where do you get this “information”? You say it would take more land if you let the animals graze, but you aren’t factoring in the land necessary to grow the grains you feed the confined animals. Or the fossil fuels needed to grow, process, and transport these grains. There are almost no fossil fuels required to let a cow stand around and eat grass.
And the happiness issue? Do you realize that modern dairy cows’ lifespan is now about 5 years, which is about 1/2 to 1/3 the normal lifespan of a cow? Do you realize that confinement chickens have tt be debeaked so they don’t peck each other to death? Do you realize that they cut the tails off of confinement pigs for a similar reason? Animals allowed to express their innate natures do not engage in these behaviors.
And to assert that organic or sustainable farming is “low-yield” as compared to “conventional” farming is simply not true. Properly done, organic crops can produce yields very comparable to conventional farming. As for livestock, it depends on how you look at it but because you can “stack” various species and use techniques such as mob grazing, you might not finish as many of one species per acre, but your total amount of product will be very significant.
And do I even need to explain why the statement about manure from sustainable farming? I mean, really. You have heard of compost, haven’t you? Decomposed manure, and how good it is for the soil? Grazing animals sequester carbon through returning it back to the soil.
Jeez.
You have GOT to be kidding?!?! I am not even going to waste my breath arguing with this absolute nonsense! Anyone stupid enough to believe this crap wouldn’t believe the truth if it smacked them on the head. Sure cattle like being together, so do people…but I wouldn’t want to live with 25 other people in my bathroom, all using the same toilet and eating Twinkies, Snickers and dried corn, for dinner in that same room. Who cares if twinkies cause the people to fart less, they are still confined in cramped quarters in unsanitary conditions and treated inhumanely and they eat GARBAGE! You are what you eat, if you feed cows garbage they are going to be unhealthy, and eating those unhealthy cows make unhealthy humans. Sure an un-hungry human but not healthy.
Laughable study built on faulty premises because:
- “Low yield farming” uses sustainable practices that usually reduce plowing.
- Outdoor livestock contribute to the health of the soil.
- What about the studies that show grass-fed beef produces less methane? I’d like to see these side-by-side.
- Mr. Capper – Organic = old-fashioned – this is bad?
- “If the environmental movement really believes humans are warming the planet…” about that, no one has proven it, so time to tear up the study and start over again with the facts.
This is truly the most idiotic piece of writing I’ve ever read. Who exactly do you think you’re kidding?? The mindless masses who consume CAFO products will continue doing so without any ludicrous phony “it’s better for the environment” lies, and those of us who wouldn’t touch a CAFO product with a 10-foot pole have our jaws on the floor at the logical fallacies, misleading “research,” and outright lies throughout this article.
what a load of cr**. If commercial feed lots are so wonderful, why don’t you live next to one? There are so many inaccuracies and untruths in this article, it is amazing. Read Omnivore’s Dilemma and get it right!
So much hate from the other commenters…
I find it laughable that they have all criticized your writing, asking where you got your information, followed by them giving you their opinions and feelings. Apparently they missed the beginning where you said you were summarizing a study done at Stanford University. Apparently they don’t feel ivy league schools have credibility if they disagree with their personal opinions. For a crowd that professes to believe in science and being open minded, “environmentalists” are sure closed off to the possibity of science disagreeing with their dogma.