News 
 National Rural News 
 Livestock 
 Cattle 
 Grass vs grain: a vexed question 

Grass vs grain: a vexed question

14 Feb, 2010 07:44 AM
THE question of whether intensive animal rearing, like cattle lotfeeding or housed pig and poultry production, is better for the planet than extensive grazing systems is much more complicated than just the issue of greenhouse intensity.

Tara Garnett, co-ordinator of the UK-based Food Climate Research Network (FCRN), explored some of the issues in a recent briefing paper and found no clear answers.

Intensive production tends to use less land — even when grain production is taken into account — and produces less emissions than extensive systems, but other issues are in play.

From a greenhouse gas perspective, intensive pig and poultry production — which are more efficient producers of protein than cattle lotfeeding — could be seen as the “least bad” option, Ms Garnett observed.

“This analysis holds true in the case of greenhouse gas emissions, but, we emphasise, not for other forms of air and water pollution, and not in the case of water use, where intensive systems are particularly demanding. There are other issues to consider, including animal welfare.”

She added: "I think the point about methane is that it needs to be seen in the context of trends in demand for animal products, and in terms of land and land use."

The need for efficient land use also broadens the issue.

“In a land constrained world, one could argue that the priority is to make the best use of the different qualities of land available,” Ms Garnett wrote.

“Not all land ... can support crop production and the question then arises — what should be done with this poorer quality, more marginal land?”

“Traditionally the answer has been to graze ruminants which then provide us with meat, milk and other outputs.

“This represents a form of resource efficiency—the land is being used to produce food that would otherwise need to be produced elsewhere — and that ‘elsewhere’ could either be existing prime agricultural land, where competition with grain production for human food consumption could arise, or on land deforested for the purpose.

“Livestock also have a role to play in maintaining ecosystem services and the biological diversity of the landscapes that they have helped shape over millennia.”

Under well-managed grazing, livestock may also be a tool for sequestering carbon in the soil, Ms Garnett noted.

The full report can be downloaded here.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
How could what is "better" in terms of environmental resources be adverse in terms of ethics and animal welfare? What this is all about is that our leaders have a fettish for a "big Australia" - which means not that we don't already have a big nation, but more people - and that our Murray Darling food bowl is already compromised. Where will all the meat and milk come from? Livestock will be confined into production prisons as cities eat up fertile land and rural areas become hotter and drier. Our society is becoming more and more distant from what is natural and normal. Our future is frightening, and cruel.
Posted by Vivienne, 14/02/2010 5:26:46 AM
Funny how the taxing the people who smash atoms apart to OWN new A380 Jumbo's gets side tracked for another scam to gain money from people who know only what is feed to them after a bowl of GM.
Posted by WMD5000, 15/02/2010 12:49:24 AM
As i have stated before the biggest problem in all this global warming is people. They, cars, machinery and high rise buildigns are the only thing that has dramatically increased in the last hundred years. BUT of course it is the farmers fault again. We only provide food and clothing naturally produced for the growing population. Its time we were all gone who needs us. We create too much greenhouse gas.
Posted by Helen Clark, 15/02/2010 5:07:05 AM
This article is on the right track at last. The most sensible, sustainable and productive use of our grasslands is well managed grazing. Healthy grass-fed beef production and carbon sequestration are just two of the positive outcomes. It is not generally sensible to grow grain crops on these grazing areas. That land use would simply 'mine' the stored carbon, cause erosion and overall land degradation. So once we establish that well managed grazing is the best outcome for our grazing lands then we can move on to the different question of what is the best use for the grain produced on our farming land? That's where the equation of the conversion rate of grain to edible (boneless) human food comes into play. The real comparison should be about the emissions generated from turning grain into various forms of protein? This is the environmental and economic question that should be at the nub of this debate. Any emissions from grazing cattle to grow beef from the grasslands of the world has nothing to do with the emissions generated by turning the human food grain into grain-fed beef, bone and by-product.
Posted by Carbon Positive Grazing, 15/02/2010 6:41:56 AM
Congratulations to Carbon Positive Grazing, well put. There is no mention of the wonderful nutritional advantages of consuming anything grass fed. With greater omega 3 and CLA, who in their right mind willingly/knowingly would consume anything grain fed. As a farmer I find factory farming obnoxious and it should be phased out. Not only is it bad for the animals in the feed-lots, the pollution and stench they create is offensive. Yes I do understand feed lots enable the finishing of animals during any season. And they produce a relatively consistent product, but it's consistent mediocrity nutrition-wise and at what price to the environment. Cattle and sheep were never meant to consume copious quantities of grain and be confined to squalor. Under good rotational grazing management cattle and sheep have a positive impact on most landscapes / environments.
Posted by ggwagga, 15/02/2010 3:07:19 PM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
11 February, 2010
POLL
Q: One year on from the Black Saturday bushfires, do you think governments are now conducting adequate preventative backburning?

Yes
(5.3%)

No
(89%)

Undecided
(5.7%)

Total Votes: 563
Poll Date: 07 February, 2010

Most popular articles


Irwin Hunter 160x160


Farm Weekly







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...