Why are feedlots bad for the environment

It was not until the midth century, however, that beef production truly began to intensify, transforming an industry defined by extensive grazing lands, where cattle would spend two years before being shipped to East Coast markets, to one dominated by feedlots, which churned out greater amounts of beef on less land with fewer farmhands.

Indoor confinement and specialized feeds, in turn, enabled Midwestern feedlots to compete with sunnier western and southern operations, which brings us to where we stand today, with intensively managed feedlot systems responsible for the majority of beef production across the country.

Despite a resurgence of grass-fed beef since the turn of the century, around 97 percent PDF of beef sold in grocery stores comes from grain-fed cattle around 28 million of them per year. As of PDF , three-quarters of this beef came from feedlots with a capacity of 1, or more cows. What is perhaps more surprising is that, since the s, this very intensification has been accompanied by considerable environmental savings. Between and , with grain-fed systems dominating beef production, the amount of land needed to produce a given amount of beef decreased by 33 percent, water use fell by 12 percent and the greenhouse gas footprint fell by 16 percent.

These environmental gains are due in large part to the increasing productivity of feedlot systems stemming from innovations such as enhanced feeds and selective breeding.

Over the past half-century, feedlots have continued to improve efficiency-wise, generating more beef per animal in a shorter period of time, and this higher productivity has resulted in lower environmental impacts per pound of beef, especially when compared with grass-finishing systems.

With greenhouse gas emissions, in particular, intensive systems of beef production tend to beat extensive systems that finish cattle on pasture. Consider that the majority of emissions from beef production stem from enteric fermentation — or in lay terms, cow belches. As a result, raising cows in a shorter amount of time reduces emissions considerably.

As cows on feedlots are also usually larger than cows on pasture, they produce more beef per animal and thus fewer emissions in the aggregate. These efficiency gains win out even if we factor in the added emissions that come from producing feeds.

One environmental downside of feedlots is that the way they concentrate and store manure often leads to high levels of local air and water pollution. In addition, runoff of nitrogen-rich manure into waterways can contribute to "dead zones" in coastal areas. Policy and technologies such as anaerobic digesters, which convert manure to energy, can reduce such impacts. Denmark, for example, cut nitrate leaching from intensive livestock systems in half PDF through a mix of regulation, subsidies and the adoption of various technologies.

Innovations in veterinary science, animal nutrition and genetics have driven remarkable environmental gains in intensive systems as well. Today, for example, animal nutritionists design diets with the exact ratios of protein, fiber, nutrients and fat that will optimize digestion and weight gain.

Food can be cheaper, if it does not include the real cost to the environment and society of pollution, poor workplace conditions and health bills down the track; CAFOs decimate some rural communities while providing low paid jobs in others, often to easily-exploitable migrant workers. So how could such a seemingly bad idea have taken hold in a society that supposedly has open discussion?

The obvious political explanation is that industrial agricultural corporations wield disproportionate power in American legislative and executive bodies over farmers, environmentalists and animal rights activists. Yet despite the foothold that CAFOs have in the American political, economic and cultural landscape, the book provides faint hope that the intertwined human, animal and environmental tragedies can be addressed in a future era where cheap energy is not so abundant. Progressive legislative changes like those made in the European Union look unlikely in the US for now.

For the meat or dairy-eating reader for now, the inevitable question arises, what should one do? Support local farmers who produce high-quality sustainably produced meat from healthy and happy animals.

More importantly, ask your family, friends, food providers and local restauranteurs where they get their meat from. In short, demand good quality meat, albeit not too much of it. The list of web resources at the back of the book is particularly useful. It includes a glossary of all the key CAFO terms jargon that is perhaps an indication of how technical and removed from reality this production model is and contact information on around 50 further organisations involved in the campaign against CAFOs.

Much of the water pollution from feedlots occurs in periods of rain and snow melt. Particularly significant is the runoff during the spring thaw. Although manure mounds are thawed, the pens are frozen hard immediately below the surface, so that runoff from snow melt and spring rain sluices the polluting wastes from the feedlot.

Water Pollutants from Feedlots Runoff from feedlots contributes excessive quantities of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium to nearby rivers, lakes, and reservoir impoundments. These are nutrients contributing significantly to massive algal blooms eutrophication. Nitrogen is mainly in the form of ammonia which is readily dissolved in water. Phosphorus, on the other hand, quickly combines with soil particles and is washed to drainageways through the erosion of disturbed surface soil in the feedlot.

High bacterial concentrations are always measured in feedlot runoff. Not only are the total coliform counts high as much as ,, per milliliter but also pathogenic bacteria counts are high, particularly fecal streptococcus and others. Cattle feedlots are considered to be the principal source of high bacteria counts in the Snake River. Bacterial contamination from feedlots is a public health hazard. The threat of waterborne disease organisms of animal origin is highlighted by the trend toward increasing numbers of animals in confinement along with the increase in outdoor, water- based recreation.

The intestinal parasites can be transmitted to the water via animal feces and contracted by both humans and other animal life served by affected water bodies. Leptospirosis, salmonellosis and other forms of colitis, as well as other diseases affecting cattle and man may be transmitted from infected cattle by contaminated water. One investigator attributes 61 human cases of leptospirosis in the State of Washington to swimming in water contaminated by infected cattle.

It should be noted that surface waterborne diseases e. Such diseases undoubtedly also endanger big game subject to exposure far downstream from feedlot concentrations.

As the organics decompose, the BOD requirement can reduce the dissolved oxygen to seriously low levels. Ammonia in the feedlot runoff is also known to be toxic to fish as well as cause of depletion of the dissolved oxygen in receiving streams, and may have contributed to fish kills in the Snake River.

Pesticides and other chemicals used in feeding operations, cattle dipping, and to control insect and odor problems constitute a constant threat to all biological life.

These toxic, long-lived synthetic chemical pesticides are readily taken up and concentrated in the living organisms of the food chain in the streams receiving runoff from feedlots. Difficult as they are to control, pesticides must not be allowed to enter water courses. The necessary first step is proper application to eliminate excessive use of these chemicals, and the second is runoff control.

The Elements of Control of Feedlot Wastes The first step in control of feedlot wastes is a change in viewpoint. Feedlot wastes must be considered not as wastes, but as natural resources capable of being recycled for beneficial use. The total system approach is the only practicable, economical method of preventing water pollution from cattle feedlot wastes.

Under this approach wastes are recycled to beef through feed crops, and, in the process, potential water pollutants from cattle feedlots are prevented from reaching our streams and rivers. A total system approach includes three major components: Proper site selection Proper feedlot design Proper feedlot management The three succeeding chapters are devoted to a discussion of each of these basic components.

They contain guidelines providing general information to aid in the location, design and operation of cattle feedlots to minimize the threat of water pollution. This operation should be relocated. Natural runoff is diverted around the operation by irrigation dikes, however, feed pen runoff does enter the irrigation system during spring breakup.

A feed pen runoff collection and lagoon system should be provided for land disposal of the collected wastes. Unfenced lots without a qreen belt are poor operations and should be discontinued. A pen runoff collection and treatment system should also be provided to protect water quality in the Payette River and irrigation canal.

Unfenced lot and covered feed bunker on Grande Ronde River, Pen scrapings are shoveled onto the river bank and washed away by rising flood waters. Feedlot and natural uncontrolled runoff through feedlot in eastern Washington. Feedlot with no runoff control on bank of Snake River at Burley, Idaho. To be properly operated at the present site facilities should be provided for a wider green belt with a runoff and lagoon system of waste treatment.

Undiverted natural runoff and feedlot drainage being collected by a major railroad fill near the Columbia River in south central Washington. A proper feed pen runoff collection and lagoon system should be provided. Fences and a greenbelt should be provided for the protection of water quality and the fishing public. An example of an improperly located feedlot in southeastern Washington. Natural runoff and feedlot drainage from this operation as well as "shud" erosion caused by rising flood- ina river water cause water quality degradation and create a public health hazard to water oriented sports.

With proper site selection, construction and operating costs may often be reduced by the elimination of the need for certain pollution control facilities and practices. The aim in feedlot site selection is to locate in areas where a total system approach can be developed. Such a system should include the complete containment of wastes for recycling to cropland and ultimately back to feed animals. Guidelines for Site Selection 1. All cattle feedlots should be located outside of the year flood plain of all river systems.

If the year flood plain of stream is unknown, all feedlots should be located at least yards outside of the apparent flood plain or high water marks of the stream.

If a cattle feedlot is to be located near a lake or reservoir, it should be situated downwind and at least yards outside of the lake's apparent high water line or the reservoir's year flood pool elevation.

Cattle feedlots should be located at least yards away from any intermittent dry storm drainage gulley or irrigation drainage ditches. Cattle feedlots should be located at least 50 yards away from any irrigation supply canal. Ideally, unpaved uncovered feedlots should be constructed on a site having at least a foot soil mantle between the maximum groundwater table elevation and the feedlot surface. In cases where such a depth of soil is not available, the State Department of Geology or an extension agent should be contacted to determine if the site is suitable.

All uncovered or partially covered feedlots should be located in arid or semiarid areas to allow for efficient recycling of wastes. For odor control cattle feedlots should not be constructed adjacent to any community. If a feedlot is to be constructed in the vicinity of a community, it should be located at least one mile downwind. Feedlot sites for uncovered feeding operations should be uniformly sloped at approximately percent to provide adequate surface drainage.

Feedlot sites should be so situated as to minimize or eliminate any storm water from running onto or through the feedlot operation from adjacent land. This includes the retention of manure, liquid waste and runoff from the feedlot area. General Design Guidelines 1. The first logical step in a pollution control program around a feedlot is to prevent the waters not falling on the lot from flowing across the lot.

Water falling outside the lot area should be diverted around a feedlot and kept separate from feedlot drainage. This measure will minimize the size of collection and treatment facilities as well as decrease the cost of waste water handling and treatment. All feedlots should have holding ponds for retaining liquid wastes and runoff on the premises.

Two or more ponds in series are desirable. Shifting to more land-intensive diets does not by itself spare land for re-wilding or conservation. Achieving this end requires active policy intervention , such as zoning large areas ideally of the least fertile land for conservation or wildlife reserves. One proposal that has begun to gain support internationally is the idea of Half Earth the concept that humans should set aside 50 percent of the land and oceans for nature.

According to conservationists, this would protect 85 percent of species from extinction a worthy aim for sure. But Half Earth is a fantasy unless we can get a grip on global diets. That will require both getting people to eat less red meat, and also producing the meat that people do consume on the smallest area of land possible. That might mean abandoning some of our sacred culinary cows such as a preference for grass-fed beef in the process.

Is feedlot beef better for the environment? By Mark Lynas September 13,