Sustainable Pork Jamie Burr Tyson Foods Chair, Environment Committee National Pork Board

Points to Ponder… To keep up with population growth more food will have to be produced in the next 50 years as the past 10,000 years combined. Today, the average U.S. farmer feeds 155 people. In 1960, a farmer fed just 26 people. Today’s farmers produce 262 percent more food with 2 percent fewer inputs compared with 1950.

Points to Ponder… World population 10 Billion by 2050? US Population in 1950: ~160MM (36% lived on a farm). US Population today: ~317MM (<2% live on farm). 86% of US population live in Suburbia….are they going to move back to the country and have one cow, five chickens and three hogs?

Pork Sustainability Safeguarding the environment comes naturally to America’s pork producers because we understand our inherent responsibility to future generations.

Pork Sustainability Doing What’s Right - We Care ® – Produce Safe Food ‒Protect And Promote Animal Well-Being ‒Ensure Practices to Protect Public Health ‒Safeguard Natural Resources In All Of Their Practices ‒Provide A Work Environment That Is Safe ‒Contribute To A Better Quality Of Life In Their Communities

Pork Sustainability Addressing a Changing Marketplace – Today’s customers / consumers are further removed from production agriculture than past generations – Customers / consumers are, however, increasingly concerned about food quality, environment, animal welfare, & the health impacts associated with modern agriculture – There is increasing media coverage of food production issues plus emerging pressure from special interest groups related to many of the above aspects – The agriculture industry, and America’s pork producers, need to maintain and enhance customers & consumers trust that we are producing food that offers healthy choices for all consumers. 6

Pork Sustainability Benefits to Producers ‒Improved management efficiency ‒Reduced input costs ‒Potential new revenue sources from energy or byproducts 7

Pork Sustainability There are limitations to emissions reductions in the agriculture sector particularly because of the role of the sector in providing food for a global population that is expected to continue to grow in the coming decades. Therefore, it would be reasonable to expect emissions reductions in terms of improvements in efficiency rather than absolute reductions in GHG emissions. Challenges and opportunities for mitigation in the agricultural sector United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Technical Report, 21 November 2008 FCCC/TP/2008/8 Policies & Measures – 3 28 – pages 7 & 8 8

50 Year Comparison: Hogs marketed increased 29% Breeding herd decreased 39% Over 2X carcass wt. produced/sow/per Feed efficiency increased 33% / lb. carcass wt. Water use reduced 41%/lb. carcass wt. Total land use reduced 59% ‒78%/1000 lb. carcass wt. Carbon footprint reduced 35%/lb. carcass wt.

Pork Sustainability America’s pork producers are taking public trust to the next level with their Pork Checkoff investment in research and efforts to develop an overall sustainability framework for pork producers.

Four Pillars of Environmental Sustainability Environmental Sustainability Program Air Footprint 2014 Carbon Footprint 2011 Water Footprint 2013 Land Footprint Air Emissions Dust, Ammonia, Hydrogen Sulfide Greenhouse Gas Methane, Nitrous Oxide, CO 2 Land Use Include Feed Crops Water Use

Pork’s Carbon Footprint 2.5 Lb. CO 2 e/4 oz. serving boneless pork field-to- fork including: – Feed crop production – On-farm use – Transportation – Processing & packaging – Retail contributions – Consumer consumption and – Disposal of unused pork & packaging n 12

Carbon Footprint Results % 1.3% 62.1% 7.5% 23.5% 15% 42% 40% 3%

Pork’s Water Footprint 8.2 Gallons/4 oz. serving boneless pork field-to-fork including: – Feed crop production – On-farm use – Transportation – Processing & packaging – Retail contributions – Consumer consumption and – Disposal of unused pork & packaging n 14

Scan-Level Field to Fork Water Footprint n 15

Detailed Field to Farm Gate Water Footprint n 16 Per Lb. live weight at farm gate based on commodity feeds

Detailed On-farm Water Footprint n 17

Four Pillars of Environmental Sustainability Environmental Sustainability Program Air Footprint 2014 Carbon Footprint 2011 Water Footprint 2013 Land Footprint Air Emissions Dust, Ammonia, Hydrogen Sulfide Greenhouse Gas Methane, Nitrous Oxide, CO 2 Land Use Include Feed Crops Water Use

n 20

Sustainable Pork Advisory Council 28 Invitees - Pork Producer Representatives + Chain Partners Provide Recommendations to National Pork Board Definition Statement - What We Mean By Sustainable Pork Production How We Measure – Past Progress, Current Status, Future Accomplishments Addressing Only Pig Production Crafted Definition Statement

Tagline Definition “Showing how We Care: Doing more to benefit people, pigs, and the environment” n 22

Narrative Definition Healthy pigs produce healthy pork for consumers. Our We Care® principles provide standards and training programs that help responsible farmers succeed by doing the right thing for people, pigs, and the environment. We invite you to join us in our commitment to the following values: Protecting public health through a commitment to farm and food safety; Protecting & promoting animal well-being with farmer-led standards and training programs; Safeguarding natural resources in all of our practices through our Four Pillars of Environmental Sustainability; Improving the work environment and best practices through continuous research and education; and Contributing to a better quality of life in our communities. n 23

Sustainability Index Framework 1.Define Key Performance Indicators (KPI) 2.Define critical impact metrics for each KPI 3.Benchmark performance for each metric 4.Develop and adopt goals for improvement across each metric 5.Implement improvement strategies 6.Measure each metric using best scientific methods at prescribed frequencies 7.Report results 8.Adjust and adapt practices as necessary

KPI’s & Metrics to be Developed SMART Metrics (specific, measureable, achievable, relevant, & time bound) Metrics are science-based and technology neutral Metrics are outcome-based & only practice-based if measurement of outcomes is impractical Metrics are non-prescriptive & flexible toward practices Cost implications and saving opportunities are considered Address regional issues, priorities, regulation, & contextual relevance Metrics are useful to producers, processors, and stakeholders Recommendations are simple & easy to understand Producers & processors can benchmark and compare operations Continual improvements are encouraged

Questions ? 26