1. Eco-benefits of Growth Promoting Pharmaceuticals Alex Avery, Director of Research and Education Hudson Institute

2. Hormones: Why? Increase total volume of beef produced from limited resources. Reduces costs. More muscle, less fat, and less pollution per pound of beef produced. 99.5% of U.S. beef feedlot production utilizes supplemental hormones. Six hormones approved and used since 1950s: three natural and three synthetic.

3. Hudson Analysis Used real-world beef finishing criteria and production results from a study commissioned by Iowa State University’s Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture. (calving/weaning stages essentially identical between organic and conventional) Used UN IPCC Greenhouse gas emissions factors Compared organic grass-based beef finishing with conventional feedlot finishing -- with and without supplemental growth hormones Production estimates consistently conservative

4. Beef Hormone Eco-Benefits Reduce the land required to produce a pound of beef by 67 percent. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from beef finishing by 40 percent. More beef with less grain at lower cost.

5. Hormones allow land to be used more efficiently

7. Beef Eco-Analysis: Global Warming Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions estimates included emissions from feed production, but not feed transport or product transport. Recent comprehensive Japanese analysis says feed transport is roughly 10% of total GHG emissions for each pound of beef. This is higher than for U.S. (due to 3-5X longer feed transport distances), but indicates that it is a relatively minor component.

8. Beef and GHG Emissions Organic grass-fed produced 40% MORE CO2- equivalent greenhouse gases per pound of beef than grain-fed. Key is methane, which is 23X more powerful greenhouse gas than CO 2. Grass-fed cows produce ~2X more enteric methane which overwhelms higher CO 2 emissions in feedlot system from fertilizer production, field crop operations, feed transport, etc.

9. Who Agrees with Hudson? UN FAO states: “... by far the largest share of emissions come from more extensive systems.” “The most promising approach for reducing methane emissions from livestock is by improving [productivity and efficiency] of livestock production. “The basic principle is to increase the digestibility of feedstuff,” Translation: Finish beef animals on grain, not grass

10. Foodwatch and German Institute for Ecological Economy Research August 2008: “The production of one kilo of grass-fed beef causes the same amount of emissions as driving 70.4 miles in a compact car. Because of more intensive production methods, producing one kilo of conventional beef is the equivalent of driving only 43.9 miles.” Translation: Conventional = ~40% less!!!

11. Organic False Claims of Lower GHG Emissions Organic/animal rights activists claim organic produces 40% fewer GHG emissions [Ogino versus Cederberg and Stadig, 2007] False comparison of Swedish grass-fed beef production to specialty Japanese Kobe beef production, in which Japanese cattle fed 2X longer than U.S. and feed is shipped 18,000+ miles

12. Ogino (cited by HSUS) says: In noting that the Japanese beef fattening system GHG emissions were 2X more than U.S. estimates: “The contribution of the [Japanese system] to global warming... was therefore larger that that of the U.S. feedlot system, which seemed to be due to the much longer feeding length of the Japanese system.” [emphasis added]

13. GHG Emissions: Land factor Two recent papers on biofuels in Science and Nature raise a critical issue: If policies or farm practices result in forest/habitat clearance – the net result is a significant increase in GHG emissions. So... Grass-based/organic beef GHG emissions are even HIGHER than direct numbers because they would REQUIRE land clearance to equal beef production (or forced veganism!) Assuming equal GHG emissions (as several analysis indicate), land clearance would add roughly 60% to organic/grass-fed beef emissions

14. Low Productivity = Land Clearing = More GHG Searchinger et al. (2008, Science) say cleared land emits ~10,400 lbs of GHG/acre/year, calling it “carbon debt.” 2007 U.S. used 13.3 million acres to produce cattle feed. Grass-fed would require extra 26.6 million acres. 26.6 million X 10,400 = extra 276.6 billion lbs GHG emissions

15. Total GHG emissions with carbon debt for U.S. beef Conventional 22 lbs GHG per lb of beef (Johnson et al.) X 22.16 billion lbs beef = 487.5 billion lbs GHG Grass-fed/Organic 22.3 lbs of GHG per lb of beef (Swedish) X 22.16 billion lbs beef = 494.2 billion lbs PLUS 276.6 billion lbs from carbon debt = 770 billion lbs GHG