Pasture-For-Life beef

[Cowgirl]

Does anyone know what percentage of a beast is carbon? Some of it must be retained by the animals.

I don’t but every animal breathes out CO2 and every organic molecule contains carbon!

 

[Muddyroads]

Absolutely. We all focus on the carbon sequestered by grass, versus the methane and co2 which is expired, but a certain amount must be retained by the animals to allow them to grow. I just wonder if it’s too small a part to be significant, or if it’s a bit that we’ve been overlooking.

 

[Kiwi Pete]

Does anyone know what percentage of a beast is carbon? Some of it must be retained by the animals.

About 18.5% C, 65% O, 9.5% H and 3.3% N, same as us.

That's why their ideal diet is about 9% protein, 40.5% oxygen and 6.3% hydrogen - mature grass...and our ideal diet is plenty of grassfed beef and slow-grown veg

Many farmers are poking that much excess protein into them that the cows are burning energy just to stabilise the rumen, making their overall C footprint something that it shouldn't be.
Then it (ammonia) accumulates in the liver and decreases the useful life of the cow.

Mainly because of the bright idea that "we need to hurry it up" due to accepting the methane farce as fact.
Infact the opposite is true, we need to spend much less fossil energy on feeding the cow and the C footprint is reduced dramatically

 

[kiwi pom]

Try doing that in Cumbria, it's hard enough stopping sheep ruining fields in the winter. I like the idea but if everyone did it we wouldn't produce enough beef and they'd all be ready in the summer months

Then perhaps your farm isn't suited to beef cattle?
I think that's the point of all this environmental talk, use land for the things it is best suited for. It may be your land isn't suited to sustainable Ag production at all or perhaps only extensive sheep. Perhaps it would be better used for conservation?
Before you yell at me it's not really my opinion, just what some of the "experts" say. The problem is they haven't figured out a way to compensate the land owner for using the land in the way they want.

 

[NZDan]

We are now Pasture for Life Certified producers. Butcher is not unfortunately so can’t yet sell from PFLA website but with a few more hoops to jump through we should be able to. Certification is done through same as Organic - though slightly different, many of the standards are the same. If you go to the website you can read the standards.
We believe it is a growing movement and is ideal for us, though wouldn’t suit a lot of people. Have to have the right genetics for the job - ours are ideally suited.

What is the limit on how much grain can be fed to an animal and have it still qualify as 'grass fed' ? I've been told it is up to 40% of diet but I can't find and proof one way or the other.

 

[NZDan]

Try doing that in Cumbria, it's hard enough stopping sheep ruining fields in the winter. I like the idea but if everyone did it we wouldn't produce enough beef and they'd all be ready in the summer months

Are you implying that you can't run cattle out side all year round? I've just had a UK farmer tell be that ALL British beef was pasture raised and was never CAFO. [emoji1] [emoji1]

 

[Tim W]

What is the limit on how much grain can be fed to an animal and have it still qualify as 'grass fed' ? I've been told it is up to 40% of diet but I can't find and proof one way or the other.

Zero grain

https://www.pastureforlife.org/media/2020/08/PfL-Standards-Update-Version-4.0-FINAL-v2.pdf

3.4.3 Pasture and forage must be the only feed source consumed for the lifetime of the animal, with the exception of milk consumed by youngstock prior to weaning. Animals must not be fed grain or any other form of feed concentrate.

As far as i understand there is as of yet no legal definition of Pasturefed in UK but there are moves to change this

 

[Sheepfog]

What is the limit on how much grain can be fed to an animal and have it still qualify as 'grass fed' ? I've been told it is up to 40% of diet but I can't find and proof one way or the other.

No grain. But producers can get away with feeding wholecrop!!

 

[MDL POWERUP]

Are you implying that you can't run cattle out side all year round? I've just had a UK farmer tell be that ALL British beef was pasture raised and was never CAFO. [emoji1] [emoji1]

Only in the dryer parts, I have fields under water in the winter..

 

[MDL POWERUP]

Then perhaps your farm isn't suited to beef cattle?
I think that's the point of all this environmental talk, use land for the things it is best suited for. It may be your land isn't suited to sustainable Ag production at all or perhaps only extensive sheep. Perhaps it would be better used for conservation?
Before you yell at me it's not really my opinion, just what some of the "experts" say. The problem is they haven't figured out a way to compensate the land owner for using the land in the way they want.

Cumbria grows grass better than a lot of places, just because you can't out winter cattle doesn't mean it's only good for conservation. It means you try and use your head and bring cattle/sheep indoors and use surplus grain/straw by products into meat

 

[Tim W]

problem is they haven't figured out a way to compensate the land owner for using the land in the way they want.

I think they have figured the basics but many farmers haven't figured how to square this with farming & making a living

 

[John Chance]

But presumably, the carbon footprint of such a system must be significantly higher than grass-based systems which use judicious amounts of concentrate/protein supplementation.

Broadly true, if uncomfortable. Two factors; shorter production period and and far less methane produced on cereal based diets compared with forage based diets. Methane is cyclical as we all know, but does have a 60 x greater greenhouse effect whilst it is in the atmosphere. The diet effect is due to methanogenic rumen bacteria being inhibited by the lower rumen pHs and generally being fibre digesters not starch digesters.

 

[Poorbuthappy]

Broadly true, if uncomfortable. Two factors; shorter production period and and far less methane produced on cereal based diets compared with forage based diets. Methane is cyclical as we all know, but does have a 60 x greater greenhouse effect whilst it is in the atmosphere. The diet effect is due to methanogenic rumen bacteria being inhibited by the lower rumen pHs and generally being fibre digesters not starch digesters.

You are looking at 1 element - methane emissions - and ignoring all other factors.

 

[John Chance]

You are looking at 1 element - methane emissions - and ignoring all other factors.

My other point about how long they live was meant to catch general carbon footprint. It is, I think, accepted that the production of shorter lived animals has a lower carbon footprint than longer lived ones. This combined with the methane point is why intensive bull beef production has lower carbon footprint per kg of beef than pasture based systems, particularly in areas of the country where winter housing is pretty much inevitable. I think pasture-for-life is a great marketing idea, with massive potential, but, unfortunately, carbon footprint is not on its side.

 

[Cowgirl]

My other point about how long they live was meant to catch general carbon footprint. It is, I think, accepted that the production of shorter lived animals has a lower carbon footprint than longer lived ones. This combined with the methane point is why intensive bull beef production has lower carbon footprint per kg of beef than pasture based systems, particularly in areas of the country where winter housing is pretty much inevitable. I think pasture-for-life is a great marketing idea, with massive potential, but, unfortunately, carbon footprint is not on its side.

Yes it is - see above.

 

[Cowgirl]

Definition of “grass fed” in UK is 51% grass - assume government figure! A lot of UK beef in my opinion is produced from the equivalent of CAFOs - just covered sheds, rather than outdoor pens.

 

[The Ruminant]

My other point about how long they live was meant to catch general carbon footprint. It is, I think, accepted that the production of shorter lived animals has a lower carbon footprint than longer lived ones. This combined with the methane point is why intensive bull beef production has lower carbon footprint per kg of beef than pasture based systems, particularly in areas of the country where winter housing is pretty much inevitable. I think pasture-for-life is a great marketing idea, with massive potential, but, unfortunately, carbon footprint is not on its side.

I’m afraid you’re way off with your reasoning. There was an old measure of “greenhouse gases” which was known as GWP100 (GWP stands for Global Warming Potential).
GWP100 has now been discredited for wildly overestimating the impact of methane on the environment. It has been superseded by GWP* which is a better measure.

You are correct to say methane has a greater warming effect compared to carbon but it also breaks down in about a decade or so. This is crucial - the methane my cattle are emitting now is simply replacing the methane given off by my cattle a decade ago. The amount of methane in the atmosphere remains the same, neither rising or falling.

However, the carbon dug out of the ground - oil, gas, coal - stays in the atmosphere pretty much forever once it’s emitted.

 

[The Ruminant]

PFLA says definition of “grass fed” in UK is 51% grass - assume government figure! A lot of UK beef in my opinion is produced from the equivalent of CAFOs - just covered sheds, rather than outdoor pens.

To clarify, this is what the current standard is but it definitely ISN’T supported by the PFLA - their standards are set at 100% forage, so it’s black and white rather than grey!

(Just the way you worded it sounded like 51% was a PFLA standard!)

 

[Woolless]

My other point about how long they live was meant to catch general carbon footprint. It is, I think, accepted that the production of shorter lived animals has a lower carbon footprint than longer lived ones. This combined with the methane point is why intensive bull beef production has lower carbon footprint per kg of beef than pasture based systems, particularly in areas of the country where winter housing is pretty much inevitable. I think pasture-for-life is a great marketing idea, with massive potential, but, unfortunately, carbon footprint is not on its side.

A problem with these calculations is that carbon sequestered by grassland isn't taken in to account?

 

[Cowgirl]

To clarify, this is what the current standard is but it definitely ISN’T supported by the PFLA - their standards are set at 100% forage, so it’s black and white rather than grey!

(Just the way you worded it sounded like 51% was a PFLA standard!)

Sorry yes I needed to edit that! Exactly. However I suppose we must be careful- I have had arguments on Twitter with farmers who say that we can’t call it “grass” because because it might be herbs, or hedge plants, or trees rather than grass!
I really do think that livestock farmers need to stick together and sing from the same hymn sheet about this methane nonsense. Ruminants have been on this planet for thousands of years without causing global warming- if any of us are agreeing with this one sided pseudoscience I fear we are all doomed!