QUICK FACTS
U.S. farmers and ranchers are dedicated to supplying the safety, highest quality and affordable sources of protein in the world. That is meat, milk and eggs produced in the most efficient way while taking care to assure proper animal well-being and environmental sustainability.
PDF Fact Sheets on: Antibiotics / Growth promotants / Global warming / Environmental sustainability
Environmental sustainability*
A common consumer perception is that historical methods of food production were inherently more environmentally friendly than modern agricultural practices but despite the rustic pastoral scenes of the “good old days”, today’s farms and ranches are actually better for the environment.A good example of this is the carbon footprint of dairy production in 1944 compared to that of 2007. Accordingly, the carbon footprint in 2007 was 63% less per kilogram of milk than in 1944.
Many of the characteristics of 1940s dairy production – low yielding, pasture-based, no antibiotics, inorganic fertilizers or chemical pesticides – are, in fact, similar to those of modern organic systems. Indeed, studies investigating the environmental impact of organic systems have also described increases in quantity of resources required and carbon footprint per kilogram of milk compared to conventional production.In most instances, the application of technology has led to the efficiencies achieved in animal agriculture. Take for example, the widespread adoption of genetically modified Bt-corn that significantly increased U.S. corn yields and the introduction of herbicide-resistant soybeans that improved yields and facilitated the use of no-till practices, thus reducing soil erosion, carbon loss and fossil fuel use.
The U.S. dairy industry is another example of where significant efficiency gains have been achieved over the past 60 years. According to USDA data, in 1944, dairy cows numbers peaked at 25.6 million head and total milk production was 53 billion kg. In comparison, the 2007 U.S. dairy herd was comprised of 9.2 million animals that produced a total 84 billion kg of milk. On an equivalency basis, this is a four-fold increase in annual milk yield per cow – 2,074 kg per cow in 1944 and 9,193 kg per cow in 2007. This improvement has been achieved through the introduction of production and management practices that maximize potential milk yields while emphasizing cow health and welfare.
The consumption of non-renewable energy sources is a significant issue within the dairy industry as fossil fuel combustion depletes existing deposits and increases the industry’s carbon footprint. By improving productive efficiency through technology such as recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) the industry’s impact on the environment can be reduced. Take for example, the supplementation of one million dairy cows with rbST and the fact that it reduces annual fossil fuel and electricity use by 729 million MJ and 156 million kWh, respectively. This is equivalent to heating approximately 16,000 and powering approximately 15,000 homes.
Furthermore, the amount of water saved by rbST use has been found to be equivalent to the annual amount required to supply approximately 10,000 homes – a considerable environmental benefit in areas where water consumption is a significant concern.
The carbon footprint of cow population supplemented with rbST also is reduced by 1.9 billion kg per year – or an equivalent of removing approximately 400,000 cars from the road or planting approximately 300 million trees. Keep in mind that one million rbST-supplemented dairy cows is equivalent to approximately 15% of the current U.S. dairy herd, and therefore the potential for widespread rbST use to reduce the environmental impact of dairy production should not be underestimated.*Source: Increased production reduces the dairy industry’s environmental impact by J.L. Capper and D.E. Bauman of Cornell University, Ithaca, NY and R.A. Cady, formerly of Monsanto Co., St. Louis, MO.
An added environmental benefit
Grazing of land can minimize the invasion of non-native plant species and lower the risk of wildfires by decreasing the amount of flammable material on the land.Approximately 85 percent of U.S. grazing lands are unsuitable for producing crops. Grazing animals on this land more than doubles the area that can be used to produce food. Cattle serve a valuable role in the ecosystem by converting the forages humans cannot consume into a nutrient-dense food.
Efficiency of production
The Keystone Center Jan. 2009 report indicates improvement in efficiency since 1987 in American Agriculture. The initial index shows soil-loss efficiency trends have improved substantially by 30% to nearly 70% for the four crops evaluated. Energy use per unit of output is down in corn, soybeans and cotton production by nearly 40% to more than 605. Irrigated water use per unit of output has also decreased 20% to nearly 50% while carbon emissions per unit of output have dropped by about one-third for these three crops.Affordability of U.S. produced food
The efficiency in today’s agriculture means that American consumers spend only 10% of their income on food. This compares to elsewhere in the world where 18-25% of consumers’ income goes toward the purchase of food.A family affair
A common misbelieve is that large corporations control today’s farms and ranchers, but the fact of the matter is that 99% of U.S. farms and ranches are still owned by individuals and family corporations or partnerships. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, there are only 7,000 non-family-controlled corporate farms in the United States. This compares with some 2 million plus family-owned operations.
Global warming
Animal agriculture contributes minimally to the production of total greenhouse gasses (GHG), according to the Environmental Protection Agency. The production of food animals contributes to less than 2.24% of total GHG emissions. In comparison, fossil fuel combustion contributes to approximately 79.2% of all GHG emissions.
An August 2002 United Nations’ report predicted that agricultural and urban expansion will threaten biodiversity on 72% of the global land area by 2032. The "World Atlas of Biodiversity: Earth's Living Resources for the 21st Century" report said that up to 48% of these areas will be converted to agricultural land, plantations and urban areas, compared with 22% today.
A 2003 survey of 530 climate scientists in 27 countries, conducted by Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch at the GKSS Institute of Coastal Research in Germany, found 82 % said global warming is happening, but only 56% said it’s mostly the result of human causes, and only 35% said models can accurately predict future climate conditions. Only 27 % believed “the current state of scientific knowledge is able to provide reasonable predictions of climate variability on time scales of 100 years.”
The claim that global warming is a “crisis” is itself a theory. It can be falsified by scientific fact, just as the claim that there is a “consensus” that global warming is man-made and will be a catastrophe has been dis-proven by the fact that this conference is taking place.Growth promotants/hormones
America’s cattle producers use growth promotants to safely produce more of the lean beef that consumers demand while using fewer resources, like land and feed.Sometimes referred to as cattle growth hormones, these production technologies have been used for nearly 60 years to help cattle efficiently convert their feed into more lean muscle.Most growth promotants are used to supplement existing hormones or compensate for missing hormones in an animal’s body.
The hormones in growth promotants are metabolized or used by the animal’s body before it goes to harvest. Although these products vary in active ingredients and dose, they generally work by discouraging protein depletion and encouraging protein synthesis in cattle so they can gain more lean muscle from less feed. Improvements in cattle production technologies including the use of growth promotants, have helped provide a growing population with the lean beef they demand while using fewer resources.
A University of Minnesota Extension Service study found that growth promotants improve cattle growth rates and feed conversion efficiency, increasing annual U.S. beef production by more than 700 million pounds while saving more than 6 billion pounds of feed. In addition, if the beef production practices from 1955 were used today, 165 million more acres of land – an area almost the size of Texas – still could not equal today’s beef production according to an expert analysis. Growth promotant use in beef cattle typically improves lean tissue development by 8 to 20% compared to non-treated cattle and the use of recombinant bovine growth hormone in dairy cattle can improve milk production by as much as 10% in a cow.
Growth promotants typically are administered through a small pellet (called an implant) that is placed under the skin on the back of an animal’s ear, but some can be administered through the animal’s feed. The hormones in growth-promoting implants include estrogens (estradiol and zeranol), androgens (testosterone and trenbolone acetate or TBA) and progestins (progesterone and melengestrol acetate or MGA).
It is important to recognize that many common foods naturally contain estrogen (or phyto estrogen in plants) at levels hundreds or thousands of times higher than the levels in dairy or beef products that come from animals given estrogen hormones. In addition, estrogen levels in dairy and beef products from treated animals are essentially the same as products from untreated animals.
4 oz. beef from steer given hormones: 1.6 nanograms of estrogen
4 oz. beef from untreated steer: 1.2 nanograms of estrogen
4 oz. beef from non-pregnant heifer: 1.5 nanograms of estrogen
4 oz. raw cabbage: 2700 ng estrogen
4 oz. raw peas: 454 ng estrogen.
3 oz. soy oil: 168,000 nanograms of estrogen
3.5 oz. of soy protein concentrate: 102,000 nanograms of estrogen.
3 oz. of milk from cow given rBST: 11 nanograms of estrogen
3 oz. of milk from untreated (non-BST) cow: 11 nanograms of estrogen
Average level in a woman of childbearing age: 480,000 nanograms/day of estrogen
Average level in a pre-pubertal girl: 54,000 nanograms/day of estrogen
Average soy latte (one cup of soymilk): 30,000 nanograms of estrogen
The Food & Drug Administration requires extensive toxicological testing to determine safe levels of hormone use in livestock and requires manufacturers to demonstrate that the amount of hormone left in each edible tissue after treatment is well below that known to be safe – www.fda.gov/cvm/hormones.htm
In addition to FDA, other prestigious bodies such as the WHO, UN Food and Agriculture Organization, Health Canada and international Codex Alimentarius Commission, agree that hormones can be safely used in agricultural animals.
Housing
With the exception of beef animals, U.S. farm animals are generally kept indoors so to best protect their health and welfare. Housing protects against predators, disease and the weather extremes. Housing also allows for a minimization of stress for the animals during birth and breeding and allows for the farmer to better monitor animal condition and well-being.
Modern livestock and poultry barns are well ventilated, environmentally controlled, allow for proper airflow and provide for a regular supply of fresh water and the dispersal of nutritionally appropriate diets.
Cages provide additional protection: Pigs are aggressive animals; when housed in pens as a group they have an established order of dominance. Pigs at the lower end of the pecking order can suffer severe bites from more dominate animals, and subordinates will have less access to their daily diet unless steps are taken to minimize these conflicts. Gestation stalls are one way in which farmers can provide more individual attention to pregnant sows as well as provide protections from other pigs.
In addition to keeping sows from biting one another, nutritional programs can be individually designed for sows that need more or less feed, depending on their body type. Record keeping that can trace medicines used and feed additives also is easier when sows are kept in stalls.
In the case of laying hens, the use of cages provides for efficiency in production as well as proper well-being for the hens. In fact, the United Egg Producers estimates that if current egg production was to be maintained in the state of California in a cage free system of production, some 515 new houses would need to be built to accommodate the larger space requirements of cage free production. The cost of building these new houses would be an estimated $500 million, not counting land costs.
Egg producers representing more than 200 million layers, or 80% of the industry, are already part of the United Egg Producers Certified Care program, which are guidelines established by an independent scientific advisory committee in the areas of comfort, health and safety of the chickens.
Antibiotics
Food animals kept in housing are no more likely to get sick than animals kept in the open. In fact, animals and birds kept in houses are generally healthier because they are protected. Despite media reports to the contrary, NO scientific linkage has been made between the use antibiotics in animal production and antibiotic resistance in humans. In fact, most antibiotics used in animal production are not used in the treatment of humans.
To prevent illness and to ensure that an animal remains healthy all its life, producers take preventive measures, including the use of animal health products. These products are given to the animal in a scientifically formulated feed best suited to the animal's needs and all are approved and regulated by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration for use in animals as directed.
Because of their high cost, farmers and ranchers cannot afford to over use animal health products. They use animal drugs and vaccines only when it is in the best interest of the animal to ensure its well-being or when necessary to protect the food supply. Farmers and ranchers know that a sick and stressed animal is bad for their bottom line and can possibly present a risk to the food supply. The well-being of the animal would be negatively comprised if a farmer or rancher did not have the necessary animal products with which to treat his sick animals.
Antibiotics are used in minute doses in farm animals' water or feed to protect them from disease or illness. The average amount in medicated feed is 4 to 25 grams per ton of feed. In addition, the majority of antibiotics used in the U.S. are for preventing and curing illness, with only 13% for health maintenance, also called growth promotion.
To keep the amount of antibiotic use in perspective, consider that there are many more food-producing animals than humans. In fact, there are approximately 282 million people versus:In the European Union, where antibiotic growth promoters were banned in 1998, the incidence of disease increased and more treatments with antibiotics were needed than before the ban. Notably, no reduction in human resistance levels has been shown since the ban took effect.FDA requires extensive toxicological testing to determine safe levels of any antibiotic residue in animal tissue or milk. As an added measure of safety, FDA can require producers to withhold a treated animal from slaughter, providing even more time for the antibiotic to clear the animal’s system before its meat enters the food supply chain. FDA applies large margins of safety – from 100 to 2000-fold – in establishing mandatory withdrawal times. Moreover, each tank of milk is tested for antibiotic residues and if any violations are detected, the entire tank of milk is discarded. Meat is similarly monitored at slaughter points.
- 7.5 billion chickens
- 292 million turkeys
- 109 million cattle
- 92 million pigs
- 7 million sheep
- All antibiotics used in livestock and poultry are approved on basis of their safety
- Producers are required to follow 'Judicious Antibiotic Use Guidelines'
- Extra-label use of feed additives is illegal and strictly prohibited
- Withdrawal times must be strictly adhered to avoid a violative residues
Humane care
U.S. farmers and ranchers know the importance of treating their animals well. They know that a well-cared for animal means the production of a healthy, high-quality animal and a greater profit return. Well-cared for animals also provide for the production a more wholesome food supply and farmers what nothing more than for you to be confident in the food you eat.
Some groups would have you believe that farm animals are routinely "mutilated" by beak trimming, tail docking, branding, dehorning, castration and other practices. Like in human medicine, these practices are, in fact, done in a professional manner and ensure the welfare and health of the animal. In some instances, they also ensure the food quality.
In the U.S., 140 million hogs and cattle are harvested for food each year. This compares with 1 million animals killed on the highways daily - 60% die at night.
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
Only 153 people in the history of the world have ever contracted variant CJD and there is no proof that the disease was directly attributed to the consumption of contaminated meat products.
In comparison, 150 Americans die every year because of automobile collisions with deer. 7000 Americans die annually because their doctors prescribe incorrect medications for them. The odds of contracting vCJD are 1 in 400 billion, your odds of dieing in a automobile crash 1 in 242, odds of death from a fall in the bath tub 1 in 10,760.Programs are in place in the U.S. to minimize the risk associated with bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Click here for more information.
Natural fibers
According to a survey by the International Fur Trade Federation (IFTF) the global value of retail sales of fur garments, trim and accessories increased by some 4% in the year 2002-2003 to a figure of $11.3 billion. The figure, which covers the sale of fur in the 29 countries represented within IFTF’s membership, marks the fifth annual increase since IFTF began compiling annual results. "The increase in turnover represents a very strong achievement, considering the economic difficulties faced by a number of countries included in the survey," commented IFTF Chairman Andreas Lenhart. "The fur trade has in fact done remarkably well in the present climate, when many luxury brands have been having a very tough time."
