- Email: [email protected]
Sustainability of organic meat production under Swedish conditions
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 88 (2002) 95–101
Short communication
Sustainability of organic meat production under Swedish conditions Karl-Ivar Kumm∗ Department of Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7013, S-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden Received 4 October 1999; received in revised form 5 June 2000; accepted 13 December 2000
Abstract World meat consumption has increased considerably during recent decades at the same time as questions about the sustainability of livestock systems. The aim of the paper is to investigate whether organic meat production can be more sustainable than conventional meat production. Organic meat production is supposed to use ecological resources, such as natural grasslands and by-products with low alternative value together with fodder that is grown without artificial fertilisers and pesticides. The organic animals are given the possibility of more natural behaviour, for example, they stay outdoors all year in nature and use simple buildings. For organic meat production to expand in a sustainable way, consumers must perceive it as at least as good as conventional production regarding environmental quality and price. Therefore, possible future organic and conventional meat production are compared regarding production costs, land requirements, soil conservation, nature conservation, energy needs, and chemical requirements as well as the discharge of nitrogen and greenhouse gases. The results suggest that organic production can be more sustainable than conventional production for beef and lamb, but not for pork. Organic beef and lamb production has advantages compared with conventional pig production regarding soil conservation, nature conservation and independence of chemicals. However, the production costs and discharge of nitrogen and greenhouse gases per kilo of meat are larger than in conventional pork production. Organic production also needs more land, which limits its sustainability if land for food production and energy crops is scarce. When food is scarce, organic meat production should aim to use land and by-products that cannot be used in any other way for food production. © 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Environment; Meat; Organic farming; Sustainable livestock; Sweden
1. Introduction World meat consumption has increased considerably during resent decades and is supposed to continue increasing (Bradford, 1999). At the same time, the economic, ecological and ethical sustainability of meat production is questioned by many. One objection ∗ Tel.: +46-18-671814; fax: +46-18-673502. E-mail address: [email protected] (K.-I. Kumm).
concerns the right to kill animals for meat when there are cheaper and nutritiously acceptable or better alternatives. Another is whether meat production can be justified in a world where millions of people are starving and where agricultural land may also be needed to produce bio-fuels which replace fossil fuels. A third objection concerns the environment of animals in modern “industrial agriculture”. A fourth is the environmental pollutants and ecological disturbances that animal production can cause (Robbins, 1987;
0167-8809/02/$ – see front matter © 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 1 6 7 - 8 8 0 9 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 1 5 6 - 6
96
K.-I. Kumm / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 88 (2002) 95–101
Durning and Brough, 1992; Rifkin, 1992; Webster, 1994). A more positive perspective is that meat production may have great importance in sustainable food provision by using ecological resources and by-products that would otherwise not be used (Ebbersten, 1990; Ely, 1994; Webster, 1994; Sansoucy, 1997). This concerns natural pastureland that can hardly be used for any other food production than grazing-based meat production and that also has considerable importance for bio-diversity. This also concerns ley on arable land, a good break crop in plant rotations, that otherwise are dominated by crops for direct human consumption. Jacobs (1993) stated that people eating grass-based beef are better ecologists, than vegetarians are because it can be produced on land where cereal cultivation would lead to soil deterioration whereas pasture and grass improve fertility. In the case of food shortages, meat production should increasingly be based on by-products such as straw, chaff, tops, bran, beet pulp, and oil seed meals. The larger the proportion of vegetable crops in production, the larger the supply of such by-products. Even waste from forest and the forest industry (Andersson and Wennerström, 1941; Presthegge, 1943; Baker et al., 1975; Singh and Kamstra, 1981) as well as forest grazing (Bjor and Graffer, 1962; Sharrow, 1994) might become important feed components in situations of food shortage in forest rich countries as Sweden. Organic meat production based on natural pastures, by-products, and feed produced without artificial fertilisers and chemical pesticides might be more sustainable than conventional meat production more based on potential human food and heavily dependent on chemical inputs. The main purpose of the report is to outline a possible future organic meat production and estimate its sustainability. Future production is defined as a technology that may be possible within a decade and generally applicable a little later if those within research and farm development concentrate on developing an ecologically and economically sustainable meat production. 2. Material and methods The estimation of what is possible future technology, including the connection between resource
input, production volume and environmental influences, has been estimated by Swedish researchers, advisory officers and farmers within a future study for the year 2021, which was done at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences on behalf of the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (1997a,b). Future organic meat production is considered to be largely based on fodder from natural pastureland, and clover leys that are important for the nitrogen supply of organic cropping. This fodder is used for co-production of sheep and steers of dairy breed. Calves that are by-products in milk production and twinborn lambs require less feed to their mothers than suckle calves that are normally single-born. Co-grazing of cattle and sheep also gives higher pasture utilisation and less parasite problems than grazing by one species alone (Walker, 1994). The herd size is 300 ewes and 100 annually produced steers on 60 ha arable land and 70 ha natural pasture. For smaller herds, the work required per head increases and, thereby, the cost per kilo of meat. To facilitate natural animal behaviour and limit building costs, the organic steers and sheep are managed in a ranch system, which is characterised by high grazing part of the total feeding plan and out-wintering under natural conditions and simple built shelters. For ranch management to work well regarding animal welfare, environmental protection and vegetation conservation in the Swedish climate, suitable ground conditions are needed. In conventional beef production, animals are kept in traditional buildings and it is based on suckle cows. The conventional herd size is 200 cows plus replacement and raising until slaughter. Organic pigs are kept outdoors throughout the year but have access to insulated huts. Pasture and hay make up a large part of their fodder. Rough fodder and staying outdoors are considered to contribute to well being of the animals. Leguminous plants are important for the nitrogen and protein supply to the organic pig production. Synthetic amino acids are not used in spite of the fact that they contribute to decreased need for crude protein content of the fodder and, thus, reduced risk of ammonia loss and nitrogen leakage. Future conventional pig production is supposed to be characterised by precision feeding adapted to the needs of each animal group. This, together with accurate climate regulation of the stable environment and continued advances in breeding, contributes to
K.-I. Kumm / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 88 (2002) 95–101
high feed efficiency, and by that, low nitrogen content in the manure and low risk of nitrogen pollution. The herd size is 330 sows in integrated production. All piglets are in the same pen from birth until slaughter, which contributes to reducing the spread of disease and stress. In organic production, herd size is smaller, consisting of 50 sows in integrated production. Sustainability calculations are done with a model (Kumm, 1999) that considers, arable and natural grazing land where fodder is produced, animals that transform fodder into meat, and the food industry and households that use the meat. The arable land can alternatively be used for cultivation of vegetable food or energy crops. By-products from the food industry are used as fodder. Manure from animals and a part of the sewage sludge from the households are used as a means to provide plant nutrients in the fodder production. In fodder production, several other means of production are used such as machines, fuel, labour and investments in land improvement. In conventional production, artificial fertilisers and chemical pesticides are also used. Besides fodder, animals need resources, such as buildings, electricity, medicines and labour. The model calculates resource consumption, costs, and different discharges into the environment per kilo of produced meat, including bone and offal which are used for human consumption. All calculations concern the conditions in the central Swedish flatlands. 3. Results and discussion 3.1. Land area requirements Conventional pork production uses less land per kilo of produced meat than other alternatives. This is because of high feed efficiency and high fodder-grain yields. The conventional grain yields per hectare are considered to be one-third higher than the organic yields. The lower yields, in combination with higher fodder consumption per kilo growth of organic outdoor pigs than in precision reared conventional indoor pigs, means that nearly twice as much land is needed per kilo meat in the organic alternative. Organic clover (Trifolium spp.) leys are supposed to give nearly as high per hectare yield as the highly
97
nitrogen fertilised conventional grass leys. Besides, organic steers and sheep are at least as good fodder transformers as conventional beef cattle. Therefore, the difference in land requirement between the production systems is less for the ruminant-based meat production than in pork production. Ruminant-based meat production requires more land per kilo of meat than pork production. One reason is that the quantity of maintenance of fodder is bigger for cattle as a consequence of higher age at slaughter. Particularly in suckling cow-based beef production, but also in lamb production, the low number of offspring per mother animal also contributes to high consumption of maintenance fodder. High land utilisation is positive in the short run for maintaining a large area in cultivation, before a future when we may need to feed a larger world population with, according to Bradford (1999), large increase in per capita demand for meat and other animal products. Beef and lamb production, with its large share of ley, is also positive for maintaining and even increasing the humus level in the soil. Organic pork production, on the other hand, is worse from a humus perspective due to fodder-grain production breaking down humus, and low yields leading to small quantities of new humus raw elements. Conventional fodder-grain production has higher yields and produces more humus raw materials, making it better from a soil conservation point of view. The day there is a serious shortage of arable land for food supply, conventional pork production will be the most sustainable of the investigated alternatives. Another sustainable alternative in such a case is organic meat production mainly based on by-products and natural pastures. The organic beef/lamb production assumed in Fig. 1 is 70% based on lay and grain grown on arable land. Corresponding share for organic pork is 90%. It is possible to decrease these shares by using more crop residues (e.g. straw and chaff), food processing by-products (e.g. bran and oil seed meal), non-food grade cereals, kitchen wastes and grazing on land where food for people cannot be cultivated due to climate, geology or timber production. Even waste from forest and the forest industry can be used as ruminant feed (see Section 1). Need for arable land can in these ways be reduced to near zero in beef/lamb production.
98
K.-I. Kumm / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 88 (2002) 95–101
Fig. 1. Square-metres of arable land per kilo produced meat calculated for possible future production under Swedish conditions.
3.2. Bio-diversity and pesticide use Besides arable land, ruminant-based production requires about 20 m2 of natural pasture per kilo of meat. Therefore, this production contributes considerably to keeping the agricultural landscape open, an important goal in forest-dominated Sweden. It also contributes to survival of grazing-dependent plant and animal species. Organic beef and lamb production that does not use chemical pesticides is especially positive for bio-diversity. Pesticide use is widespread in conventional feed grain production making especially conventional pork production, but also conventional beef production dependent on pesticides. The sustainability of conventional meat production depends partly on the sustainability of pesticide use. 3.3. Energy and greenhouse gases Meat production requires energy for fodder cultivation where manufacturing and operation of machines and drying of fodder are energy demanding. In conventional cultivation, manufacturing of fertilisers and pesticides also require energy. Energy is also needed during the building and operation of animal stables and plants for fodder preparation. These direct energy needs are calculated to be lowest per kilo of meat in pork production and organic co-production of cattle and sheep. They are higher in conventional beef production.
To save fossil fuels, energy crops can be cultivated for replacement of oil, gas and coal in heating and power stations. Energy forestry (Salix) on arable land can give a net energy output of about 40 000 kWh/ha per year (Börjesson, 1996; Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 1997b). This alternative value is the main energy cost in meat production if there is competition between fodder and energy cultivation. If such competition arises, land-demanding beef and lamb production will be less sustainable than conventional pork production, which needs much less area per kilo of meat. Beef and lamb production releases much more of the greenhouse gas, methane, than pork production (Crutzen et al., 1986). If one also considers that fossil fuels which release carbon dioxide, can be substituted by bio-energy, such as salix chips grown on redundant fodder area, area-demanding meat production with ruminants becomes very negative from the climate perspective. Energy crops take up as much carbon dioxide in the photosynthesis during growth as they release when burnt (Schlamadinger et al., 1997). Both conventional and organic beef and lamb production release three times more carbon dioxide-equivalent per kilo of meat than conventional pig production. Organic pig production takes a position in the middle (Fig. 2). 3.4. Nitrogen Nitrate leaching and ammonia loss per kilo of meat (but not necessarily per hectare) is lowest in
K.-I. Kumm / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 88 (2002) 95–101
99
Fig. 2. Nitrate leaching per ha fodder area calculated for possible future production on clay soil under Swedish conditions. The organic beef and lamb production sensitivity analysis considers one case where unfertilised grass has superseded clover.
conventional pig production. This is because of the efficient use of fodder protein and nitrogen content of stable manure. This means that the nitrogen input largely ends up in meat as protein and in fertilised crops, less ends up in the surrounding environment. Relatively small herds, which are well integrated with feed production, prevent high concentration of pollutants common in more industrialised pig production. Conventional pig production also requires little fodder area, which means that leaching, as a consequence of soil tillage, is low. In organic pig production, losses are greater because of less effective use of the fodder protein and larger fodder area. Nitrogen losses can also be large in organic beef and lamb production. This is because the clover fodder has a much higher protein content than the animals need during much of the production cycle. The nitrogen content in manure is, therefore, high and a relatively large part of this nitrogen is lost to the environment in ranch management, which is assumed to keep down the costs and give animals the possibility of prolonged grazing. In a sensitivity analysis, it is assumed that most of the clover is substituted by unfertilised grass. Hence, the average protein level of the fodder decreases and, consequently, so do nitrate leaching and ammonia losses. Low harvest level and thereby, large area also contribute to low nitrogen losses per hectare although losses per kilo of meat are still higher than in conventional pork production.
3.5. Production costs In Fig. 3, the production cost per kilo of meat is given at Swedish prices for 1995, and at higher prices for labour and land. Higher future labour prices will occur if real salaries continue to rise. Higher land costs occur if there is a food or bio-energy shortage increasing the alternative cost of land. Conventional pig production has the lowest cost and is least affected by price increase in labour and land. This is because of, for example, high fertility of sows and fast growth of pigs, which results in high meat production per animal unit. The low animal stocking leads to small need of work and maintenance fodder per kilo of meat. It is also easier to mechanise and automate conventional pig production than beef and lamb production. The low need of fodder in combination with high fodder yields also means that little land is needed per kilo of conventional pork. Therefore, costs are low for land, seed, machines, and fuel and labour in fodder cultivation per kilo meat. These area-depended costs are considerably higher than costs, which vary with cultivation system, such as fertilisers and pesticides. Organic pig production has higher costs than conventional production because of slightly higher fodder consumption, lower fodder yields and much more work per kilo of meat. The high costs of beef and lamb production are partly explained by the fact that a considerably higher stock of animal per kilo of produced meat must be maintained than in pig production.
100
K.-I. Kumm / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 88 (2002) 95–101
Fig. 3. Production costs per kilo meat calculated for possible future production under Swedish conditions. 1 SEK = US$ 0.12.
Hence, the costs for maintenance of fodder, labour and capital are high. Conventional beef production has even higher costs than organic production because it is suckle cow based, therefore requiring an even larger animal stock per kilo of meat. Besides, it has higher building costs than ranch-based organic production.
In case of a great shortage of agricultural land for food production, organic meat production must be aimed at using special landscapes and by-products that can contribute to food supply only through the refinement of meat-producing animals, for example, natural grasslands and by-products from vegetables, food industry and forestry. In situations of energy shortage, there might be competition between meat production and the bio-energy sector for these resources.
4. Conclusions As long as there is a surplus of land for the production of food and bio-energy, and the consumers are willing to pay the current additional price, organic meat production has good potential for expansion. During 1998, the additional price in Sweden was about 5 SEK/kg (US$ 0.60) for beef and lamb, and 10 SEK/kg (US$ 1.20) for pork, compared to respective conventional products. Fig. 3 suggests that production costs for organic beef and lamb will be lower in the long run than the cost for conventional beef. For pork, the additional cost is only 5 SEK/kg (US$ 0.60). No grants to organic production have been assumed in the calculations. The additional price for the organic meat can be deduced from its contribution to open landscape and bio-diversity, field and soil conservation, freedom from chemical pesticides and the possibility for animals to behave naturally. However, nitrogen release to water and air, like the release of greenhouse gases, is bigger per kilo meat than in conventional pig production.
Acknowledgements The Swedish Council for Forestry and Agricultural Research study has financed the study. Comments from two anonymous reviewers are gratefully acknowledged. References Andersson, A., Wennerström, B., 1941. Ersättnings- och hjälpfodermedel under kristid. LT:s förlag, Stockholm. Baker, A.J., Millett, M.A., Satter, L.D., 1975. Wood and wood-based residues in animal feeds, Am. Chem. Soc. (Cellulose Technol. Res.) 10, 75. Bjor, K., Graffer, H.,1962. Beiteundersökelser på skogsmark. Norges landbruksvitenskaplige forskningsråd, Oslo. Bradford, G.E., 1999. Contributions of animal agriculture to meeting global human food demand. Livestock Prod. Sci. 59, 95–112. Börjesson, P.I.I., 1996. Energy analysis of biomass production and transportation. Biomass Bioenergy 11 (4), 305–318. Crutzen, P.J., Aselmann, I., Seiler, W., 1986. Methane production by domestic animals, wild ruminants, other herbivorous, and humans. Tellus 38 B, 271–284.
K.-I. Kumm / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 88 (2002) 95–101 Durning, A.T., Brough, H.B., 1992. Reforming the Livestock Economy. State of the World, WW Northon & Company, New York, pp. 66–82. Ebbersten, S., 1990. Lantbruksvetenskap- En omvärldsanalys inför 2000-talet med särskild hänsyn till agronom-, hortonomoch landskapsarkitektutbildningen. SLU/Förvaltning. Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet, Uppsala. Ely, D.G., 1994. The role of grazing sheep in sustainable agriculture. Sheep Res. J., Special Issue 1994, pp. 37–51. Jacobs, F., 1993. Cattle and Us. Detselig Enterprises Ltd., Calgary. Kumm, K.-I., 1999. Hållbar ekologisk köttproduktion. Sustainable organic meat production. Institutionen för ekonomi, rapport nr 129. Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet, Uppsala. Presthegge, K., 1943. Sammensetting og fordöyelighet av skogsavfall og annet hjelpefor. Norges landbrukshögskole. Melding 23, Oslo. Rifkin, J., 1992. Beyond Beef. The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture. A Dulton Book, New York. Robbins, J., 1987. Diet for a new America. Stillpoint publishing, Walpole. Sansoucy, R., 1997. Livestock- a driving force for food security and sustainable development. IRD Currents 13/14, Department of
101
rural development studies, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala. Schlamadinger, B., Apps, M., Bohlin, F., Gustavsson, L., Jungmeier, G., Marland, G., Pingoud, K., Savolainen, I., 1997. Towards a standard methodology for greenhouse gas balances of bioenergy systems in comparison with fossil energy systems. Biomass Bioenergy 13 (6), 359–375. Sharrow, S., 1994. Sheep as a silvicultural management tool in temperate conifer forests. Sheep Res. J., Special Issue 1994, pp. 97–104. Singh, M., Kamstra, L.D., 1981. Utilization of whole aspen tree material as a roughage component in growing cattle diets. J. Anim. Sci. 53 (3), 551–556. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 1997a. The agriculture of the future. Summary of a final report on a systems study of sustainable agriculture. Stockholm. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 1997b. Det framtida jordbruket. Rapport 4755. Stockholm. Walker, J.W., 1994. Multispecies grazing: the ecological advantage. Sheep Res. J., Special Issue 1994, pp. 52–64. Webster, A.J.F., 1994. Meat and right: the ethical dilemma. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 53, 263–270.
Short communication
Sustainability of organic meat production under Swedish conditions Karl-Ivar Kumm∗ Department of Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Box 7013, S-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden Received 4 October 1999; received in revised form 5 June 2000; accepted 13 December 2000
Abstract World meat consumption has increased considerably during recent decades at the same time as questions about the sustainability of livestock systems. The aim of the paper is to investigate whether organic meat production can be more sustainable than conventional meat production. Organic meat production is supposed to use ecological resources, such as natural grasslands and by-products with low alternative value together with fodder that is grown without artificial fertilisers and pesticides. The organic animals are given the possibility of more natural behaviour, for example, they stay outdoors all year in nature and use simple buildings. For organic meat production to expand in a sustainable way, consumers must perceive it as at least as good as conventional production regarding environmental quality and price. Therefore, possible future organic and conventional meat production are compared regarding production costs, land requirements, soil conservation, nature conservation, energy needs, and chemical requirements as well as the discharge of nitrogen and greenhouse gases. The results suggest that organic production can be more sustainable than conventional production for beef and lamb, but not for pork. Organic beef and lamb production has advantages compared with conventional pig production regarding soil conservation, nature conservation and independence of chemicals. However, the production costs and discharge of nitrogen and greenhouse gases per kilo of meat are larger than in conventional pork production. Organic production also needs more land, which limits its sustainability if land for food production and energy crops is scarce. When food is scarce, organic meat production should aim to use land and by-products that cannot be used in any other way for food production. © 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Environment; Meat; Organic farming; Sustainable livestock; Sweden
1. Introduction World meat consumption has increased considerably during resent decades and is supposed to continue increasing (Bradford, 1999). At the same time, the economic, ecological and ethical sustainability of meat production is questioned by many. One objection ∗ Tel.: +46-18-671814; fax: +46-18-673502. E-mail address: [email protected] (K.-I. Kumm).
concerns the right to kill animals for meat when there are cheaper and nutritiously acceptable or better alternatives. Another is whether meat production can be justified in a world where millions of people are starving and where agricultural land may also be needed to produce bio-fuels which replace fossil fuels. A third objection concerns the environment of animals in modern “industrial agriculture”. A fourth is the environmental pollutants and ecological disturbances that animal production can cause (Robbins, 1987;
0167-8809/02/$ – see front matter © 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 1 6 7 - 8 8 0 9 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 1 5 6 - 6
96
K.-I. Kumm / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 88 (2002) 95–101
Durning and Brough, 1992; Rifkin, 1992; Webster, 1994). A more positive perspective is that meat production may have great importance in sustainable food provision by using ecological resources and by-products that would otherwise not be used (Ebbersten, 1990; Ely, 1994; Webster, 1994; Sansoucy, 1997). This concerns natural pastureland that can hardly be used for any other food production than grazing-based meat production and that also has considerable importance for bio-diversity. This also concerns ley on arable land, a good break crop in plant rotations, that otherwise are dominated by crops for direct human consumption. Jacobs (1993) stated that people eating grass-based beef are better ecologists, than vegetarians are because it can be produced on land where cereal cultivation would lead to soil deterioration whereas pasture and grass improve fertility. In the case of food shortages, meat production should increasingly be based on by-products such as straw, chaff, tops, bran, beet pulp, and oil seed meals. The larger the proportion of vegetable crops in production, the larger the supply of such by-products. Even waste from forest and the forest industry (Andersson and Wennerström, 1941; Presthegge, 1943; Baker et al., 1975; Singh and Kamstra, 1981) as well as forest grazing (Bjor and Graffer, 1962; Sharrow, 1994) might become important feed components in situations of food shortage in forest rich countries as Sweden. Organic meat production based on natural pastures, by-products, and feed produced without artificial fertilisers and chemical pesticides might be more sustainable than conventional meat production more based on potential human food and heavily dependent on chemical inputs. The main purpose of the report is to outline a possible future organic meat production and estimate its sustainability. Future production is defined as a technology that may be possible within a decade and generally applicable a little later if those within research and farm development concentrate on developing an ecologically and economically sustainable meat production. 2. Material and methods The estimation of what is possible future technology, including the connection between resource
input, production volume and environmental influences, has been estimated by Swedish researchers, advisory officers and farmers within a future study for the year 2021, which was done at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences on behalf of the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (1997a,b). Future organic meat production is considered to be largely based on fodder from natural pastureland, and clover leys that are important for the nitrogen supply of organic cropping. This fodder is used for co-production of sheep and steers of dairy breed. Calves that are by-products in milk production and twinborn lambs require less feed to their mothers than suckle calves that are normally single-born. Co-grazing of cattle and sheep also gives higher pasture utilisation and less parasite problems than grazing by one species alone (Walker, 1994). The herd size is 300 ewes and 100 annually produced steers on 60 ha arable land and 70 ha natural pasture. For smaller herds, the work required per head increases and, thereby, the cost per kilo of meat. To facilitate natural animal behaviour and limit building costs, the organic steers and sheep are managed in a ranch system, which is characterised by high grazing part of the total feeding plan and out-wintering under natural conditions and simple built shelters. For ranch management to work well regarding animal welfare, environmental protection and vegetation conservation in the Swedish climate, suitable ground conditions are needed. In conventional beef production, animals are kept in traditional buildings and it is based on suckle cows. The conventional herd size is 200 cows plus replacement and raising until slaughter. Organic pigs are kept outdoors throughout the year but have access to insulated huts. Pasture and hay make up a large part of their fodder. Rough fodder and staying outdoors are considered to contribute to well being of the animals. Leguminous plants are important for the nitrogen and protein supply to the organic pig production. Synthetic amino acids are not used in spite of the fact that they contribute to decreased need for crude protein content of the fodder and, thus, reduced risk of ammonia loss and nitrogen leakage. Future conventional pig production is supposed to be characterised by precision feeding adapted to the needs of each animal group. This, together with accurate climate regulation of the stable environment and continued advances in breeding, contributes to
K.-I. Kumm / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 88 (2002) 95–101
high feed efficiency, and by that, low nitrogen content in the manure and low risk of nitrogen pollution. The herd size is 330 sows in integrated production. All piglets are in the same pen from birth until slaughter, which contributes to reducing the spread of disease and stress. In organic production, herd size is smaller, consisting of 50 sows in integrated production. Sustainability calculations are done with a model (Kumm, 1999) that considers, arable and natural grazing land where fodder is produced, animals that transform fodder into meat, and the food industry and households that use the meat. The arable land can alternatively be used for cultivation of vegetable food or energy crops. By-products from the food industry are used as fodder. Manure from animals and a part of the sewage sludge from the households are used as a means to provide plant nutrients in the fodder production. In fodder production, several other means of production are used such as machines, fuel, labour and investments in land improvement. In conventional production, artificial fertilisers and chemical pesticides are also used. Besides fodder, animals need resources, such as buildings, electricity, medicines and labour. The model calculates resource consumption, costs, and different discharges into the environment per kilo of produced meat, including bone and offal which are used for human consumption. All calculations concern the conditions in the central Swedish flatlands. 3. Results and discussion 3.1. Land area requirements Conventional pork production uses less land per kilo of produced meat than other alternatives. This is because of high feed efficiency and high fodder-grain yields. The conventional grain yields per hectare are considered to be one-third higher than the organic yields. The lower yields, in combination with higher fodder consumption per kilo growth of organic outdoor pigs than in precision reared conventional indoor pigs, means that nearly twice as much land is needed per kilo meat in the organic alternative. Organic clover (Trifolium spp.) leys are supposed to give nearly as high per hectare yield as the highly
97
nitrogen fertilised conventional grass leys. Besides, organic steers and sheep are at least as good fodder transformers as conventional beef cattle. Therefore, the difference in land requirement between the production systems is less for the ruminant-based meat production than in pork production. Ruminant-based meat production requires more land per kilo of meat than pork production. One reason is that the quantity of maintenance of fodder is bigger for cattle as a consequence of higher age at slaughter. Particularly in suckling cow-based beef production, but also in lamb production, the low number of offspring per mother animal also contributes to high consumption of maintenance fodder. High land utilisation is positive in the short run for maintaining a large area in cultivation, before a future when we may need to feed a larger world population with, according to Bradford (1999), large increase in per capita demand for meat and other animal products. Beef and lamb production, with its large share of ley, is also positive for maintaining and even increasing the humus level in the soil. Organic pork production, on the other hand, is worse from a humus perspective due to fodder-grain production breaking down humus, and low yields leading to small quantities of new humus raw elements. Conventional fodder-grain production has higher yields and produces more humus raw materials, making it better from a soil conservation point of view. The day there is a serious shortage of arable land for food supply, conventional pork production will be the most sustainable of the investigated alternatives. Another sustainable alternative in such a case is organic meat production mainly based on by-products and natural pastures. The organic beef/lamb production assumed in Fig. 1 is 70% based on lay and grain grown on arable land. Corresponding share for organic pork is 90%. It is possible to decrease these shares by using more crop residues (e.g. straw and chaff), food processing by-products (e.g. bran and oil seed meal), non-food grade cereals, kitchen wastes and grazing on land where food for people cannot be cultivated due to climate, geology or timber production. Even waste from forest and the forest industry can be used as ruminant feed (see Section 1). Need for arable land can in these ways be reduced to near zero in beef/lamb production.
98
K.-I. Kumm / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 88 (2002) 95–101
Fig. 1. Square-metres of arable land per kilo produced meat calculated for possible future production under Swedish conditions.
3.2. Bio-diversity and pesticide use Besides arable land, ruminant-based production requires about 20 m2 of natural pasture per kilo of meat. Therefore, this production contributes considerably to keeping the agricultural landscape open, an important goal in forest-dominated Sweden. It also contributes to survival of grazing-dependent plant and animal species. Organic beef and lamb production that does not use chemical pesticides is especially positive for bio-diversity. Pesticide use is widespread in conventional feed grain production making especially conventional pork production, but also conventional beef production dependent on pesticides. The sustainability of conventional meat production depends partly on the sustainability of pesticide use. 3.3. Energy and greenhouse gases Meat production requires energy for fodder cultivation where manufacturing and operation of machines and drying of fodder are energy demanding. In conventional cultivation, manufacturing of fertilisers and pesticides also require energy. Energy is also needed during the building and operation of animal stables and plants for fodder preparation. These direct energy needs are calculated to be lowest per kilo of meat in pork production and organic co-production of cattle and sheep. They are higher in conventional beef production.
To save fossil fuels, energy crops can be cultivated for replacement of oil, gas and coal in heating and power stations. Energy forestry (Salix) on arable land can give a net energy output of about 40 000 kWh/ha per year (Börjesson, 1996; Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 1997b). This alternative value is the main energy cost in meat production if there is competition between fodder and energy cultivation. If such competition arises, land-demanding beef and lamb production will be less sustainable than conventional pork production, which needs much less area per kilo of meat. Beef and lamb production releases much more of the greenhouse gas, methane, than pork production (Crutzen et al., 1986). If one also considers that fossil fuels which release carbon dioxide, can be substituted by bio-energy, such as salix chips grown on redundant fodder area, area-demanding meat production with ruminants becomes very negative from the climate perspective. Energy crops take up as much carbon dioxide in the photosynthesis during growth as they release when burnt (Schlamadinger et al., 1997). Both conventional and organic beef and lamb production release three times more carbon dioxide-equivalent per kilo of meat than conventional pig production. Organic pig production takes a position in the middle (Fig. 2). 3.4. Nitrogen Nitrate leaching and ammonia loss per kilo of meat (but not necessarily per hectare) is lowest in
K.-I. Kumm / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 88 (2002) 95–101
99
Fig. 2. Nitrate leaching per ha fodder area calculated for possible future production on clay soil under Swedish conditions. The organic beef and lamb production sensitivity analysis considers one case where unfertilised grass has superseded clover.
conventional pig production. This is because of the efficient use of fodder protein and nitrogen content of stable manure. This means that the nitrogen input largely ends up in meat as protein and in fertilised crops, less ends up in the surrounding environment. Relatively small herds, which are well integrated with feed production, prevent high concentration of pollutants common in more industrialised pig production. Conventional pig production also requires little fodder area, which means that leaching, as a consequence of soil tillage, is low. In organic pig production, losses are greater because of less effective use of the fodder protein and larger fodder area. Nitrogen losses can also be large in organic beef and lamb production. This is because the clover fodder has a much higher protein content than the animals need during much of the production cycle. The nitrogen content in manure is, therefore, high and a relatively large part of this nitrogen is lost to the environment in ranch management, which is assumed to keep down the costs and give animals the possibility of prolonged grazing. In a sensitivity analysis, it is assumed that most of the clover is substituted by unfertilised grass. Hence, the average protein level of the fodder decreases and, consequently, so do nitrate leaching and ammonia losses. Low harvest level and thereby, large area also contribute to low nitrogen losses per hectare although losses per kilo of meat are still higher than in conventional pork production.
3.5. Production costs In Fig. 3, the production cost per kilo of meat is given at Swedish prices for 1995, and at higher prices for labour and land. Higher future labour prices will occur if real salaries continue to rise. Higher land costs occur if there is a food or bio-energy shortage increasing the alternative cost of land. Conventional pig production has the lowest cost and is least affected by price increase in labour and land. This is because of, for example, high fertility of sows and fast growth of pigs, which results in high meat production per animal unit. The low animal stocking leads to small need of work and maintenance fodder per kilo of meat. It is also easier to mechanise and automate conventional pig production than beef and lamb production. The low need of fodder in combination with high fodder yields also means that little land is needed per kilo of conventional pork. Therefore, costs are low for land, seed, machines, and fuel and labour in fodder cultivation per kilo meat. These area-depended costs are considerably higher than costs, which vary with cultivation system, such as fertilisers and pesticides. Organic pig production has higher costs than conventional production because of slightly higher fodder consumption, lower fodder yields and much more work per kilo of meat. The high costs of beef and lamb production are partly explained by the fact that a considerably higher stock of animal per kilo of produced meat must be maintained than in pig production.
100
K.-I. Kumm / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 88 (2002) 95–101
Fig. 3. Production costs per kilo meat calculated for possible future production under Swedish conditions. 1 SEK = US$ 0.12.
Hence, the costs for maintenance of fodder, labour and capital are high. Conventional beef production has even higher costs than organic production because it is suckle cow based, therefore requiring an even larger animal stock per kilo of meat. Besides, it has higher building costs than ranch-based organic production.
In case of a great shortage of agricultural land for food production, organic meat production must be aimed at using special landscapes and by-products that can contribute to food supply only through the refinement of meat-producing animals, for example, natural grasslands and by-products from vegetables, food industry and forestry. In situations of energy shortage, there might be competition between meat production and the bio-energy sector for these resources.
4. Conclusions As long as there is a surplus of land for the production of food and bio-energy, and the consumers are willing to pay the current additional price, organic meat production has good potential for expansion. During 1998, the additional price in Sweden was about 5 SEK/kg (US$ 0.60) for beef and lamb, and 10 SEK/kg (US$ 1.20) for pork, compared to respective conventional products. Fig. 3 suggests that production costs for organic beef and lamb will be lower in the long run than the cost for conventional beef. For pork, the additional cost is only 5 SEK/kg (US$ 0.60). No grants to organic production have been assumed in the calculations. The additional price for the organic meat can be deduced from its contribution to open landscape and bio-diversity, field and soil conservation, freedom from chemical pesticides and the possibility for animals to behave naturally. However, nitrogen release to water and air, like the release of greenhouse gases, is bigger per kilo meat than in conventional pig production.
Acknowledgements The Swedish Council for Forestry and Agricultural Research study has financed the study. Comments from two anonymous reviewers are gratefully acknowledged. References Andersson, A., Wennerström, B., 1941. Ersättnings- och hjälpfodermedel under kristid. LT:s förlag, Stockholm. Baker, A.J., Millett, M.A., Satter, L.D., 1975. Wood and wood-based residues in animal feeds, Am. Chem. Soc. (Cellulose Technol. Res.) 10, 75. Bjor, K., Graffer, H.,1962. Beiteundersökelser på skogsmark. Norges landbruksvitenskaplige forskningsråd, Oslo. Bradford, G.E., 1999. Contributions of animal agriculture to meeting global human food demand. Livestock Prod. Sci. 59, 95–112. Börjesson, P.I.I., 1996. Energy analysis of biomass production and transportation. Biomass Bioenergy 11 (4), 305–318. Crutzen, P.J., Aselmann, I., Seiler, W., 1986. Methane production by domestic animals, wild ruminants, other herbivorous, and humans. Tellus 38 B, 271–284.
K.-I. Kumm / Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 88 (2002) 95–101 Durning, A.T., Brough, H.B., 1992. Reforming the Livestock Economy. State of the World, WW Northon & Company, New York, pp. 66–82. Ebbersten, S., 1990. Lantbruksvetenskap- En omvärldsanalys inför 2000-talet med särskild hänsyn till agronom-, hortonomoch landskapsarkitektutbildningen. SLU/Förvaltning. Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet, Uppsala. Ely, D.G., 1994. The role of grazing sheep in sustainable agriculture. Sheep Res. J., Special Issue 1994, pp. 37–51. Jacobs, F., 1993. Cattle and Us. Detselig Enterprises Ltd., Calgary. Kumm, K.-I., 1999. Hållbar ekologisk köttproduktion. Sustainable organic meat production. Institutionen för ekonomi, rapport nr 129. Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet, Uppsala. Presthegge, K., 1943. Sammensetting og fordöyelighet av skogsavfall og annet hjelpefor. Norges landbrukshögskole. Melding 23, Oslo. Rifkin, J., 1992. Beyond Beef. The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture. A Dulton Book, New York. Robbins, J., 1987. Diet for a new America. Stillpoint publishing, Walpole. Sansoucy, R., 1997. Livestock- a driving force for food security and sustainable development. IRD Currents 13/14, Department of
101
rural development studies, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala. Schlamadinger, B., Apps, M., Bohlin, F., Gustavsson, L., Jungmeier, G., Marland, G., Pingoud, K., Savolainen, I., 1997. Towards a standard methodology for greenhouse gas balances of bioenergy systems in comparison with fossil energy systems. Biomass Bioenergy 13 (6), 359–375. Sharrow, S., 1994. Sheep as a silvicultural management tool in temperate conifer forests. Sheep Res. J., Special Issue 1994, pp. 97–104. Singh, M., Kamstra, L.D., 1981. Utilization of whole aspen tree material as a roughage component in growing cattle diets. J. Anim. Sci. 53 (3), 551–556. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 1997a. The agriculture of the future. Summary of a final report on a systems study of sustainable agriculture. Stockholm. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, 1997b. Det framtida jordbruket. Rapport 4755. Stockholm. Walker, J.W., 1994. Multispecies grazing: the ecological advantage. Sheep Res. J., Special Issue 1994, pp. 52–64. Webster, A.J.F., 1994. Meat and right: the ethical dilemma. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 53, 263–270.