Grass-fed beef spreadsheet

Here (I hope) I've attached a spreadsheet, in response to a question about how I calculated the fossil fuel savings from switching to grass-fed meat and dairy, from grocery-store (grain-fed).

It should be fairly self-explanatory. It shows my best guess for the calculation for my family. Modify the colored cells (ONLY!) to change the assumptions if you wish.

I've also given a very sloppy page of internet references. Track through those as it pleases you.

There are conflicting bits of information about every part of this calculation, and I've done my best to reconcile them where I could.

For my purposes, it was good enough simply to divide the edible calories into animal products and everything else (vegetable products). Obviously, you could get a more refined estimate with finer categories, but in fact, the numbers you get from this are so large, at this level, that it ought to be enough to convince anybody about the environmental benefits of grass-fed meat compared to grain-fed. Refinement did not seem necessary at this time.

So, that makes the calculation straightforward:
How much does your family eat?
What percent is animal (defined as meat and dairy, but see note regarding how various sources treat pure animal fats)?
How many fossil fuel calories are required to produce an average animal and vegetable calorie, using grain-fed meat (from internet sources sloppily arrayed in second pane of Excel workbook).
In a parallel column, how many are required to produce that using grass-fed meat?
Calculate total fossil fuel calories, and convert that to the equivalent gallons of gasoline.

Then look at the results and say, nah, that couldn't possibly be right, could it? I mean, the numbers are huge. Fine, go back, read a few of the internet reference, and play with the assumptions. No matter how I slice this, its a huge savings compared to any other option I see at this point. Very much the "low-hanging fruit" of energy savings.

The internet citations also show that this is plausible. For example, depending on the calculation, roughly 17 percent of US energy use is for agriculture and food processing, and some astounding fraction of all US grain (80%) goes to feed animals. So, although the savings look large, I believe they are plausible.

Now, regarding the underlying data.

Unfortunately, most of the information ultimately comes from one source, a professor at Cornell University. There are a few older studies. Yet, with one exception (his figure for broiler chickens), I think his data hold together remarkably well, and benchmark OK against other quick-and-dirty estimates that I've seen. I mean, of the say $6/lb for your average cut of beef, does it seem plausible that at least $1 is for fossil-fuel costs in the supply chain? OK, if that seems plausible, then these numbers are going to be in the ballpark. More to the point, the ratio of fossil fuel calories required for meat versus vegetable sources squares up reasonably well against the amounts of grain that are required to produce a pound of meat. So, that's a pretty good reality check.

Some of the uncertainty of the underlying data comes because people talk about different concepts: some talk about fossil fuel per protien calorie, others talk about per total edible calorie. Usually the figure is fossil fuel inputs to grow the food, but sometimes is grow-process-store-transport-market. Sometimes the ratios are shown as fossil fuel calories per edible calorie, sometimes they are shown as fossil fuel calories per pound of food, which is useless for this calculation. And so on. You have to keep your eyes open.

The numbers I in the spreadsheet reflect my best judgement on some reasonable averages: 3.5 fossil fuel calories per edible vegetable calorie, 30 fossil fuel calories per edible meat/dairy calorie (grain-fed), and then 15 per edible meat/dairy calorie, grass-fed. The spreadsheet is set up to allow you to alter my assumptions if you wish.

The savings from grass-fed beef are strongly dependent on the amount of hay the farmer must make, and how that hay is produced, so the estimates vary significantly. I mean, the hay is measured in tons per animal, so that 's not a big surprise. Warm-climate grass-fed beef, near as I can tell, uses very little fossil fuel. The same beef, in a climate where the grass stops growing in winter, uses much more due to the cost of growing and transporting the hay. At worst, it appears that grass-fed beef uses half the fossil-fuel inputs of grain-fed beef. At best, the ratio is much more favorable. I used the "half" figure in my calculation.

Note that the "version 2" of the spreadsheet below makes some minor cosmetic changes from the original. Calculation remains the same.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DaveinOlyWA @ Dec 14 2006, 02:30 PM) [snapback]362323[/snapback]</div>

Absolutely, it's a great book, several of the references in the spreadsheet are to the author, his decision to go grass-fed after such careful study factored greatly into my decision. And it's nicely written, a good read, and he talks to factory farmers to put out their point of view. The pasture management section just made me say, this guy (the farmer) is just plain smarter about this.

I believe this is also the book where the discussion of how chickens are raised and slaughtered pretty much put me off grocery store chicken no matter how cheap it is. Spare the details except to say that it was pretty much the most disgusting thing I've ever read.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DaveinOlyWA @ Dec 14 2006, 02:30 PM) [snapback]362323[/snapback]</div>

Absolutely, it's a great book, several of the references in the spreadsheet are to the author, his decision to go grass-fed after such careful study factored greatly into my decision. And it's nicely written, a good read, and he talks to factory farmers to put out their point of view.

The pasture management section just made me say, this guy (the farmer) is just plain smarter about this.

Surprisingly, Virginia is really big in the initial raising of calves to be sent off to feedlots. Guess we have the right climate and location or something. So in retrospect I guess it's not by chance that my wife found a farmer's market connection to get us grass-fed beef. Here's our guy:
http://www.mountvernonfarm.net/

As an economist, my take on it is that marketing is the most significant barrier here. This guy has to market his product, individually, one-on-one retail. But on the other hand, it sure looks like it ought to be as profitable or more profitable than raising feeder cattle, if you can market grass-fed beef. Basically, as near as I can tell, our farmer can either raise grassfed beef and get twice as much, per animal, on half the number of animals, or raise feeder cattle, and get half as much on twice as many animals. Net of slaughter/processing cost, I'd estimate he gets $1500 for an animal it took him two years to raise. Versus maybe $600 - $700 per animal, for twice as many animals, if he were raising one-year feeder cattle. Depending on how good he is at controlling costs, it's not inconceivable that he makes better money doing what he's doing than he would raising for the feeder cattle market. Though, to tell the truth, I don't think maximizing his profit is the main driver of his decisions.





<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nerfer @ Dec 14 2006, 03:25 PM) [snapback]362379[/snapback]</div>

Thank you. I often misspell my own name. Changed it, reposted the cosmetically improved version in the original post.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Dec 14 2006, 04:49 PM) [snapback]362451[/snapback]</div>

No, nothing that deep, just trying to do a little arithmetic based on what I paid and what farmers typically get for feeder cattle. If we dropped the subsidy to corn prices, and raised the price up to (apparent) average cost, the resulting increase in the price of corn-fed beef would almost surely make the grass-fed approach more profitable than it is now. The grassfed farmer could charge yet remain competive, and his costs would not have risen. Even with the status quo, I just kind of marvel that this guy can make a go of it as a stand-alone small-scale independent operator. Even with the cards stacked in the favor of grain-fed beef.

I'm old enough to remember that grocery stores did, once, offer grass fed beef, back in the 1970s energy crises. Our local grocery store sold what they called "baby beef", which I believe was cattle slaughtered early due to lack of grain to feed them in feedlots. I only remember that because my Dad, who had grown up on a farm part of his childhod, liked it a lot better than cornfed beef. I guess it was closer to what he ate as a kid, or something. My understanding of the history of it is that, one of those years in the mid-1970s, we basically ran out of grain in the US, food prices shot through the roof, and an unplanned side effect is that mainline grocery stores offered "baby beef", which was grassfed or only slightly grainfed beef, at a significant discount to fully-grain-finished beef. So, at least in a crisis, when they literally couldn't feed the cattle, mainstream producers were willing to sell grass-fed beef. Just not any time since.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Dec 14 2006, 11:42 PM) [snapback]362616[/snapback]</div>

In retrospect, I wish I'd started this thread with something more controversial. Such as:

IF YOU DRIVE A PRIUS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REASONS, AND EAT MEAT, YOU'RE A HYPOCRITE.

Or,

YOUR DIET CREATES FAR MORE GHG'S THAN YOUR CAR DOES.

Or,

EATING GRAIN-FED MEAT IS WORSE FOR GLOBAL WARMING THAN DRIVING A HUMMER.

But I hate hype. So I wouldn't do that. And the last is an exaggeration.

My point is, now that I've figured this out, acted on it, I'd really like to get the word out. Just can't quite figure how. I mean, this is an absolutely painless change that, by my estimate, saved more fossil fuel than my decision to replace my car with a Prius.

I don't know any other way to say this. The cost/benefit ratio for this change was

VASTLY BETTER THAN BUYING A PRIUS.

I had to invest $25K to get the environmental benefit of a Prius. And hope the car will ast ten years. Here, the additional cost is zero, and my only risk is that I'll lose electric long enough to let the meat thaw. If I had to do it over again, I'd

DO THIS BEFORE BUYING A PRIUS.

PriusChat is the only board I read or post to. Any suggests for other places I might post the analysis and spreadsheet, to reach a broader audience? There have got to be a lot of other people out there like me, who would make this change if they knew about it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Proco @ Dec 15 2006, 09:56 AM) [snapback]362719[/snapback]</div>

Thank you. P.S. 56 mpg? I'm jealous.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Dec 17 2006, 04:33 PM) [snapback]363479[/snapback]</div>

I would agree that the broader implications need to be considered when possible, though I though the Economist's article was just fluff. Set up the straw man of somebody who does something dumb, knock that down, offer some contrary opinions without hard analysis, and call it a day. Not a lot of hard data and analysis there, but it doesn't require having to do any work to write the article either. The point that you can be pseudo-green is well taken, but there was nothing in the way of useful information in the article.

A proper decision requires actually taking the time to look at the facts of the case, rather than relying on broad generalization. Here, for example, it would require actually looking at the estimates from the spreadsheet, and weighing the estimated 375 gallons per year annual gas (equivalent) savings, against marginal transportation costs to deliver the side of beef. Then, possibly, consider the broader land-use issues, if any, if this catches on. My informed guess is that even with the economies of scale of feedlot production and slaughter, the additional fuels used in this small scale production, for delivery of the product, are negligible compared to the inputs to feedlot beef.

The odd anecdote in the energy calculation is that it takes a fair bit of fossil fuel merely to truck the cow dung off the feedlot. I mean, you don't normally think of cow dung as something that needs to be trucked around. But if you ship in 10x the weight of the animal in grain, to a feedlot location, you're going to get more-or-less 10x the weight of the animal in dung, when dried, at that location. Vastly more when wet. So gathering it up and disposing of it becomes a nontrivial expense. Actually, I guess DEL-MD-VA eastern shore poultry industry has the same program. The farther they have to ship it, the less money they make, which tends to result in excess nutrients being spread on local farms, and from there into the Chesapeake.

The evidence on the health benefits of grass-fed over grain-fed beef appears pretty clear. Aside from the issue of avoiding the chemicals found in grocery-store meat, grass-fed beef has higher nutrient levels, less fat, and a better mix of fatty acids. From a health standpoint it's clearly a premium product. But the lack of fat means you have to take care to cook it right or it'll be tough. Whereas you really have to overcook grocery store beef to make it tough.

My take on it, after some study, is that even if my esimates are off by a factor of 2, it's still a substantial positive for the environment, by a large margin. The estimated annual fossil fuel savings, for my family of four, are about what we'd save switching from a 20 mpg Volvo to a 48 mpg Prius. It's the opposite of the Economist's straw man example of driving to purchase a single head of lettuce. My analogy is that grass fed beef is to diet as compact fluorescents are to home lighting. If you are set up for it -- local producer, buy in bulk, own a freezer -- It's a painless way to make a substantial reduction in fossil fuel use. At the current scale of production, it's the low-hanging fruit of home energy savings. If a sizeable fraction of Americans decided to eat this way, and significant negative spillovers became evident, I'd reconsider my calculation. But for now, diverting a small fraction of the feeder cattle market into locally-marketed grass-finished beef looks like a real winner to me.

Guess what I'm saying is, it's worth looking at the facts before dismissing this as a mere feel-good action.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Dec 18 2006, 11:32 AM) [snapback]363785[/snapback]</div>

Well, that's good to hear and certainly makes sense to me. No idea what the impact on the numbers would be.

I learn something every time I look at this. Not only can you make biogas, there's an entire federal program devoted to encouraging this. Along with good information and statistics:

http://www.epa.gov/outreach/agstar/index.html

Read the NY state dairy study posted there. If they're right, biogas is profitable and substantially reduces GHGs largely by preventing methane emission from the decomposition of the manure. They said $80/cow profit from biogas (I guess that's in costs avoided and sale of power. Much of the cost reduction occurs because the final processed solids can replace bedding, or so it would seem from the paper.)

I never pictured myself as the kind of person who'd end up doing statistics on cow poo, but here goes. The NY state study above says they got (by my calculation) 2.6 KWH electricity/cow/day out of the biogas production. Cattle typically spend 100 days on a feedlot. Close enough. If they generated the same electric value per day, the resulting KWH total would have the same energy value 7 gallons of gasoline. But in fact, that's effectively 21 gallons of fossil fuel use avoided (ie, electric utility generation and delivery is only 30-something percent efficient).

So, that would suggest that the bigas produced from a 100-day stay on a feedlot ought to be sufficient to prevent the burining of 21 gallons of gasoline (equivalent) for the production of electricity, per animal. That strikes me as being a fairly substantial figure, one well worth factoring into the analysis.

Certainly not pinpoint accurate, but enough to show the order of magnitude I think. That would be (call it) 11 gallons of gasoline (equivalent) saved, via biogas electricity, per side of beef. And it would also avoid (some of) the fossil fuel costs of trucking the manure around. Taking that as a working figure, I'd still conclude that grass-fed beef is a large envirnomental positive, even if biogas is produced at the feedlot and used to prevent burning of fossil fuels for electricity. My best guess at this point is that biogas production would modestly reduce the energy savings from grass-fed beef.

Having said that, figuring out the net GHG issue would be more complex, because the biogas approach reduces methane emissions from the decomposition of the manure. I'd have to do a lot more work to figure that one out. For now, I think I'll let this sit until I have the time to look more closely at it. Thanks for setting me onto this.