CALF_News_April_May_2020

35 CALF News • April | May 2020 • www.calfnews.net I f you’ve heard the term sustainability once, you’ve heard it a thousand times. Buzz words regularly enter and exit current marketing schemes, but a new one that’s here to stay in the agricul- tural world is the concept of sustainability . From television ads to product labels, sustainable is the word to promote many products. The issue with this? It’s become such a widely branded label that it’s lost its true meaning, not only for consumers, but for producers as well. With climate change and environmen- tal awareness now top of mind for many, agriculture must evolve. However, it’s difficult to meet these standards when the defining term seems to be a moving target. To beef producers, sustainability means producing more product with fewer resources; so, complying practices could include judicious use of hormones, beta-agonists, ionophores and antibiotics, and implementation of new reproduc- tive technologies. However, in the typical consumer’s eyes, sustainable practices would depict the opposite. Consumers associate sustainability with a more “nat- ural” or organic beef product – hormone free, antibiotic free, grass fed, etc. In reality, these two concepts are jux- taposed. Consumers place confidence in product labels; for example, they know products labeled “organic” must meet cer- tain USDA standards. As an industry, we need to employ the trust consum- ers place in labels to communicate how beef is produced. A consumer may not be confident in a beef producer they’ve never met, but they place their trust in laws regulating the use of labels. As new, plant-based and lab-grown protein sources (aka “Fake Meat”) enter the market, they provide an alternative product to consumers who believe the false environmental-impact claims belea- guering beef production. The potential for declining beef demand as a result could drastically affect the industry’s stability. However, the solution to this isn’t to alter how we produce cattle. According to the EPA, direct greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from cattle in the United States account for only 2 percent of our nation’s total emissions. This from an industry maintaining a production level of more than 27 billion pounds of beef annually for more than 50 years, but now with 33 percent fewer cattle.Wouldn’t anyone consider that sustainable ? The real solution to ensuring beef consumption is to define sustainability in measurable terms. Sustainability is defined as “harvesting or using a resource so that it is not depleted or permanently damaged.” The simple nature of beef production demands we raise cattle that produce the highest yield and quality possible, using the fewest resources. This isn’t necessary just for profitability but for longevity. Producers know and understand that what they own now – land, cows, equipment and resources – must be cared for to ensure their operations can pass from generation to generation. They are literally the living textbook definition of sustainability . However, with various “reliable sources” reporting their own version of the truth about the beef industry, we need to build consumer trust by provid- ing a standard, quantifiable definition of sustainability . Some suggest sustainability should be evaluated on three measures: social, economic and environmental impacts. Would it be possible to numerically quantify sustainability as a universal measure? Applying this to the beef industry, each measure would require different standards for each operation Let’s focus on the most impactful: eco- nomic and environmental. There are a few ways to measure economic impact. On a macroeconomic scale, beef production contributed $165 billion to the U.S. economy in 2014, a number that has continued to grow year Sustainability By Olivia Willrett Contributing Editor Defined and Verified after year, establishing record-setting numbers in 2017 and 2018. However, a more applicable measure of economic impact to your typical farmer and rancher would be yield – are they able to optimize their operation in terms of production and resource usage? This would include using the strategic production practices mentioned previ- ously and new technology that could be tracked through an animal’s lifetime. Environmental impact is where the standards of sustainability vary among producers and consumers. Evaluating and applying a standardized number, based on an operation’s specific produc- tion practices, that correlates to the operation’s GHG emissions or carbon footprint could be a means to define environmental impact. Using an online ledger system similar to blockchain through an animal’s or group of animals’ lives would enable producers to verify/quantify their operations’ environmental and economic impacts at each stage of the lifecycle. That impact could be rated numerically based on whether various standards are met, and then reflected in a labeling system. This would set marketing and labeling standards for beef products and create a process-verified program. The beef industry would be able to offer consumers a trusted, sustainable- verified product. Applying this standard to other protein sources (fake or real) would make it easier for consumers to fairly compare sustainability among their food choices. While labeling isn’t an end-all solution, offering a sustainable-verified standard is a step toward building consumer con- fidence and developing a foundation of trust for future generations to continue supplying the global consumer with a healthy, sustainable beef product. 