Beef Industry “Factoid” Fighter
November 2003
A “factoid” is a statement that seems somewhat credible but is, in fact, inaccurate and misleading.
Factoids are a favorite weapon of activists because by repeating the statements often, their very
familiarity may make them seem credible to the public. Factoids exist in all industries.
A number of anti-meat factoids trace back to activists in the late 1980s. Although these statements have
been thoroughly discredited by fact and science, they continue to be used and frequently show up in
media articles, letters and propaganda.
The following is a list of the most commonly used meat factoids and a factual response to each. This
Factoid Fighter list will come in handy for responding to stories in the media, for media interviews and
for writing letters to the editor.
_________________________________________________________
Categories:
“Meat production is wasteful”
“Meat production destroys natural resources”
“Meat consumption is wasteful”
“Meat consumption causes world hunger”
“Meat production is wasteful”
The activist myth goes something like this: meat production uses outrageous amounts of water, feed and
land that should be used for something else. The truth is it takes 2.6 pounds of grain and 435 gallons of
water to produce a pound of beef in the United States. The reality is that 85 percent of the nation’s
grazing lands are not suitable for farming. It is important that we use land that is too rough, too high, too
dry, too wet and largely inaccessible to graze livestock to produce food for the world’s population. Cattle
eat forages that humans cannot consume and convert them into a nutrient-dense food.
Claim:
Fact:
16 pounds of grain and soybeans are needed to produce 1 pound of beef.
This estimate is based on the false assumption that beef animals are fed grain diets from birth to
market weight. According to the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST)
1999 Animal Agriculture and Global Food Supply Report, an average of 2.6 pounds of grain is
used to produce a pound of beef in developed countries and .3 lb. in developing countries.
Animals don’t steal grains destined for the world’s hungry; instead they consume large amounts
of feedstuffs not suitable for human consumption. This includes forage from marginal land that
can’t be cultivated for human foods and food processors’ byproducts such as citrus pulp
brewers’ grains, almond hulls and tomato pomace. The soybean product fed to cattle is a meal
made of the bean flakes, which remain after the soy oil is extracted for human consumption. In
addition, corn fed to cattle is feed corn grown specifically for use as livestock feed and of lower
quality than corn grown for human consumption.
Claim:
Fact:
Claim:
Fact:
Claim:
Fact:
Claim:
Fact:
Claim:
Fact:
Fact:
A 1,250 pound beef steer finished in a feedlot on corn will have consumed in his lifetime
roughly 284 gallons of oil.
This claim, made by Cornell University’s Dr. David Pimentel, in a March 31, 2002 New York
Times Magazine article is based on erroneous data and outdated assumptions about corn
production. Energy efficiency has significantly increased agricultural productivity; for example,
producing a bushel of corn today requires about half the energy it did 25 years ago. Rather than
284 gallons of oil, a more realistic figure is 13.83 gallons, according to a 2002 analysis
conducted by Dr. Michael S. Graboski of the Colorado School of Mines for National Corn
Growers Association.
Just 165 pounds of beef can be produced from one acre of land. But 20,000 pounds of
potatoes can be produced from the same acre of land.
Per acre corn yield in the state known for its potatoes, Idaho, was 160 bushels per acre in 2002,
or 8,960 lbs. of corn, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Agricultural
Statistics 2003. Over all phases – cow/calf to feedlot – with an average of 2.6 pounds grain
per pound of beef, this grain could be converted to 3,446 lbs. of nutrient rich beef. On an
ounce-for-ounce basis, beef delivers a much more potent nutrient bundle than potatoes.
The portion of the world’s wheat that is being fed to livestock has more than doubled since
1960.
Relatively little wheat is fed to livestock. Wheat is not considered a feed grain although low
quality wheat may be fed to livestock because it has little human food value. Even the small
amount of wheat fed to livestock varies with economic conditions. When wheat prices are low
relative to feed grain prices, it may be used in livestock rations. In any event, the amount of
wheat fed to livestock is directly related to demand for wheat as human food. When demand
and prices are low, market signals will direct the wheat to the use that produces the best
economic return. If there is a high demand for wheat as a human food grain, it will not be fed to
livestock.
Less than half of harvested agricultural acreage in the United States is used to grow food for
people. Most of it is used to grow feed for livestock.
According to USDA’s Agricultural Statistics 2003, of the 2.3 billion acres of land in the United
States, 455 million acres are classified as cropland and only about 18 percent of U.S. cropland
is used for feed grain production. There is not a large displacement of human food production
for livestock feed.
Amount of water needed to produce 1 pound of wheat: 25 gallons.
Amount of water needed to produce 1 pound of beef: 2500 gallons.
According to statistics compiled by the Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering
at Kansas State University, the yield of wheat from irrigated land averages about 3 bushels per
acre inch of water (27,168 gallons). So it actually takes 151 gallons of water to produce one
pound of wheat – six times more than the amount this claim suggests.
Considering all factors in beef cattle production including direct consumption, irrigation of
pastures and crops, and carcass processing, it takes 435 gallons of water to produce a pound of
boneless beef, according to the CAST 1999 Animal Agriculture and Global Food Supply
Report.
Claim:
Fact:
Claim:
Fact:
Claim:
Fact:
The water used to produce 10 lbs. of steak can provide for a vegetarian family for an entire
year.
This is a case where simple arithmetic tells the story. At 435 gallons per pound of beef, 10
pounds of beef equals 4350 gallons of water, or an annual average of 362.5 gallons per month.
For a family of four, this adds up to 3 gallons per person per day. Assuming the statement refers
only to the amount of grain that could be produced with the same amount of water, at 151
gallons per pound of wheat produced, this would yield .32 ounces of unprocessed wheat per
person per day. In terms of their water budget, the hypothetical vegetarian family couldn’t even
afford one can of vegetables per day. According to the American Water Works Association, it
takes 9.3 gallons of water to process a single can of vegetables, not counting the amount of
water used to grow them.
Irrigation to grow food for livestock uses 50 out of every 100 gallons of water consumed in
the United States.
U.S. agriculture, in total, accounts for approximately 50 percent of U.S. water use. According
to a 1993 article in the Journal of Animal Science by J. Beckett and J. Oltjen, total livestock
production accounts for just over 11 percent of all U.S. water use. This includes the water to
grow crops fed to livestock, which accounts for 9.7 percent of all water use, and livestock
consumption, at 1.2 percent of all water use.
The quantity of water that is used to produce a 1,000 lb. steer would float a destroyer.
According to the U.S. Navy, it takes 8,000 metric tons of seawater to float a destroyer, or
roughly 2.11 million gallons. It takes 435 gallons of water (for all purposes) to produce a pound
of boneless beef. A 1,000 pound steer would yield 450 pounds of boneless beef, the equivalent
of 195,750 gallons of water, far short of the ridiculous claim.
“Meat production destroys natural resources”
Cattle are often blamed for the deterioration of the earth’s resources when in reality they are an important
tool for land management and environmental preservation. Cattle have been unjustly blamed for a variety
of environmental concerns including: water quality, erosion and green house gases. In fact, the biggest
contributors to surface water pollution are industrial waste, human sewage and runoff from urban and
rural areas. Cattle actually help combat erosion since most soil erosion occurs when farmers plan row
crops on land that is too steep, while pasturelands grazed by cattle are managed grasslands that serve as
good ground cover and hold the soil in place. Finally, greenhouse gas concerns cannot fairly be attributed
to cattle since only about 2 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2001 were from methane
produced by all domestic livestock.
Claim:
The American meat habit is a driving force behind the destruction of the tropical rainforests.
Fact:
According to USDA’s Agricultural Statistics 2003, less than one percent of the total 2001 U.S.
beef supply was imported from “rainforest countries” (South and Central America). In addition,
the largest fast-food chains in the United States have long had policies against buying beef from
rainforest countries.
“Seldom have forests been cut to pasture cattle, for a very good reason: cattle don’t generate
more profit than trees.” – Dr. Dennis T. Avery, the Hudson Institute
“The underlying causes of deforestation in developing countries are poverty, skewed land
distribution (due to historical patterns of land settlement and commercial agriculture
development), and low agricultural productivity. These factors, combined with rapid
population growth, have led to increasingly severe pressure on forest lands. Developing
countries frequently have forestry policies, such as direct subsidies and lenient forest
concession terms that foster unsustainable use of forest resources.” – Deforestation: An
Overview of Global Programs and Agreements, J. Lyke, U.S. Forest Service and S. Fletcher,
Specialist, International Environment Policy.
Claim:
Fact:
Claim:
Fact:
Claim:
Fact:
Claim:
Fact:
Number of acres of U.S forest which have been cleared to create cropland for a meatcentered diet: 260 million.
This statement is from a 1984 Vegetarian Times article written by two vegetarian activists. The
source of the figure is a mystery. According to USDA’s Agricultural Statistics 2003 (which
cites 1996 forestry figures), there currently are 746 million acres of forest in the continental
United states. The U.S. Forest Service archives show that in 1907, there were 759 million acres
of U.S. forest. By 1920, forest lands had declined to 732 million. So according to 1996 figures,
we actually have 14 million more acres of forest land than we did in 1920, and only 13 million
acres less than we did just after the turn of the century.
Meat-based diets are the leading cause of deforestation. An acre of U.S. trees disappears
every 8 seconds.
If this statement were true, almost 4 million acres of forest would disappear each year.
However, USDA statistics (U.S. Forest Service Archives and USDA’s Agricultural Statistics
2003) show that between 1907 and 1996, there has been a net loss of only 13 million acres of
forest in the United States. In addition, more and more land is being set aside for protection by
federal agencies and previously forested land is being replanted at ever increasing rates. There
actually are 14 million more acres of forest land today (746 million acres) than in 1920 (732
million acres).
By far the most visible sign of human alteration of the planet has been the destruction of the
forests. This destruction has largely been to satisfy the world’s demand for more and more
meat.
A comprehensive report by the International Wood Products Association, Consensus Statement
on Commercial Forestry Sustained Yield Management and Tropical Forests, noted that the
fundamental causes of deforestation are related to misguided government policies,
overpopulation, insecure land tenure, inequitable distribution of land and wealth and the need to
put land to more intensive use. These factors give rise to the more proximate causes, i.e.,
logging, mining, hydroelectric dams, agriculture and encroachment. Deforestation is related to
world demand for wood, energy and minerals.
40,000 acres of U.S. cropland are lost each year to soil erosion. 85% of U.S. topsoil loss is
directly associated with livestock raising.
In a 1990 Report entitled Current Issues in Food Production: A Perspective on Beef as a
Component in Diets for Americans, Professor Murray H. Milford of Texas A&M’s Department
of Soil and Crop Science noted that, while soil erosion is a significant problem in the United
States, it is not due to animals or the feed they consume. The most extensive soil erosion occurs
with crops grown for direct use by man, such as cotton. Cotton is the world’s major crop
associated with the largest erosion losses – 19.9 tons/acre/year, more than two and a half times
greater than corn. In addition, one of the best ways to prevent soil erosion is to grow grass on
the land and pasturelands grazed by cattle are managed grasslands that serve as good ground
cover and hold the soil in place.
Claim:
Fact:
Claim:
Fact:
Fact:
Length of time world’s petroleum reserves would last:
- if all human beings ate a meat-centered diet: 13 years
- if all human beings ate a vegetarian diet: 260 years.
The 13-year projection is an ‘interpretation’ of a statement made in the 1970s by David
Pimental of Cornell University. Pimental speculated on how long petroleum reserves would last
if the whole world followed U.S. agricultural practices, not specifically meat production.
Further, according to Dr. Floyd Byers of Texas A&M University, this is a substantial
exaggeration which also ignores reality. Byers noted that, based on the average per capita U.S.
food energy consumption of 34 X 109J and a world population of 5 billion, the energy from oil
reserves alone could totally fuel all world food production for 35 years.
The statement is totally unrealistic because it assumes: energy technology development will
cease; only oil energy will be used for food production; alternative fuels will not be developed
and that world political/economic systems will mirror those of the United States with respect to
incentives and economics for food production. In the United States, 2 percent of the population
feeds the rest of us. In many countries, switching to a system where only 2 percent of the
population is involved in food production would put the majority of people out of work, not
allowing them the income to purchase food produced with fossil energy.
Concentrations of atmospheric methane are now nearly triple what they were when they
began rising a century ago. The primary reason is beef production.
Landfills are the number one source of methane emissions. In fact, landfills, natural gas and oil
systems and coal mining accounted for two-thirds of U.S. methane emissions in 2001
(Environmental Protection Agency’s 2003 Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Sinks, 1990-2001).
In terms of pollution and ozone depletion, the focus should be on total Greenhouse Gasses
(GHG) and according to the EPA, methane emissions from all sources accounted for less than 9
percent (8.7%) of all U.S. GHG emissions in 2001. Eating less beef would have an insignificant
effect on greenhouse gas emissions since methane produced by all domestic livestock only
accounted for about 2 percent (2.2%) of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2001.
“Meat consumption is wasteful”
Anti-meat activists would have us believe that we all could not only survive but thrive on vegan diets, and
that meat consumption is just wrong. Eating vegetables exclusively does not necessarily mean good
health. The American Council on Science and Health 1997 publication on vegetarianism says: “Wellplanned vegetarian diets can be healthful, but we cannot attribute any unique benefits to a meatless diet.
Lifestyle choices and dietary factors other than avoidance of meat are more relevant to good health.” In
addition, the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology dismisses any notion that people in third
world countries are healthier because they do not eat much meat. In fact, the high availability of iron,
zinc, vitamin B12 and riboflavin in meat led the Human Nutritional Collaborative Research Support
Program (U.S. Agency for International Development) in 1992 to recommend that meat be increased in
the diets of children living in regions with low availability of animal products to improve their growth,
cognitive development and health.
Claim:
Claim:
Most Americans eat 50-100% more protein than their bodies can use, and could get all the
protein they need without meat consumption.
Meat is commonly thought to have more protein than any other food – but comprised of
20%-25% protein by weight, meat is actually a “middle of the road” source of protein.
Fact:
Getting sufficient protein without eating meat is possible but it takes dedication and a large
stomach. According to the FDA Food Labeling Guide, the Daily Value for protein based on a
2,000-calorie diet is 50 grams. The USDA’s nutrient database shows that eating just six ounces
of beef provides the 50-gram daily requirement for protein, making it an excellent source of
protein. According to the USDA data, to get that amount of protein from non-meat sources
would require consuming: 1.38 pounds of white bread; 1.14 pounds of wheat bread; 1.6 pounds
of tofu; 1.25 pounds of black beans; or 3.36 pounds of corn.
“Meat consumption causes world hunger”
Starvation and famine are driven by socio-economic and political problems – not by American beef
consumption. In his message for World Food Day in 2000, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan
said, “Ending hunger and food insecurity is not simply a matter of growing more food. Recent studies
have shown that four out of five malnourished children in the developing world live in countries that
boast food surpluses.” So even if someone were willing to pay farmers to grow food-quality grain to ship
as a charitable contribution, unfavorable economic and political environments would likely prevent the
grain from reaching the people it was intended to benefit.
Globally, humans still directly consume nearly two-thirds of total cereal grain production, while beef
cattle consume only 5 percent, according to the CAST 1999 Animal Agriculture and Global Food Supply
Report. The feeds used for animal production are numerous and varied. Much of the feed used consists of
materials that humans cannot consume directly, such as grass and milling by-products. In all cases, the
nutrient density and variety of the human food supply are increased as a result.
Claim:
Fact:
Claim:
Fact:
Number of people who could be fed by the grain saved if Americans reduced their meat
intake by 10%: 60 million.
This is an old quote from Lester Brown of the Worldwatch Institute. It should be noted that
Brown has been predicting food security crises for more than 20 years and has yet to be correct
in any prediction. Further, in the 1990 Current Issues in Food Production: A Perspective on
Beef as a Component in Diets for Americans, Dr. Harry Kunkel, professor of human nutrition at
Texas A&M University, noted that this claim is based on a simplistic arithmetic exercise. If one
accepts the figure quoted by activists of 12 million tons of grain ‘saved’, this would work out to
about a pound of (unprocessed) grain per day for about 60 million people. But this ignores logic
and reality. First, the grain in question is feed grain, not the higher quality food grain consumed
by humans. Second, if there were no market for this grain as livestock feed, it simply would not
be grown. Farmers are not going to grow grain and give it away. Unless, someone was willing
to buy this lower quality grain and ship it to third world countries, it would not even be
produced.
You probably assume that most of our grain exports go to feed a hungry world. Not so.
Two-thirds of all agricultural exports are used to feed livestock.
The United States exports grain on the basis of world demand and availability of excess
domestic grain supplies. According to USDA’s Agricultural Statistics 2003, we exported 81.2
million metric tons of grain in 2002, of which 30 million metric tons was food grain and 52
million metric tons was feed grain. While this is a large percentage of grain exports, it is a small
percentage of the total feed grain supply of 245 million metric tons. Although a primary use of
feed grains is for livestock feed, it also is used for alcohol, seed and industrial uses. We export
only 21 percent of the feed grain produced domestically.
Further, livestock production is important to the food security of other countries and meat may
be especially important in the diets of third world nations. The CAST 1999 Animal Agriculture
and Global Food Supply Report found that “Where intakes of animal products are low,
increases in meat (in particular), milk and eggs in the diets of toddlers and school children have
resulted in marked improvements in growth, cognitive development, and health, due at least in
part to the higher availability of essential amino acids, minerals, and vitamins in food of
animals, compared to plant, origin.”
Claim:
Fact:
Claim:
Fact:
Claim:
Fact:
The grain and soybeans eaten by U.S. livestock could feed more than one billion human
beings.
This is a naïve arithmetic exercise that ignores reality and common sense. First, there is a
qualitative difference in ‘feed grain’ used for livestock and ‘food grain,’ which is higher quality
for human consumption. And in regard to soybeans, the soybean meal used to feed animals is
made from the flakes that remain after the soy oil is extracted for human use. In fact, 100
percent of soy oil is consumed by humans while 90 percent of the meal produced is consumed
by animals (2002 USDA and U.S. Census Bureau data).
Additionally, if the market for feed grain were removed, this grain would not be produced.
Even if someone were willing to pay farmers to grow this grain and would then ship it as a
charitable contribution to third-world countries, unfavorable economic and political
environments would likely prevent the grain from reaching the people it was intended to
benefit. We learned that from the debacle of trying to get food to hungry people in Somalia a
few years ago. And the Green Revolution taught us it is much better to encourage local
production than to provide food as a hand-out.
A significant portion of soybeans grown worldwide goes to feed cattle – and would be much
more effectively used if fed to people instead.
The primary products derived from soybeans are soy protein products and oil. Soy protein
products are made with the flakes that remain when beans are crushed to extract soy oil. The
extracted soybean oil is used for human food and industrial products, with 100 percent of 2002
domestic soybean oil being used or consumed by humans. The flakes, which cannot be used for
human food, are made into meal, which is primarily used for animal feed, or other soy protein
products. Although 90 percent of the soybean meal is consumed by animals only 11 percent of
soybean meal is consumed by beef cattle (2002 USDA and U.S. Census Bureau data). But
regardless, the use of soybean meal as livestock feed is an efficient and effective use of this soy
protein product and does not impact human consumption of soybean oil.
The grain used to create an 8-oz. steak could fill the bowls of 40 people.
At 2.6 lbs. of grain per pound of beef, that 8 ounces of steak translates into 1.3 lbs. of grain.
Divided by 40 bowls, this would yield about .45 ounces of unprocessed, low-quality feed grain
per bowl. So these would be very small, very unappetizing bowls of unprocessed grain.