Is Local Beef More Sustainable?
- Jump To:
- Summary
- Literature Cited
Consumer interest in locally produced food has increased dramatically during the past few decades. While there is no single formal definition of local food, the term local food commonly refers to food grown or raised up to 400 miles of purchase location, or simply food produced within the same state1. However, local can mean different things to different people, considering the different size of states (for example, Rhode Island vs. Texas). It is important to note that local does not imply one production system was used over another, it simply means that the product was produced within a certain distance of where it is being sold.
From an environmental sustainability perspective, the primary difference of local
versus non-local products is the type of transportation used in moving post-harvest
beef from processors to consumers, as shown in Figure 1. Measuring and comparing greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions due to transportation of beef from local and national locations
is difficult because mode of transportation, load sizes, fuel type, distance to market
and frequency of trips are rarely similar1. However, approximately 80 percent of GHG
emissions occur in the beef production chain before the animal is harvested2. Approximately 1 to 3 percent of GHG emissions occur due to transportation of beef
to the consumer.3,4. Local food, including beef, is either marketed directly to consumers, or marketed
to food service (e.g., restaurants) and retailers, then purchased by consumers. The
appeal of purchasing local foods is often associated with perceived reductions of
GHGs because the product travels shorter distances from the producer to the consumer,
thereby reducing what is known as food miles. However, there is a tradeoff between
the increased frequency of trips and smaller load sizes versus the distance traveled
per trip in local beef systems, as compared to the mainstream beef transportation
system. This is because more beef moved per trip will translate into lower fossil
fuel energy use and lower GHG emissions per unit of beef transported1. Consequently,
even if transportation distances were cut significantly for local beef, the impacts
on GHG emissions are likely minimal.
Figure 1. Major differences in the beef production chain between local and non-local beef are primarily due to transportation. (Photos courtesy of Oklahoma State University, USDA-ARS, USDA-NRCS and openclipart.org)
While the environmental benefits of local beef (strictly considering transportation
differences) may be minimal, many consumers that purchase local beef and other food
products do so for social reasons, such as wanting to support their local economy
and wanting to know where their food is produced5. To consumers that weigh those factors heavily in their purchasing decisions, local
beef may be viewed as their most desirable choice. However, the effects of purchasing
local food, including beef, on the local economy are not clear-cut nor are any economic
benefits evenly distributed across communities (e.g., if a consumer shifts from purchasing
at a retailer to a farmers market, the local owner(s) and operator(s) of the retailer
will likely be negatively impacted)1,6.
Additionally, it is unlikely all U.S. consumers will have access to local beef if
it is defined as within 400 miles of where one lives due to land use constraints.
For example, in highly populous cities, it would be unlikely the land immediately
surrounding the city would be able to support enough beef production to make local
beef accessible to all consumers in that city. In more rural areas, rising land costs
due to competition with crop production and expansion of residential housing may limit
the ability to produce enough local beef to feed the population.
Regardless of where beef is produced, beef producers and researchers are continuously
working toward improving the sustainability of beef production. As more of the environmental
impact of beef production can be attributed to the raising of cattle and the feed
fed to the cattle, focusing on improving the production efficiency of beef will have
a far greater impact on environmental sustainability than reducing food miles. Sustainable
beef production is not limited to a single production system, so all beef production
systems (e.g., local, non-local, organic, conventional, grass-finished, grain-finished)
can be sustainable if they are committed to constant improvement in all aspects of
sustainability, including environmental impact, societal acceptance and economic viability
of production systems2.
Summary
The term “local” simply reflects the distance a product has been transported before being marketed and does not necessarily reflect differences in production practices or sustainability. The environmental sustainability benefit of purchasing local beef products are likely minimal as:
- transportation accounts for only 1 to 3 percent of GHG emissions per unit of beef, and
- local beef products can decrease transportation distance, but often at the expense of increased frequency of shorter distance trips due to smaller beef delivery sizes. Therefore, GHG emissions from the burning of fossil fuels per unit of beef may not be greatly impacted.
Literature Cited
1 Martinez, S., M. Hand, M. Da Pra, S. Pollack, K. Ralston, T. Smith, S. Vogel, S. Clark, L. Lohr, S. Low, & C. Newman. 2010. Local food systems: concepts, impacts, and issues. USDA ERS 97: 1-87.
2 Battagliese, T., J. Andrade, I. Schulze, B. Uhlman, C. Barcan. 2013. More sustainable
beef optimization project: Phase 1 final report. BASF Corporation. Florham Park, NJ.
3 Weber, C. and H.S. Matthews. 2008. Food miles and the relative climate impacts of
food choices in the United States. Environ. Sci. Tech. 42: 3508-3513.
4 Sanders, K.T., and M.E. Webber. 2014. A comparative analysis of the greenhouse gas
emissions intensity of wheat and beef in the United States. Environ. Res. Lett. 9:
1-9.
5 Brain, R. 2012. The local food movement: Definitions, benefits & resources. Utah
State University Extension. Available at: https://extension.usu.edu/files/publications/publication/Sustainability_2012-09pr.pdf
Accessed December 18, 2015.
6 Born, B. and M. Purcell. 2006. Avoiding the local trap: Scale and food systems in
planning research. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 26:195-207.
Ashley Broocks
Graduate Student
Emily Andreini
Graduate Student
Megan Rolf
Assistant Professor
Sara Place
Assistant Professor, Sustainable Beef Cattle Systems