A facebooker named Tammy inquired about AFA’s objectives and motives recently on the Facebook AFA site.

The comment was in response to a video dispatch from our DC lobbyist.

One of Tammy’s questions was this:

“just curious, why not encourage (farmers) to continue with livestock??? There are ways to make it profitable….” -Tammy, from Facebook

Thank you, Tammy, for asking such a thought-provoking question about rearing livestock on family farms, and giving us material to expand upon here on our website. Here is the comment thread for reference. You can see various facebookers chimed in with their own answers:

A Finite Planet With Finite Resources

Let’s start by continuing Just’s line of logic regarding sustainability. Note that the terrestrial biomass of humanity’s livestock is at least 3 times the mass of all of humanity.

We live on a finite planet with finite resources. In producing animalized protein for food, we are ripping through those resources between 3 to 20 x faster than if we just produced plant-based proteins – all while reducing the carrying capacity of the planet.

We are severely into ecological overshoot. To encourage *more* livestock farming is suicidal. Reducing our reliance on livestock won’t save us from ecological collapse, but it’s our view that reductions in livestock would at least soften the ecological landing.

To hone in one of the specific ways that livestock exacerbates ecological collapse – consider that in the US approximately 10 megatons of methane (CH4) is emitted annually from cattle alone (see tables 5-4 and 5-7 in EPA’s ‘US GHG inventory 2019 Ch 5 Agriculture’ ).

CH4 is … An Opportunity?

Methane is a catastrophic greenhouse gas, being 104 times more powerful than CO2 at warming the earth when measured after ten years. (130x times when considering carbon feedback effects). Alternatively, you can evaluate methane’s effects after 20 years – like energy companies tend to do – and consider it 86x more potent. By every measure, methane plays an outsized role in global warming. But it also offers an opportunity. Unlike CO2, CH4 is a short-lived gas. So reductions in emissions today on the order of megatons would quickly result in a reduction of atmospheric concentrations.

US Cattle Emit 10 mt CH4 Per Year

Coincidentally, as of 2012, given the rate of methane emissions, methane sinks and total atmospheric concentrations, 10 megatons of CH4 was the approximate amount the world could have reduced overall to achieve total global methane balance. That would mean emissions = sinks and therefore concentrations would hold steady. We refer you to this infographic titled ‘GLOBAL METHANE BUDGET’ made by the Global Carbon Project.

Photo Credit: Erica-Finstad

We calculated that a Wisconsin family farm milking 600 dairy cows a day would stop emitting a full 200 kilotons of methane annually if they stopped dairying and transitioned their cornfields to hazelnut orchards. That’s like taking thousands of cars off the road in terms of global warming impact. Given the current milk glut – it only makes sense for dairies like these to transition. And we’d like to help them do so, all while they stay on their land.

Reducing methane emissions is a rare tool in that it can combat global warming immediately. Rather than pursuing cargoism (deluding ourselves that whiz-bang technology will save us from ecological overshoot), AFA advocates for the most effective way of reducing emissions: to stop breeding so many cattle into existence. For those farmers like Dan who agree, we’d like to help them be part of the solution.

No, Cows Won’t Go Extinct

Even if the At-Risk Farmers pilot program is wildly successful, we don’t foresee US cow populations dropping from 100 million to zero. Well, not so long as humans exist. In any case, there already exist plenty of sanctuaries that could continue the species.

Setting aside ecological problems associated with producing animalized protein for a moment, let’s move on to economic issues. In the US, small farmers face an economic system that keeps squeezing them out. Current federal policy favors consolidation and monopolies over small operation free enterprise. This tendency can be traced back to the seventies when farm policy was directed by Ag Secretary Earl Butz. Mr Butz’s famous mantra to farmers was ‘get big or get out’. We think this policy stance – that favors consolidation of big agribusinesses – is unfair and fundamentally unAmerican.

‘Get Big or Get Out’

And yet “Get Big or Get Out” seems to be current National Farm Policy. And it’s to the detriment of family farms. We don’t want to see any independent American family farms driven into bankruptcy, nor forced to sell their land. We want them to stay on their land and be prosperous. If transitioning to producing wind energy or plant-based proteins keeps some American farmers on their land and gets them out from under the bootheel of big animal ag, all while improving the environment, we are 100% for it.

This is why AFA stands with the National Farmers Union and family farms in opposing industry consolidation. And it’s one of the many reasons we want to offer the At-Risk Farmers Act to small farmers. It’s simply an option for family farms to consider as a means to get out from under the bootheel of big animal ag.

So, as we noted in our facebook reply, this is a voluntary program to help animal farmers who want to transition. The At-Risk Farmer pilot program would be available for people like Dan, this dairy farmer we’re working with who very much wants to transition for environmental reasons alone. Why wouldn’t we help Dan get out from under the thumbs of big animal ag, rebuild his topsoil, stop emitting 200 kilotons of methane every year, all while making profits selling into the growing plant-based protein market? It’s all win-win-win-win-win.

Lastly, AFA’s supporters are a motley lot. Some support At-Risk Farmer legislation because they object to animal use. Others support our mission for environmental justice, food equity, farmer justice, human health, land use, and free-market principles. Most support us for a mix of these reasons. There’s something for everyone to agree on here.

So those varied reasons that our members give are the answer to the question. “Why Not Encourage Family Farms to Continue with Livestock?”

We believe it’s possible and even critical to work toward common goals with people who have varying beliefs. We would think every American would stand with us in offering American family farmers opportunities to thrive all while contributing to a sustainable future. These are goals worth pursuing. And they’re totally voluntary. It’s all win-win-win-win-win.