There is a lot of interest in “carbon markets” in agricultural circles. It is a bit of a Wild West at the moment, and there are more unknowns than knowns. Against that backdrop, I thought I’d share this excellent webinar with three of my Purdue colleagues, Jim Mintert, Nathan Thompson, and Carson Reeling. The webinar initially offers a “Carbon Market 101” for folks new to concept before getting into nitty gritty and some of the opportunities and challenges facing those interested in getting paid to sequester carbon in row-crop agriculture. Thorough, timely, and informative!
Blog
Beef, Chicken, and Carbon Emissions
There seems to be rising attention paid to the environmental impacts of meat consumption. Some people see plant-based meat alternatives as one way to address this concern, and they question whether it is possible to see a big shift in the types of “meat” consumers buy. Such a shift, in fact, has occurred over the past fifty years - a period during which we’ve observed a remarkable change in meat consumption patterns.
The figure below shows US per-capita consumption (lbs/person/year) of beef and chicken from 1970 to 2020 based on USDA data. On a retail-weight basis, per capita consumption of beef fell from an annual average of 86 lbs/person in the 1970s to 56.7 lbs/person in 2010s (i.e., from 2010 to 2019) - a 34% reduction. At the same time, chicken consumption went from 38.9 lbs in the 1970s to 86.9 lbs in the 2010s - a 123% increase. Total consumption of these two meats has increased from an annual average of 124.8 lbs in the 1970s to 143.5 lbs in the 2010s.
Using the per-capita consumption data (expressed instead on a carcass rather than retail basis), coupled with additional USDA data on yield (lbs produced per animal) over time, one can infer the number of animals each person in the U.S. eats each year on average.
In the 1970s, the average American ate 14.5 chickens/year, a figure that increased to 22.3 chickens by the 2010s. In the 1970s, the average American ate 0.19 cows/year, a figure that fell to only 0.1 cows/year in the 2010s. Stated differently, it took about 5.3 years for the average American to eat one whole cow in the 1970s; at today’s consumption levels, it takes nearly a decade before the average American eats a whole cow.
What is the impact of this consumption pattern change from beef to chicken on one key environmental measure: greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions ?
One UN Food and Agricultural Organization study indicates that there are 5.4 kg of CO2 equivalent gasses emitted for every kg of carcass weight of chicken meat produced. USDA data indicate the average carcass weight of U.S. broilers over the past decade is about 4.53 lbs/bird (or 2.06 kg/bird). This means, each bird is associated with 11.1 kg of C02. Because consumers are now eating 22.3-14.5 = 7.9 more chickens each year than they were in the 1970s, this means they are also emitting 7.9*11.1 = 87.3 kg more CO2 than in the 1970s (assuming the per-head chicken emissions haven’t changed over time).
Has the reduction in beef consumption been enough to offset the increases in carbon emissions from the increased consumption of chicken? According to one study, roughly 22 kg of CO2 are emitted for every kg of carcass weight of beef produced. Cattle carcass weights have averaged about 804.7 lbs/head (or 365.8 kg/head) for the past decade, meaning each cow generates 8,047 kg of CO2 equivalent gasses. Because U.S. consumers are now eating 0.19-0.1 = 0.09 fewer cows each year than in the 1970s, they are emitting 0.09*8047 = 705.6 fewer kg of CO2 equivalent gasses from beef consumption (again, assuming the per-head beef emissions haven’t changed over time). Some of this reduction is because people are consuming less beef (per-capita consumption feel from 116 lbs to 81 lbs on a carcass weight basis), but also because cattle yields have substantially increased from about 617 lbs/cow in the 1970s to 804.7 in the 2010s) - we are getting more beef from each head of cattle.
So, the average American is emitting 87.3 more kg CO2 from extra chicken consumption but has cut 705 kg CO2 from less beef consumption since the 1970s. Looks like a net carbon win. And one that isn’t even close.
One pushback to this point may be that there are more people today than in the 1970s, so per-capita numbers may be misleading. Throughout the 1970s, the US population averaged 215 million, whereas in the 2010s, population averaged 319.6 million. Taking this into consideration, in aggregate, calculations suggest Americans are today consuming about 4 billion more chickens and 8.3 million fewer cattle than in the 1970s. Using the aforementioned per-head emissions implies we are, in aggregate, emitting 44.7 million metric tons (MMT) more CO2 from extra chickens but 67.1 less MMT CO2 from fewer cattle. Thus, on net, we are emitting 22.4 MMT fewer CO2 equivalent gasses from our aggregate beef and chicken consumption today than in the 1970s. Thus, it still appears a net carbon “win” even adjusting for population change.
While we’re at it, the data used in the above calculations can be used to ask a number of counter factional questions.
What would today’s aggregate GHG emissions from chicken be if we hadn’t increased productivity (or yield) since the 1970s? Answer: 52.7 MMT more CO2.
What would today’s aggregate GHG emissions from chicken be if population staid at 1970s levels? Answer: 25.9 MMT less CO2.
What would today’s aggregate GHG emissions from chicken be if per-capita consumption staid at 1970’s levels? Answer: 48.4 MMT less CO2.
Now the same questions for beef.
What would today’s aggregate GHG emissions from beef be if we hadn’t increased productivity (or yield) since the 1970s? Answer: 78.73 MMT more CO2.
What would today’s aggregate GHG emissions from beef be if population staid at 1970s levels? Answer: 84.67 MMT less CO2.
What would today’s aggregate GHG emissions from beef be if per-capita consumption staid at 1970’s levels? Answer: 112.57 MMT more CO2.
To give some sense of scale, the EPA GHG inventory data suggests all U.S. agriculture was responsible for 628 MMT CO2 equivalent emissions in 2019.
All in all, it seems meat consumption patterns have become much more carbon friendly since the 1970s - that’s not a headline one often sees.
********
Note: One assumption in all the above calculations is that the CO2 emissions per head for both chicken and beef haven’t changed over time. While these factors have no doubt changed, it seems unlikely that they have changed enough over time to overturn the basic beef/chicken comparisons above, but I highlight it here to note that the magnitudes are uncertain. Moreover, I’ve converted measures to a per-head (rather than per pound produced) metric because it strikes me that GHG impacts primarily depend on the size of the animal inventory, and if we can get more meat from each animal in the same amount of time (say, from improved genetics), that wouldn’t necessarily imply greater GHG emissions. All my calculations are in this spreadsheet if someone wants to check me.
Finally, thanks to Jack Bobo who asked me some questions, which prompted the writing of this post.
Public Service Announcement 2
Many readers of this blog have subscribed and receive posts in their email through an RSS feed. Unfortunately, it appears the RSS to e-mail service I’ve been using (feedburner) will no longer be supported by google and this function will be discontinued. Thus, I’ve exported my contact list over to a new service (mailchimp). Right now, both services are “on.” Thus, if you are a subscriber, you should receive this message in two different emails (sorry for cluttering your inbox). If you don’t see two messages, chances are the email from the new service has ended up in your spam folder, and you may need to add me to your “safe list.” I plan to keep both delivery services “on” for the next couple weeks, after which time feedburner will stop sending emails.
By the way, if you aren’t a subscriber and would like to receive my posts in your inbox (and hopefully not your spam folder), you can do so with the form below (or the one at the very bottom of the page.
Thanks for reading!
Public Service Announcement
Many readers of this blog have subscribed and receive posts in their email through an RSS feed. Unfortunately, it appears the RSS to e-mail service I’ve been using (feedburner) will no longer be supported by google and this function will be discontinued. Thus, I’ve exported my contact list over to a new service (mailchimp). Right now, both services are “on.” Thus, if you are a subscriber, you should receive this message in two different emails (sorry for cluttering your inbox). If you don’t see two messages, chances are the email from the new service has ended up in your spam folder, and you may need to add me to your “safe list.” I plan to keep both delivery services “on” for the next couple weeks, after which time feedburner will stop sending emails.
By the way, if you aren’t a subscriber and would like to receive my posts in your inbox (and hopefully not your spam folder), you can do so with the form below (or the one at the very bottom of the page.
Thanks for reading!
Consumer Acceptance Of Gene Edited Foods
That’s the title of a research paper co-authored with Vicenzina Caputo and Valarie Kilders for the Food Industry Association (FMI) Foundation. The paper came out in 2020 (based on surveys in 2019), but somehow I neglected to mention it here on the blog but was reminded of it earlier today when it was referenced.
Here is the executive summary.
The purpose of this project was to determine market potential and consumers’ beliefs, knowledge, understanding, and acceptance of gene-editing technology and gene-edited foods with the ultimate goal of providing valuable information to producers, retailers, consumers, and policy makers.
To achieve the project objectives, a nationwide consumer survey was developed. The survey was designed and programmed into an online accessible format by the director in August 2019 and administered to 4,487 U.S. food shoppers in September 2019. Different treatments were set up which varied the food product, whether the product was fresh or processed, and the information provided about gene-editing. Respondents were randomly grouped into the treatments. In each case, respondents completed simulated purchasing scenarios where they chose between products labeled to be organic, non-GMO, bioengineered, conventional, or gene-edited at varied price levels. The core findings are as follows.
· Regardless of food product, presence of processing, or information, mean willingness-to-pay for organic labels was higher than the other food labels/claims. Respondents considered organic food to be healthier, safer, and more beneficial for animal welfare, but also anticipated organic being more expensive.
· Willingness-to-pay for gene-edited products tended to be lower than that for conventional and bioengineered ones. However, willingness-to-pay significantly increased with the provision of information; particularly information about the benefits of gene-editing technology. This evidence suggests that willingness-to-pay is not much changed by merely providing respondents with information about gene-editing technology, but rather it is necessary to supplement this information with specific benefit messages if the technology is to be more widely accepted. Benefits to the environment and consumers show an overall stronger impact than benefits to the farmers.
· Consumers have a very low level of awareness and knowledge about gene-edited products when compared to the mediocre knowledge and high awareness of GMOs. About half of the respondents indicated they had never heard of gene-editing.
· Respondents completed open-ended word association tasks, which revealed fear associated with the unknown. Negatively connoted words dominated mentions in relation to “gene-editing.” Furthermore, these mentions closely resembled those given for genetically modified products.
· Despite the positive perception of the organic products, respondents mostly purchase conventionally produced food products. Even though respondents have higher willingness-to-pay for organic food, it is also higher priced. When directly asked about primary purchase motivations, respondents typically rank price and taste first, while production methods usually fell somewhere in the middle of a list of possible motivations.
· The cluster analysis resulted in three distinct risk preference segments, risk loving, risk averse, and risk neutral. A closer look at the segments by treatment reveals that when provided with basic information the share of respondents in the risk averse group increases and the risk loving group decreases. This effect reverses when information on the environmental benefits are provided.
· The willingness-to-pay for gene-editing varies across type of products and levels of processing. As for the former, consumers are willing to pay relatively more for fresh gene-edited vegetables (tomatoes and spinach) compared to fresh meat when information is provided to them. For fresh plant products, the willingness-to-pay is higher compared to their processed counterpart. On the other hand, the willingness-to-pay for gene-edited meat is higher for bacon than for pork chops.
· Despite somewhat negative opinions about gene-edited food, some consumers value having the option to buy them. When consumers are informed of the benefits of gene-editing, the market share for gene-edited products (when pitted against organic, non-GMO, conventional, and bioengineered) exceeds 15%. Consumer willingness-to-pay to have gene-edited foods available range from $0.00 to $0.23 per choice.
Results of this study reveal consumers generally think about gene-editing in a negative light. However, over half of the respondents indicate having never heard of the technology. Simply informing consumers about the technology has trivial effects on willingness-to-pay, but specific information about the benefits of gene-editing can significantly improve consumer acceptance of gene-editing.