Meat Eaters Guide: Methodology - Environmental Working Group

Meat Eaters Guide: Methodology
Figures
Figure 1 . Summary of Results: Total GHG Emissions from Common Proteins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
Figure 2 . Sources of Production Emissions: A Nebraska System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
Figure 3 . Beef: Production Dominates Greenhouse Gas Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
Figure 4 . Sources of GHG Emissions from British Columbia Poultry Farm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
Figure 5 . Figure 5 . Chicken: Production and Post-Farmgate Emissions are Roughly Equal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
Figure 6 . Sources of GHG Emissions for Cheese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35
Figure 7 . Eggs: Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
Figure 8 . Tuna: Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
Figure 9 . Emission Sources of Corn Production in Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
Figure 10 . Emissions Sources of Soybean Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42
Figure 11 . Emissions Sources of Alfalfa Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
Figure 12 . Sources of Lentil Production Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44
Annexes
Annex A . Activity Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
Annex B . Assumptions for Cooking times and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59
Annex C . Approximate Ratios of Fresh vs . Frozen Meat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60
Acknowledgements
EWG thanks Kumar Venkat, president of CleanMetrics, for carrying out the lifecycle data analysis and
for working with EWG to define and redefine parameters, assumptions, data sources and other information
underlying the analysis. We also thank him for providing important background information for
this methodology as well as several thorough reviews of the document.
We also give great thanks and appreciation to Kimi Shell, our exceptional intern, for organizing much
of the data and creating the numerous tables, charts, and graphs that appear throughout the document.
Thanks also to Michele Reilly for her research assistance on the project.
We would also like to thank our three outside reviewers – Anna Lappe, Small Planet Institute; Dr. Roni
Neff, Center for A Livable Future, Johns Hopkins University; and Dr. Whendee Silver, UC/ Berkeley –
for their useful and thorough review of the first draft of this methodology.
The author would also like to thank her colleagues, Craig Cox, Renee Sharp, Lisa Frack, Sean Gray
and Jane Houlihan for their edits and many contributions to the project. And finally, many thanks to
the primary editor of this report, Nils Bruzelius, who has made a very long and technical document
much more readable.
4
Environmental Working Group Meat Eaters Guide: Methodology 2011