the vice chancellor and president of the university of buckingham in england. they talk about private schools in poor countries, elevating educational standards and setting an example that other countries can learn from. watch book tv this weekend on c-span two. ♪ >> washington journal continues.

host: to focus on animal agriculture with caitlin glover, the national resources executive director at the national cattlemen's beef association. first on the association itself, explain who you represent and what your group does here in washington and around the country. guest: good morning. thank you for having me. as you said, i'm from the national cattlemen's beef association, it's the largest trade organization and we represent members through beef and cattle production in the united states. we are a member driven organization from the grassroots and our communities all the way to washington. we represent a cot -- approximately 25,000 individual members but have more than 175,000 members in total across the country. we have affiliates and each state who deals with state focused issues. but they bring the tissues to us in washington, not only for

things like nutrition, but land policy. and really telling their story on a very national stage. host: how many members are cattle farmers themselves out there with cows? guest: this is a member driven organization, so we represent hundreds of thousands of cattle producers across the country. of that hundred 75, we have cattle producers, feeders, members involved in the processing site. so it's really a full sector representation from, as marketers like to call it, this farm to market. so it is a full sector representation. the vast majority which are local producers. we call them cow-calf producers. the mother cows have whole production on the ground on pastor who relieves -- you really -- who really are

environmental champions. host: i know you are focused on resources, what can you tell us about the story making front pages, the ransomware attack on meat operations and what that means for the industry? i know early in the investigation into that -- i know you're early into the investigation. guest: it is in the important thing is that we are monitoring the situation closely as we represent our members and are involved in a lot of the policy in these discussions, not only making sure they are a sustainable business environment for producers, but also for consumers. we continue to monitor the situation. but we don't have any additional information that has been released at this time. host: i know you are on the west the capitol building behind you and your background. your focus on capitol hill, what are you pushing congress on now? guest: there's a variety of

priorities. as we look at the work that the organization does with capitol hill, with the administration. our focus is to make sure that as we are looking at environmental regulations and things that congress and the administration want to do, that the entire scenario that legislative and let regulatory scenario not only recognizes the facts on the ground but also creates an environment for growth and innovation. and really puts our producers but also the consumers in the best place to succeed and have accessible and highly nutritious beef, beef products for them to choose from. but also to continue to be environmental caretakers, the stewards of landscapes in a way that is perhaps not always the easiest or most visible story to tell. we work with congress on things

from endangered species, to taxes, to transportation. on the natural expert. i have the grass in the species and the soil and the carbon type discussions on my plate. as i'm in california this morning, at the top of that list on my list of the morning is the concept of soil health and forage health. all of those questions in respect to catastrophic wildfires that we have seen increase in both number and size over the last several decades. host: if viewers have questions about the beef industry or these issues that we have been talking about yesterday and today, the phone lines are open and caitlin glover from the national cattlemen's beef association is here to answer your phone calls. for republicans (202) 748-8001. for democrats (202) 748-8000. for independents (202) 748-8002.

yesterday, was cory waterman with friends of the earth who was on to talk about these issues. this question came up. his cattle farming bad for the environment? how much of u.s. greenhouse gas emissions does cattle farming account for? guest: the estimates are not counting some really important sources of admission -- emiss ion. they've not counted the carbon opportunity cost, the land that goes into corn and soy, what would be the alternative use? it could be bringing carbon into the soil instead of being a net admit or -- emitter. the number the cattlemen for two is undercounting the impacted methane.

that's a potent greenhouse gas and livestock production is the greatest source of methane pollution in the country right now which is just a greenhouse gas that we have to control in short order if we are going to be successful in addressing climate. host: that was clary waterman yesterday from friends of the earth. guest: i will begin a little this morning with a bit of a fact-check. when we look at the united states be production scenario, what we see from the epa data that has repeatedly shown where the emissions profile is overlaid, we see that beef production, cattle production in the united states is responsible for about 2% of our entire portfolio. when we look at beef production in comparison to things like transportation or electricity generation, which have her at that 30%, what we see is not only a compared -- hover at 30% we see a comparative benefit

because it is so efficient and environmentally friendly at 2%. but i think there is the opportunity as well to talk about what was not captured in the 2%. she makes an interesting point about what's not measured in the 2%. what's not measured are all of the other associated benefits from cattle production. what's not quantified are the different land cultivation and management on landscapes that cannot be used to grow food for humans. it's not an opportunity cost where we are choosing between cattle production and beef production and corn or soy or other grains. by and large, cattle are on land that are marginal. that cannot be used for production of human food. what they do is take the forage,

in a really highly efficient way and turn it into something that's highly nutritious for humans while providing environmental benefits. chloe talked about this yesterday but i think there's an opportunity to have a more holistic conversation about what cattle and beef production interact with the environment. this happens on marginal landscapes. land that would not otherwise be cultivated. these are the range lands. these are pasture based systems that really depend -- to get a little technical, but really depend on huff compaction -- hoof compaction. as cows want they integrate organic matter into the soil and that increases opportunity first soil carbon retention. integrating the organic matter, improving the carbon soil health

and that storage potential across these landscapes that are not or cannot be used for other production is really quite amazing. when we look at the emissions profile, you see the 2%, a highly efficient low emissions industry with all of these other benefits that are not represented in that number. host: present biden has announced a goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030. what does that mean by your into it -- for your industry and your farmers? guest: what that means for our industry, and our farmers and ranchers is that they need to be able to do and continue doing what they do. when the president set the goal of cutting emissions, at the same time there's all these other climate conversations are happening and are associated but

maybe not directly related to the emissions reductions discussions. as i said earlier, and certainly as americans but also his cattle and beef producers, there's an incredible relationship between transportation and infrastructure and energy production. but really when we look at emissions and the reduction potential of that time period, it's not cattle and beef production that's going to get us to those reduction targets because our producers, our system is so highly efficient already. our producers look for opportunities to improve their efficiency to reduce emissions. to be more climate friendly or environmentally friendly. but it's not going to be the tipping point. because our baseline is already so good. host: this is the bookend on our today discussion on animal agriculture. caitlin glover is joining us

from the national cattlemen's beef association. we have plenty of calls free already for the next third -- for you already. we will take as many phone calls as we can. this is kim, colorado, republican, good morning. caller: good morning. i work in the cattle feeding sector, the cattle feeder i work for is committed to producing cattle in a way that we get to be good stewards of the environment and we care for those animals and obviously a big can serve as air quality and public perception of feed yards. we do a yacht -- we do a lot here to help us recollect water and have dust control and we do everything we can through some new and improved technologies to do this in the best way we can. what would you say to someone who is concerned about air quality. particularly related to the feed yard sector or cattle production? host: that's an excellent question. miss glover?

guest: thank you. i live in washington, d.c.. i am previously your neighbor to the north from wyoming. we have these big open skies, these very clean skies with fresh air outside. when i talk to someone about production either in the west or around feed yard or really anything through sector, what i tell them is that we are concerned about air quality teedo below -- too. just like a lot of other groups are. the story that i'm able to tell is because of the good work that you and your organization, your company do in order to make those demonstrable benefits. whether you are talking about reducing dust pollution which is prevalent in the west, or whether you are talking about applying grazing into scenarios

where you are reducing these fine fuels, grasses and shrubs that are dead that make catastrophic wildfire move so quickly and so much more intensely. what we are really doing is trying to control, and very successfully controlling those particular matters. also through reducing the risk and intensity of the fires. those are big polluters that put a lot of carbon and particulate matter into the atmosphere. because of the good work that our producers do across the country there's a lot of different stories to tell like this, whether you're in florida or oregon. that's the story i tell because it's a good one to tell. host: to the lone star state, this is tyler, in brackett mill, texas. independent. caller: thank you for doing this

segment. i grew up in the cattle industry and i believe in the benefits of eating beef but many of my friends do not. i was wondering if you could hand on should americans eat beef? and you've shown the environmental impact, maybe that's why some of my friends are afraid to eat beef. could you expand on that? guest: that's a great question. i think depending upon the age bracket i think we are seeing this increasing or this return to wanting to know where our food comes from. to being very concerned and wanting to know more about what that production scenario looks like. there's two things that i would say to someone concerned about the environmental impact of beef . but also who would maybe have questions about the nutritional component as well. when we look at the dietary guidelines, and we look at independent science and university science and

government science through the usda and dietary guidelines pre-we see recommendation for nutrient dense, highly efficient healthy food that we put into our bodies. nourishing ourselves with the most nutrient dense food we have. one of those is beef. nutritionally people should feel very good about what they are into their body. it is safe, healthy, nutritious, available. consumers are going to make their choices. some are going to make different choices. but they can be confident in the nutritional components of beef in the united states. it's exactly what we've been talking about this morning. people should feel very good about the environmental component. not only are they consuming a product that's healthy and good for them. but it's during an environmental service across the landscape and

in some unexpected ways. host: on the nutritional aspect, aubrey on twitter asked that when will all american beef producers stop using hormones in production and not just organic beef producers? guest: it's an interesting question. when we talk about consumer preference there's also the production difference. when we're talking about hormones or antibiotics what producers are looking for is the opportunity to have highly efficient, very healthy cattle on their operations. we had a few cattle producers call in this morning. when we look at the conversion to organic beef, or we talk about what pasture raised beef is. there's a couple of things that lead me to the answer of this question. first, when we talk about how cattle are produced, all cattle regardless of where they are spend at least some time in

their life, usually that first year of their life on pasture. on grass, eating this green wrasse -- green grass in open pastures. they really began in the grass fed scenario. whether they are grass finished or organic or finish in a feed yard, that production scenario is not only highly regulated but is carefully managed. to make sure that cows and livestock are as healthy as possible. when we are talking about the feed opportunities, not only to make beef production more efficient but to maintain the standard not only for animal welfare but production expectations, there are differ in options. not everyone production scenario will fit for every producer across the country.

but what's important i think is the end product. the good environmental benefits, those affordable, nutritious food supplies. you go to the grocery store and you expect high quality american beef on the shelves. and really that consumer confidence is built through additional knowledge and how cattle are produced. whether you're in florida or where it's a more swampy -- in florida, where it's a more swampy scenario. or place like montana which is high desert and mountain grazing. host: we have about 15 to 20 minutes left. lorraine, a democrat, from pennsylvania. go ahead. caller: cows are capable of forming relationships. they are able to predict the weather. they eat appropriate plants when they are sick.

how do you morally justify eating sentient beings, not to mention the horrific factory farming conditions that most conduct a brief and sad lives in? guest: go back to the second part of your question first when we talk about factory farming. when people talk about factory farming and beef duction -- and beef production, that's not an accurate term. cattle, when they are in the first stage of production, they live on grass. they are on pastures. there are fee yard -- feed yard finished which is more environmentally friendly way to finish cattle. but there's a variety of different production scenarios. none of which include the factory farming.

this visual of cattle coming out of the warehouse. they are exchange and. -- x stringent -- they are very stringent and there's a lot of pride in holding up production standards for animal welfare, health, and animal husbandry and quality. we make sure that not only, organizationally, but from a compete -- community that we uphold those standards. returning to the moral question, and there are some perhaps who may ask this question of themselves and certainly consumers have the ability to make choices based on their own scenario. but they can be very confident that when they are looking at american beef, it is a happy cow who has been humanely raised and responsibly raised. and then make decisions based on fact rather than emotion.

we have in this country the ability and wonderful opportunity to have very nutrient dense, efficient food. in being able to make those choices, that's really the heart of what we do. we provide a high-quality product. and consumers make those choices. host: what are your thoughts on plant-based beef alternatives? how much of a bite, as it were, has it taken out of the beef industry? guest: i like the pun, this morning, john. it's probably not even a nibble rather than a bite this morning. when we look at plant-based alternatives, there are certainly a lot of different products on the market. if you go to the store you could see a new product almost every day. but the turnover is incredible

pdc products coming in and out really based on consumer preference or lack of consumer preference. but what we have seen is a continually growing demand for high-quality nutritious beef. consumers are going to choose what they will. that when we are talking nutritionally and in terms of a stable, predictable supply, beef has it in every corner. your plant-based proteins, your alternative products are going to come and go. but when we talk about protein and sodium content and what's going to fill bellies in the most efficient, enjoyable and healthy way, it's going to be beef every time. host: in white city, kansas, debbie, a republican. good morning. caller: as a mom, wife, and a rancher, i'm incredibly proud of

the work that my family does to conserve the land that we raise cattle on. but i often hear about folks that have concerns and they are regarding environmental sustainability and cattle production. can you guess talk about how cattle producers are a climate solution in regards to land management and carbon sequestration, specifically. host: sure, how many head of cattle do you raise before you go? caller: around 500. host: how long have you been doing it? caller: our ranch was founded in 1890. we've been taking care of it since the 1980's. so for 130 years of the same family taking care of the same land. it is family owned. i'm waiting on my son to come over so we can talk about what chores are today. so we work directly, handing it down to the next generation. host: is your son planning to take it over at some point?

caller: he is. he's doing a great job. we call him the ranch manager today and i'm really proud that we've done a good job incorporating him, learning, making decisions, he really cares about the land and the cows and that's what matters. host: thanks for the call. kaitlynn question mark guest: -- kaitlynn? guest: you used an important word where people continue to make policy but also how we conceive of cattle production in the country. debbie called them climate solutions or climate innovative practices. when looking from a policy perspective about how to talk about cattle as a climate solution within federal policy, what we see is a real desire to quantify those benefits. u.s. grazing land is the subject

of many discussions across the halls of congress, but also in the administration and agent as well. when we look at cattle being used as a tool to achieve certain environmental outcomes, what we sees that it's really effective. debbie talked about her more than 100 year history of her family on this landscape. because their livestock has been on this landscape, that's prevented encroachment from other development. that has prevented encroachment from other croplands or agriculture lands where we would have seen a permanent loss in the potential for things like carbon storage. u.s. grazing lands are estimated to hold between 10% and 30%, depending on the year in the scenario, 10% to 30% of the

world's soil carbon. that means that the soil holds the carbon in and takes it from the atmosphere and it holds it. that means it's healthy. but also not in the atmosphere. we talk about forests and swamps and these wetlands as carbon safes. when we talk about livestock production and we have this long history of presence on landscape that presents loss -- prevents loss and helps it, we are seeing this direct link between cow production and a climate friendly but also protective role for producers. simply put, whether congress or the administration are able to quantify it without cattle producers and these people and their livestock, the climate goals would not be achievable. host: we talked about the bite

-- we talked about the biden administration. this is the agriculture secretary's second run. are you glad that he's back in that role? what's your issue with him from the obama ministration? guest: regardless of who is in the chair, that individual is going to be important. we were pleased to see secretary vilsack reprise the role. when we talk about the department of agriculture were not just talking about producer regulations. we are talking about plants, school nutrition programs, the full-featured conversation about how americans feed themselves and how we make sure that that food is available for them in the healthiest and most efficient way. sec. vilsack has experience.

he was able to hit the ground running in a way that a new secretary may not have been able to do some wood because of his experience. through the obama administration , we dealt with the obama administration and sec. vilsack on a variety of issues. i think what we hate -- what we have seen from sec. vilsack and the biden administration is the recognition that the president has set environmental goals. and sec. vilsack acknowledges and supports the good work that agriculture's purdue -- agriculture's due in pursuit of those climate goals and healthy environments. there's a clear recognition because of his experience, because he knows what happens on the ground, that without cattle producers the biden administration would have a difficult time meeting these climate goals.

not because we are looking at an emissions reduction, but because there is a potential for conservation across landscapes, for improving carbon storage and soil health and keeping these landscapes open and healthy and productive for wildlife and for these multiple uses. sec. vilsack has been able to hit the ground running and we have been able to appreciate the work he has done so far. we continue to have a lot of issues on our plate, quite literally, that we share with usda. so we continue working with him to make sure that cattle and beef producers have what they need and are not unnecessarily burden simply because there is a regulatory or a desire to move forward in a way that's maybe not the best step. host: to kevin, in new york, i democrat. caller: my name is kevin.

my telephone number -- host: do you want to get out your telephone number on air? caller: i want to speak on how the populace is being affected by the messaging system as with cryptology and how that integrates with how -- host: tell you what, we will stick to animal agriculture as our topic as we have less than 10 minutes left with kaitlynn glover. let's go to max, in washington, d.c.. caller: my question is about water and water consumption from the beef industry. how much research is going into how much water it takes to produce a certain amount of beef growing from not just the cow but the