Sustainability requires choosing from several non-perfect options
Although we don’t have a number to compare feed grown in your backyard to feed grown in California to feed ingredients grown in the Midwest or China for that matter, we thought it was important to at least bring up the challenge that can arise when trying to make more sustainable choices. It is always important to look at things holistically and consider the impact from the whole life cycle of a product. Unfortunately we can’t always google “life cycle analysis between X and Y” and get the info we need. So this isn’t an exhaustive discussion, but just an example to consider.
Many support local sources of the the things we buy and use as the more sustainable choice for may reasons. Local sources cut down and can almost eliminate the environmental impact caused by transportation, among many other benefits. But is it possible that in some cases we might be shifting the impact from one resource to another, or one point in the life cycle of the ingredient, to another?
Corn was given to me as an example of a plant that grows well in the Midwest without irrigation because of the rainfall and climate there, whereas in California we have a Mediterranean climate which is not as conducive for growing corn, and requires irrigation using water resources and energy to provide that water.
Now that being said, we don’t know if the additional resources needed to grow corn in California are more impactful than the transportation of corn from the Midwest, but want to raise the question and we welcome comments from anyone who knows more about this topic or the answers to questions like this.
Recent Comments