Environmental effects of meat production

The environmental effects of meat production include pollution and the use of resources such as fossil fuels, water, and land. This article discusses the environmental effects of livestock and poultry farming.

According to a 2006 report by the Livestock, Environment And Development Initiative, the livestock industry is one of the largest contributors to environmental degradation worldwide, and modern practices of raising animals for food contributes on a "massive scale" to air and water pollution, land degradation, climate change, and loss of biodiversity. The initiative concluded that "the livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global."^[1] In 2006 FAO estimated that meat industry contributes 18% of all emissions of greenhouse gasses. This figure was revised in 2009 by two World Bank scientists and estimated at 51% minimum. ^[2]

Animals fed on grain need more water than grain crops.^[3]. In tracking food animal production from the feed through to the dinner table, the inefficiencies of meat, milk and egg production range from a 4:1 energy input to protein output ratio up to 54:1. ^[3] The result is that producing animal-based food is typically much less efficient than the harvesting of grains, vegetables, legumes, seeds and fruits. ^[3]

Relatedly, the production and consumption of meat and other animal products is associated with the clearing of rainforests, resource depletion, air and water pollution, land and economic inefficiency, species extinction, and other environmental harms.

There is not always a choice between raising animals or growing crops- land that is naturally grassland is not always suitable for agriculture, and animal husbandry may be the only productive way to produce food.^[4]

Grazing and land use

Dryland grazing on the Great Plains in Colorado.

Although it requires less land for the livestock, factory farming requires large quantities of feed which must be grown on large areas of land. Free-range animal production requires land for grazing, which has led to encroachment on undeveloped lands as well as clear cutting of forests. However, many point that Slash and burn agriculture among other unsustainable agricultural practices are equally, if not more responsible for the cutting down of forests.^[5] Such expansion has increased the rate of species extinction and damaged the services offered by nature, such as the natural processing of pollutants.^[6]

According to the United Nations, "Ranching-induced deforestation is one of the main causes of loss of some unique plant and animal species in the tropical rainforests of Central and South America as well as carbon release in the atmosphere."^[6] The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) agrees, saying that "Expanding livestock production is one of the main drivers of the destruction of tropical rain forests in Latin America, which is causing serious environmental degradation in the region."^[6] An earlier FAO study found that 90% of deforestation is caused by unsustainable agricultural practices. Logging and plantation forestry, though not as major contributors to deforestation, play a greater role in forest degradation.^[7]

Waste Feed

While most meat production in western countries, especially the United States, currently utilizes inefficient grain feeding methods, not all meat production is inherently a poor use of land. Otherwise unusable vegetation, crop by-products, and organic residuals from farms, restaurants, and the food industry can be fed to livestock, increasing the overall energy efficiency through better utilization of organic waste.^{[8] [4]}

Hunting and Fishing

Meats produced from wild sources, such as those obtained through hunting and fishing, can damage ecosystems by reducing the population of select species. However, hunting and fishing does not necessarily damage the local environment so long as their harvest is regulated to maintain healthy population levels.

Water resources

Producing a certain quantity of food in meat requires much more water than producing the same amount of food in grain.^{[citation needed]}

According to the vegetarian author John Robbins, it roughly takes 60, 108, 168, 229 pounds of water to produce a pound of potatoes, wheat, corn and rice respectively. He reports that a pound of beef however, requires 12,000 gallons of water.

Professor Pimentel explained of his calculations that:

The data we had indicated that a beef animal consumed 100 kg of hay and 4 kg of grain per 1 kg of beef produced. Using the basic rule that it takes about 1,000 liters of water to produce 1 kg of hay and grain, thus about 100,000 liters were required to produce the 1 kg of beef.

Effects on aquatic ecosystems

Significant negative effects of riparian ecosystems are also associated with meat production in the United States; in fact, 80% of stream and riparian habitats in the western US have been negatively impacted by livestock grazing. This has been shown to result in increased phosphates, nitrates, decreased dissolved oxygen, increased temperature, increased turbidity, and reduced species diversity (Belsky et al., 1999). Waste release from pork farms in the Eastern United States have also been shown to cause large-scale eutrophication of bodies of water including the Mississippi River and Atlantic Ocean (Palmquist, et al., 1997).

Fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions

Farmer ploughing rice paddy, in Indonesia. Animals can provide a useful source of draught power to farmers in the developing world

At a global scale, a 29 November 2006 United Nations report called the Livestock's Long Shadow - Environmental Issues and Options assesses the meat and livestock industry to contribute to about 9% of total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions, including 37% of methane and 65% of nitrous oxide emissions.

At a local level, livestock represents up to half of New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions^[10], and nearly 20% of the total methane emissions of the United States of America.^[11]

Indirect effects account for most of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, and are attributed to emissions of nitrous oxides and other gases from concentrated livestock operations and from microbial activities in soil and water following applications of fertilizers .^[12] Greenhouse gas emissions are not limited to animal husbandry; for instance, in many countries where rice is the main cereal crop, rice cultivation is responsible for most of the methane emissions.^[13]

The production of protein from grain-fed animals requires eight times as much fossil-fuel energy as the production of plant protein.^[3] According to an article in Environmental Health Perspectives, typical feedlot husbandry of cattle requires an input of 35 kcal of fossil fuel to produce one kcal of food energy in beef, far more than that required for comparable plants.^[14]

A 2006 study at the University of Chicago concluded that a person switching from a typical American diet to a vegan diet with the same number of calories would prevent the emission of 1485 kg of carbon dioxide. The difference exceeds that of an individual switching from a Toyota Camry to the hybrid Toyota Prius, and collectively amounts to over 6% of the total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.^[15]

This view however reflects the situation in the developed world and does not take into account the situation in most third world countries. In the developing world, notably Asia and Africa, fossil fuels are seldom used to transport feed for farm animals. Sheep or goats, for example, require no fuel, since they graze on farmlands, while bales of hay for bovines are still transported mainly using bullock carts or similar devices. Little to no meat processing takes place in the vast majority of the developing world. Animals are also often herded to the place of slaughter (with the exception of poultry) resulting in a very low use of fossil fuels. ^[16] In fact farm animals in developing world are used for multiple purposes from providing draught power, to transportation while also serving as meat once it reaches the end of its economic life.

A more efficient use of animal waste may be a contributing factor in sustainability. The by-products of slaughtered animals can be used to provide biogas. Trains running on this fuel are already in operation in Sweden.^[17] The use of biogas to run mass transit is likely only possible as a side effect of industrial agriculture.

Response

The detrimental environmental effects of meat production has become a strong argument in favour of the reduction or abandonment of the consumption of meat, most notably for vegetarianism. Individual commitment is being increasingly supported by local initiatives, such as the meat-free days of the Belgian city of Ghent (or Veggiedag)^[18] which imposes vegetarian-only food in public canteens for civil servants and elected concillors, soon in all schools, and promotes vegetarian eating options in town through the distribution of "veggie street maps".

See also

• Agroecology
• Environmental vegetarianism
• Sustainable agriculture
• Sustainable food system

References

Further reading