BLOG |
By Megan Serratore About 70% of the Earth’s surface is covered by water. The other 30% makes up the seven continents that over seven billion humans call home. However, an astounding half of the land in the world is devoted to cattle and other livestock production. The production of animals who are used for food, particularly cattle, has an immense toll on the environment. Although the amount of cow meat consumption is fairly consistent in developed countries, such as the United States, recent trends show that cow meat consumption is on the rise in developing nations. As the world population continues to increase also, this does not bode well for the future of the environment or for the millions of cattle who are slaughtered every year to satisfy human appetites. Without policy changes or changes in consumer habits, meat production worldwide is expected to double from 229 million tons in the year 2000 to 465 million tons in 2050. Currently, nearly 300 million cows are killed for food each year across the globe. Out of all the meat industries, the production of cow meat has the greatest negative effects on the environment. According to Vaclac Smil, “beef is the most demanding meat” and has the greatest global warming potential (GWP) than any other meat industry (p. 147). Both the pastoral and feedlot systems of cow meat production are cause for concern. The most serious environmental concerns related to the cattle industry are deforestation for grazing pastures, greenhouse gas emissions due to enteric fermentation and wastes, and land use and energy expenditures from nonhuman animal feed production. As the consumption of meat increases worldwide, so does the land space the livestock industry must devote to raising nonhuman animals. The cattle industry relies on deforestation to meet the need for expansion. Although the popularity of feedlots is rising, many other countries still use the pastoral system. The pastoral system allows cattle to graze on expansive pastures, whereas the feedlot system keeps cattle confined in small areas. In feedlots the concentration of cattle is so high that there is little space for activity and manure accumulates quickly in their living space. Although the pastoral system may seem like a more appealing process for the cows’ sake, it has severe environmental tolls, as does the feedlot system. The pastoral system requires significant land space and many ecosystems are destroyed in the process. Destroying forests for grazing land is the biggest contributor to carbon dioxide emissions in the meat industry (Smil, p. 171). For example, 13.5 million tons of carbon dioxide are released yearly in the Colombian Amazon due to deforestation for the cattle industry. Also, when forests are converted into pastures, the soil emits high amounts of carbon dioxide that contributes to the thinning of the atmosphere. Deforestation has especially become an issue in Latin American countries, particularly Brazil, where feedlots are not common. Brazil is the largest exporter of cow meat in the world, and a third of these exports come from the Amazonian region. The rainforest ecosystem and climate is drastically affected by these losses of once forest covered lands. According to simulations, if 40% of the Amazon rain forest were lost, there would be an extreme decline in rainfall and temperatures would be much warmer. With deforestation also comes the periodic burning of grasslands to prevent woody plants from growing again. The burning process emits methane and nitrous oxide, two gases that are key factors to global warming. All of these factors “undoubtedly make Amazonian beef one of the most environmentally damaging food sources in the world” according to an article about cow meat consumption from ScienceDirect. Without intervention, the demand for cow meat will continue this environmentally damaging cycle and lead to greater losses of valuable forest covered regions. Nonhuman animals who have a ruminant digestive system undergo enteric fermentation, which releases methane into the atmosphere as a by-product. Some mammals who have rumen include deer, goats, sheep, bison, cattle, etc. Their digestive systems are made to break down complex carbohydrates in plants that other non-rumen animals cannot. Of all the rumen containing animals, cattle are the biggest releasers of methane associated with climate change. Unfortunately, methane is 23 times as potent as carbon dioxide in regard to global warming. It is not a cow’s fault that he/she was given a methane producing digestive system. The issue is that humans have overbred cattle and their populations are unnaturally high. These dense cattle populations produce high amounts of methane that is emitted into the atmosphere every time a cow belches as he/she digests food. So, cows literally have “bad” breath when it comes to environmental tolls. It is estimated that 28% of U.S. methane emissions are from animals who are used for food. Although methane capturing systems have been developed to capture methane emissions, they are very costly and unlikely to be implemented by the cattle industry anytime soon. Cattle also contribute to air pollution because the decomposition of their waste releases toxic chemicals, such as ammonia, into the atmosphere. Ammonia in the air combines with other chemicals and affects the acidification of lakes and soils because of acid rain. Not only does this accumulation of feces affect the environment, but also many cows suffer in feedlots where they are packed in tight quarters and graze in piles of their own filth. To help stabilize greenhouse gas emissions and to improve the quality of life for cows, the intensity of cattle production must decrease. In the United States, more than half of cropland is devoted to growing feed for animals who are used for food rather than food crops for human consumption (Smil, p. 146). Worldwide about a third of all cropland is for livestock feed (Smil, p. 155). Many different environmental hazards are associated with feed production. Smil says, “Cultivation of feedstuffs […] adds up to the single largest, and truly global, environmental impact of meat production” (p. 155). Fertilizers to grow these crops leach chemicals into the air, and run-off from fertilizers contaminates water systems. Electricity is necessary for crop cultivation. Humans burn fossil fuels to process and transport feed for livestock. Soil is depleted of its nutrients as the same crops are planted over and over again. Also, copious amounts of water are used to irrigate these crops. For example, to produce one kilogram of cow meat in California, 13,500 liters of water are required in total. This is especially concerning considering that some parts of the world do not even have easy access to clean drinking water. The total energy input of feed production and resource usage is very high and the results are environmentally taxing. The current rates of meat production are not environmentally sustainable. Without government intervention and changes in consumer demand, the production and consumption of meat is going to continue to increase and further generate climate and environmental havoc. In order to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions, developed countries must decrease their intake of meat. The fire that will ignite a change in the right direction is likely going to have to stem from national governments. To start, governments must stop subsidizing meat production and quit promoting meat consumption. Instead, our leaders should offer financial incentives to decrease greenhouse gas emissions to farmers and meat producers. Governments need to enforce strict deforestation-control policies and more environmentally friendly waste management procedures. Corporations should be fined for bending or breaking these laws. Welfare standards must improve for workers and the nonhuman animals who are used for human consumption. Market prices of meat should reflect the environmental damage meat production induces. Factoring in the environmental destruction of the cattle industry, cow meat is way underpriced. The implementation of a carbon tax is one way nations could address the environmental cost of meat. Secondly, consumers need to be aware of the detriments of their diet choices. To keep greenhouse gases from continuing to increase, average meat consumption must fall drastically in developed countries. This may be a culture and lifestyle shock to many people; however, an environmental disaster of this scale requires everyone to do their part. A proposed goal is to reach a worldwide average meat consumption rate of 90g per day, and a max of 50g of this portion should be cow meat. A 90g portion of meat is about equivalent to the size of a deck of cards. Not only would this benefit the environment, but it would also be beneficial to human health. Meat, particularly cow meat, and other nonhuman animal products are high in cholesterol and fat. Diets high in cholesterol and fat increase the likelihood of developing heart disease, which is the leading cause of death worldwide. Lastly, preventing a continual increase of the human global population will help achieve these goals. Expanding contraceptive availability and encouraging contraceptive use is a must. If the human population continues to increase and people do not change their eating habits, the carrying capacity of the environment will be surpassed. It is time for national governments to embrace a global perspective that focuses on keeping this planet healthy rather than making decisions solely based on economics. To save the human race and all other living beings, we must repair and save the planet. Humans must forget about the dollar signs, adjust their appetites, and become environmentally responsible for their actions. References “Enteric Fermentation Mitigation”. Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES). Web. 26 Feb. 2017. https://www.c2es.org/technology/factsheet/EntericFermentation Etter, A., C.A. McAlpine, P.M. Fearnside, L. Seabrook, and W.F. Laurance. "Increasing World Consumption of Beef as a Driver of Regional and Global Change: A Call for Policy Action Based on Evidence from Queensland (Australia), Colombia and Brazil."ScienceDirect. N.p., Feb. 2009. Web. 26 Feb. 2017. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378008000976 Fiala, Nathan. "Meeting the Demand: An Estimation of Potential Future Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Meat Production." ScienceDirect. N.p., 15 Oct. 2008. Web. 26 Feb. 2017. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800907006180 “Food Empowerment Project”. Web. 26 February 2017. http://www.foodispower.org/pollution-water-air-chemicals/ McMichael, Anthony J., John W. Powles, Colin D. Butler, and Ricardo Uauy. "Food, Livestock Production, Energy, Climate Change, and Health." ScienceDirect. N.p., 13 Sept. 2007. Web. 26 Feb. 2017. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673607612562 Smil, Vaclav. "Chapter 4 What It Takes to Produce Meat." Should We Eat Meat?: Evolution and Consequences of Modern Carnivory. Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013. 145-75. Print. Subak, Susan. "Global Environmental Costs of Beef Production." ScienceDirect. N.p., 1999. Web. 26 Feb. 2017. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800998001001 AUTHOR BIOMegan Serratore is a sophomore biomedical science major at Minnesota State University, Mankato. She plans to pursue a medical career. Having spent a summer as an intern at her local newspaper, The Bemidji Pioneer, Megan has formal writing experience as a reporter. As a long-distance runner and outdoor enthusiast, she spends much of her free time outside. Comments are closed.
|
ABOUT
This is a website about nonhuman animals, written by human animals taking a Society and Animals class at Minnesota State University, Mankato. Archives
April 2024
Categories
All
|