Livestock Production: Part 1 - Facts, Figures & Ethical Considerations

With all the background information we have gathered over the last few weeks, we can finally kick-start the review of modern food production practices, by looking at the global impacts of intensive livestock farming. I must stress that I have tried hard to look at the evidence with unbiased eyes, ditching any preconceptions I may have previously held. However, this is, admittedly, no piece of cake! We’ve all heard horror stories of the factory farming industry, and the internet does not fail to keep them coming, by hosting a wide inventory of sensationalist articles, videos and pictures that will put you off meat for good... Well, until you’ve miraculously forgotten about it a few minutes later… (Guilty!) So, to avoid being misinformed, I have largely structured my reading on scientific papers, research and well-cited articles, whilst still considering some element of opinion from credible organisations, albeit with a pinch of salt.

via chartsbin.com 

Now let’s start with the bare facts. This year, the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) estimated the global average meat consumption to be 41.30kg per capita, with the average consumption in industrial countries (e.g. European countries, USA and Australia) to be 2.32 times this figure, roughly equivalent to 262g of meat per person per day. For comparisons sake, this is equates to eating about 9 rashers of bacon, or 3-4 sausages, or 2⅓ quarter-pounder burgers each day. However, if we revisit the FAO’s figures we see that, since 1964/66, the average consumption in industrial countries have increased by a factor of 1.56, whereas in developing countries this is a factor of 3.10! Despite this, western countries still devour a heck of a lot more meat than developed countries, by over threefold!

                                      MEEEEEEAT! Source: www.willowbrookorganic.org/

Why is this an issue? What’s so bad about meat? Despite the recent connection found between cancer and processed/red meat, in moderation, meat can contribute as part of a healthy, balanced diet, providing protein, minerals (e.g. iron) and vitamins (e.g. B12). Yet, with plenty of other non-animal sources of these essential nutrients, the question stands: are we consuming and producing more meat than necessary? Current estimates suggest that livestock production is responsible for approximately 14.5% of global Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (FAO, 2013). Shockingly, 61% of these emissions were generated by cattle alone via both the meat and dairy industries, whilst poultry (incl. meat and eggs) and piggies only generate 8% and 9% respectively… So, what’s going on here? Where are all these emissions coming from? Before we look at the environmental implications, we must first consider the current methods of practice that put the meat on our plates.

I’m not sure about you, but when I think of meat production, my thoughts immediately turn to factory farming, characterised by large numbers of animals crammed into restricted space and requiring substantial quantities of food, water and antibiotics. This comes as no surprise as, globally, factory farming contributes to about 72% of poultry production, 43% of egg production, and 55% of pork production, with suggestions that figures for cattle are slightly lower (although this is not conclusive). These percentages are pretty high, but are honestly a bit lower than I anticipated! Saying that, in countries like the USA these figures are generally greater than 90%, with exception to cattle with approximately 78% raised from factory farms, which probably explains my initial perception of the situation.

   Sources: Image 1: www.an1mal.org/ , Image 2: http://allergiesandyourgut.com/ , Image 3: www.fairwarning.org

Regardless, intensive livestock farming is the dominant method of meat and dairy production in the world, and continuously raises ethical concerns for animal welfare, such as, the confinement to metal cages to restrict movement, reduced (or lack of) access to fresh air and natural light, and removal of tails and beaks to reduce loss of livestock through aggressive behaviour (most likely due to heightened tensions caused by poor living conditions). Additionally, the desire to boost productivity of the end “product” which can cause adverse effects, for example, increased growth rates of chickens leads to higher risk of lameness, increased egg yield in laying hens can lead to osteoporosis, and greater number of offspring can lead to higher infant mortality. Not to forget concerns over human welfare… With large agribusinesses on the rise, small farmers are on the decline, as some are unable to compete with these vast, industrial practices at the same low cost.To some, this may seem like fair game, but this produces a net decline of labour force, thus resulting in less available jobs.

Most of this is probably nothing new to you. We all know this stuff, to a degree, and since it’s incredibly easy to detach yourself from the reality, it becomes very easy to ignore. You don’t often see the industrial process. You can’t truly measure an animal's emotional response. Plus, meat is so readily available, it doesn’t take a second thought. However, the environmental implications are a lot harder to ignore, or at least will be as time goes on. Deforestation, greenhouse gas emissions, water source contamination… The list is endless! Yet, a lot of us still aren’t that clued up about the full extent of the impacts in an environmental context. So, instead of shying away, join me for part 2, as I explore the major impacts that meat production is having on our planet, and how we can predict the future effects using modelling.

Don’t forget to follow me on twitter for more updates on food production and climate change: @chlobular