Livestock Production: Part 2 – Environmental Impacts

Welcome back to the second part of looking at the livestock industry! This time we will be focusing on the environmental consequences (and potential benefits…!) of livestock production.

There is absolutely no denying that meat production has had an alarmingly negative effect on the planet. The methods and scale of the meat industry demonstrate a deteriorating Earth and climate. Yet, as consumers, we too take a fair share of this responsibility through our dietary choices, food waste, and increasingly high demand. Some of these points may be nothing new to you, such as deforestation and methane emissions, which are often echoed as a familiar rhetoric. However, as devastating as these effects are, the list extends way beyond this, and the overall problem is much more mammoth than you can imagine. So, allow me just to scratch the surface and provide you with some food for thought next time you make a meal choice…

Source: https://prezi.com/

Climate Change

Reiterating from my last post, livestock production contributes to approximately 14.5% of global human-induced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, more than the direct, combined emissions of the global transport industry. Although carbon dioxide (CO₂) is by far the most talked about greenhouse gas, CO₂ is only attributed to about 27% of emissions from the livestock sector, whereas nitrous oxide (N₂O) makes up 29% and methane (CH₄) 44% (FAO, 2013). In total, animal agriculture accounts for 5% of Anthropogenic CO₂ emissions, 44% of CH₄ emissions and 53% of N₂O emissions (IPCC, 2007).

Due to the higher Global Warming Potential of both N₂O and CH₄ (296 times and 23 times that of CO2 respectively), livestock are having a major impact on the global temperature through the greater accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere, leading to a stronger greenhouse gas effect. This can obviously cause serious changes in regional climates and the global weather system, leading to increased drought, flooding, and natural disasters. These factors, in turn, have serious impacts on local economies, infrastructure and health. But, where are these emissions coming from?

GHG emissions from beef production
Source: www.scientificamerican.com/slideshow/
the-greenhouse-hamburger

Meat production both directly and indirectly release GHGs into the atmosphere. The main direct cause is the release of methane from ruminant animals (e.g. cattle, sheep, and pigs), due to methanogenic micro-organisms living in their colons that cause plumes of fart and waste to exit their systems and drift up into the atmosphere. Nitrous oxide can also be emitted similarly this way due to the high concentration of ammonia in their diet. In terms of indirect contributors of these emissions, we turn to deforestation, landscape change, pollution, etc. which are explored in greater depth below.

Pollution

Water pollution is one of the biggest environmental and public health risks of livestock farming, particularly factory farming. As animals and vegetation are often separated through agricultural practices, the natural process of waste management has disappeared, where the waste of one fits the demand of the other: in a perfect, sustainable harmony… Due to this, there is an increasing burden of animal waste on farms, stockpiling in vast lagoons that hold millions of litres of excrement, with limited places to transfer it to. This accumulation of waste can seep into water systems, adding bacteria and pathogens which can kill aquatic species, destroy ecosystems and even make its way into our drinking water, as it did in Milwaukee in 1993. Additionally, the excessive presence of nitrogen in waterways (from waste) can cause both oxygen exhaustion and eutrophication (increase in nutrients) in water, which can severely damage and alter biodiversity, as well as cause a fatal blood disorder, methemoglobinemia, in infants through drinking water.

Air pollution from farming is another threat to the environment. Ammonia found in animal waste produces dangerous pollutants when combined with sulphates and nitrates from fossil fuel burning, which can lead to respiratory disease and death. Excess ammonia can also cause soil acidification, soil eutrophication and acid rain.

Deforestation, Land-Use Change and Land Management

Agricultural land occupies about 30% of Earth’s terrestrial surface, with 70% of this land utilised for livestock production (Steineld et al., 2006). With global population and demand continuously increasing, we are constantly converting more available land into agricultural land, through land-use change, land management and deforestation.

Source: http://news.mongabay.com/

80% of tropical deforestation is directly motivated by the rising demand of agriculture, especially within the Amazon rainforest and other parts of Latin America. This poses not only a threat to wildlife and loss of biodiversity through the vast destruction of habitat, but also to the planet as a whole. Forests are major carbon sinks and have a net positive effect on greenhouse gas emissions by reducing 
excess CO₂ from the atmosphere. Thus, when deforestation occurs, particularly on the mass-scale that it has, this will have an overall negative greenhouse effect through increased carbon fluxes, equivalent to more than the total EU greenhouse gas emissions.

Although, land-use change is not only driven by the relocation of non-native animals for the purpose of human consumption, but also by the tremendous space required to feed them. Most livestock reared for meat are fed a high-protein diet that promotes excess growth, and often relies on the use of soy bean. Soy monocultures, dominated by big businesses, are becoming the norm in Latin America and are have major impacts on the environment, local economies and communities. The full impact of soy production can be seen on a neat infographic, here.

Antibiotic Resistance

According to the Natural Resources Defence Council, approximately 80% of all the antibiotics sold in the USA are fed to livestock. Disease and bacteria are very common in livestock production, particularly within factory farms, due to genetic uniformity, poor sanitation and cramped conditions. To combat this issue and prevent loss of profit, animals are given cocktails of antibiotics which work to kill off all bacteria in their guts. Despite this, those resistant to antibiotics remained unaffected, allowing them to multiply rapidly. Once these resistant bacteria spread, they are able to contaminate waterways, soil and animal products, which can eventually lead to antibiotic resistance in humans. You can check out an enlarged version of the infographic here.

Source: http://www.cdc.gov/

Food and Water Insecurity

There is serious controversy surrounding the efficiency and productivity of intensive livestock production. In the year 2000, livestock were estimated to consume 34% of all primary crops, and up to 50% of all cereals, produced globally (Erb et. al, 2012). This is consistent with claims that all cereals fed to livestock could fed up to 3.5 billion people per year by 2050. But, maybe the meat industry is feeding this many people too, right?

It doesn’t appear that way… There are many different estimates of how much grain it takes to produce 1kg of meat, so it’s difficult to get a proper picture! However, according to Horrigan et al. (2002), it takes (on average) 7kg of grain to produce 1kg of beef, with 4kg of

grain for pork and 2kg for poultry. Additionally, the calorie conversion looks even worse as it requires 35kcal of energy to produce 1kcal of beef, where the average for any meat is 3kcal of energy to produce 1kcal, and this excludes transportation, packaging and processing!! Clearly this is highly inefficient, particularly in a world where 793 million people live in food poverty.

In addition to food poverty, the lesser talked about topic of water scarcity is equally as pressing an issue. Over 1.2 billion people live in areas with water scarcity, with an extra 500 million people moving toward this over time. It doesn’t take a mastermind to know the implications that come from a lack of water, but what has this got to do with agriculture? Global livestock farming uses about 15% of all irrigated water, which has the potential to be spread amongst those living in water scarcity across the world. However, this is not specifically representative, because if we were to switch solely to crop-based diets, these all require huge volumes of water, leaving many still without water.

Other Effects

Source: www.alburycity.nsw.gov.au

• ·    Transportation
•     Food packaging
•     Ozone depletion (due to excessive methane)
•     Food waste and storage
•     Soil erosion
•     Land degradation
•     Overgrazing
•     Desertification

And many, many, MANY more!

Potential Benefits

However, allow me to play devil’s advocate… Although factory farming does contribute to a net decline in available farming jobs, livestock production does open up a wide array of jobs from food transportation, to food packaging, to deforestation, etc., allowing some economies to thrive. For example, the economies and prosperity of Amazonian countries depend on legal deforestation for the purpose of trade.

Additionally, animal feed is often made from the waste products of common processes. For example, grains leftover from ethanol production, soy and canola meal left after the extraction of soybean and canola oil for cooking and biofuels, and roughage left from crops fit for human consumption.

Furthermore, the existence of small ruminant livestock (not factory farmed) can control certain weeds and invasive species, which may cause damage to some plant ecosystems in local areas if left alone. As well, ruminants help to maintain vegetation in forestland, which is a sustainable alternative to herbicides.