The next time you bite into that double quarter-pounder with cheese, you may want to think twice about it. Literally though, once for your health and once for Mother Nature dearest.
The livestock and agricultural industry is the single largest producer of methane, one of the biggest contributors to global warming. In fact, 100 million tons of methane is produced each year by the animal agricultural business alone.
About 85% of the people I’ve talked to, had no idea that eating meat had such a big impact on the environment. It’s understandable that the general public cannot cease use of all fossil fuels, electricity, and gas-guzzling SUVs, but altering your diet toward a more plant-based focus is both one of the easiest things to do to decrease your carbon footprint, as well as quickest. You may not be in a position to trade in your car for the latest electric vehicle, but you can be aware of the choices you make at the grocery store.
This blog series is here to provide the public with the information, resources, and alternatives to avoid resorting to the all-too-easy contribution of methane production. Public Citizen will be providing an informative blog series dedicated to the effects of meat production on the environment with various other focuses throughout this legislative season. So stay tuned for more juicy details to come!
The livestock and cattle industry is responsible for at least 20% of greenhouse gas emissions…that’s more than all of transportation combined! That deliciously marinated beef you are about to consume accounts for 37% of all anthropogenic methane, mostly through a process known as enteric fermentation by ruminants, as well as 65% of all our anthopogenic nitrous oxide.
Now this comes from manure sources too and not just methane folks! To put that into perspective, methane is 20 times more potent of a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide with regard to its weight. And nitrous oxide is just as guilty. Nitrous oxide is the cause of ozone pollution as well as the smog in the atmosphere. It’s a compound complexity on the rise! But we’ll leave the scientific jargon to linger for awhile.
Evidence also suggests that cattle production is the largest sectoral source of water pollutants on the planet. This is a result from not only the animal waste itself, but also from the fertilizers, pesticides used for feed crops, and antibiotic hormones distributed during the growth process. The list goes on my friends…don’t forget to add the chemicals from the tanneries, and the sediments from the eroded pasturelands.
Livestock production also consumes about 8% of all human sources of water in a world that’s already facing water shortages. That is quite a list, but that list only pertains to our precious water sources that we are already struggling to maintain sustainably.
In the United States alone, the livestock industry is responsible for 37% of all pesticide use and 50% of all antibiotic use. In addition, livestock also take up about 20% of all terrestrial biomass on Earth–just so we can all enjoy a steak or a burger whenever we please.
As the cattle industry infiltrates approximately 1/4 of our usable landmass, our planet is already struggling, might I add, with the ramifications of overpopulation. That’s 20% more land space human beings could be occupying if we all weren’t so addicted to that tender, juicy burger sold at the restaurant down the street.
To add to our already pressing overpopulated circumstances, just think of all the natural habitats that the wildlife used to have access to prior to the invasion of those who go “mooooooooo!“ So where do all those animals go, or better yet, where have they gone?
While the entire cattle industry is busy occupying 26% of all territorial land surface, let’s not forget to factor in all the food they eat too! Crop production of feed crop to feed the livestock requires 1/3 of all Earth’s arable land. If I remember correctly, we’ve still got millions of starving people in the world who die every day from hunger. Instead of feeding the impoverished and working toward ending world hunger, we are stuffing our cattle’s faces with all the food they could ever want. And why? Only so they can get sent to the market nice and plump to eventually only satisfy our own indulgences.
I don’t know about you all, but all that jazz on the cattle industry is enough to kill my appetite for a juicy steak, and fast too. But for our more stubborn population who might need a bit more persuasive evidence: the cattle industry is one of the major factors resulting in deforestation and overgrazing of the land as well as soil erosion.
Stay tuned for a later entry to come entirely focused on the cattle industry’s destructive tendencies, especially in areas like South America. Its impact on our crucial resource, the Amazon Rainforest, will shock you.
The basics concerning the environmental impacts of cattle production with respect to global warming have, for now, been skimmed. The compound consequences felt by both the environment and your health ought to be enough to turn your head, though. It has now been established that eating meat is detrimental to our environment, but it is also worthy to note how risky it can be to your own personal health.
Historically speaking, our ancestors never intentionally consumed as much meat as in the present day. Our nature was that of hunting and gathering, eating meat only when necessary. The human being was still never intended to eat meat in the amount we currently consume today. Again, be on the lookout for a blog entry in the future specifically pertaining to the historical progress of humans consumption of meat, it’s a pretty fascinating topic.
But as for now, we’ll stay focused on the health aspect of meat consumption. Studies have been done that indicate those who eat a vegetarian diet are much healthier than those who consume meat. As long as vegetarians are adamant about their nutrient intake, they, in fact, have lower cholesterol levels as opposed to the consumer of meat. This can have drastic impacts on one’s longevity. Lower cholesterol levels are a result from a lower fat intake, which in turn, decreases the risk of heart disease.
Those who eat meat are also at a higher risk for certain cancers. For example, evidence suggests that women who consume red meat nearly double their risks of being diagnosed with breast cancer. Meat contains a substantial amount of saturated fat which is also linked to other circulatory system diseases in addition to heart disease. 17 million Americans are impacted by the effects of heart disease, whether it be a coronary heart attack, or something more acute.
Obesity is on the rise and becoming an epidemic here in the United States, and vegetarians have been proven to have a lower BMI index than those who consume meat products. Studies also show that in comparison to plants, meats tend to have higher concentration levels of environmental toxins, like mercury, and other pesticide residues. On another note, meat is processed in plants that have had questionable sanitation methods. Remember mad cow disease? Well, diseases of food poisoning result from meat consumption rather than from a plant-based diet. Overuse of antibiotics and hormones is another risk posed when consuming meat.
If people aren’t going to admit to the fact that meat production degrades the environment at a devastating rate…then at least they should consider the health of the matter: you put yourself and your well-being at risk. I’m sure many would agree that that risk isn’t worth the taste of that juicy burger down the street.
As Texans, meat seems to be part of our nature, hardly thinking twice about the consequence it may have. While halting all consumption of any type of meat immediately is quite the extreme route, there are alternatives to eating meat for every meal. Going to the grocery store and being more aware of the choices you have as a responsible citizen really can impact the environment in a more positive manner. Recognizing and acting upon those choices is key…. after all, diet is one of the easiest and most proactive ways a Texan can help alter the implications our planet is currently facing.
Related Articles:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston/the-breathtaking-effects_b_181716.html
![[Valid RSS]](valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
How sad……The MYTHS about “cow burps” continue……
Cattle Are NOT the REAL threat when it comes to METHANE… so why does this MYTH continue? Why do people — whose obvious agenda is to denigrate cattle continue to report what is not the whole truth? The OLD study that is referred to here and by many was CLEARLY shown to be based on no or low science….
The release of that United Nations (U.N.) Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report in 2006 led people to talk about carbon footprints and greenhouse gases generated by livestock, particularly cows. That report claimed that globally, raising livestock generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in carbon dioxide and somehow equates to the use of fossil fuels, eg: driving cars and trucks. This story appeared over and over again in the media. BUT — It’s not ACCURATE….there is MORE to the story — as put out by the EPA:
A second study released by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) SHOULD have received as great a media attention, but didn’t. The EPA report, entitled “U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks”, actually calculated the numbers and has determined that 80 percent of annual greenhouse gas emissions come from the combustion of FOSSIL FUELS. ONLY 2.3 percent comes from food animal production.
Although the EPA report clearly shows that the FAO statistics are unsubstantiated and should be re-evaluated, the media and other online sources have directed Americans to reduce their meat consumption in order to save the planet.
The FACT is, that cows — in the same family as the American bison/buffalo — are environmentally friendly and aid in healthy seed dispersement or, more importantly, the balance of nature. Their hooves act to stir the soil and move and transplant grass seed. They do not overgraze, by nature; they roam naturally and continually. They are also creatures of habit, crossing streams in a line, not damaging the banks like many people assume. MOREOVER, according to recent studies, GRASS-FED BEEF ARE BELIEVED TO HELP REVERSE THE GREEHNOUSE EFFECTS. Pastures and grasslands store carbon, vs. releasing it into the atmosphere!
More than 85% of all grazing lands are not suited for crop production, according to the USDA. Grazing rangelands is an environmentally SOUND management tool; it converts dry matter, that could be called FIRE HAZARDS, into a food source; ruminants can convert the roughage easily into muscle/meat. According to one Oregon range manager, “Without controlled grazing, the forage on public lands will become wolfy (Not succulent), [and] big game will move to private lands.” Moreover, grazing protects the environment by “building soils, protecting water and riparian areas, and enhancing habitat.” In Canada, ranchers and farmers are PAID to take cattle, sheep, and goats into the mountains to help protect from major wildfires.
In addition:
More than 75% of ALL WILDLIFE IN the continental U.S. (excluding Alaska) is supported by PRIVATE, NOT PUBLIC land. Private land, eg: ranches and farmlands, provide habitat, water, wetlands, and food for big game and waterfowl. In the eastern U.S., that figure increases considerably; almost all wildlife is dependent on private lands. Most of the spawning and rearing habitat for migrating fish occur on PRIVATE ranch lands.
From 1960 – 1990, it was estimated by BLM that public lands (rangelands) had seen a marked improvement in habitat and herd restoration: elk populations had increased by nearly 800%, big horn sheep by 435%; antelope, by 112%, moose by 500%; and deer by 33%.
Moreover, as the world’s demand for alternative energy sources increase, there is potential “right under our noses!” Yes, from the world of animals and from their excrement …..Manure, which produces methane, can potentially become a great resource.
Cattle, which have been rudely and wrongly accused of having a negative impact on the environment, are a wonderful and powerful resource. Cattle work with the environment!
There are two reasons for pursuing the development of methane energy: 1) methane is plentiful, and 2) energy demands are only going to increase. So, rather than look at methane production as a problem, it might well be part of the solution! Research indicates that if you must use some other carbon source for energy, you still generate carbon dioxide as well as release the wasted methane from the manure pile. The result in the end has the effect of trapping this methane and burning it, which converts one greenhouse gas into another greenhouse gas (but reduces the greenhouse effect of the gas by perhaps twenty times).
There is plenty of energy potential in using manure. Of the millions of tons of methane that is generated each year, about one/fourth comes from domestic animals. While it would be inconvenient to collect the gas generated by enteric fermentation, it would certainly be feasible to collect and use the methane generated each year from the anaerobic fermentation of domestic animal manure.
“More than half of Americans surveyed recognized the significance of these efforts, believing that activities such as planting crops and grasses to control erosion, rotating cattle pastures to prevent overgrazing and planting trees to provide windbreaks and shelter – all of which are part of everyday life to cattlemen – play a key role in protecting our environment.”
It’s important that Americans realize the impact and the positive effect farmers and ranchers do have on the environment and the ways they are achieving, and have maintained, a “green economy!” Too many myths that have been cycled leave out the great efforts made by cattle ranchers and agriculturalists all over this nation.
Chance Gowan, a senior acquatic biologist and riparian ecologist for the USFS in Eastern Oregon, wrote in an article on public lands in the West (2006), that “the big-ticket items that have acutely damaged or caused long-term and wide-spread alteration of riparian communities” include:
1. Roads that “confine and straighten stream courses.” These roads funnel sediment directly into streams.
2. Old mining practices, that, although they have been improved in recent years, have left a “legacy” of environmental damage.
3. Channelizing or restraining and controlling streams, which damage riparian areas.
and
4. The LOSS of FAMILY FARMS and RANCHES, as a result of so many factors, which “invariably wind up being partitioned, with minin-ranchettes sitting next to streams.” These lovely and many second home investments, “almost always result in the permanent alteration of the landscape and often result in the near complete destruction of riparian fuctionality–not to mention water pollution, [and] loss of important wildlife habitat.”
This last item is so critical in the rural areas of the West, where family farmers and ranchers are now competing for land and the right to maintain open areas. Unfortunately, many of those who OPPOSE grazing or are anti-beef and anti-cattle do not understand the devastation the LOSS of OPEN space will create in the future. Sadly, many of these same people are the very ones who are intent on purchasing a second home — a home in the country or near nature — but at the price of what????? Wildlife, especially waterfowl and land animals, require wider spaces upon which to graze and where they can fly or roam without fences or broken up spaces. Sub-divided land becomes land that is less than useful for wildlife.
Thus, the destruction and the movement against open grazing or family ranches flies in the face of REAL conservation efforts. Family farms and ranches play a huge part in maintaining a healthy open space and ecosystem. When these outfits and operations are forced out of business by the careless rhetoric and political agenda being pushed by many ‘extreme environmentalists’ toting ‘facts’ that are not facts at all, but propoganda, WE ALL LOSE.
Compared to this loss of habitat by the sub-division and destruction of family ranches and private lands — which support more than 75% of wildlife in the United States — the effect of livestock on the environment or riparian areas is minute, almost, in fact, immeasurable.
So-called “reports” by many of these politically far-left and extreme thinkers is “flawed and inaccurate”, but their malicious and calculated effort to brainwash moderate-thinking and those very concerned with conservation to be is dangerous and will become disastrous if effective.
FINALLY, check over the following facts:
Sustainability
In the United States, 98 percent of farms are family farms.
Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture decreased 4.2 percent from 2001 to 2.6 percent in 2006.
From 1990 to 2005, overall methane emissions decreased 11.5 percent.
This year, 46,000 upland acres of private land, mostly on working farms and ranches, were restored to benefit the grizzly bear.
This year, 120,000 acres of private land, mostly on working farms and ranches, were restored to benefit the bald eagle.
In the Eastern and Central United States, wildlife is almost entirely dependent on ranch, farm and other private lands; so, ranchers play an important role in the survival of native species. Grazing cattle can minimize the invasion of non-native plant species.
Farmers’ and ranchers’ landowner agreements restored or enhanced 445,000 acres and 885 river miles of habitat for fish and wildlife.
Today’s American farmer feeds about 144 people worldwide.
Today versus 1960: 1.8 million less farms are feeding a U.S. population that has increased 61 percent.
Agricultural productivity in the United States has more than doubled in the past 50 years.
Grazing cattle reduces the risk of wildfires by decreasing the amount of flammable material on the land. The can consume dry material and with their four-chambered stomachs are an environmentally friendly fire retardant.
Because 85 percent of U.S. grazing lands are unsuitable for producing crops, grazing animals more than doubles the area that can be used to produce food. This land is suited for grazing, eg: rotational, seasonal grazing.
Rangelands and pastures provide forage and habitat for numerous wildlife species, including 20 million deer, 500,000 pronghorn antelope, 400,000 elk and 55,000 feral horses and burros.
Cattle serve a valuable role in the ecosystem by converting the forages humans cannot consume into a nutrient-dense food.
Last year, more than 2,000 ranchers and farmers entered into landowner agreements with the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. Ranchers have consistently and voluntarily joined with Fish and Wildlife to monitor fish screens and protect habitat. Cattle live easily with other species.
About a billion acres, or 55 percent of the total land surface in the United States, is rangeland, pasture and forages.
Calculate your personal greenhouse gas emissions using EPA’s calculator: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ind_calculator.html
The United States has 16 million more acres of forestland than it did in 1920.
LET’S GET REAL HERE!
Wow. There’s so much wrong with content of ‘gluis’ comment that I don’t know where to start. I’d put money that ‘gluis’ hasn’t spent a lot of time around cattle.
Of most concern are the statements that make it sound like cattle are real ‘keepers of the green’, floating softly over the meadow pooing out seeds that burst into nutritious grass and beautiful flowers as they stop to sip from the babbling brook before crossing on tippie toes to the other side, leaving sun twinkling off the water. Malarkey! Cattle manure is mostly large and hard and flat like a manhole cover, and kills whatever it lands on- where it stays for YEARS. They are very lazy, and so eat everything down to the nub in a large area near their watering sites before eating a blade of grass beyond that. They love water, so will stand for HOURS in the middle of every pond, stream, and low tank they can get into, urinating and deficating enthusiastically all the while.
Cattle are nasty, dumb, lazy, destructive creatures, and the only benefit they offer is the meat and milk that comes from them. I’m not a cow-hater. I grew up on a ranch, and love watching baby calves frolic as much as anyone- but to paint them as ‘cow-fairys’, who live their lives in service to the land is a crock!
I love a good steak, burger, or fajita — BUT — this planet would be in MUCH better shape if humans did not rely on cattle for sustenance. Period. End of story.
gluis: There is, I think, a lot of misunderstanding in your post. First and foremost you say: “the destruction and the movement against open grazing or family ranches flies in the face of REAL conservation efforts.”
I would never advocate for the destruction of open grazing, family ranches – and that is not what is being advocated here. According to this website:
http://www.farmforward.com/farming-forward/factory-farming
which cites US Dep. of Agriculture as their source:
“Factory farming now accounts for more than 99 percent of all farmed animals raised and slaughtered in the United States.”
Factory farms are not what I would call “open grazing, family ranches.” We are talking apples and oranges here. The 1% of animals that are raised by more responsible and humane ranchers/farmers will be supported and endorsed by a society that grows more aware of the problems of mass-meat production. The increasing market for “organic” foods proves this I think.
As for comparison to bison, yes they are in the same family (Bovidae) but that means little – the Bovidae family also includes African buffalo, water buffalo, antelopes, gazelles, sheep, goats, muskoxen, etc. “Cows” have undergone thousands of years of genetic selection and breeding by humans and are extremely different from buffalo in many ways.
Your argument would be similar to saying that chimpanzees and humans are pretty much the same thing (which, in a way, we are – but you get my point).
Your entire list of “facts” is entirely unsourced. As far as I know you just made all that stuff up.
In order to raise cattle for us humans to eat millions of indigenous species (including bison) have been driven off and had their numbers drastically declined. Your notion that they feed off virtually useless land is unsubstantiated, particularly when you recognize the fact that, again, 99% of cattle are raised in factory farms and are fed mostly corn (grown on arable land) and sometimes their fellow cows (turning herbivore bovines into cannibals – yum!). If this land were used to grow crops for human consumption you could feed FAR more people with a much smaller amount of plant matter.
Please provide sources next time.
Well as I look out on the drought ravaged national forest near where I live, I can see nothing but bare dirt and cow feces. I don’t know what wildlife is supposed to eat because the cows ate it all already. We also have ranchers to thank the for the extirpation of large predators and persecution of the ones that remain, the collapse of functioning streams into mudholes that now only carry water when it floods, soil erosion because when the rain finally does come, there is nothing to hold it, and conversion of whole ecosystems from grassland to shrubland and even to desert. Did I mention the tax breaks and taxpayer subsidies that go along with raising cattle? Predator killing, suplemental feed, cost share agreements for fencing and pipelines, drought relief, blizzard relief, low interest loans, below cost grazing fees, on and on….And not one of the cows shipped from taxpayer owned rangeland goes directly to slaughter, they all spend time in feedlots getting pumped with hormones and antibiotics, eating offal and more subsidized grains and producing endless air and water pollution.
(A rancher told me once, it wasn’t his cows that destroyed the riparian areas, the damage was caused by pack rats. duh.)