CAN LIVESTOCK SYSTEMS actually improve the environment? It appears that they can…. but we are doing it all wrong.
In developed countries, most currently utilized methods of producing meat and animal - based products are very resource intensive and polluting. They are also an inefficient means of providing food for large numbers of people.
Preeminent environmental specialist Robert Goodland, retired senior environmental adviser to the World Bank for over two decades, calculated that approximately one-half of greenhouse gas production can be attributed to current methods of raising animals for food. Livestock systems have been estimated to occupy over 30 percent of the global land surface area; and carbon sequestering forests have been cut down to use the land to directly graze animals, or to grow crops to feed to animals in distant markets.
The Union of Concerned Scientists, an alliance of over 500,000 citizens and scientists, argues that beef is ecologically inefficient, as it uses about 60 percent of the world’s agricultural land yet produces less than 5 percent of the world’s protein and less than 2 percent of its calories. Approximately 36 percent of all U.S. grown corn crops are used to feed animals (another 40 percent is used to produce ethanol for fuel, and most of the rest is used to make high-fructose corn syrup).
Raising livestock also uses very large amounts of an increasingly valuable resource – water. The average U.S. diet currently requires over one thousand gallons of water per person per day to produce. Cutting consumption of animal products in half would reduce this number by over one-third.
Tightly packed groups of any type of animal, including humans, are also breeding grounds for pandemic illnesses. Approximately seventy-five percent of “new” human pathogens reported in the last twenty-five years have originated from animals. An emerging disease is defined as one that is known to newly infect humans, has become virulent, or has recently become drug resistant. In just the last four decades, dozens of these new diseases have appeared.
Eating meat or other animal products also introduces many ethical concerns for some people, particularly if the animals are factory raised and confined in crowded cages, such as is often the case with chickens and pigs.
Some animal products are high in cholesterol and saturated fats, which are suspected to cause atherosclerosis and poor blood flow to vital structures. One may think that going out with a heart attack on the 18th green is not a bad final curtain call, and it is not – if you are one hundred years old. Also, narrowed arteries do not just mean early heart attacks. Carotid artery narrowing causes strokes, which if severe can leave a relatively young person languishing in a nursing home for decades. Poor blood supply can also lead to pain and difficulty with walking.
After reading all of this, it may be easy to jump to the conclusion that animal products are the devil. But it is far more complicated than that, and there is certainly not a one-size-fits-all recommendation for meat and dairy consumption. Even though eating meat is not always ecologically efficient, neither is turning on the stove to cook my vegetables instead of eating them raw, or choosing crème brulee and coffee for dessert rather than an apple and a glass of water. It takes over fifty gallons of water to grow the beans for my cup of coffee.
There will always be some trade-offs between enjoyment and ecologic efficiency – my own life would be a little less happy without an occasional beef brisket dinner. And although many areas could predominantly feed themselves with grain, fruit, and vegetable crops, there are also large regions of the world – such as sub-Saharan Africa – that are very dependent on grazing animals as a necessary food source.
Alan Savory, founder of the Savory Institute, recommends an intriguing holistic approach to raising cows, goats, and sheep – by mimicking nature and using closely managed domestic herds to replicate the grazing patterns of wild animals.
Savory acknowledges that the Earth’s climate has been negatively impacted by the desertification of huge swaths of land in areas of low humidity; in large part due to the effects of poorly managed grazing by domesticated animals. But in an ironic twist, Savory’s research indicates that we may now actually be dependent on large numbers of domestic herbivores to properly manage native grasslands and help combat global warming.
Native grasslands were once all thriving ecosystems, reliant on large herds of wild herbivores to help maintain their normal growing cycles. Many of these herds have been decimated by overhunting, and their feeding grounds are now grazed by domesticated animals that do not follow the patterns of their wild predecessors. Presently, most rangeland is usually very heavily grazed and then often left to rest; or in some locales burned, which is very polluting and damaging to the soil.
Savory argues that these current practices are not sustainable; as native grasses growing in low humidity regions will not decompose appropriately unless they are naturally grazed. These grasses will instead slowly oxidize without adding nutrients to the soil, eventually turning the land into a desert, and accelerating climate change.
Savory has shown that if large groups of animals are allowed to graze at defined locations and precise intervals (determined by the appearance of the grasses instead of a set calendar schedule) the effect is a significant improvement of the land. In practice, this is accomplished by using easily moveable electric fences to keep domestic ruminants in specified areas. These areas range in size from a few acres to several thousand, depending on the condition of the land and the number of grazing animals. After closely monitored cycles of grazing, the cows are moved to a new section, allowing the grazed grasses to regenerate and thrive.
Following natural rhythms, native grasses are eaten by ruminants and decomposed by their gut bacteria, and then deposited as nutrient rich dung and urine in the soil. This promotes a virtuous cycle where grass grows more exuberantly, which then allows soil to better absorb rain water, ultimately leading to even greater growth of carbon sequestering plants – which offsets some of the deleterious global warming effects of methane produced by cows, goats, and sheep.
For millions of years, native grasslands have co-evolved with grazing ruminants. As the numbers of these wild animals are now markedly attenuated, perhaps Savory’s ideas are correct. The best hope to maintain ecological balance in world grasslands – and combat desertification – could now rest on the shoulders of the humble cow and other ruminants, closely replicating the ancient feeding patterns of their displaced wild cousins.
Out of necessity or preference, there will always be a large part of the populace that eats meat. If human population numbers begin to decrease, and if consumers choose to eat animals raised with sustainable methods, equilibrium can be maintained. But if greater numbers of people continue to demand greater amounts of meat, raised on improperly managed or previously forested land and fattened with soy or corn, the planet could descend into a spiral of worsening climate change and environmental destruction.
It is not necessary that we submit to mass veganism. But it is generally healthier for our bodies, and our planet, to eat relatively fewer and healthier varieties of animal products than what is typically consumed by citizens of industrialized nations. These animal products should optimally be obtained from locally raised animals or seafood; preferably wild or free-range creatures eating a native diet.
Eating ethically and sustainably sourced animal products can present a bit of a dilemma – as there is not enough wild seafood to indefinitely feed the Earth’s population of 7 billion people; and there is a finite amount of land available to raise grass fed cows, free range chickens and pastured pork.
With our current high population numbers, we certainly cannot all return completely to the hunter-fisher-gatherer dietary patterns of our distant ancestors. To use a phrase from historian Yuval Harari, population growth has burned humanity’s boats in that regard.
We are presently dependent on agriculture for our survival, especially the production of various grains. Of course even this practice is not risk free. Climate change may significantly affect crop yields and nutritive value, and certain geographic regions could easily become imperiled. Seriously addressing our present global overpopulation problem must be at the center of any discussion of world nutrition and food security issues.
Next time: RENAISSANCE RANCHERS: Meet Andrea and Tony Malmberg.