The Environmental Impact Of Meat Production

All semester we have discussed how our actions impact our environment and what we can do to limit this impact, or to make our impact more “green.” From smart green homes, to rain barrels, to smart cars, there are many different ways that we can improve our environment and lessen our ecological footprint. One of the biggest ways to do this is by reducing the amount of meat that we consume.

In the second section of Michael Pollan’s book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma, pastoral grass and “organic foods” are the main focus and many agree that grass is a far better choice for animals that graze. By switching a cows diet back to normal food, will impact the market of food prices because the supply would not be able to keep up with the demand, thus making the food market a disaster, or at least that’s what I picture when I think of the outcome. The demand for beef now is so great that these cattle are being slaughtered at roughly 12 months, that’s not even half of the total life-span they’re supposed to live. A grass fed cow takes about 4-5 years to be ready for some great steaks, but thanks to our wonder crop, “corn”, we can slice that

In the science article, “Beef and Climate Change Collide”, Los Angeles Times argues that beef is unhealthy for planet Earth due to the released gases that contribute to climate change. They claim that the U.S. beef production uses twenty eight times for land and eleven times more water than any other types of meets. Beef production pumps up five times more planet warming gases into our atmosphere than chicken, or pork. Furthermore, developing nations raising cattle have significantly increased the amounts of gases they produce. These developing countries have increased fifty one percent from 1961-2010. Although gases from cattle have been increasing, U.S. beef industry claims that the U.S. create the least amount of greenhouse gases being

If that isn’t enough, the Amazon rainforest is being affected by beef production; four-fifths of the deforestation is due to cattle ranching (Scheer). This is because there needs to be room for the livestock to roam and crops to feed the animals. There isn’t enough space for humans and our livestock since reported by Suzanne Rice, writer for the Journal of Thought, “30 percent of the earth’s ice-free land is... involved in livestock production” (Rice 118). 30 percent doesn’t leave us with much and it is no wonder we are deforesting these rainforests. However, although cattle seems to be the most detrimental livestock factor to the environmental problem, they are not alone.

The conditions in which meat livestock live in is not exactly that of a large open green field in which they are free to roam and be merry. In the Economist article, Cows down: The beef business (2008) the effects of the ill conditions cows talks of how a

In the article published on The New York Times, "The Myth of Sustainable Meat," by James E. McWilliams, a history professor who specializes in environmental history at Texas State University--San Marcos, tries to prove the alternatives to factory farms that practice natural ways of raising animals for food production isn’t such a satisfying alternative than what we perceive it to be (par. 2). McWilliams presents excellent examples and reasons to support his thesis. He appropriately used important societal issues in regards to animal production to broaden his audience and provide strong support towards his claim. Even though McWilliams provides strong reasons to establish his claim, the use of expert opinions and dishonest statistics and facts

It won’t come as a surprise to anyone that Americans like their meat. In fact, America produced 93 billion pounds of meat and poultry in 2012, which included some 32 million cattle. As many of us already know, agriculture has a significant impact on our environment in a variety of ways. In order to successfully rear livestock, slaughterhouses require large quantities of water, and emit plenty of greenhouse gases – methane and CO2 specially – during production.

Not only would buying sustainably raised meat help the environment and the animal itself, it would help human health as well. Because of the corn diet industrial cattle are fed, the meat is much more fattening. Butchers like to use the term “marbled”, but in reality, that just means there is more fat lined throughout the cut of meat. With all that fat, humans are more susceptible to getting heart disease, among other fatal diseases. Aside from the fat content of the meat, the problem of hormones comes up. While it isn’t as big a deal, seeing as almost everything we eat has some form of hormones in it, there still is a threat. Hamblin says that while we don’t have to worry about the excess of hormones in our meat, it’s important to note that “80 percent of antibiotics are being used in animals,

Did you know that buying that burger at dinner or frozen chicken at the grocery store is killing you, your family, and the environment? Despite that you grew up eating meat and accumulated the thought that you “can’t live without it,” you CAN go without consuming meat. If you were to give up meat, even for a while or better yet all together, you would not only be helping the earth, but also your health, and even our future generations to come. Believe it or not, eating meat causes huge side effect to your health. Factory farming even causes more pollution and chemical fume releases than cars. On top of that, it is wiping out vast sums of land and is causing deforestation, which is even causing plants and insects to become extinct every day. Factory farming and the consumption of meat is bad and should be limited or stopped altogether.

Attention getter: According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United States, animal agriculture is a leading source of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane emissions, the top three greenhouse gasses (FAO, 2006).

The ethics of animal production for food did not represent a concern by society until about 25 years ago. The public's awareness of both environmental consequences and effects of production systems on the animals welfare have become perpetually evident over the years. From an environmental perspective, the local grass-fed beef production will have a much smaller impact on the environment compared to the grain-fed production method. Grain-fed beef have to be shipped to the feedlots, incurring high energy costs in the transportation process. Manure at feed lots is not always properly disposed of, leading to foul odors, harmful natural gases, and the potential for leaching into the groundwater, contaminating local groundwater/drinking water supplies. Water pollution is by far the largest environmental impact. Research has shown that runoff resulting from cattle production has polluted at least 170,000 miles of river, 2,000,000 acres of lakes, and 1,800 square miles of estuaries. This is a major ethical issue, as water is our number one resource

The cattle industry produces vast amounts of strain in the environment. It is energy inefficient, pollutes water, occupies many acres of land, and deteriorates the health of the people who abuse its consumption. The government subsidizes this industry. Therefore, the price paid for meat doesn’t reflect the environmental hazards involved in the process. In order to protect our health and the health of the environment we should pay close attention to our food choices and make sure we don’t support industries that degrade it.

     It also needs to be pointed out that meat production industry is highly unfriendly to the environment. It has been proved that the results of this mindless actions are extremely harmful to the whole planet: trees are lost in creating farms for animal food, land is taken away from wildlife, additional erosion is caused, topsoil is lost, groundwater is wasted, and pesticide is excessively used. In fact, one chicken farm uses as much water as a little city. Few may know that this industry, compared to others, causes the biggest pollution at all.

Meat production is just more than animal cruelty and health risk, it is an environment issue also. Over producing livestock unbalance the ecosystem. The manure produced by the animal pollutes bodies of water from runoff (Motavalli). Meat production does not only affect humans, fresh water for other inhabitants are also at risk of disease and illnesses from drinking feces contaminated water. This can potentially kill off species. Not only are bodies of water are threatened, the land is also. Over grazing of lands causes erosion (Motavalli). Over grazing can kill off plants, which again, ruins the ecosystem. Other wildlife need the plants there to live, not just livestock. Most people would’ve never thought of the meat they eat is damaging the environment.

Global meat production rose to a new peak of 308.5 million tons in 2013, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), a more than fourfold increase over the last five decades. Even more startlingly, meat production has grown 25-fold since 1800 (Horrigan, Lawerence &Walker, 2002). Globally, agriculture utilizes nearly 70 per cent of the world 's available freshwater. One-third of that percentage is used to grow grains to feed to livestock (ECOS, 2014). While the global meat industry provides food and a livelihood for billions of people, it also has significant environmental and health consequences for the planet. Over half of the water used in meat production