Week 6: Agriculture and the Environment

The Greenhouse Hamburger

Nathan Fiala’s article, The Greenhouse Hamburger, made many points that I had only been vaguely aware of, until now, and I was surprised to learn the truth about the environmental impact of beef production. I did not expect livestock production to yield such a large quantity of atmospheric greenhouse gases, but, according to the figure titled The High (Greenhouse Gas) Cost of Meat, it outranks almost all well-known sources of CO₂, Methane, Nitrous Oxide, and other gases that negatively affect our environment.

When most of us think of greenhouse gas production, our first thought is usually of massive traffic jams and factory smoke stacks spewing clouds of pollution into the air. In reality, one of the highest sources of greenhouse gas emissions comes from something more like this:


http://inmessycursive.wordpress.com/2010/07/16/hamburger-fridays/

I was not expecting livestock production to be second, just below energy production, on the ranking of greenhouse gas cost. There is so much in the media about reducing the environmental impact of our vehicles, from hybrid cars to carpooling, and about the impact of industry on our atmosphere, that these aspects of our culture overshadow the facts about the environmental impact of our diets.

Based on this article, one would interpret that concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) systems are good. Fiala says that CAFO systems are “not the cleanest production method in terms of CO2-equivalent greenhouse emissions”, but that they are better than most, according to implications from FAO data, and are economically efficient.

 

http://www.epa.gov/Region7/water/cafo/index.htm

CAFO systems are often chosen because they are so efficient, but there is also a great deal of opposition to them largely because of animal cruelty issues and the environmental impact of such concentrated waste production. The Environmental Protection Agency describes the parameters of CAFO systems and explains some negative effects of these system, including, for example, nutrient runoff decreasing levels of dissolved oxygen in nearby bodies of water and hurting the fish population. Another source, CAFO: the Tragedy of Industrial Animal Factories, paints a much harsher picture of animal cruelty through the use of these systems, and I think it is worth checking out in order to see all sides of the argument of CAFO systems.
http://www.epa.gov/Region7/water/cafo/cafo_impact_environment.htm
http://www.cafothebook.org/index.htm

Can We Feed the World & Sustain the Planet?

In the second source, Can We Feed the World and Sustain the Planet?, Jonathan Foley lays out his 5 part plan to reduce environmental change while providing food for a growing population.
The aspects of our environment that have been adversely impacted by agriculture include, but are not limited to:

• Destruction of vital ecosystems: 25 to 70% of prehistoric grasslands, savannas, deciduous forests, and rainforests have already been transformed by agriculture
• Excessive consumption of fresh water: irrigation accounts for 80 to 90% of water used and not returned to the watershed, and rivers are drying up
• Contamination of fresh water: fertilizer runoff creates toxic "dead zones" at the mouths of major rivers and is harming the fish population
• Greenhouse gas emissions: the previous article discussed much of this, but greenhouse gas production from agriculture accounts for about 35% of all emissions

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/95/233523196_a4abdd1b24.jpg

The figure on page 64 uses different colors and sizes of shapes to compare the current state of our agricultural system to the goal state. The red and blue (food access and food production) must grow to provide for the increasing population and to feed the already huge population of hungry people we have currently. The yellow (environmental damage) must shrink dramatically. The present size of the yellow shape does not even fit within the graph, and reducing it is imperative to the future wellbeing of our population and planet.

All 5 of the solutions are very much intertwined and important for meeting the goal of sustainable agriculture, so it is difficult to pick which would be the most promising. However, between evidence from the first article and data from this article, the idea of shifting our diets away from meat, especially beef, seems simple, practical, and effective.
Only about 60% of all crops produced actually feed people; 5% are used for biofuels and industry and the remaining 35% is animal feed. If everyone on the planet switched to an all-plant diet, we could see a 50% increases in total calorie supply. Humans don’t need meat to be healthy, and it takes so much more of the world’s resources just to raise a cow from birth to maturity and then slaughter it and cook it, that it makes more sense to eat plant sources of protein like legumes or nuts. The reality of this situation, unfortunately, is that meat is so ingrained in our culture that making this dietary shift is much easier said than done.

http://www.iruntheinternet.com/lulzdump/images/cow-toy-car-stuck-head-1259518194w.jpg

 

Another solution that I find quite sensible is the goal to reduce food waste. The food has already used fertilizer, water, and other resources in its production, so for it to actually make it to its final destination of nourishing a person should be a primary goal of those looking to improve the agricultural system. These two solutions focus on fixing the problem of hunger with the resources we already have, rather than actually changing farming practices, but they would reduce the need to expand farm area into important ecosystems.
It is imperative that changes be made in global agricultural practices because if these guidelines can be successfully implemented, we could see a healthier world and be able to feed the growing population.

 

http://www.elementalreiki.com/node/699