How is raising meat hard on the environment?

and how does it create large amounts of greenhouse gasses?

This entry was posted by admin, and is filed under Environment. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Related Posts
Answers (8)

Edit
#1 written by Pliny the Elder
about 1 year ago

Methane (CH4) is a greenhouse gas that remains in the atmosphere for approximately 9-15 years. Methane is over 20 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (CO2) over a 100-year period and is emitted from a variety of natural and human-influenced sources. Human-influenced sources include landfills, natural gas and petroleum systems, agricultural activities, coal mining, stationary and mobile combustion, wastewater treatment, and certain industrial process.

Among domesticated livestock, ruminant animals (cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, and camels) produce significant amounts of methane as part of their normal digestive processes. In the rumen, or large fore-stomach, of these animals, microbial fermentation converts feed into products that can be digested and utilized by the animal. This microbial fermentation process, referred to as enteric fermentation, produces methane as a by-product, which can be exhaled by the animal.
#2 written by kcguy6935
about 1 year ago

It is very simple yes you have the methane that some one else answered but that isn’t the big thing. Here is to put that steak on your table vs. putting vegetables, fish, or even, chicken there you have to feed a cow much more than any of the others. In short to get meat ready for the dinner table think of all the food that the animal has eaten. Here is a bit from the site below:

The 4.8 pounds of grain fed to cattle to produce one pound of beef for human beings represents a colossal waste of resources in a world still teeming with people who suffer from profound hunger and malnutrition.

According to the British group Vegfam, a 10-acre farm can support 60 people growing soybeans, 24 people growing wheat, 10 people growing corn and only two producing cattle. Britain—with 56 million people—could support a population of 250 million on an all-vegetable diet. Because 90 percent of U.S. and European meat eaters’ grain consumption is indirect (first being fed to animals), westerners each consume 2,000 pounds of grain a year. Most grain in underdeveloped countries is consumed directly.
#3 written by abbyful
about 1 year ago

On the flip-side, if we did away with eating meat altogether, we (“we” being the human population) would starve. Most of the land used for livestock isn’t suitable to growing crops.

And livestock grazing is good for the soil. Also, pasture land provides more more homes for wild animals, crops are tilled up a couple times a year, so animals can’t make permanent homes in crop fields.

There are 2 sides to every coin. This isn’t a black & white issue.

ADD:
hipp5, did you read the articles below? A diet with some meat is a more efficient use of land than a diet with no meat. We can produce more food overall by farming both plants and animals. To eliminate livestock altogether isn’t a good plan of action either. (For “green living” or for people’s health.)
And for smaller independent farmers, most of what their livestock eats *is* via grazing. I grew up on a farm, we raised mainly crops, but also had some cattle. After harvesting a field, we’d move the cattle to the field for a while, they’d eat the stalks of what was left and also eat baled hay. The baled hay came from cutting the ditches along the side of the road. Farmers can sign up for areas they can cut & bale for animal feed. It benefits the farmers because they get food for their livestock, and also benefits the county because they don’t have to pay someone to go mow the ditches. So it wasn’t taking up cropland to grow animal feed.
Also, farming/food production industries really do support each other. Almost nothing goes to waste. For example, a company that makes apple cider will sell the crushed apple pulp to farmers to use as livestock feed.
And look at how much of the cow gets used: nearly all. The meat (food), the skin (leather), the bones/cartilage (gelatin). Even the trachea, penises, tendons, ears, and hooves are used (dog chews). Any other leftovers usually go to making pet food.
You can’t farm the the crops year after year after year. There needs to be crop-rotation and also giving the soil a break in between by not planting any crops for a year. One of the contributing factors to the Great Depressing was incorrect farming. Farmers farmed wheat, wheat, wheat, wheat, wheat, and the soil couldn’t take it. Nutrients were sucked up, crops failed, and top-soil blew away. Soil that took thousands of years to develop was pretty much destroyed in a few years.

ADD:
thor, There actually are still a lot of independent farmers that raise cattle around. It’s not all factory farms. Every time I go back home to visit I go by a lot of them. (And I know the people that own them, they are still very much in the business.)
.
#4 written by ╚»✰[GIR]✰«╝
about 1 year ago

Like most larger livestock like pigs,sheep, and especially cattle produce a lot of methane and is very harmful towards the environment. Also even cooking any type of meat takes energy to ALWAYS cook the meat. Obviously it’s not a smart idea to eat raw meats, therefore it’s better to switch one of your daily meals with a vegetarian diet because fruits and veggies can be eaten raw, therefore not using energy.

I hope that helped you x]
#5 written by qm4life56
about 1 year ago

Excessive use of energy

Animal foods demand the lion’s share of energy used in agriculture. According to one study, meat production requires 10 to 20 times more energy per edible tonne than grain production.6 Growing feed crops requires extensive energy for ploughing, harvesting, pumping irrigation water, transportation, and producing fertilizer and pesticides. Once grown, the crops are processed using additional energy. For instance, corn is heated in order to reduce its moisture content from 29% to 15%.12

Furthermore, the housing of pigs and chickens in huge windowless sheds requires energy for artificial ventilation, conveyor belts and electric lighting. Slaughterhouses are also energy and water intensive.

There is also the energy spent transporting farm animals at various points in their life cycle. According to a March 2006 report by the Humane Society of the U. S. “Before they are slaughtered, livestock travel an average of 1,000 miles, but some journeys are much longer. Long-distance transport not only increases the opportunities for animals to come into contact with – and to spread – diseases, but also increases their susceptibility to infection.”18

For harvesting fish, extensive energy and resources go into building, maintaining and fueling fleets of trawlers.

Finally, animal products tend to require more energy for processing, packaging and refrigeration than plant-based foods. In contrast, many vegetables, fruit, grains and tubers require no refrigeration and little or no processing.

A meat-based diet requires 7 times more land than a plant-based diet.
The average agricultural land area in North America is 1.6 hectares per person (1.4 hectares after adjusting for the export of grain). Yet there are many countries in the world that use as little as 0.2 hectares (half acre) of farmland per person. These are the countries with plant-based diets.

An area equal to 0.2 hectares is the equivalent of having 5.5 square metres of land available to produce each day’s worth of food. The average yield worldwide, for cereal crops in 1994 was 2,814 kilograms per hectare, an amount equivalent to getting 1.5 kilograms (14 cups of cooked grain) per day from 0.2 hectares. For root crops the average global yield in that year would have provided 6.8 kilograms of food per day from 0.2 hectares.2

Another example is the small footprint of land that fruit trees take up. A mature apple tree will produce about 20 bushels a year – enough for 400 pies. A fifth of a hectare (half acre) would yield enough fruit to provide about 115 apples per day.17 Tree crops also have the nice advantage of not being prone to soil erosion. In September 2008, I joined up with a Toronto group called Not Far From The Tree and went on a couple of pear picks. Just one tree yielded almost 1200 pears after a two hour pick. See photos and write-up at Delicious Earth.

Any country with reasonable growing conditions should be able to feed their population a plant-based diet using 0.2 hectares of land or less per person. Areas with harsh winter climates also have summers with long days of sunlight, ideal for producing high yields. Grains, legumes and roots can be easily stored for use during off seasons. Areas with regular dry seasons are often balanced with wet seasons
#6 written by hipp5
about 1 year ago

I have nothing to add on top of what the other posters have said, as they said it very well.

However, I would like to rebut abbyful: if we stopped eating meat we would not starve. Most meat is not fed through grazing. Most meat is fed feed which came from agricultural land. Whether or not some meat is grown on marginal grazing land does not matter, as most meat is not grown this way.
#7 written by thor
about 1 year ago

Meat isn’t raised naturally anymore. Thousands of cows packed together in a small area polluting the water with their waste and eating corn. Cows aren’t designed to eat only corn; they can’t digest it properly and produce large amounts of methane. If fed grass like wild cows used to eat mainly, they do not all congregate in a small area for extended periods of time and can digest it without producing methane.
#8 written by glouise
about 1 year ago

My husband’s family is five generations of cattle ranching and I have learned that so many of the myths perpetually running around on the internet are amazing. Meat, for most producers, IS a natural process. The only “factory” cattle are those who spend the last 30-60 days in a feedlot AFTER spending 12-14 months grazing. Cattle are the most natural of all meat animals and with their four stomachs are incredibly environmentally friendly. We raise natural beef, but almost all beef IS ‘natural.’ Cattle are vegetarians and graze, primarily, on grasslands that cannot support crops. For example, where we live, the growing season would never support crops for human consumption. We are in a rangeland/higher elevation environment and cattle ruminate and can convert otherwise roughage that is a natural recycling animal. Not only that, but pastures and fields and RANCHERS support more than 75% of ALL waterfowl in the North American continent – far more than all the public lands put together. The reason: wide open spaces. A single tree can consume as much if not more than what a single cow consumers. Cattle represent the bison in this country and well managed, provide a NATURAL and positive FIRE retardant for regions that are overrun with fuel-starting grasses or dry matter. In fact, if CA and other western states would use cattle, they could INHIBIT so much fire danger, it is beyond belief that environmentalists have stopped it! So sad. Believe me, farmers and ranchers ARE environmentalists and conservationists. In fact, they are the best recyclers in this fast and consumable world we live in. So sad that these myths abound online. I challenge people who oppose cattle to really meet and find ranchers to talk with. Open land is a commodity and an important environmental tool and cultivating every acre for grain or crops is hard on the land, esp. in regions NOT suited for it. Cattle are efficient and amazing animals and add to the environment. Finally, over 95% of ALL ranchers and farmers in the US are FAMILY-owned. This image of all big “industry farms” is NOT the real image at all. Please, do a little more balanced research and speak to those IN the industry.

You must be logged in to post a comment.