SOCIAL VEGANS AVOID 'MEET'

American diets (and Western diets in general) tend to lean towards the 'meat lover' on the scale of things (although developing countries are catching up too). 

Where do you think you fit in with the five categories below?

For each of the diets, the results are based on food supply, so it does not take into account the way consumers store and transport the foods. (The methodology for this can be found here.) 

"Reducing the intake of meat and other animal based products can make a valuable contribution to climate change mitigation, other work has demonstrated other environmental and health benefits of a reduced meat diet. National governments that are considering an update of dietary recommendations in order to define a 'healthy, sustainable diet' must incorporate the recommendation to lower the consumption of animal-based products."

Currently, vegetarianism as depicted above, is very high in parts of India with 375 millions of vegetarians. This may be as a direct result of their culture and religion and traditional ideologies in India. On the other hand, those in Western countries like USA and the EU are lagging far behind India with only a few million vegetarians/vegans.

In the average diet animal products make up 60% of emissions despite accounting for just a quarter of food energy.

For the Meat Lover beef consumption causes almost half of emissions from just a tenth of food energy.

In the No Beef diet all the reductions from the Average foodprint come by switching  from beef to chicken.

The difference between the Vegetarian and Vegan diets arises from dairy consumption being switched to a mix of cereals and vegetables.

This data really shocked me, so I thought I had to share it with you! Science shows that becoming vegan is the best way to save our planet and fight global warming. According to the official handbook for Live Earth, reports show that not eating meat is the “single most effective thing you can do.” However, it is very beneficial to precisely lay out the foodprints to get a clearer picture of how one does not have to specifically make the full commitment like those individuals in the Vegucated documentary did. By just substituting a few of the foods you eat most, to foods that produce lower carbon emissions, one can still make a big difference to the environment. The website explains this perfectly;

A Vegetarian’s foodprint is about two thirds of the average American and almost half that of a meat lover. For a Vegan it is even lower. But perhaps most interestingly, eating chicken instead of beef cuts a quarter of emissions in one simple step.

On a happy note, it seems there is definitely a growing portion of the global population who are interested in vegetarian benefits. Below is a chart of page views on Wikipedia for the pages on "Vegetarianism" and "Veganism".

Another incentive to substitute beef with chicken; production of poultry is much cheaper since they take up less space and are more efficient to feed than other livestock. 

So, you will be saving money too!

Happy Meatless Monday! Tune in NEXT MONDAY for THE FINAL POST!

COUNTRIES COMPARED

Today we will be focusing on the worldwide meat production and consumption.

If you were interested in the previous post (the table with a breakdown of meat and milk consumption per country/region) here is a more comprehensive review of the meat production and consumption for ya! 

For those who prefer a more visual breakdown;

1) Worldwide Meat Production

The production of meats in USA and Europe is increasing, however this is equally matched by increasing prices due to the high costs associated to livestock production. However, pigs and poultry are doing well in the market since both species do not need a lot of feed and can be kept in confined spaces.

2) Top Ten International Meat Industry:

Four out of the ten are based in the US; Cargill, Smithfield Foods, Tyson Foods and Hormel Foods. Three are located in Brazil; JBS, BRF and Marfrig. The rest are in Denmark, Netherlands and Japan.

Looking more carefully at the estimated meat consumption and the forecast, it seems that the increasing meat trend may not be so applicable to all countries.

3) Demand in the rich world

This may actually reflect on the fact that the 'richer' may be positively correlated to being more 'educated' and thus may be seeing a reduction in meat consumption. Despite this, only in less than half of the cases shown in the diagram above, shows a decline in meat consumption. Even so, the decline is very minimal and would be outweighed by the increases in meat demand. For example, by 2020, China's poultry production will increase by 37%, Brazil's will increase 28% and U.S. will increase by 16%. Nevertheless, the fact that there are forecasts for some countries lowering their meat demand is a good sign and goes to show that perhaps we can turn the tables.

Having identified and compared the different meat consumption patterns of different countries, we will proceed to look more carefully into specific regions in future posts!

Happy Meatless Monday! Tune in next Monday for a new FUN MYSTERY POST! Look forward to it!

WATER'S YOUR PROBLEM?

A new report from FAO says livestock production contributes to the world's most pressing environmental problems, including global warming, land degradation, air and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity.

This week I was able to cosy up to read 'Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options'; a United Nations report released by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. So far we have focused on the issues surrounding greenhouse gas emissions as a result of meat production and the responsibility of the consumers in contributing to the meat consumption and trend. 

Having read the report, it has highlighted a few important things on the correlation between the livestock sector and global environmental change. I will be writing about other vital environmental problems related to meat production in later posts, and will be looking at possible solutions outlined by the report. These solutions are mainly focused on the technical and political levels in reducing the environmental harm that has and will be caused as a result of meat production.

Today we will touch upon water use and the solutions from a political level to cover how global environmental change can be reduced.

The world is slowly opening their eyes to more issues from freshwater shortage, scarcity and depletion. 64% of the world'spopulation is expected to live in water-stressed basins by 2025. Thelivestock sector accounts for up to 8% of the global human water use (mainly through irrigation for feedcrops).

i) Water Overuse

It is estimated that it takes 2,500 gallons of water to produce one pound of meat (about 5-8 servings of meat). For comparison it takes only 25 gallons of water to produce one pound of wheat (enough to make one loaf of whole wheat bread). Irrigation for feed crops contributes significantly to this overuse of water. Soy and corn are heavily irrigated crops in the U.S. and are used extensively for livestock feed. Most of the grain produced in this country is for livestock production.

Since a large proportion of the grain produced is feed for livestock shows precisely how the grains could be instead, directly created into food for humans. Thus the extra step of feeding livestock (along with the negative environmental impacts associated) could be skipped. 

ii) Water Contamination and Pollution:

The main contributors to water pollution include animal waste, antibiotics and hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilisers and pesticides used in feed production and sediments from eroded pastures.

Livestock operations overuse water and may lead to water contamination. The large amount of waste pro­duced on factory farms exceeds the capacity of nearby cropland to absorb it. As a result, manure goes from being a valuable agricultural resource to what is essentially toxic waste. Nitrates, heavy metals, and antibiotics present in manure can seep into groundwater and pollute surface water. Furthermore, when manure lagoons leak or burst, again, nitrates become exposed to the water we drink. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has warned that E. Coli, salmonella, and Giardia found in dairy cattle waste can contaminate drinking water and cause acute gastroenteritis, fever, kidney failure, and even death. It not only affects humans,  but also the sea animals too. There have been numerous instances where this has killed off thousands of fish. No wonder people are saying fish are becoming more scarce!

Water pollution leads to fish death

Water pollution can lead to several undesired results, it contributes to eutrophication; a process where water bodies receive excess nutrients that stimulate excessive plant growth. It could also lead to "dead" zones/hypoxia in coastal areas, this is causes regions of water that lack oxygen necessary to support animal life and as a consequence, become a cause for extinction. Not only does water pollution affect animal life, but also degrades coral reefs. Apart from affecting animals and plants, water pollution causes human health problems due to reusing water in the water cycle and can cause an emergence of antibiotic resistance.

Livestock also affects the replenishment of freshwater by compacting soil, reducing infiltration, degrading the banks of watercourses, drying up floodplains and lowering water tables.

Please save us...

How can water pollution be avoided?

The best way to mitigate water pollution would be to better manage animal waste. This is important as animal waste can cause excess nutrients and pathogens to enter and harm water quality; instead the waste could be reused as a natural fertiliser for crops. Furthermore, better diets for the livestock can improve nutrient absorption.

Possible solutions:

Since water pollution is a problem for not only plants and animals, but humans too, it means humans should put more care into reducing water pollution where possible. I have broken down some possible solutions in improving efficiency of water  use. The first solution is to improve the efficiency of irrigation systems such that there are no unnecessary water losses.

The fact that water is often free and easily available causes the 'free rider effect' used in Economics, where a resource may be over exploited since it is priced at 0. To avoid this, water should be priced at a level that takes the externality into account. Similarly, there should be regulatory quantitative frameworks to limit usage. 

To reduce concentrated areas of livestock rearing especially near cities, zoning regulations and taxes can help to control this. As a result, the harmful effects on human health can be restricted too. 

Happy Meatless Monday!

Tune in next Monday for a new post on Land Degradation.

MAYBE WE'RE WRONG? NITROUS OXIDE DEBATE

Nitrous oxide is about 300 times more potent as a global warming gas than carbon dioxide. According to the U.N., the meat, egg, and dairy industries account for a staggering 65 percent of worldwide nitrous oxide emissions.

Nitrous oxide has been pinpointed as third most important contributor to global warming. Extensive research shows that large quantities of nitrous oxide is emitted as a result of livestock. This is evident in numerous scientific literature such as in the Soil Biology and Biochemistry journal, page 597, 'Nitrous Oxide Emissions from soils due to inputs of nitrogen from excreta returned by livestock on grazed grassland in the UK.'

There are also very detailed explanations on the N₂O emission calculations for each component of livestock production systems, i.e. animal houses, manure stores, following application of manures to land and during grazing in 'Atmospheric Environment', under 'A UK inventory of nitrous oxide emissions from farmed livestock'. If you are interested in the statistics related to each of these stages in the livestock production, head over HERE!

Naturally, nitrous oxide is emitted. This can be seen in the nitrogen cycle as shown below:

The actual nitrous oxide is emitted through feed production and the management of the manure. The former occurs due to the nitrogen based fertilisers used in the soil which leads to nitrous oxide releasing in the atmosphere.

According to new research however, Professor Klaus Butterbach-Bahl from the Atmospheric Environmental Research Division of the KIT Institute of Meteorology and Climate Research (IMK-IFU) in Garmisch-Partenkirchen said, 'this was a big error'.

Founded by scientists from the Atmospheric Environmental Research Division of the KIT Institute of Meteorology and Climate Research, studies in China show that livestock breeding does not lead to an increase in nitrous oxide. “In fact, areas not used for livestock breeding emit much larger amounts of nitrous oxide over the year.” 

The website also states that nitrous oxide emissions have been overestimated by 72%.

Supported by the 'Nature study' shows evidence pointing towards the link between grazing and the reduction in nitrous oxide emissions in some areas. 

Despite this opposing view on whether livestock is the root cause of nitrous oxide emissions or not, increasing nitrous oxide in the atmosphere is still a fact, and nitrous oxide is being emitted due to human-related agricultural factors.

Furthermore, Authors of the paper, published in Nature, say the research does not mean that producing livestock to eat is good for the environment in all countries. However in certain circumstances, it can be better for global warming to let animals graze on grassland.

What do you think?

Happy Meatless Monday! Tune in next Monday for a new post on Water Usage