The link between livestock and climate change has never been clearer.Raising animals for food consumes large amounts of water, causes deforestation and emits large amounts of greenhouse gases, making the practice of raising animals seriously damaging to the climate and overall planetary health.Research shows that many shifts, including dietary changes, can help reduce food-related climate emissions.
Raising animals on farms to produce food can take a huge toll on environmental health.Livestock is a contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, including nitrous oxide and methane, water pollution, and the destruction of forests and other wild areas that help regulate the Earth’s atmosphere.
The two main greenhouse gases produced by the practice of raising farmed animals are methane and nitrous oxide.Globally, raising animals for food is responsible for at least 16.5% of greenhouse gas pollution.
When measured in 100-year global warming potential, nitrous oxide is almost 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide.Many farming practices increase nitrous oxide pollution, including soil management practices such as the use of synthetic and organic fertilizers to grow food for people and animals, the handling of animal manure for food and the burning of crop residues.These practices account for 74 percent of all nitrous oxide emissions in the United States, according to the EPA.
Methane accounts for about 11 percent of total U.S. anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, and its impact is 25 times greater than carbon dioxide.According to EPA estimates, the agricultural sector is the largest source of methane emissions in the United States.
Ruminants commonly raised for food, including cattle, goats and sheep, release methane when they digest their food through a process called enteric fermentation.During this process, microorganisms in the animal’s digestive tract break down and ferment plant parts such as cellulose, starch, sugar and fiber.This process is very efficient — ruminants like cows can eat plant and crop waste thanks to their largest stomach cavity — the “rumen” — but the by-product of the process is the toxic pollutant methane, released mainly through the Animals hiccups in the atmosphere.
Methane from livestock manure is another source of emissions, especially from concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, of pigs and dairy cows that store manure in liquid form.
Other wild lands such as forests and savannas play an important role in storing carbon that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere.Unfortunately, the world’s forests and other natural ecosystems are being destroyed to make way for urban sprawl, logging, mining and agriculture.
The largest forest on Earth is the Amazon rainforest, which covers 2.72 million square miles and extends across nine different countries.The Amazon is considered one of the most important terrestrial carbon stocks on Earth, storing an estimated 123 billion tons of carbon.
In addition to the role of these ecosystems in storing carbon, forests also stabilize soil through their roots, preventing erosion.When forests are destroyed, the soil itself is also able to hold less water, increasing the likelihood of flooding to nearby communities.Deforestation in some regions could also lead to an increased likelihood of drought as the water cycle is disrupted.
The largest driver of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon rainforest is livestock, which is associated with 75% of cover loss.Lumberjacks and farmers in the Amazon cut down trees to create pastures where cattle and other farmed animals can live and graze, and to open up fields for corn and soybeans to feed the farmed animals.
When forests are destroyed, either by fire or converted to feed for cultivated animals, the carbon dioxide that was once stored is released into the atmosphere.Perhaps worse, these actions also deprive land of its ability to store carbon, which the researchers describe as a lost “opportunity cost” of climate action that can only be recovered if land is reforested or rewilded.
Food-related greenhouse gas emissions come from a variety of sources throughout the livestock supply chain.Sources include the burps and manure of the animals themselves, the storage of manure, the use of fertilizers in the fields where they are raised, fuel for transportation, the land on which they are raised and raised, and the heating and machinery needed for livestock production.
Raising and raising animals as livestock requires more water than growing crops such as soybeans or lentils.Beef production requires 15,415 liters per kilogram of meat, 112 liters per gram of protein and 153 liters per gram of fat.One third of livestock water consumption is used for beef production.Another 19% goes to cows that produce milk and other dairy products.
Livestock also pollutes waterways, disproportionately affecting Black and Indigenous communities and other communities of color.This pollution comes mostly from cesspits or lagoons that were built to hold the droppings of thousands of animals on factory farms.When pits leak or overflow, nitrogen and other pollutants in manure can contaminate local water sources, causing or exacerbating many health problems in surrounding communities.To avoid spillage, farmers often apply too much fertilizer to their fields, which also leads to polluted runoff.
The production of meat and other animal products is an important factor in climate change, which in turn makes life worse for the millions of animals living on factory farms.
A central feature of industrial agriculture is its efficiency, which is achieved by gathering thousands of animals into a relatively small area to feed them for slaughter.The cramped spaces these animals live in, combined with warmer temperatures, can lead to metabolic disturbances, damage to body cells and immunosuppression, which in turn leads to a greater likelihood of disease, infection and death.
Some proponents defend beef by pointing to the growing ability of livestock to produce more meat from each cow slaughtered.Since the 1970s, the number of cattle needed to meet U.S. beef demand has declined by about 50 million head.
The industry has made this shift thanks to intensive breeding that has made cows grow faster and bigger than their parents and grandparents.For example, the 90 million head of cattle raised to meet today’s demand for beef provides more meat per head than the 140 million head of cattle in the 1970s.
Fewer cattle does mean less greenhouse gas emissions, but industrial efficiency alone is not enough to meet the climate goals set in the Paris Climate Agreement to limit global warming.The climate study points to the simultaneous deployment of strategies to reduce food-related emissions, including changing the diets of countries that currently consume the most beef.In the United States, for example, Americans eat four times as much as the global average.
Another common argument made by those in the camp who downplay beef emissions is that cattle raised for beef directly contribute 3 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.This percentage excludes climate impacts from land use, such as deforestation for grazing and growing fodder.
Eating less meat is one of the most effective ways to reduce our individual or household contribution to climate change.In fact, the carbon footprint of plant-based foods is, on average, 10 to 50 times smaller than that of animal-based products.Choosing to eat a vegetarian diet can also reduce water consumption by one-third to one-half compared to a meat-containing diet.Reducing food waste is another powerful form of household climate action.
Industrial livestock farming is detrimental to the health of ecosystems and communities, and the planet we all depend on.
A powerful but challenging form of climate action is food system change.To begin shifting the food system away from its current animal protein-centric focus, several advocacy groups are working with farmers to move away from animal husbandry.One example is Transfarmation, which works with poultry and hog producers to grow crops such as mushrooms and hemp, rather than raising animals for food.These efforts are just a small part of the much-needed collective transition to a more plant-rich food system.