Beef environment cost 10 times that of other livestock

[3rdRock]

A new study suggests that the production of beef is around 10 times more damaging to the environment than any other form of livestock.

Scientists measured the environment inputs required to produce the main US sources of protein.

Beef cattle need 28 times more land and 11 times more irrigation water than pork, poultry, eggs or dairy.

The research has been published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28409704

No surprises here for our community but good to see it being reported on a MSN channel nonetheless.

[biffvernon]

That's all a bit of a generalisation. Some beef production, such as in upland Britain, happens on land that can't be used for much else. It's the corn-fed beef that is so utterly inappropriate. Water use only an issue in areas where there is not much water.

[3rdRock]

That's all a bit of a generalisation. Some beef production, such as in upland Britain, happens on land that can't be used for much else. It's the corn-fed beef that is so utterly inappropriate. Water use only an issue in areas where there is not much water.

I'm a veggie. I'm biased.

[emordnilap]

It's also quite disturbing that there's some land that 'can't be used for much else', as if it's normal that every square inch of the planet must be exploited by a single species, come what may.

[madibe]

But we all know this... water, and farts.

But it still tastes brilliant.

It is not the beef that is the problem. Lets face it - the American plains literally had millions and zillions of them.

The problem is US

too many of us need too many of them.

reduce the number of us and we will need less of them... it's all a question of balance.

He says, sitting on a fence.

[emordnilap]

BTW, burps, not farts. Just saying.

[clv101]

The problem is US

too many of us need too many of them.

reduce the number of us and we will need less of them... it's all a question of balance.

Why do you say too many of us?
I say the problem is that a few of us are behaving badly.
If the top (ranked by beef/dairy consumption) 1bn of us ate a little beef/dairy as the bottom 1bn of us, there'd be no cow related problem at all. It's our behaviour that's principally the problem, not our numbers.

[biffvernon]

Population numbers are important but are an order of magnitude less important than population behaviour.

Last figures I saw was that average meat consumption in USA was 140kg/year and in India is 5kg/year.

(I'm somewhat closer to India than USA.)

[PS_RalphW]

My meat consumption is zero. Dairy, on the other hand...

I don't think it helps to get into the population/behaviour argument. Both are now critical problems in need of immediate correction.

Unfortunately immediate correction of population is a lot less palatable.

[clv101]

My meat consumption is zero. Dairy, on the other hand...

I don't think it helps to get into the population/behaviour argument. Both are now critical problems in need of immediate correction.

Unfortunately immediate correction of population is a lot less palatable.

I disagree that both can be described as similarly critical problems in need of immediate correction. Behaviour absolutely can be described as such. Population, on the other hand, is likely to peak this century at around third higher than today. A third. Also note the bulk of the increase occurs in countries with significantly lower than average consumption so the global impact of the increase is less than the numbers suggest. However, the impact of our behaviour is accelerating and shows no sign of peaking (by choice).

When considering population, the discussion is around 3,5,7,9 bn the discussion is covered by a factor three. The discussion of behaviour covers many orders of magnitude of impact, whether considering CO2 emissions, meat consumption etc. That figure of 140 kg vs 5 kg for the US and India is a nice example: 140 kg x 318 million vs 5 kg x 1,250 million means America, despite have a population 4 times smaller has 7 times the impact!

Population is simply a lot less significant than behaviour - odd then how so often the debate, not only here but widespread, focuses on population rather than behaviour.

We as a society in the UK, in Europe, in the US could choose, half then half again our meat and dairy consumption within a decade. That seems a damned sight more likely than similarly reducing our population! It would even deliver food security, economic and health benefits... oh but it tastes so good?

[emordnilap]

oh but it tastes so good?

After almost 25 years of avoiding animal products, I can say it doesn't. Don't get me wrong - I used to believe it tasted good too, before I grew up.

I can smell it and it doesn't smell good either.

And it certainly does not look good.

I can easily detect if meat has been used in a dish, even if only as a stock. Maybe that says more about me than about meat. Maybe it says my taste buds have, at least, not deteriorated. I'd say they've improved.

But carry on butchering highly intelligent fellow beings, disguising them as 'food' and please, happily acknowledge and take on all the health problems they produce, don't mind me, all I'm doing is setting a good example.

[clv101]

I agree and eat very little meat myself. Remarkably easy - I just never buy the stuff! If I'm visiting somewhere and I happen to be served it I'll eat it, but that'd only be a couple of times a month.

I'm not an absolutist, I don't think everyone should be a vegetarian or vegan. I just think, as a society we should eat less meat/dairy. Half and then half again over a decade seems almost possible and a commensurate response to the challenge ahead. Over the last decade I've managed that.

[PS_RalphW]

Population is equally important because it not easily reversible.

We can, and I suspect, in the face of peak oil etc., will, dramatically cut our excess consumption in the top billion on the basis that we can do so without starving. It will lead to social unrest, etc., etc., but it will happen.

The 5+ billion who have less fat to trim will really struggle when they are 6, 7 + billion and the amount of food available has fallen because
1. Land degradation
2. water shortages
3. Fossil fuel and fertilizer shortages
4. climate change
5. global financial collapse

They will not reduce consumption of finite resources, they will increase them, and do a lot of irreversible damage to the biosphere in the process.

The 1+ billion who struggle to find food today will be dead.

I am not talking about morality or what is theoretically possible, but how I see the future happening, probably within my lifetime.

[emordnilap]

I don't think everyone should be a vegetarian or vegan. I just think, as a society we should eat less meat/dairy. Half and then half again over a decade seems almost possible and a commensurate response to the challenge ahead. Over the last decade I've managed that.

I think everyone should be. Why would I think otherwise? But no, actually, good on you, it's a sensible position for a meat eater to take.

I enjoy having an animal-exploitation-free life immensely, way beyond what most people could imagine. It adds dimensions to my life and mental outlook I wouldn't otherwise have.

[madibe]

I enjoy having an animal-exploitation-free life immensely

Hardly possible ; whilst I agree with you in principle I am not convinced you are living without the use of animal products or by-products unless you are living naked in the Garden of Eden.

But a lame point anyway; you are doing what you feel is right and I applaud that.

I am not a 'big' meat eater by the way ... I probably eat beef about once every couple of months, for example. I do not drink dairy. But I lurve cheese

However, the planet will not be saved by lentil munching I'm afraid. I am adamant that the only solution to so many of the worlds problems is to have less human beings.

We have become an infestation.