The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
A new study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences says livestock production puts more of a strain on our air and water quality and ocean health than most realize while ramping up greenhouse gas emissions regionally and globally. All told, beef, pork, chicken, eggs, dairy and plant food production combines for the largest use of land around the world.
Still, beef stands far above the production of other livestock for its negative environmental impact. According to the study, beef production requires 28 times more land, 11 times more water and six times as much reactive nitrogen as the average of the other forms of livestock.
Photo courtesy of Shutterstock
“For people, the obvious answer is: Whenever possible, replace beef with something else," Gidon Eshel, the study's lead author and a geophysicist at Bard College, told the Los Angeles Times.
"If you really need it to be from animal sources, that’s still OK. You can still have bacon and eggs and whatever you want. As long as it’s not beef, you have always made a significant step forward, because beef is so much more intensive than the rest.”
The good news is that the USDA projects its lowest per-capita consumption of beef since the '50s. Additionally, the study prompted Kim Stackhouse-Lawson, director of sustainability research for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, to remind people that the U.S. beef industry produces its products with fewer emissions than any other developed country.
The Times also spoke the author of a study in the Climate Change journal that examined methane and nitrous oxide emissions during the production of 11 livestock populations in 237 countries. Beef represented more than half of the emissions, followed by dairy cattle at 17 percent and sheep, buffalo, pigs and goats all in single digits. While emissions from U.S. livestock production dropped by 23 percent since 1970, they have more than doubled in developing countries, the Climate Change study's co-author Ken Caldeira, a Carnegie Institution ecologist, said.
"More and more of the developing world is adopting the bad habits of the developed world,” Caldeira said.
In talking to the Huffington Post about his study, Esehl encouraged consumers who won't stop eating beef to consider more than if your meat is from a local source or if it was fed grass. He said the climate of the area where the animal was raised is more important, as are the particular farming methods that were used.
"I really appreciate the good intentions of many individuals who strive in their personal choices to lessen their environmental impact," Eshel said. "I would just caution ... against adhering to canned solutions that are purported to make matters better with little or no evidence that they in fact do."
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
By David R. Montgomery
Would it sound too good to be true if I was to say that there was a simple, profitable and underused agricultural method to help feed everybody, cool the planet, and revitalize rural America? I used to think so, until I started visiting farmers who are restoring fertility to their land, stashing a lot of carbon in their soil, and returning healthy profitability to family farms. Now I've come to see how restoring soil health would prove as good for farmers and rural economies as it would for the environment.
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) released new numbers that show vaping-related lung illnesses are continuing to grow across the country, as the number of fatalities has climbed to 33 and hospitalizations have reached 1,479 cases, according to a CDC update.
Many claim that a whole-food, plant-based diet easily meets all the daily nutrient requirements.