Introduction
Saving the planet by reducing global emissions appears to be on the agenda of every western politician in one way or another. Climate change and global warming are considered to be common knowledge everywhere around the world. One of the major issues of concern are greenhouse gas emissions. Animal farming constitutes about 15% of total global methane emissions into the atmosphere (Ugbogu et al. 916). As such, it appears to be common sense to reduce the consumption of meat and invest in other sources of food, such as agriculture.
Many countries in the West are on board with the idea, and their actions range from “Meatless Mondays” at school cafeterias to imposing strict legislative barriers to the amounts of emissions farms are allowed to have. The latter has invoked a strong pushback from farmers, particularly in Netherlands, where hundreds of thousands of Dutch farmers have been rioting since July 2022, blocking roads and demanding satisfaction, claiming that new laws are destroying their livelihood. It makes one wonder if the common wisdom of fighting animal farming really is beneficial to the country and the planet. As it turns out, not only is the impact of animal farming on the ecology and climate change grossly overestimated, reducing animal farming would bring the world to a greater ecological catastrophe. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the main arguments against animal farming and estimate their credibility, based on the available evidence.
Argument 1: Animals Consume Too Much Water
As it is known, water is a scarce resource, with some areas enjoying abundance of it while others face draughts every year. Turner states that in order to produce 1 kilogram of meat, a cow needs to drink on average 122 liters of water (75). This number is often being mentioned in the public discourse as evidence of animal farms taking precious potable water. However, research says that it is not exactly the case – according to Van den Pol-van Dasselaar et al., up to 95% of water consumed by cows is received through grazing (1099). Animals eat grass and other vegetative sources of water, thus taking it into their own bodies. In addition, as Van den Pol-van Dasselaar et al. point out, much of that water is then released into the ground in the form of urine (1100). Thus, the water cows receive can be classified as green water, taken from rains and absorbed into plants. The actual amount of water needed to produce 1 kilogram of meat is reduced to approximately 2.9 liters. This number is a bit larger for chickens and pigs, at around 3.2 liter (Van den Pol-van Dasselaar et al. 1102). The argument about exuberant water usage by animal farming does not appear to be entirely truthful.
Argument 2: Animals Eat too Much
Another frequently-mentioned argument claims that animal farming is inherently wasteful. A commonly-utilized figure provided by Specht states that to create a kilogram of steak, a cow needs to eat an equivalent of up to 25 kilograms of grain (41). The conclusions from that figure alone claim that the world could be feeding an additional 3.2 billion individuals if the world was to give up animal farming (Specht 112). Additional research, however, indicates that using grain equivalent may be misleading – Mottet et al. points out that up to 85% of feed received by cows and other animals is non-human-edible (2). Cows eat corn leaves and stocks left after the corn cub is removed. They also eat what remains of other crops, spoiled fruits and vegetables, soy stocks, mashed grain left from producing beverages such as beer, and many other foodstuffs that are non-edible by humans (Mottet et al. 5). Thus, producing one kilogram of meat is reduced to around 3 kilograms of grain for cows, and around 4 for chicken and pork, the latter being higher because these are monogastric animals (Mottet et al. 5).
These numbers demonstrate an important facet of animal farming. Domesticated animals used for meat production are one of the few creatures on the planet capable of up-scaling food, turning cellulose-rich inedible grass into a highly-nutritious protein-based substance. Meat is, on average, three times richer in high-quality protein than grain or rice. Thus, it takes an important part in recycling waste left from agriculture and food retail, which would have otherwise been filling up landfills. Therefore, cutting down on animal farming would mean increasing the amount of refuse that would have otherwise been eaten and converted into food.
Argument 3: Methane
The strongest argument against animal farming lies in its methane production. Indeed, methane is a chemical element that takes many years to naturally decompose into water and carbon dioxide, which can be then absorbed and recycled by plants. Ugbogu et al. state that “up to 15% of all greenhouse gases around the world are generated by animal farming” (916). Indeed, that is a significant contribution to global warming and humanity should cut down on methane generated from animals in order to help the environment. However, the 15% is not spread evenly – some countries in the world produce more, others – much less.
Countries that lead the charge in methane produced from animal farming are China and India. Both are developing nations with much lower standards of quality and production efficiency when compared to Europe or the US. Haque claims that these countries have up to 20 times more cattle than the US, while the production of meat and dairy products remains largely the same (7). What that data implies is that advanced animal husbandry technologies can reduce methane releases to a certain point, and that the main environmental impact comes from developing countries.
Evaluation and Conclusions
Research presented in this paper shows that the common rhetoric against animal farming as being intrinsically harmful and the worst way to feed the population of Earth is not entirely accurate. It ignores the necessary role animal husbandry plays in producing high-quality food while being an essential tool for recycling waste left from agriculture and retail. Likewise, the role of animal farming in making use of marginal lands (those not suitable for crops) is ignored. Based on the evidence, it can be concluded that further cutting greenhouse gas emissions from animal farming in places where they are already low (like the Netherlands) hurts the sustainability of farms, which in turn means tons of refuse from crop production would remain in landfills, releasing methane into the atmosphere through decomposition. Likewise, the amount of manure used in agriculture would diminish, forcing farmers to rely more on artificial fertilizers. The efforts of the international community should not be aimed on shrinking animal farming, but rather on regulating emissions in developing countries. They are, by far, the main producers of methane into the atmosphere.
Works Cited
Mottet, Anne, et al. “Livestock: On Our Plates or Eating at Our Table? A New Analysis of The Feed/Food Debate.” Global Food Security, vol. 14, 2017, pp. 1-8.
Specht, Joshua. Red Meat Republic: A Hoof-To-Table History of How Beef Changed America. Princeton University Press, 2019.
Turner, Peter. Water. Redback Publishing, 2019. Ugbogu, Eziuche Amadike, et al. “The Potential Impacts of Dietary Plant Natural Products on the Sustainable Mitigation of Methane Emission from Livestock Farming.” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 213, 2019, pp. 915-925.
Van den Pol-van Dasselaar, Agnes, et al. “Grazing of Dairy Cows In Europe – An In-Depth Analysis Based on the Perception of Grassland Experts.” Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 3, 2020, pp. 1098-1104.