Introduction
Most meat sold in the United Kingdom is manufactured in industrial farms. These establishments are elements of a devastating worldwide industrialized meat and dairy production system. This framework is dominated by retailers like Tesco, Sainsbury’s, and Asda, together with fast food businesses such as KFC, Burger King, and McDonald’s. Therefore, this research paper provides arguments for and against the impacts of meat consumption on the environment and the roles that meat production plays in climate change. Moreover, this essay provides insight into some of the threats that farmers and animal agriculture face and provides possible solutions. Finally, the study ends with an analysis of meat substitutes and justifications for their implementation.
Relationship between Harmful Environment and Meat Consumption
Meat consumption harms the environment since animal foods and manufacturing stress the world’s freshwater supplies. Water contamination varies globally, with certain regions experiencing severe water management stress. Animal goods, notably meat, have enormous water footprints. In addition to being used for agricultural production, freshwater waters may be contaminated by excessive nutrient runoff. Rain carries the elements from fertilizer and animal waste into bodies of water, eutrophication. The high amounts of nutrients enable the creation of algae growth, which prevents sunshine from reaching other plants and suffocates fish, causing a reduction of biodiversity and water toxicity.
The commercial meat business contributes to the loss of numerous species, most of which have not been found. Survival depends on a healthy ecosystem for humanity. The wide selection and quantity of biodiversity are indispensable for food, clean water, and pharmaceuticals (Sanchez-Sabate et al., 2019). The tremendous decline of biodiversity, caused mainly by industrial agriculture, could pose an existential threat comparable to climate change. Moreover, destroying forests and other natural places for animal farming is a significant cause of emerging infectious illnesses (Bonnet et al., 2020). Bonnet et al. (2020) insinuated that three-quarters of new human diseases originate in animals. Cutting down and blazing forests puts nature and humanity closer together, allowing fatal infections to be transmitted from individuals to animals.
Finally, Animal husbandry frequently necessitates a large amount of grazing space; nevertheless, the concentrated frequency of this scouring can result in bare soil, which is frequently washed away by wind and rain. As a result, fertile regions become infertile, streams become choked, and the likelihood of flooding increases. As soil is destroyed, carbon is emitted into the environment as carbon dioxide. However, meat consumption has been linked to favorable environmental outcomes such as increased usage of idle agricultural land. Farm animals, such as cows and sheep, have adapted to inhabit marginal soils otherwise unsuitable for cultivation. Additionally, they devour a plant that humankind cannot ingest: grass. From the above arguments, it is clear that meat consumption is detrimental to the environment. The negatives outweigh the positives thus the justification for my stand.
Role of Meat Production on Climate Change
The following, as discussed, are some of the roles that meat production has on global warming. Firstly, animals raised for human use generate various sorts of pollutants. Ruminant animals such as cows and sheep release methane as a residue of the microbial fermentation of organic material due to their gastrointestinal processes. Carbon dioxide has a longer lifetime than methane, but methane has a substantially higher climate impact. This significantly adds to the large carbon emissions of beef and lamb; over 50% of pollution from lamb farming is caused only by methane (Kemper and Ballantine, 2020). There is substantial diversity in outputs based on how it is handled and processed, but in total, 22% of all agricultural emissions in the EU come from animal waste (Hayek et al., 2021). Carbon and nitrogen in cattle manure undergo chemical change into biogas and nitrogen oxide via cellular mechanisms.
Moreover, meat production is the leading cause of world deforestation since natural woods and prairies are eradicated to make a place for agriculture and livestock fields. Each year, billions of tons of carbon dioxide are emitted into the environment due to forest destruction for industrial meat production. This results in greenhouse gasses and an increase in global average temperatures. Those foods that necessitate the most land-use modification will produce the most carbon dioxide. Lamb, for instance, requires 105 times more land per kilogram of finished output than tofu (Milman, 2021). In addition to the land necessary for livestock housing, a substantial quantity of land is necessary for animal feed production. Livestock currently occupies 83% of the world’s agricultural land yet provides just 18% of the planet’s calories (Statista, 2021). For every kilogram of chicken meat generated, 3.3 kg of feed is required (Statista, 2021). This is a highly ineffective resource utilization and worldwide food energy capability.
However, the role of meat in cutting climate change can be seen from better handling of animal dung to reduce pollution of methane and nitrous oxide. Examples of enhanced manure administration include more periodic horse waste disposal and enclosing semi-solid waste storage tanks. Using animal feces as a nutrient source for agriculture has eliminated the demand for manufactured nitrogen fertilizers, avoiding the emissions associated with their production and transportation.
Evaluation of Possible Measures
Some critical threats to farmers and animal agriculture in meat production are discussed herein in this section. Firstly, presently, animal agriculture contends with humanity for water supplies since the need for water for this operation is not accounted for by the water distribution system (Murzakulova et al., 2019). In many circumstances, water must be purchased; livestock must access alternative, frequently polluted water streams. Secondly, deficient husbandry techniques culminate in poor animal health due to poor animal wellness and high veterinary care costs. Thus, this is because farmers who practice meat production rarely vaccinate their animals. This is due to the high expense of veterinarian solutions and livestock medications, which renders management suboptimal.
Thirdly, the untidiness of animal sheds presents a threat to farmers as it contributes to the spread of transmissible and other pathogens by vectors. This occurs because landowners are unable to offer better housing for their livestock. Constructing a concrete shelter in accordance with government regulations reduces the incidence of disease and qualifies the owner for a subsidy. Lastly, particular diseases can lower or even eliminate animal productivity in certain places, which can significantly influence farm animals’ abundance. Endoparasites and ectoparasites that thrive in or on distinct animal species for at least a portion of their life span can survive in tropical temperatures. These pathogens directly rival their carriers for resources, ultimately diminishing growth and output. Moreover, ectoparasites may serve as vectors for transferring additional infectious, microbial, or viral illnesses.
Solutions
The first step is to minimize meat consumption naturally, as this is especially true in Western nations, where meat is included in practically every dish, and animal sources are frequently consumed. Secondly, the emission of GHG represents a severe threat to animal manufacturing in the future, and the reduction of GHG generation is an important research topic, particularly for ruminants (Houlton et al., 2019). Some techniques, such as short-term ionophore supplementation or nutritional triglycerides, modify the gut bacterial ecology and fermentation, resulting in positive health and resource performance productivity consequences. Finally, improved animal manure management can lower methane and nitrous oxide pollution. Instances of enhanced manure administration include more regular barn waste disposal and enclosing semi-solid waste storage tanks. The first solution would be hard to implement as it will take time to change the dietary culture of individuals, thus would be eliminated as a viable recommendation. The third suggestion would indirectly lead to land pollution through the material elimination and release of nitrogen accumulated in the semi-solid store containers into the atmosphere. As such, the last option seems effective in reducing the impacts associated with meat production.
Meat Substitutes
Plant-based proteins such as green vegetables, legumes, tofu, nuts, and seeds serve as meat substitutes. They deliver protein content with high digestibility, peptide score, and a variety of nutritional elements, with a reduced calorie and fat composition than animal-based proteins (Hu et al., 2019). In implementing them, a considerable reduction in the marketplace price of alternative meat items is a separate market mechanism that may assist in enhanced nourishment and GHG abatement at all wage levels (Ritchie et al., 2018). In addition, monetary benefits have been identified as one of the primary methods that can be leveraged to promote a greater shift toward meat alternatives. These could include financial measures such as subsidies, but a more durable situation would incorporate a natural decrease in the manufacturing and distribution costs of meat substitutes due to advancements in technology and economies of scale (Ritchie et al., 2018). Implementing these substitutes can be done by having limited inventory of renewable protein that could help alleviate the disadvantage of a carbon taxing regime. They would have similar vital nutrients for reducing NCD lifestyle threats and overweight in diets high in meat. They would also aid in addressing protein and micronutrient deficiency in low-income countries.
Sustainable Meat Production
Improving efficiency is one of the largest prospects for reducing emissions from meat consumption. To increase effectiveness without sacrificing animal wellbeing, producers should design more digestible meals, enhance feeding techniques, plant grasslands with superior grasses and lentils, breed cattle for greater growth levels, enhance veterinary attention, and enhance grazing maintenance. These efficiency advancements have lowered the ecological footprint of cattle production overtime. In addition to the efficiency enhancements lower enteric GHG per kilogram of meat produced, technological solutions could further minimize enteric methane pollution. Among the most viable solution are enteric methane suppressors, which are dietary additives that suppress methane generation in the gastrointestinal.
Conclusion
Meat consumption is detrimental to the ecosystem because the production and utilization of animal meals strain the world’s freshwater resources. In addition, the meat industry leads to the extinction of innumerable species, most of which have never been discovered. However, meat intake has been associated with positive environmental results, such as greater utilization of unused agricultural land. Animal agriculture competes with humankind for water supplies, posing a significant danger to producers and livestock farming in meat production. Inadequate husbandry practices result in poor animal health because of low animal welfare and high veterinary care expenditures. Meat alternatives include plant-based peptides such as green vegetables, legumes, tofu, nuts, and seeds. They provide protein with a good digestibility and protein rating, as well as a diversity of nutritional components while containing fewer calories and fat than animal-based proteins. Appropriate administration of farm manure can reduce methane and nitrous oxide emissions in meat production, reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Examples of improved manure management include more frequent barn waste removal and semi-solid material storage tanks enclosure.
References
Bonnet, et al. (2020) ‘Regulating meat consumption to improve health, the environment and animal welfare’, Food Policy, 97, p.1-11. Web.
Hayek, et al. (2021) ‘The carbon opportunity cost of animal-sourced food production on land’, Nature Sustainability, 4(1), pp.21-24. Web.
Houlton, et al. (2019) ‘A world of cobenefits: solving the global nitrogen challenge’, Earth’s future, 7(8), pp.865-872. Web.
Hu, F.B., Otis, B.O. and McCarthy, G. (2019) ‘Can plant-based meat alternatives be part of a healthy and sustainable diet?’ Jama, 322(16), pp.1547-1548. Web.
Kemper, J.A. and Ballantine, P.W. (2020) ‘Targeting the structural environment at multiple social levels for systemic change: the case of climate change and meat consumption’, Journal of Social Marketing, 10(1), pp.38-53. Web.
Milman, O. (2021). Meat accounts for nearly 60% of all greenhouse gases from food production, study finds. The Guardian. Web.
Murzakulova, et al. (2019) ‘Water for agriculture and other economic sectors’, In The Aral sea basin (pp. 86-99). Routledge.
Ritchie, H., Reay, D.S. and Higgins, P. (2018) ‘Potential of meat substitutes for climate change mitigation and improved human health in high-income markets’, Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 2, p.1-11. Web.
Sanchez-Sabate, R., Badilla-Briones, Y. and Sabaté, J., 2019. Understanding attitudes towards reducing meat consumption for environmental reasons. A qualitative synthesis review. Sustainability, 11(22), p.1-38. Web.
Statista. (2021). Global meat consumption by type 1990-2021 | Statista. Web.