Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
is to go vegetarian. After all, eliminating meat from our diets will also make us live lon-
ger. Overconsumption of animal protein and fats is one of the causes of obesity, which is
known to be linked to chronic cardiovascular diseases (Smith 2009; Trivedi 2008).
Given the grave risks involved in climate change, policy questions for livestock
become quite complex. Might either the feed or the animals be bred to be more
climate-compliant? More radically, might animal-protein needs of humans be met with-
out animals? Some research institutions led by the Netherlands suggest the production
of in-vitro meat as the solution to animal natural digestive process. Meat would be culti-
vated from muscle stem cells from cows, pigs, and sheep. The cells are attached to either
small edible spheres or a 3D scaffold and then cultured in a liquid nutrient broth until
the clusters of muscle cells are large enough to harvest. The first “tube meat” to hit the
market is likely to be burgers, sausages, chicken nuggets and other minced-meat prod-
ucts. In Europe, unsubsidized chicken costs around $2,400 a ton, whereas beef costs
just over $4,700. Large-scale in-vitro meat production could be implemented now for
around $4,500 a ton (Olsson 2008).
The organic label has become more globally popular, driven by consumer demand,
social movements, and government policy decisions (Larsson, this volume). Organic
has come to mean environmentally friendly and is considered by many people a way of
lowering diet's carbon footprint. This is not necessarily true. Although organic grains in
general have a much smaller carbon footprint, organic meat is not always a greener and
a lower-carbon label. Organic milk, eggs, and meat are less environmentally friendly
than commonly perceived by the public. Organic poultry, for example, requires 10%
more energy than battery-farmed poultry; as the latter are raised in facilities where they
can barely move, so more of their food energy is converted into protein (Trivedi 2008).
Grazing cows may look happier from a human perspective, but a larger number of them
are required to produce the same amount of food. Grain-fed dairy cows produce less
CO2 and methane than grass fed cow (Dijkman 2013). Wealthy consumers love their
grass-fed beef, but there is an environmental cost.
Within this general pattern, significant qualifications are necessary. Regional differ-
ences in farming practices can make a big impact on the final CO2 equivalence figures.
Simply changing an animal's feed or feed practice can have a huge impact on its CO2
equivalance footprint. Impacts cannot be generalized for different production systems;
there are trade-offs. Even though intensive production is more efficient and has lower
emissions, beef produced by a subsidized German farmer has a different dimension
from beef produced by an Ethiopian Borana pastoralist, in terms of resource utilization
and food systems. Similarly, the message of eating less meat has a different meaning for
an average American than for the average Chinese. The portion of animal products in
the diet of an average American is 39% (27% meat and 12% dairy products) versus a 19%
of a Chinese (12% meat, 7% milk).
A positive aspect of the present debate over livestock is that it makes its paradox clear.
Now, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, livestock is considered more as a threat
than as a resource for furthering the global agenda for sustainable development that alle-
viates the worst consequences of poverty. The debate over livestock is well described as
Search WWH ::




Custom Search