NDBT

So – there’s a report on Grist today about eating meat. (You can check it out here). I am not one of those veggies who goes around telling everyone that they should stop eating meat immediately. Basically, my back story is this;

Once, when I was about 10, I told my mom in the car that stopping eating meat would be the next evolutionary step for humans. I think I had seen this quote that day; “Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet” – Albert Einstein. About the same year, I told my babysitter that I thought we should all go veggie, but I couldn’t because I liked bacon too much.

Fast forward to when I was 17 and a senior in high school. Jim Lewis, an Episcopalian Priest who works for the DelMarVa Poultry Justice Alliance came to speak to our Senior class on religious ethics. (More on his work here. BTW – see that chicken house on page 21? That qualifies as free-range.). He described how chickens are processed. I stopped eating meat the next day. (He still eats chicken, btw, but not from large agribusiness producers). Later that school year, I went on a field trip (on the school free day, no less) to visit some of the workers that Rev. Lewis works with (I vividly remember one man telling us about escaping a massacre in Guatamala to end up as an illegal chicken worker in the area). I sent away for a veggie starter kit from PETA (their best work, if you ask me) and researched the environmental reasons for going veggie.

I continued eating fish for a year and gave that up when I went away to college. I was vegetarian for 5 years, which I loved. During this time, I met lots of veggie people at Pomona, heard Howard Lyman – the mad cowboy – speak, and took a class on the Politics of Food and Agriculture with the brilliant Heather Williams. While I was living in Ireland last winter, I decided to begin eating meat again for a couple of reasons; 1) I knew a veggie girl who ate meat again in preparation for going to Madagascar, since she said it wasn’t possible to go and not eat meat (pretty true, I’d say) 2) I knew I’d probably need to eat meat while I did wwoofing in Oz (of course, it was fabulously delicious bio-dynamic meat) and 3) I felt like I didn’t want to miss out on local specialties while I was traveling and felt that the ecological consequences of eating meat for a little while weren’t going to make me feel really guilty the whole time. I’m currently back to eating fish, but I’ll be giving that up again at New Years. And sometime in the future I would like to go vegan, but only when my life is calmer and I have lots of time and energy to cook for myself, since nutrition becomes much trickier then.

So after all that, I do believe in going veggie. While I try not to proselytize, if someone asks me why I don’t eat meat, I’ll assume they want an honest answer. Now I know some people do it for health, animal rights, or world hunger reasons. I’m a veggie because I’m an environmentalist and it’s one of the best things you can do to help save the planet. So – now that I’ve said I don’t like to proselytize, I’m gonna. It’s my blog; deal with it.

Here’s an article I wrote on the meat industry a few years back (yes, I’d write it better now, I did it quickly for a newsletter, but the important parts are the stats):

The meat industry degrades land in two ways; overgrazing and the mono-cropping of feed crops. According to a 1991 U.N. report, up to 85% of western U.S. rangeland (almost 685 million acres) is being degraded by overgrazing (Rifkin). The study estimated that 430 million acres are suffering a 25-50% yield reduction due to overgrazing (Lockenbrink, 1991). Every cow grazing on open range eats 900 pounds of vegetation every month. Furthermore, their hooves crush the soil with an impact of 24 pounds per square inch, leading to reduction in yield (Lancaster, 1991). The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) reports that that “poorly managed livestock grazing is the major cause of degraded riparian habitat on federal rangelands.” Over 90% of Arizona and New Mexico’s original riparian zones have been lost. (Luoma, 1986). The GAO also claims that livestock grazing has either threatened or eliminated more plant species than any other single factor (Barnard). Cattle are a major cause of desertification, which is the reduction of the ecological productivity of a region. By eating perennial grasses, cows allow annual weeds and hardier shrubs to spread. These plants do not anchor topsoil as well as the original plants, leading to erosion. This process can also disrupt natural fire cycles, by eliminating the necessary tinder. Losses in plant biodiversity lead to changes in wildlife diversity. The U.N. Environment Program estimates that 73% of the world’s 3.3 billion hectares of dry rangeland is at least moderately desertified, which means it has lost more than 25% of its carrying capacity. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), reported in 1990, that only 33% of its land, roughly 23 million hectares, was in good or excellent condition. An estimated 50% of U.S. rangeland is severely degraded, having lost at least 50% of its carrying capacity (Durning and Brough).

            The United States has already lost 1/3 of its topsoil. Between six and seven billion tons of this erosion is directly attributed to either grazing or unsustainable feed crop production (Lappe, 1982). It is estimated that every pound of feedlot beefsteak costs 35 pounds of eroded American topsoil (Durning, 1986).
Currently, 87% of U.S. agricultural land is used to raise crops for animals (PETA). Unsustainable agricultural practices, usually mono-cropping, have many detrimental effects on the environment. As most of U.S. agriculture is directed towards animals, all of these environmental problems have direct links to the meat industry. However, as neither factory farms nor overgrazing are the immediate step in these problems, this paper will focus instead on primary effects of the meat industry, and recommend readers to educate themselves on the effects of unsustainable agriculture. 
            Half of U.S. water usage annually goes to either grow feed crops or provide livestock drinking water (PETA). Producing one pound of beef protein requires fifteen times more water than producing the equivalent amount of plant protein (Lappe, 1982). It generally takes 2,500 gallons of water to produce every pound of meat (PETA). The National Audubon Society estimates that raising animals for food requires about as much water as all other water uses combined. This is an increasing concern as many areas are experiencing increasing droughts (Friedrich).
            In addition to consuming water, producing meat also pollutes many freshwater sources. Every year, factory farms produce astounding amounts of animal excrement. In 1996, U.S. factory farms produced 1.4 billion tons of animal waste, which is 130 times more than humans did (Howlett, 1997). The amount of waste produced in one year would fill 6.7 million train boxcars, which would circle the earth 12.5 times (Lang). In 1990, there were 42,000 feedlots in 13 U.S. states. Each 10,000-head feedlot produces 500,000 pounds of manure every day, which is the equivalent of an 110,000-person city. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, factory farming pollutes U.S. waterways more than all industrial sources combined (Barnard). A Scripps Howard synopsis of the EPA’s findings stated: “its untreated and unsanitary, bubbling with chemicals and disease-bearing organisms. … It goes onto the soil and into the water that many people will, ultimately, bathe in, wash their clothes with, and drink. It is poisoning rivers and killing fish and sickening people. … Catastrophic cases of pollution, sickness, and death are occurring in areas where livestock operations are concentrated. … Every place where the animal factories have located, neighbors have complained of falling sick” (Motavalli, 2002). Runoff from animal waste is linked to the 7,000 mi² ‘dead zone’ in the Gulf of Mexico, which no longer supports aquatic life (Howlett). It is also suspected that manure runoff from chicken and hog farms is the leading cause of pfisteria outbreaks that kill billions of fish along the eastern seaboard (Hager). In 1995, a hog waste spill in New River, NC, dumped 25 million gallons of excrement and urine into the water, killing between 10 and 14 million fish and closing 364,000 acres of coastal shellfish beds (Motavalli, 2002).

            Chemical fertilizers and pesticides from feed crop production also contribute to water pollution (Pimentel, 1989). The nitrates from both fertilizers and animal waste lead to eutrophication in many waterways. Nitrate contamination of ground water sourdes is a major problem, particularly in Europe. In the U.S. 1/5 of the wells in livestock states, such as Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska have nitrate levels that exceed health standards (Durning and Brough).
            Meat production is very energy intensive. Producing feed crops requires tilling, irrigation, and crop dusting. That grain is then shipped to feedlots and factory farms, and the animals in turn are shipped to slaughterhouses. The dead animals are shipped to processing centers, which all contain processing and packaging machines. The final product is then shipped out to grocery stores (Friedrich). In this way, 1/3 of all raw materials and fossil fuels used in the U.S. goes to raising feed animals. One hamburger requires as enough fossil fuel to drive a small car 20 miles (PETA). It takes approximately 1 gallon of gasoline to produce 1 lb of grain-fed U.S. beef. The average annual beef consumption of an American family requires 260 gallons of fuel and releases 2.5 tons of CO₂ into the atmosphere, which is about the same amount as the average car over 6 months (Durning, 1986).

            Huge amounts of land have been deforested for beef grazing. Since 1960, over ¼ of the Central American rainforests have been cleared for cattle pastures (Rifkin). 70% of deforested land in Panama and Costa Rica is pasture (Caulfield, 1985). Out of all Amazonian cleared land, over 38% is ranching land (Rifkin). Between 1966 and 1983, 40,000 mi² of the Amazon were cleared specifically for cattle ranching and in Brazil alone, 38% of its rainforest was cleared for pasture (Caulfield, 1985). Rainforests are now being cleared at a rate of 125,000 mi² per year to raise animals (PETA).  It is estimated that every ¼ pound hamburger from Latin America requires the clearing of 6 yds², and the destruction of 165 lbs of living matter, including 20 to 30 different plant species (Denslow, 1988). In the U.S., over 260 million acres of forest have been cleared for raising animals (PETA). Deforestation leads to climate change, habitat loss, and loss of biodiversity.

            In addition to the loss of U.S. plant species from overgrazing, many grazing animals are declining due to competition with cattle. Pronghorn have decreased over a century from 15 million to less than 271,000. Bighorn sheep have dropped from 2 million to less than 20,000, while elk have gone from 2 million to less than 455,000 (Ferguson, 1983). Every year the Department of Agriculture kills thousands of predator and “nuisance” animals under the Animal Damage Control Program. In 1989, this program killed 86,502 coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats and 80 wolves. In 1988 the program killed 4.6 million birds, 9,000 beavers, 76,000 coyotes, 5,000 raccoons, 300 black bears, 200 mountain lions, and 500 cats and dogs (Schneider, 1990).

            While becoming vegetarian or vegan would obviously help solve many of these problems, it is unrealistic to presume that meat consumption is going to stop any time soon. Therefore, science can help solve the problems of meat production in several ways. The first is by furthering the knowledge of the problem. Many of the statistics commonly quoted on factory farming, overgrazing, deforestation, and loss of biodiversity are at least a decade old. New studies are needed in order to accurately gauge the scope of the problem. Furthermore, it is impossible to tell the number of species being lost from habitat loss, particularly rainforest destruction. Science needs a better idea of the biodiversity being lost, before it can effectively argue for its preservation. A better understanding of ecological processes could greatly help in restoring degraded rangeland and riparian zones. Ecology could also help develop better means of agriculture and lead to better erosion-control practices. Technological advances could further help the problems of meat production. A way to efficiently process animal waste is desperately needed. A means of controlling pfisteria would also be very helpful. Furthering renewable technologies would alleviate many of the problems caused by the use of fossil fuels for meat production.