Pork market: Vendors sell their wares at a Beijing market. In East Asia, rising economies have fueled meat consumption, which requires a lot of grain in the form of animal feed. (Peter Parks/AFP/Getty Images/Newscom)
Diet for a more-crowded planet: plants
Rising incomes raise appetite for meat. But how many can ‘eat like an American’?
By Moises Velasquez-Manoff | Staff Writer of The Christian Science Monitor/ July 18, 2008 edition
Scott Wallace
New York
In the first quarter of 2008, grain prices climbed to a 30-year high. On average, food prices are 54 percent higher than in 2007. Grains have gone up 92 percent. Hungry mobs, hard-pressed to afford staples, rioted in Haiti, Mexico, and Bangladesh.
Experts point to a “perfect storm” of speculation, hoarding, drought in Australia, and diversion of grain to biofuels as culprits in the global food crisis.
But for some, the skyrocketing grain prices fulfill a longstanding prediction: A growing world population has more buying power. The newly affluent eat more meat. A rising share of the world’s agricultural output goes to animals. While grain supplies are more than adequate to feed everyone now, say experts, the current price spike shows that even an adequate supply doesn’t preclude hunger for the world’s poor. And in the future, a day may come when there isn’t enough grain for both humans and livestock – at least not at the US consumption rate. Add to this the environmental impacts of modern industrial-scale meat production, and many wonder: With a predicted world population of 9.5 billion by midcentury, are we all destined to be vegetarians?
Perhaps not entirely, say experts, but technological breakthroughs like lab-grown flesh notwithstanding, we’ll likely eat much less meat. And perhaps people in sub-Saharan Africa will eat a little more.
One-third of the world’s arable land grows food for livestock, and about 36 percent of world grain becomes animal feed. The problem, say experts, is the inefficiency of converting grain to meat. A pound of beef takes 7 pounds of feed to produce. For pork, the ratio is 1 to 3; and for chicken, 1 to 2. (Cold-blooded fish, which don’t need energy to maintain body temperature, are farmed more efficiently.)
Burden of the US model
“Using grain to feed cattle rather than people is putting enormous strain on stocks,” says Katarina Wahlberg, social and economic policy program coordinator at Global Policy Forum, an NGO in New York City. “Current consumption levels are unsustainable.”
The average American eats about 275 pounds of meat per year, says the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Each American, in effect, consumes 1,765 pounds of grain yearly, says Lester Brown, author of “Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization.” Only 220 pounds of that is consumed directly in foodstuffs like bread, pasta, and breakfast cereal. The rest is through animal products.
If everyone consumed grain at this rate, says Mr. Brown, today’s 2 billion-ton world grain harvest would feed only 2.5 billion people – two-fifths of the world population. If the world ate the way Italians do – 882 pounds of grain per person yearly – we’d feed 5 billion people. And if we all ate the way largely vegetarian India does (11-1/2 pounds of meat per person yearly, or 440 pounds of grain), our grain supply could feed 10 billion.
For Brown, this exercise has serious implications. Moral issues aside, hungry people lead to social unrest. And that has consequences for everyone.
“How many failing states before we have a failing global civilization?” he asks. “No one knows the answer because no one has ever been here before.”
World consumption trends are moving toward more meat, not less. From 1970 to 2005, meat production in the developing world more than quintupled, from 30 million to 162 million tons, says the FAO. If trends continue, global demand for meat will increase by half again by 2030.
By 2050, world meat production may more than double its 2000 level, to 513 million tons yearly.
Rising affluence drives the growing appetite for meat. According to a 2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study, about 1.1 billion new consumers – people with significant disposable incomes – have emerged in recent decades. That’s in addition to the 850 million consumers already in rich countries. They all want meat.
As these newly affluent consumers have increased their meat intake, they’ve also grown less healthy. Some 1.6 billion adults around the world are now overweight (400 million of them obese), says the World Health Organization. Yet some 800 million worldwide are chronically undernourished.
“There’s no need for hunger in the world,” says Polly Walker, MD, associate director of the Center for a Livable Future at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Md. “There’s an equity issue here that should give us pause.”
Issues of grain scarcity aside, many say environmental impact alone is reason enough to rethink industrial-scale animal production. Livestock generate 18 percent of the human-produced greenhouse gases in the form of methane, more than the transportation sector.
“Changing our diet is essential if we’re going to get control of climate change,” says Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics at Princeton University in New Jersey. It’s also a simple and quick way to reduce one’s carbon footprint. “That’s something we could do straight away. We don’t need to invent renewable anything.”
The 2006 UN report “Livestock’s Long Shadow” concluded that animal production, as currently practiced, poses a range of threats that demand immediate attention, from land degradation to biodiversity loss. A subsequent report by the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal
Production echoed these conclusions, adding that the routine use of antibiotics on livestock increases the risk of creating a drug-resistant “superbug.”
Even the oceans are affected by livestock production. In coastal waters, dead zones caused by nutrient runoff, much of it animal waste, are a chronic problem. And a growing share of the world’s fish catch now becomes fishmeal and fish oil, which ends up in animal feed.
High feed prices have made harvesting fish more profitable, says H. Bruce Franklin, author of “The Most Important Fish in the Sea: Menhaden and America.” The fish are often vital to their ecosystems. They eat massive numbers of smaller organisms and serve as food for larger ones.(The average 8-inch-long menhaden filters 4 to 7 gallons of seawater per minute, he says.) Removing these creatures can unbalance an ecosystem. “The oceans cannot sustain this kind of pressure,” he says.
Grazing important to many ecosystems
Many note that livestock need not compete with humans for grain, nor must raising them be destructive. Huge swaths of land around the world are suitable for grazing and little else. Ruminants – animals that digest grass – can turn the otherwise inedible plants into food for people. If done in a way that mimics the Great Plains bison migrations of yore, grazing – a natural part of many ecosystems long before cattle arrived – can enhance the ecosystem rather than degrade it, says John Ikerd, a professor emeritus of agricultural economics at the University of Missouri, Columbia.
“We have a tremendous potential to produce a lot more protein, and really produce it in a way that’s good for the land,” he says.
In many regions, like large parts of Africa, animals provide necessary protein that would otherwise be unavailable. There, livestock production should increase, says Pierre Gerber, coauthor of “Livestock’s Long Shadow.” Yes, environmental concerns are important, he says, but so is human welfare.
“It’s not because you have an environmental issue that you should stop production,” he says. “It’s because you have an environmental issue that you should manage it.”
( More stories )
Comments
2. g louise fiorini | 07.19.08
Cattle are not the enemy! They are amazing, environmentally-friendly animals.
Cattle are ABSOLUTELY “environmentally friendly” and are efficient recyclers. Most of the feed they consume is forage and grass/hay or byproducts, but not grain. And only 15% of all feed grains produced in the U.S. are fed to beef cattle. Cattle, or bovine, are ruminants, with four stomachs, just like the buffalo, thus they have the ability to convert forage and roughage, including discarded agricultural byproducts, eg: almond hulls, potato remnants, sugar beet pulp, corn stalks, grain screenings, oil seed residues, brewers’ grain and millers’ residues, then convert them into human food. They can use wheat and other grains that have been discarded because of early sprouting or as a result of adverse weather conditions. What better way to recycle what would otherwise by waste products? Harmless, natural, then converted into a sound and wonderful food. God made a miracle when He created the Cow . Cattle can also take dry matter in rangelands or on hillsides that are actually FIRE HAZARDS and convert them into muscle/meat.
Grass-fed cattle live in regions NOT conducive to crop production, whether because of elevation, water-accessiblity, or climate/topography. In fact, of the 2.27 billion acres of land in the total U.S., about 470 million are listed as cropland; approximately 19% of that is used for feed grain production, thus there is NO LARGE DISPLACEMENT of acreage from production of human food into production of feed fo animals. More than 85% of all grazing lands in the U.S. are actually not suited to crop cultivation.
Again, rather than consuming HUMAN food stuffs, almost 85% of the nutrients they consume comes from unusable (edible) sources or from regions not suitable for farming.
As far as water “consumption” and production of beef:
It takes 200 gallons of water to produce a pound of hamburger, but it takes 39,090 gallons to manufacture a car; 11.6 gallons to process one chicken; 1,500 gallons to process a barrel of beer; 1,851 gallons to refine a barrel of crude oil; 28,100 gallons to process a ton of cane sugar; and it takes 9.3 gallons to process one CAN OF VEGETABLES. It takes 137 gallons of water to produce a pound of irrigated wheat.
As to land that COULD BE a BETTER utilized RESOURCE (But which extreme enviros have eliminated), especially on this HUNGRY PLANET, is the issue of rangeland. More than 1.1 billion acres are listed as grazing land, roughly one half of the entire area of the U.S. Out of that 787 million acres are considered rangelands (and 82% of these rangelands are located in the 17 western states); 131 million acres are pasturelands; 157 million are grazed forest lands and 64 millions acres are croplands. More than 85% of all grazing lands are not suited for crop production, according to the USDA.
Grazing rangelands is an environmentally SOUND management tool; it converts dry matter, that could be called FIRE HAZARD, into a meaningful food source; ruminants can convert the roughage easily into muscle/meat.
According to one Oregon range manager, “Without controlled grazing, the forage on public lands will become wolfy (Not succulent), [and] big game will move to private lands.” Moreover, grazing protects the environment by “building soils, protecting water and riparian areas, and enhancing habitat.” In Canada, ranchers and farmers are PAID to take cattle, sheep, and goats into the mountains to help protect from major wildfires.
Wouldn’t that be a great PROTECTION tool for OUR mountain and hill regions? Especially in 2008 as the West burns up…..where, oh where, are those cows now?
As to the relationship of cattle to wildlife?
More than 75% of ALL WILDLIFE in the U.S. (excluding Alaska) is supported by PRIVATE, NOT PUBLIC land. Private land, eg: ranches and farmlands, provide habitat, water, wetlands, and food for big game and waterfowl. In the eastern U.S., that figure increases considerably; almost all wildlife is dependent on private lands. Most of the spawning and rearing habitat for migrating fish also occur on PRIVATE ranch lands. From 1960 – 1990, it was estimated by BLM that public lands (rangelands) had seen a marked improvement in habitat and herd restoration: elk populations increased by nearly 800%, big horn sheep by 435%; antelope, by 112%, moose by 500%; and deer by 33%.
Note: Their hooves act to stir the soil, move and transplant grass seed. They do not overgraze, by nature; they roam naturally and continually. They are also creatures of habit, crossing streams in a line, not damaging the banks like many people assume. MOREOVER, according to recent studies, GRASS-FED BEEF ARE BELIEVED TO HELP REVERSE THE GREEHNOUSE EFFECTS. Pastures and grasslands store carbon, vs. releasing it into the atmosphere.
As to nutritional value, the nutrient content of 1 lb. of beef is superior to humans for its mineral/protein content than the 4.1 lbs. of grain or the 20.3 lbs. of grass used to produce that 1 pound of beef. In addition, the fossil fuel energy used to produce 70 lbs. of beef (retail) is equivalent to 12-25 gallons of gasoline per year.
As to global methane production, this argument is really up for grabs:
According to Texas A & M University experts, cattle are NOT a significant contributor; it is responsible for 2.9 Tg per year – which translates to about 0.5% of the total estimated world production of methane each year. Only 7% of world methane production likely comes from cattle. Driving to the store to shop for groceries accounts for 100 times MORE “greenhouse gas” than a hamburger. Moreover, centuries of buffalo/bison across the North American continent would have been just as culpable as today’s cattle.
3. rs | 07.19.08
Let’s not forget that the animals we eat have processed grass and grain that we cannot eat. Never, never forget that. Anyone that thinks they can eat 2 pounds of raw grain as efficiently as a cow or chicken can has got to be missing some education. The eating of meat, or processing of dairy product is the most efficient way for humans to get protein into them. In climates where food does not grow year round in the garden, the need for a meat based diet is all the more necessary. What’s good for the goose is not always good for the gander. The statement not everyone can eat like an American is hilarious! Who would want to? Fat, candy, chocolate, garbage. As a matter of fact, countries such as India, eat a large diet of meat (chicken), and vegetables too. So what’s the problem? We need to eat, that’s a fact. Just because some countries have figured out how to get the food to the plate better doesn’t make it wrong? Every country has the same opportunity to manage their resources in an efficient way. That they don’t manage them properly is something they need to solve. Don’t penalize a country for doing well just because some countries are doing poorly. Countries that have success in agriculture are free to share that success with others. There is enough cross training and cultural exchange these days that there is no excuse for bad agricultural practices. Driving to the store to pick up groceries contributes to the greenhouse gas, but at least I’m staying alive doing it. It would not really be great if I would have to die to save the planet, because my driving to feed myself is killing the planet. I don’t think God created this world with all its resources just to see it kill itself?
4. gj | 07.20.08
here is a list of recent facts released about agriculture……they may surprise many. read on:
In the United States, 98 percent of farms are family farms.
Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture decreased 4.2 percent from 2001 to 2006.
From 1990 to 2005, overall methane emissions decreased 11.5 percent.
Most large feedlot owners have a dedicated environmental engineer either on staff or on contract who ensures the operation is in compliance with strict government regulations
.
This year, 46,000 upland acres of private land, mostly on working farms and ranches, were restored to benefit the grizzly bear.
U.S. consumers spend a smaller percent of their disposable income on groceries than consumers anywhere else in the world.
This year, 120,000 acres of private land, mostly on working farms and ranches, were restored to benefit the bald eagle. In the Eastern and Central United States, wildlife is almost entirely dependent on ranch, farm and other private lands; so, ranchers play an important role in the survival of native species.
Grazing cattle can minimize the invasion of non-native plant species.
Farmers’ and ranchers’ landowner agreements restored or enhanced 445,000 acres and 885 river miles of habitat for fish and wildlife.
Today’s American farmer feeds about 144 people worldwide.
Today versus 1960: 1.8 million less farms are feeding a U.S. population that has increased 61 percent.
Controlling dust has been a priority land-management practice on cattle operations for generations.
Agricultural productivity in the United States has more than doubled in the past 50 years.
Grazing cattle reduces the risk of wildfires by decreasing the amount of flammable material on the land.
Because 85 percent of U.S. grazing lands are unsuitable for producing crops, grazing animals more than doubles the area that can be used to produce food.
Rangelands and pastures provide forage and habitat for numerous wildlife species, including 20 million deer, 500,000 pronghorn antelope, 400,000 elk and 55,000 feral horses and burros.
Cattle serve a valuable role in the ecosystem by converting the forages humans cannot consume into a nutrient-dense food.
Last year, more than 2,000 ranchers and farmers entered into landowner agreements with the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program.
About a billion acres, or 55 percent of the total land surface in the United States, is rangeland, pasture and forages
Calculate your personal greenhouse gas emissions using EPA’s calculator: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ind_calculator.html.
EPA’s Clean Water Act sets forth requirements for protecting our nation’s water resources. Animal manures are a valuable fertilizer and soil conditioner.
Beef producers consider the rate of growth and consumption of plants in a given area when deciding how to rotate cattle to new pastures.
Cattle grazing plays an important role in maintaining the wetland habitat necessary for some endangered species.
The United States has 16 million more acres of forestland than it did in 1920.
5. Judy Ahmann | 07.20.08
Let us not forget that man’s brain began to develop exponentially over other life forms when he began to eat meat. The additional energy produced from eating red meat allowed the brain to develop, whereas, previously, almost all energy from plant sources was required just for the body to digest the plant material.
6. velleity | 07.21.08
I don’t know what it is about the Christian Science Monitor, but this article seems to have attracted sock puppets and internet trolls and nothing else.
I agree with the unsustainability of so much meat consumption.
I also agree wholeheartedly with the wrongness of the American diet.
The next step (or first step) seems to be the brainstorming of incentives for promoting vegetarianism, or at least reduction of meat consumption.
David Suzuki challenges people to eat one meatless meal a week. PETA has all those delectable ads (although I disagree with their motives). Online social networking services such as Facebook and Myspace have groups of people championing the cause of the vegetables.
However, I don’t see the American government getting on board with a nationwide push for vegetables, what with all the illogical farm subsidies and food processing jobs. If we stopped wasting grain on ethanol, soft drinks and meat, the lobbyists would go wild. In a bad way.
7. Dr. N. N. Panicker | 07.22.08
The progressive move away from meat-eating towards vegetarian diet is a natural process of evolution of man. Humanity’s natural evolution in all aspects of life, including diet, would avoid the problems caused by unbalanced development. It is hindered by ignorance, illusion, inertia and insistence of old ways. Resistance to change can be eased by enlightenment. Let us all strive to be free and flexible enough to receive the enlightenment that modern civilization empowers us with. The tools and amenities are at our disposal. Fine-tuning of life, avoidance of waste, achievement of efficiency of action and attainment of perfection are now possible for all the people, rather than a privileged few. Let us all go for it.
8. M kaae | 07.22.08
The facts presented by “gj” are so true. I am part of a 5th generation cattle ranching family. Our cattle are fed only hay, pellets made from hay or graze on pasture grass. We also graze our cattle on rangeland and have done so for nearly 100 years. Due to environmental restrictions, our ability to feed the cattle this way is being threatened. So few voters realize how their votes, influenced by slick TV and radio advertising, affect our ability to produce healthy food for the world. I think it’s important for EVERYONE to understand where their food and clothing comes from.
9. Mike Higgins | 07.23.08
Here comes yet another “crisis” to get everyone worried about the future. As with climate change and the rise in oil prices and the rise in food prices or WMD in Iraq or a nuclear bomb or two in Iran or the U.S. financial crises, we are inundated by big media stories proclaiming that immediate action is needed to solve these great non-problems! … And the solution is always, “take more money from the poor and middle classes and transfer it to big government bureaucrats to fund huge research projects performed by the intellectual elite.” Without all the fear-mongering, there would be no money to pay all these dishonest and money-grubbing researchers.
Experience has shown that virtually all these fears are conjured up by manipulative politicians, bureaucrats and the intellectual and financial elites for the purpose of fleecing the common man. Virtually all of the so-called solutions to these fearful events include massive transfers of wealth from the poor to the rich. And virtually all of the conjured up fears NEVER happen!
Virtually all the dreaded consequences presented by this article will be resolved over time through natural market forces without outside governmental interference. The result will be fairer and more efficient than any policy developed by central government bureaucrats or members of Congress could hope to be. Wasn’t this lesson fully apparent with the collapse of socialism/communism in the Soviet Union?
We have the power to stop all this manipulation. We simply have to stop being afraid. We have to muster the courage to be skeptical of all those who use the tactic of fear. There are a lot more people in the poor and middle classes than in the financial and political elite. We have the power. We must simply stop being afraid!
To join others who believe in the need to downsize the central government, consider joining DownsizeDC.org, the most effective electronic lobbyist for the people at http://www.DownsizeDC.org. It’s FREE and it’s POWERFUL.
10. Bernard Brown | 07.24.08
This does present a frightening picture, and it’s one that too many mainstream environmental organizations tend to ignore or at least bury behind other issues.
I would take issue with Pierre Gerber’s comments at the end about expanding grazing onto land otherwise not useful for agriculture. This can only further exacerbate problems with species that share that land. In the USA we have plenty of species (wolves, grizzly bears, black footed ferrets, etc.) that suffer due to competition with grazing on our least-productive land.
As for solutions, I’d urge consumers around the world to view animal product consumption as they view consumption of other types of resource-intensive products. We cut back on coal-based electricity (CFLs, more-efficient appliances, installing wind power) gradually, without personal abstinence, and we can do the same with animal products, focusing on each meal as an opportunity to make a positive difference.
Bernard Brown
PB&J Campaign
http://www.pbjcampaign.org
11. Shaynie | 07.24.08
I am a vegan — so y’all KNOW where I stand about eating meat — but I’m not saying anything further on THAT because I’m not here to preach. What I want to comment on HERE is my appreciation for those of you who have expressed opinions on BOTH sides herein. Let’s hear it for free speech and having compassion for each others differences!
May all beings ultimately be free from suffering and the causes of suffering.
Shaynie
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Jody Sol | 07.18.08
Yes let’s eat plants, the only sane life form on the planet.
Think about it. Plants are solar powered, using only the most sustainable resources, and contribute fruits, compost, and fresh air to the eco-system.
Whereas animals consume and consume until there is nothing more to consume and die off, allowing another species to exploit repeat the process.
Plants can’t run, they can’t escape, we cultivate them so that we can cut them down and devour them.