Cattle farming in global warming

 Global warming

We all think we know all the causes of it but there’s so much to it that it’s surprising.

Food and farming is one of the biggest economic sectors in the world. We are no longer in the 14th century, when as much as 76% of the population worked in agriculture – but farming still employs more than 26% of all workers globally. And that does not include the people who work along the meat supply chain: the slaughterers, packagers, retailers and chefs. IN 2016, the world’s meat production was estimated at 317million , Global meat output in 2018 is estimated at 336.4 million tonnes, that is expected to continue to grow. It Is not simple to separate out the contribution that meat production makes to this – particularly globally. The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation states that livestock is about 40% of the global value of agricultural output and supports the livelihoods and food security of almost a 1.3 billion people.

Raising livestock generates 14.5 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions that are very bad for the environment. The conversion of forests into agricultural land and livestock ranches is one of the major causes of deforestation. It is being done to meet the rising demand for food. One to two acres of rainforests are cleared every second for animal rearing and agriculture. Livestock farming creates a huge carbon footprint and has a very high global warming potential. Livestock production is a major contributor to emissions of polluting gases, including nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas whose warming potential is 296 times that of carbon dioxide.

Livestock farming contributes 18% of human produced greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. This is more than all emissions from ships, planes, trucks, cars and all other transport put together. Meat production is highly inefficient – this is particularly true when it comes to red meat. To produce one kilogram of beef requires 25 kilograms of grain – to feed the animal – and roughly 15,000 litres of water. Pork is a little less intensive and chicken less still. Around 30% of the earth’s land surface is currently used for livestock farming. Since food, water and land are scarce in many parts of the world, this represents an inefficient use of resources. Industrial livestock farming relies heavily on antibiotic use to accelerate weight gain and control infection – in the US, 80% of all antibiotics are consumed by the livestock industry. This contributes to the growing public health problem of antibiotic resistance

Livestock emit almost 64% of total ammonia emissions, contributing significantly to acid rain and to acidification of ecosystems. Livestock are also a highly significant source of methane emissions, contributing 35–40% of methane emissions worldwide.

25% Of global land use, land-use change and forestry emissions are driven by beef production, including conversion of forests in the Brazilian Amazon.

Water footprint :

Water footprint shows the extent of water use in relation to consumption by people. The water footprint of an individual, community, or business is defined as the total volume of fresh water used to produce the goods and services consumed by the individual or community or produced by the business. Water footprint accounts for the water used in the agricultural, packaging and shipping processes used to produce the food you consume.

Do you know what food has the largest global water footprint? It’s Beef. It takes approximately 1,847 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of beef — that’s enough water to fill 39 bathtubs all the way to the top.

A beef cow eats thousands of pounds of grass, corn, grains and soybeans during her lifetime, and water is necessary to grow this diet. That’s why the production of animal products like meat, dairy and eggs requires more water than producing fruits (115 gallons of water per pound) and vegetables (39 gallons of water per pound).

Is water footprint really that bad ?

THE FIRST FLAW IN THE WATER FOOTPRINT CONCEPT STEMS FROM THE FACT THAT WATER IS RENEWABLE. It can exist in lakes, rivers and the sea, below ground, as vapour in the air, in glaciers, and more. The next problem with the water footprint concept is that it causes us to value water as being equally important wherever it is. In addition, there is no clear relationship between the volume of water we use and the environmental impact of using that volume. So, although with carbon emissions we can reliably say that a serving of veggies contributes less to climate change than a serving of beef, we cannot be nearly so confident when comparing the environmental impacts of the water used to produce the two products. When rain falls on grassland, much of it is taken up by plant roots, moves upwards through the stem and then evaporates from the leaves. If the grass is eaten by cattle, then the water footprint of the beef includes all this water. But if the rain was to fall on an area of forest rather than grassland, evapotranspiration would be higher.

The footprint is defined as the volume withdrawn from a stock, minus the amount that is discharged back into that stock.

Livestock is the world’s largest user of land resources, says the FAO( specialized agency ), “with grazing land and cropland dedicated to the production of feed representing almost 80% of all agricultural land. Feed crops are grown in one-third of total cropland, while the total land area occupied by pasture is equivalent to 26% of the ice-free terrestrial surface”.

Cutting down on the consumption of dairy, meat and eggs, and going vegan is a great option — it will help reduce your carbon footprint and lower the negative effects of your diet on the environment. If all grain used for livestock were fed to humans instead of animals, we could feed an extra 3.5 billion people. Beef production requires a lot of land, water and energy, and generates considerable waste. It is thus essential to improve its sustainability globally. But there are some alternatives. Also Reducing the amount of meat you eat while improving its quality is advocated by many environmental groups.

Worldwide grazing areas are known from FAO country estimates of permanent pastures. To complement the understanding of land use dynamics worldwide, geographic information on the extent, productivity and the intensity of use of pastures and arable lands is urgently required. It is interesting to study the possible evolution of forest conversion for livestock production. This seems to be a process occurring in many countries, particularly in the Amazon Basin. This information will also help to quantify the contribution of grazing to animal nutrition.