In “Animals Are Essential to Sustainable Food” by Nicolette Hahn Niman, the sustainability of animal agriculture is discussed, in which a number of assertions are made in support of its necessity. However, Niman uses many proofs towards her argument which can be put up to much dispute.
She first ascertains, “The U.N. report blames 18 percent of global warming on livestock. But very little of that has any connection to well-managed traditional, grass-based animal farming. For starters, 48 percent of it is from land-use changes, mostly clearing of forests (for grazing and growing feed crops) in Brazil, India, Indonesia, and other developing countries. The United States, however, is not expanding croplands... Smaller, traditional American farms have low CO2 emissions because they keep their animals outdoors on pasture and use little machinery.”
It is a fact that agriculture is responsible for 18% of the total release of greenhouse gases world
-wide. There are no buts that can override the importance of this statement. The problem with this statement is its complete lack of relevance in the entirety of the issue. It is true that smaller farms produce less carbon dioxide emissions, but how can that provide any consolation in the US, where it is stated by Scherr and Sthapit (2009) that four companies produce 81 percent of cows, 73 percent of sheep, 57 percent of pigs and 50 percent of chickens? It is still evident that GHG emissions have risen by 48% due to land use such as deforestation. Furthermore, industrialized or not, deforestation and devegetation for livestock farming cause release of carbon from the ground in two ways: the decay of plant material and erosion of soil, which is stated by Scherr and Sthapit (2009). When forests are cut down each year, all contained biomass must go through a decay and release of atmospheric carbon. In addition, the grazing fields then constantly experience soil erosion and infertility, as land is made bare and exposed to the elements. This sacrifice for meat hardly seems worth the cost to our environment, as 1 hectare of pasture only provides around 51 kg of beef per year. This can be compared to all frequencies found in plant crops, which are much higher, such as 3916 kg of food product produced by 1 hectare of rice. In actuality, animal agriculture has a very intense effect on our atmosphere, including that of the US.
Niman next declares, “It’s important to note that there were plenty of animal enteric emissions in this country long before the arrival of cattle. Prior to European colonization, enormous herds of large ruminants covered the continent, including an estimated 10 million elk and as many as 75 million bison. The total number of large ruminants was surely greater than the 40 million mature breeding beef cows and dairy cows in the United States today.”
This is not an effective argument, as ruminant agriculture continues to increase. Scherr and Sthapit (2009) state the domestic animal population has increased by 0.5 to 2.0 percent per year during the last century. It is unreasonable to even consider Niman’s statement as evidence, as the wild ruminants of pre-colonized United States have little connection to ruminants and the role they play in today’s society. Species in the wild cannot be ethically compared to animals produced in agriculture, as they are produced for once purpose: human consumption. Why can animals with only one life purpose be considered to have intrinsic value? The only intention of animal agriculture is death and consumption, and aid in increase of our already overbearing population. We cannot afford to add to methane emissions with a practice that is not necessary for sustaining human life, which impedes a necessary reduction of emissions for sustaining global life.
The articles next statement asserts, “we shouldn’t forget that all food has global warming impacts. Wetland rice fields account for almost 30 percent of the world’s human-generated methane. ..Singling out meat’s climate impact makes no sense.”
It makes complete sense to single out methane emissions from livestock. Scherr and Sthapit (2009) state that 22% of the world's methane emissions are due to livestock. Livestock are ruminants, who have a unique, four-chambered stomach. In the rumen chamber, bacteria ferment food product and generate methane as a by product, which is stated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (2006) to be 23 times more effective in increasing global warming. And while Niman claims 30% of anthropogenic methane is produced by rice paddies, this figure is widely uncertain. Estimates require many process-based models, and source figures have range from 10 to 35% methane emissions. Rice paddies and beef cannot even be suitably compared, as emissions per unit product differ. Additionally, the ability to control methane emissions differ. Stated by Van der Gon et al. (2002), rice methane emissions are proven to be controllable. Many different rice varieties can be grown in drier conditions which lead to a reduction in methane emissions without any loss in yield. Also, species with more flowers can be grown (thus increasing yield), where produced carbon can be stored in flowers rather than in ground soil, which means less carbon will be available for bacteria to convert it into methane. According to Eshel and Martin (2005), methane produced by cattle cannot be decreased without a decrease in beef yield. This is because a corn-fed cow uses less land, but produces less methane. A grass-fed cow uses more land, but also produces four to five times more methane than its industrial counterpart. So in essence it seems the ratio of available land to food source cannot be changed, and thus methane levels will prevail unless less meat is produced.
Another questionable argument presented is “Traditional animal farming also has environmental benefits. Recent studies show that pasture and grassland areas used for livestock actually lessen global warming because their vegetation and soils effectively act as carbon sinks. Converting croplands to pasture sequesters significant amounts of carbon...There is growing evidence that both cattle ranching and pastoralism can have positive impacts on biodiversity.”
This is not a plausible argument for the favour of animal agriculture. Industrial animal farming has reached paramount levels, and is on the rise due to the increasing population and increasing appetite for meat and dairy. We cannot afford to convert any more cropland as over two thirds are already in place to sustain animal agriculture. We cannot just convert the industry to traditional methods, as there are not enough resources to sustain it anymore.
Biodiversity also cannot be sustained. F.A.O.U.N. (2006) states that 70 percent of former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to ruminant grazing and feed crop. How can this cattle ranching possibly be considered to have positive effects on biodiversity? Thousands upon thousands of species and habitat are being wiped out each year.
We are running out of land, we are running out of water, and we are running out of time to reverse the effects humanity has on our Earth. Niman’s arguments are based on reasons why it may seem animal agriculture is acceptable on our planet. These arguments do not particularly reflect the title of the article, as no proof was given to deem animal agriculture essential. Niman discusses the use of traditional agriculture as a way of providing better impacts on the environment. And in some ways it is. But can traditional agriculture even be sustained with the increasing population of humans?
References:
1.Niman, Nicolette Hahn. (2010) Animals Are Essential to Sustainable Food. Earth Island Journal. Vol 5, Issue 1. http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/eij/article/rancher/
2.Scherr , Sara J. and Sajal Sthapit. (2009) Farming and Land Use to Cool the Planet. State of the World. Issue 2009: 30-49. http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/SOW09_chap3.pdf
3.Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2006) Livestock’s Long Shadow. 36-47.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm
4.Denier van der Gon, H. A. C., Kropff, M. J., van Breeman, N., Wassman, R., Lantin, R. S., Aduna, E., Corton, T. M., van Laar, H. H. (2002). Optimizing grain yields reduces CH4 emissions from rice paddy fields. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. vol. 99 no. 19 12021-12024. http://www.pnas.org/content/99/19/12021.full
5.Eshel, Giddon and Pamela A. Martin. (2005). Diet, energy, and global warming. Journal of Earth Interactions. Vol 10, Paper 9: 1. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/EI167.1
She first ascertains, “The U.N. report blames 18 percent of global warming on livestock. But very little of that has any connection to well-managed traditional, grass-based animal farming. For starters, 48 percent of it is from land-use changes, mostly clearing of forests (for grazing and growing feed crops) in Brazil, India, Indonesia, and other developing countries. The United States, however, is not expanding croplands... Smaller, traditional American farms have low CO2 emissions because they keep their animals outdoors on pasture and use little machinery.”
It is a fact that agriculture is responsible for 18% of the total release of greenhouse gases world
-wide. There are no buts that can override the importance of this statement. The problem with this statement is its complete lack of relevance in the entirety of the issue. It is true that smaller farms produce less carbon dioxide emissions, but how can that provide any consolation in the US, where it is stated by Scherr and Sthapit (2009) that four companies produce 81 percent of cows, 73 percent of sheep, 57 percent of pigs and 50 percent of chickens? It is still evident that GHG emissions have risen by 48% due to land use such as deforestation. Furthermore, industrialized or not, deforestation and devegetation for livestock farming cause release of carbon from the ground in two ways: the decay of plant material and erosion of soil, which is stated by Scherr and Sthapit (2009). When forests are cut down each year, all contained biomass must go through a decay and release of atmospheric carbon. In addition, the grazing fields then constantly experience soil erosion and infertility, as land is made bare and exposed to the elements. This sacrifice for meat hardly seems worth the cost to our environment, as 1 hectare of pasture only provides around 51 kg of beef per year. This can be compared to all frequencies found in plant crops, which are much higher, such as 3916 kg of food product produced by 1 hectare of rice. In actuality, animal agriculture has a very intense effect on our atmosphere, including that of the US.Niman next declares, “It’s important to note that there were plenty of animal enteric emissions in this country long before the arrival of cattle. Prior to European colonization, enormous herds of large ruminants covered the continent, including an estimated 10 million elk and as many as 75 million bison. The total number of large ruminants was surely greater than the 40 million mature breeding beef cows and dairy cows in the United States today.”
This is not an effective argument, as ruminant agriculture continues to increase. Scherr and Sthapit (2009) state the domestic animal population has increased by 0.5 to 2.0 percent per year during the last century. It is unreasonable to even consider Niman’s statement as evidence, as the wild ruminants of pre-colonized United States have little connection to ruminants and the role they play in today’s society. Species in the wild cannot be ethically compared to animals produced in agriculture, as they are produced for once purpose: human consumption. Why can animals with only one life purpose be considered to have intrinsic value? The only intention of animal agriculture is death and consumption, and aid in increase of our already overbearing population. We cannot afford to add to methane emissions with a practice that is not necessary for sustaining human life, which impedes a necessary reduction of emissions for sustaining global life.
The articles next statement asserts, “we shouldn’t forget that all food has global warming impacts. Wetland rice fields account for almost 30 percent of the world’s human-generated methane. ..Singling out meat’s climate impact makes no sense.”
It makes complete sense to single out methane emissions from livestock. Scherr and Sthapit (2009) state that 22% of the world's methane emissions are due to livestock. Livestock are ruminants, who have a unique, four-chambered stomach. In the rumen chamber, bacteria ferment food product and generate methane as a by product, which is stated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (2006) to be 23 times more effective in increasing global warming. And while Niman claims 30% of anthropogenic methane is produced by rice paddies, this figure is widely uncertain. Estimates require many process-based models, and source figures have range from 10 to 35% methane emissions. Rice paddies and beef cannot even be suitably compared, as emissions per unit product differ. Additionally, the ability to control methane emissions differ. Stated by Van der Gon et al. (2002), rice methane emissions are proven to be controllable. Many different rice varieties can be grown in drier conditions which lead to a reduction in methane emissions without any loss in yield. Also, species with more flowers can be grown (thus increasing yield), where produced carbon can be stored in flowers rather than in ground soil, which means less carbon will be available for bacteria to convert it into methane. According to Eshel and Martin (2005), methane produced by cattle cannot be decreased without a decrease in beef yield. This is because a corn-fed cow uses less land, but produces less methane. A grass-fed cow uses more land, but also produces four to five times more methane than its industrial counterpart. So in essence it seems the ratio of available land to food source cannot be changed, and thus methane levels will prevail unless less meat is produced.
Another questionable argument presented is “Traditional animal farming also has environmental benefits. Recent studies show that pasture and grassland areas used for livestock actually lessen global warming because their vegetation and soils effectively act as carbon sinks. Converting croplands to pasture sequesters significant amounts of carbon...There is growing evidence that both cattle ranching and pastoralism can have positive impacts on biodiversity.”
This is not a plausible argument for the favour of animal agriculture. Industrial animal farming has reached paramount levels, and is on the rise due to the increasing population and increasing appetite for meat and dairy. We cannot afford to convert any more cropland as over two thirds are already in place to sustain animal agriculture. We cannot just convert the industry to traditional methods, as there are not enough resources to sustain it anymore.
Biodiversity also cannot be sustained. F.A.O.U.N. (2006) states that 70 percent of former forests in the Amazon have been turned over to ruminant grazing and feed crop. How can this cattle ranching possibly be considered to have positive effects on biodiversity? Thousands upon thousands of species and habitat are being wiped out each year.
We are running out of land, we are running out of water, and we are running out of time to reverse the effects humanity has on our Earth. Niman’s arguments are based on reasons why it may seem animal agriculture is acceptable on our planet. These arguments do not particularly reflect the title of the article, as no proof was given to deem animal agriculture essential. Niman discusses the use of traditional agriculture as a way of providing better impacts on the environment. And in some ways it is. But can traditional agriculture even be sustained with the increasing population of humans?
References:
1.Niman, Nicolette Hahn. (2010) Animals Are Essential to Sustainable Food. Earth Island Journal. Vol 5, Issue 1. http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/eij/article/rancher/
2.Scherr , Sara J. and Sajal Sthapit. (2009) Farming and Land Use to Cool the Planet. State of the World. Issue 2009: 30-49. http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/SOW09_chap3.pdf
3.Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2006) Livestock’s Long Shadow. 36-47.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm
4.Denier van der Gon, H. A. C., Kropff, M. J., van Breeman, N., Wassman, R., Lantin, R. S., Aduna, E., Corton, T. M., van Laar, H. H. (2002). Optimizing grain yields reduces CH4 emissions from rice paddy fields. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. vol. 99 no. 19 12021-12024. http://www.pnas.org/content/99/19/12021.full
5.Eshel, Giddon and Pamela A. Martin. (2005). Diet, energy, and global warming. Journal of Earth Interactions. Vol 10, Paper 9: 1. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/EI167.1
Word count: 1187
Jamie Prime 0718393
No comments:
Post a Comment