Global warming is caused by raising chickens?

[Nathyn]

I saw this article and the claim seems a bit questionable. (Link)

Vegetarian is the New Prius

President Herbert Hoover promised "a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage." With warnings about global warming reaching feverish levels, many are having second thoughts about all those cars. It seems they should instead be worrying about the chickens.

Last month, the United Nations published a report on livestock and the environment with a stunning conclusion: "The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global." It turns out that raising animals for food is a primary cause of land degradation, air pollution, water shortage, water pollution, loss of biodiversity, and not least of all, global warming.

That's right, global warming. You've probably heard the story: emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are changing our climate, and scientists warn of more extreme weather, coastal flooding, spreading disease, and mass extinctions. It seems that when you step outside and wonder what happened to winter, you might want to think about what you had for dinner last night. The U.N. report says almost a fifth of global warming emissions come from livestock (i.e., those chickens Hoover was talking about, plus pigs, cattle, and others)--that's more emissions than from all of the world's transportation combined.

*snip*

Producing a calorie of meat protein means burning more than ten times as much fossil fuels--and spewing more than ten times as much heat-trapping carbon dioxide--as does a calorie of plant protein. The researchers found that, when it's all added up, the average American does more to reduce global warming emissions by going vegetarian than by switching to a Prius.

This claim seems a bit questionable. Even if it's true that the meat industry generates so much pollution, she doesn't really establish that vegetarianism is a viable option that would reduce pollution.

Not to mention, this is an anecdotal study.

 

[Buckaroo]

I wouldn't really call it anecdotal. The vegetarian spin might be excessive, but the research seems legitimate, based on a cursory look. Here's the original study:

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~gidon/papers/nutri/nutriEI.pdf

I think the study is probably pretty sound regarding the impacts of various types of agriculture.

(I should add that I'm no vegetarian. I looovvee me some charred flesh.)

 

[casebro]

I duno about the "more than transportation" claim. My reading says that it takes 175 gallons of diesel to raise the food for each person in the U.S. I burn 1100 gallons of gas in a year of commuting, so 16% is for food. But even that is also for all of the veggies in my high-meat diet.

 

[Nathyn]

I wouldn't really call it anecdotal. The vegetarian spin might be excessive, but the research seems legitimate, based on a cursory look. Here's the original study:

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~gidon/papers/nutri/nutriEI.pdf

I think the study is probably pretty sound regarding the impacts of various types of agriculture.

(I should add that I'm no vegetarian. I looovvee me some charred flesh.)

The vegetarian spin is excessive, I think, because at the very least, the report only addresses the impact diet has on global warming, but did not address the economic and ecological impact of people going vegetarian.

 

[Nathyn]

I duno about the "more than transportation" claim. My reading says that it takes 175 gallons of diesel to raise the food for each person in the U.S. I burn 1100 gallons of gas in a year of commuting, so 16% is for food. But even that is also for all of the veggies in my high-meat diet.

That 175 gallons is the total amount of gas used by consumers and producers, divided by the total population. So, you can't conclude that if you burn 1100 gallons of gas a year, that 16% of it is for food, because some unknown portion of that gas-usage is shared by producers.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

The general concept is sound. The idea at the bottom of all this is that at every step in the food chain between you and the plant that originally captured the energy from the sun there has to be some loss. The lower off the food chain we eat, the more efficient our farming will be.

There's more to food than just it's energy content though, so it may not always be practical to apply this idea. We probably couldn't eat plankton instead of fish for example. But eating a fish that's lower on the food chain will be more sustainable than eating one that's higher.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Eating plants directly has to be more energy efficient, as well as greenhouse gas friendly. It's the future, get used to it

 

[casebro]

But aren't they ignoring the fact that much meat is raised on marginal feeds? If the cows didn't eat it, the grass would turn into CO2 anyhow? How much fuel does it take to raise a free range chicken?

Plus the fact that some animal products are a necessity? B vitamins, some aminos, Iron,....

 

[casebro]

That 175 gallons is the total amount of gas used by consumers and producers, divided by the total population. So, you can't conclude that if you burn 1100 gallons of gas a year, that 16% of it is for food, because some unknown portion of that gas-usage is shared by producers.

From the first site on a google search for <"fossil fuels" agriculture>
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html


"In the United States, 400 gallons of oil equivalents are expended annually to feed each American (as of data provided in 1994).7 Agricultural energy consumption is broken down as follows:

· 31% for the manufacture of inorganic fertilizer

· 19% for the operation of field machinery

· 16% for transportation

· 13% for irrigation

· 08% for raising livestock (not including livestock feed)

· 05% for crop drying

· 05% for pesticide production

· 08% miscellaneous8

Energy costs for packaging, refrigeration, transportation to retail outlets, and household cooking are not considered in these figures." Nor, I believe, is there credit for exported food, food products used in industry (soy bean oil in paints and plastics) etc..

I doubt if that is an unbiased site. But I didn't read enough to figure out their agenda.

So, food production is only about 30% of my transportation cost.

 

[casebro]

But then, we can't eat crude. Better to convert it into chicken nuggets first.

 

[dakotajudo]

But aren't they ignoring the fact that much meat is raised on marginal feeds? If the cows didn't eat it, the grass would turn into CO2 anyhow?

I would be surprised if the beef you eat isn't feed corn, primarily, or processed grain of some sort.

That touches on another major concern. 'round here, price of corn is nearly $4.00/bushel, up from about $2 only a couple years ago. That increase is largely driven by increased demand for ethanoal production.

But the cost is starting to put hog producers out of business - pork has been running closer to the margin than beef; but I think there's concern among the cattle producers as well.

Cows raised on marginal feed are probably going to taste like other wild game that are raised on marginal feed - deer, rabbits, critters in general; I doubt that would sell well.

But, assume you are pasturing your cattle.

In a pasture without cattle, the grass grows, matures, flowers, seeds, stops growing for the season.

With cattle, the grass grows, cows eat it down, grass grows some more, cows eat it down, grass grows some more, ... I dunno, I've never seen estimate of the total biomass produced on a pasture with cattle, vs without.

How much fuel does it take to raise a free range chicken?

I fed mine corn, got it from my dad, so was pretty cheap.

Plus the fact that some animal products are a necessity? B vitamins, some aminos, Iron,....

Not *necessary*, nearly all vitamins and amino acids can be obtained from plant sources - do feed animals themselves synthesize all necessary amino acids or vitamins, or do they concentrate the same from plant sources?

Plants share most of our biochemistry, so they contain most of the chemicals we need (and that we don't synthesis ourselves); the only two that come directly to mind are iodine (plants don't make thyroxine) and sodium.

 

[dakotajudo]

So, food production is only about 30% of my transportation cost.

This is only counting the amount of fuel burned to produced food.

But one important section of the original paper linked above is that there is a considerable amount of indirect greenhouse gas production associated with an animal diet.

That is, the amount of methane produced, primarily by cattle farts (they are anaerobic fermentation factories) and nitric oxide from manure processing.

 

[blutoski]

Not *necessary*, nearly all vitamins and amino acids can be obtained from plant sources - do feed animals themselves synthesize all necessary amino acids or vitamins, or do they concentrate the same from plant sources?

Plants share most of our biochemistry, so they contain most of the chemicals we need (and that we don't synthesis ourselves); the only two that come directly to mind are iodine (plants don't make thyroxine) and sodium.

B12 is not avialable from plants, although it is available from some varieties of yeast. Vegans generally take a supplement, or eat a fortified product, such as a fortified soymilk or Vegemite. Ovo-lacto vegetarians can get B12 from eggs or milk.

Having said that, there are two omissions in the hypothesis: firstly, fish are meat, but not part of the horticultural contribution they're measuring. Secondly, in some regions, meat is not raised in the industrial manner described, but still more or less free-range. An example is goatherding. Goats typically graze on land that isn't useful for farming, so they are pretty much zero-impact, and vegetarianism is not a 'better' alternative.

Another problem with the thesis is the false dichotomy: implying EITHER buy a Prius OR become vegetarian. Why not a little of both? Bike more / drive less and eat more fish / less beef?

 

[casebro]

And where is the extra fish comming from? And how much diesel does a fishing boat burn/pound of fillet? Or pond raised fish, fed what? corn? beans? chicken offal from the industry raised/butchered flocks?

I guess the only solution is to kill off all the poor folks- you don't think the rich and powerful are going to be the ones to starve to death?

Okay, we'll compromise- mandatory population control.

 

[Hindmost]

I don't know if this website is accurate...the cow power was a remnent from my college days and studying about energy on a global scale.

http://www.riverdeep.net/current/2002/03/032502t_cowpower.jhtml

Back in the 70s, a studies were done on harnessing cow burps...it was significant. Now, it would contribute to global warming.

glenn

the energy required to feed so many people is daunting.

 

[dakotajudo]

B12 is not avialable from plants, although it is available from some varieties of yeast. Vegans generally take a supplement, or eat a fortified product, such as a fortified soymilk or Vegemite. Ovo-lacto vegetarians can get B12 from eggs or milk.

Yeah, I knew I was missing one of the B vitamins, but it wasn't coming to mind, thanks.

Now that I'm thinking about it, isn't vitamin B12 the reason many animals eat feces? It's synthesized by GI bacteria, but too far along for absorption, so you catch it on the backside, so to speak.

Having said that, there are two omissions in the hypothesis: firstly, fish are meat, but not part of the horticultural contribution they're measuring.

If you look at figure 1 in the original paper, you see that the authors are considering the contribution of fish to the typical American diet.

Fish sources are also included in the energetic efficiencies tables.

And they comment on why the relative efficiencies of fish and meat are comparable.

Secondly, in some regions, meat is not raised in the industrial manner described, but still more or less free-range. An example is goatherding. Goats typically graze on land that isn't useful for farming, so they are pretty much zero-impact, and vegetarianism is not a 'better' alternative.

But is this signficant enough to affect the results, especially since the paper focuses on the typical American diet? What is the total (marginal) land area occupied by goat herds?

I know a few people who raise goats, but I think the goats get the same feed as cattle.

Note the authors do include goats as contributors to non-CO2 gases, via fermentation and manure management, less than one percent of the total.

But isn't this point beyond the scope of the original paper. The authors are addressing the impact of personal choices on an individuals greenhouse gas footprint; I doubt nomadic goatherders are part of their intended audience.

Another problem with the thesis is the false dichotomy: implying EITHER buy a Prius OR become vegetarian. Why not a little of both? Bike more / drive less and eat more fish / less beef?

What dichotomy? The authors of the original paper make it very clearly that their intent to restate the contribution of meat production to greenhouse gases in terms familiar to more people - the contribution of combustion engines.

The implication is not EITHER Prius OR meat, but Prius ~= meat.

 

[Old man]

I would be surprised if the beef you eat isn't feed corn, primarily, or processed grain of some sort.

Define ‘primarily’. It’s my contention that the first 600 to 800 lbs that a beef animal puts on is almost all grass/other forage crop.

But, assume you are pasturing your cattle.

In a pasture without cattle, the grass grows, matures, flowers, seeds, stops growing for the season.

With cattle, the grass grows, cows eat it down, grass grows some more, cows eat it down, grass grows some more, ... I dunno, I've never seen estimate of the total biomass produced on a pasture with cattle, vs without.

Valid point. Neither have I. If you find out, please post a link.

…one important section of the original paper linked above is that there is a considerable amount of indirect greenhouse gas production associated with an animal diet.

That is, the amount of methane produced, primarily by cattle farts (they are anaerobic fermentation factories) and nitric oxide from manure processing.

Does this take into account the loss of all the wild ruminants that the domesticated ones have displaced?

 

[casebro]

Does this take into account the loss of all the wild ruminants that the domesticated ones have displaced?

Thats a good point. How much biomass were the American Bison vs cattle? Passenger pigeons vs chickens? Endless cane fields, plus the natural grasses, vs current grains?

And, considering the root of the OP's contention, what is the ultimate efficiency of grains vs meat, judged by the health of humans? How much grain = one healthy human, vs how much meat? The end point is not chicken protein, but human health. Let the animals do the majority of the labor.

Mmmm, roasted grain-to-protein converter...

 

[Old man]

Originally Posted by casebro
But aren't they ignoring the fact that much meat is raised on marginal feeds? If the cows didn't eat it, the grass would turn into CO2 anyhow?

But, assume you are pasturing your cattle.

In a pasture without cattle, the grass grows, matures, flowers, seeds, stops growing for the season.

With cattle, the grass grows, cows eat it down, grass grows some more, cows eat it down, grass grows some more, ... I dunno, I've never seen estimate of the total biomass produced on a pasture with cattle, vs without.

I just did a little more thinkin' on this, dakotajudo, and I'm afraid that you're gonna have to show me the math that proves that the results of one of these (carbon cycle) equations is something other than zero.

It's quite possible that the grazed scenario sequesters MORE carbon (for a very short time) than the ungrazed.

In any event, it seems to me that the only real difference in carbon balance would be the amount of time for the carbon to cycle, and that difference is likely to be inconsequential.