Environmental Impact

Agriculture produces over a quarter of all anthropogenic greenhouse gasses. Specifically, the production of food is what creates the greatest environmental impact in the food system. As we grow crops, we release greenhouse gasses by cutting down forests and fertilizing fields. The world overproduces food, but we also know that much of it is not consumed, so we are emitting much more gas than we need to.

Animal agriculture has a much greater negative impact on the environment than plant agriculture. It is accountable for about 14% of all greenhouse gas emissions. I will explain this drastic environmental effect through methane and nitrous oxide emission, land use/land use change, and conversion. 

A large contributor to emissions is the release of methane and nitrous oxide from ruminants like cows. A ruminant is an animal that has special microorganisms in its stomach allowing it to digest plants. The more fiber (like grass) ruminants eat, the more methane and manure they produce. Manure is nitrogen rich, and it releases nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas, into the air. Although the grazing of animals like cows can cause grasses to grow and also allow more carbon storage, rarely does carbon sequestration outweigh the impacts of methane and nitrous oxide emission. Additionally, in order to graze, or even just raise these animals at all, land needs to be cleared, and this emits carbon and wipes out biodiversity. 

Another source of environmental impact is the conversion of energy. Conversion means that when you eat a plant or animal, you also eat what they ate. For example, if you eat an animal that ate soybeans, you will also be consuming part of those soybean calories. The key word in that last sentence was part, as 100% of those soybean calories will not show up on your plate. The exact percentage of soybean calories that actually make it into your system depends on the animal you are eating. The bigger the animal, the more calories they burn, so a cow, for example, would provide a human with very few of the soybean calories. This increases environmental impact because humans grow more crops than needed, as many are fed to animals, and several calories are lost in the process. To be exact, only about 55% of crops are eaten directly by humans.

Additionally, there is a great difference between organic and conventional growing. In an organic growing process, farmers use naturally sourced pesticides and fertilizers. Generally, organic growing does not deplete soil as much, and results in a lower yield, which requires more land. However, using more land reduces biodiversity. While synthetic fertilizers and pesticides are not normally used, organic growing can release more greenhouse gases because so many grasslands and trees, that would usually absorb carbon in the atmosphere, get torn down. Furthermore, you might wonder about USDA Organic specifically, and their label requirements. USDA Organic is federal-level organic labelling. In order to qualify, a farmer must use fertilizers and pesticides that come from natural sources like a rock or a processed plant, their products can’t be genetically modified organisms (GMO), and they can’t use radiation to kill pathogens or sewage for fertilizer. In contrast to organic methods, conventional farming includes growing intensively on a small piece of land with synthetic fertilizers in order to maximize the yield. You might think it’s great that not a ton of land is cleared for this process. While that may be true, this conventional agriculture can result in soil depletion, and there are still a significant amount of fertilizers being used. So, when thinking about the environment, organic growing is complicated because overall impact must be assessed on a case by case basis. Soil depletion, synthetic fertilizer and pesticide use, land use, and clearing all must be taken into account.

You also might question the impact of grass fed meat because it doesn’t seem to waste crops through conversion, if all the cows eat is grass. But what you probably don’t know is that eating a grass fed cow, for example, is not necessarily better for the environment. These cows need more land to graze, and since they eat a lot of grass, they are consuming a lot more fiber, which causes more methane to be emitted. 

In my opinion, the best way to begin addressing the huge environmental impact of animal agriculture is by attempting to limit the consumption of animal products. This is often referred to as reducetarianism. The mission of reducetarianists is to reduce the consumption of animal products such as meat, dairy, and eggs, but not cut them out entirely. I encourage this way of eating because I find it to be quite practical for many. My recipes, due to endless substitutions, allow for the same flexibility and comfort as an unrestricted diet, but additionally work to benefit the environment by limiting animal products. 

​

References

​

Agriculture produces…greenhouse gasses

Christopher Schlottmann and Jeff Sebo, Food, Animals, and the Environment: An

Ethical Approach (Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2019), 85.

Specifically… food system

Christopher Schlottmann and Jeff Sebo, Food, Animals, and the Environment: An

Ethical Approach (Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2019), 70-104.

As we grow… need to

“Food Waste Has Crucial Climate Impacts » Yale Climate Connections,” accessed July 31,

2020, https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/05/food-waste-has-crucial-climate-impacts/.

Animal agriculture… gas emissions 

Christopher Schlottmann and Jeff Sebo, Food, Animals, and the Environment: An

Ethical Approach (Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2019), 2.

A large… nitrous oxide emission

Grazed and Confused? How Much Can Grazing Livestock Help to Mitigate Climate Change?,

2018, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nub7pToY3jU. 

Tara Garnett et al., “Ruminating on Cattle, Grazing Systems, Methane, Nitrous Oxide, the Soil

Carbon Sequestration Question – and What It All Means for Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” 2017.

Additionally… biodiversity 

Christopher Schlottmann and Jeff Sebo, Food, Animals, and the Environment: An

Ethical Approach (Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2019), 74. 

Conversion… soybean calories

Christopher Schlottmann and Jeff Sebo, Food, Animals, and the Environment: An

Ethical Approach (Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2019), 72-73. 

To be exact… humans

“Feeding 9 Billion | National Geographic,” accessed August 1, 2020,

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/foodfeatures/feeding-9-billion/.

In an organic growing process… torn down

Christopher Schlottmann and Jeff Sebo, Food, Animals, and the Environment: An

Ethical Approach (Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2019), 140-143.

Furthermore… fertilizer

Christopher Schlottmann and Jeff Sebo, Food, Animals, and the Environment: An

Ethical Approach (Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2019), 140-143.

“USDA Organic | USDA,” accessed August 4, 2020, https://www.usda.gov/topics/organic.

In contrast… maximize the yield

Christopher Schlottmann and Jeff Sebo, Food, Animals, and the Environment: An

Ethical Approach (Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2019), 105-131.

You might also… emitted 

Christopher Schlottmann and Jeff Sebo, Food, Animals, and the Environment: An

Ethical Approach (Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, 2019), 135.

Matthew N Hayek and Rachael D Garrett, “Nationwide Shift to Grass-Fed Beef Requires

Larger Cattle Population,” Environmental Research Letters13, no. 8 (July 25, 2018):

084005, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401.

This is often…  entirely

“REDUCETARIAN FOUNDATION,” accessed August 4, 2020,

https://www.reducetarian.org/.