Ethics and sustainability of the meat industry

I'm having a debate with DaChemist at the moment about the ethics and sustainability of the meat industry. There's a post in the philosophy section too.

I realize this first paragraph is a question of ethics, however the sustainability side of this issue is certainly scientifically relevant. Also, many of the ethical arguments against our meat industry depend upon claims that may have a basis in scientific literature (like the notion that animals feel pain, or that they are consciously aware of their situation), which some people may wish to dispute.

I agree with most of what Peter Singer has to say on this topic. It would be odd to dispute that all cattle and poultry feel pain (although I'm happy to flesh this one out). It also cannot be denied that animals are mistreated and experience a great deal of pain and suffering throughout the production life-cycle of meat. It seems unreasonable that we should impose prolonged pain and suffering on a large number of animals merely for personal enjoyment. The consequences just don't seem fair. I get the temporary sensation of enjoyment from the taste, while some animal endures a life-time of physical and psychological pain, just to die.

On the sustainability side of the issue, I would argue that a vegetarian diet is far more sustainable than a predominantly meat diet. It takes roughly between 6 and 10 lbs of grain to produce around 1lb of meat. It varies a little but the conclusion is the same; we are reducing the amount of potential end product in order to sustain a luxury. As the global population increases and the demand for meat inevitably goes up, the meat industry grows. This means the clearing of more and more land to grow grain that is essentially reduced to meat, and more and more land cleared for factories a paddocks. Not only is it wasteful but it has a significant impact on the environment and it is by no means sustainable.

The meat industry also plays a large role in carbon emissions. Cattle emit methane which has a Global Warming Potential (GWP) of 21; it is a more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. In-fact, methane emissions from the meat industry may have a greater impact on climate change than the coal industry, since, as Singer argues, the coal industry emits particulates (soot and such) which have a cooling effect on the atmosphere. This cancels out some proportion of the positive radiative forcing from carbon. The release of methane from the meat industry, however, does not have this buffer.

Moreover, when you start taking in to account transportation of both grain and meat, in order to produce the end product that we get in our supermarket, it becomes quite clear that we ought to at least scale down the meat industry, if only to reduce carbon emissions.

In the end, vegetables are far cheaper to produce and we can get all of the same nutritional value from a wholly vegetarian diet. Vegetarian diets are far more sustainable since we could use much of the grain that is fed to non-humans as an end product for our own diets. This is not merely a more ethical way to live, but it's a far more economical way to live, and to top it off we would reduce the impact on our environment by a huge amount!

Does anyone share my perspective? Are there any facts you would like to add or dispute?

 

**First of all you need to take into account calories per lb. And secondly you need to consider the digestive tracts of the animals in question**

I found this information from a number of animal rights websites, I tried my best to find a reliable source for the claim. I've noticed it varies slightly depending on the source. Earth Policy claim that “it takes roughly 7kg of grain to produce a 1 kg grain in live weight” and their source for this claim is the following:

33. Feed-to-poultry conversion ratio derived from data in Robert V. Bishop et al., The World Poultry Market-Government Intervention and Multilateral Policy Reform (Washington, DC: USDA, 1990); conversion ratio of grain to beef based on Allen Baker, Feed Situation and Outlook staff, ERS, USDA, discussion with author, 27 April 1992; pork data from Leland Southard, Livestock and Poultry Situation and Outlook staff, ERS, USDA, discussion with author, 27 April 1992; fish from Rosamond L. Naylor et al., “Effect of Aquaculture on World Fish Supplies,” Nature, vol. 405 (29 June 2000), pp. 1,017–24.

Meat Production Wastes Natural Resources | PETA.org
http://www.sierraclub.org/sustainable_consumption/toolkit/choosing.pdf
Bookstore - Plan B 2.0: Rescuing a Planet Under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble | Chapter 9. Feeding Seven Billion Well: Producing Protein More Efficiently | EPI

**Now for starters cows aren't meant to eat grains. They are meant to eat grass**

Cows do eat grass, but they are also often fed grains and soy beans. There are meat producers that supply their cows with a grass-fed diet, however these producers tend to be far smaller than the larger grain-fed producers and so their product throughput is much smaller; these kinds of operations cannot sustain a large and growing population. It's much more economical to have grain-fed animals instead of large grazing stations. Grain is also a much cheaper feed option. Many cattle are fed a hybrid diet, and the amount of grain varies depending on the price of grain at the time. Many are also "grain finished", whereby cattle are fed large amounts of grain in the months before slaughter.

"Cattle feeding economics have dictated that some grain be fed to cattle prior to slaughter for best production efficiency." J. Wagner and T.L. Staton - ext Fact Sheet

"The amount of grain and the length of time that grain has been fed varies depending on cattle price, cattle breeding, the price spread between good and choice quality carcass grade and the price of grain" J. Wagner and T.L. Staton - ext Fact Sheet

According to a 2006 report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 70% if United States grain goes to feeding farm animals. According the U.S. Department of Agriculture 38% (about 739 million tons) of the world grain harvest is used to produce animal protein. The USDA also claim “Vegetable proteins (soybean meal, cottonseed meal, and distillers' byproducts), nonprotein nitrogen (urea), and, increasingly, distillers' grains are often more commonly fed to ruminants because they are generally cheaper sources of protein”.

The Australian Bureau of statics say that Australia's beef production tends to peek when there are high levels of grain production in the USA. This is because the price of grain drops and feed gets even cheaper.

USDA ERS - Cattle & Beef: Background
High Grain Rations for Cattle
Bookstore - Plan B 2.0: Rescuing a Planet Under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble | Chapter 9. Feeding Seven Billion Well: Producing Protein More Efficiently | EPI
1301.0 - Year Book Australia, 2005
http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/199902/ldpm17001.pdf
Environmental Impacts of the Meat Industry | Max and Ruffy's


Now, I could certainly be wrong about all of this. Perhaps all of these sources are wrong, after all it could be said that at least a few of them have a vested interest in the matter. At the very least I can say that my claims are defensible. If you insist that they are inaccurate I am happy to concede as long as more reliable information is offered in lieu of my own.

 

I've just come across this publication regarding the sustainability issues with a predominantly meat diet vs vegetarian diet. It turns out that vegetarians diets aren't all that sustainable either. Still much better than meat based diets, but it looks like we have a long way to go.

Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment1,2,3
David Pimentel and Marcia Pimentel - American Society for Clinical Nutrition

Abstraact
Worldwide, an estimated 2 billion people live primarily on a meat-based diet, while an estimated 4 billion live primarily on a plant-based diet. The US food production system uses about 50% of the total US land area, 80% of the fresh water, and 17% of the fossil energy used in the country. The heavy dependence on fossil energy suggests that the US food system, whether meat-based or plant-based, is not sustainable. The use of land and energy resources devoted to an average meat-based diet compared with a lactoovovegetarian (plant-based) diet is analyzed in this report. In both diets, the daily quantity of calories consumed are kept constant at about 3533 kcal per person. The meat-based food system requires more energy, land, and water resources than the lactoovovegetarian diet. In this limited sense, the lactoovovegetarian diet is more sustainable than the average American meat-based diet.

CONCLUSION

Both the meat-based average American diet and the lactoovovegetarian diet require significant quantities of nonrenewable fossil energy to produce. Thus, both food systems are not sustainable in the long term based on heavy fossil energy requirements. However, the meat-based diet requires more energy, land, and water resources than the lactoovovegetarian diet. In this limited sense, the lactoovovegetarian diet is more sustainable than the average American meat-based diet.

The major threat to future survival and to US natural resources is rapid population growth. The US population of 285 million is projected to double to 570 million in the next 70 y, which will place greater stress on the already-limited supply of energy, land, and water resources. These vital resources will have to be divided among ever greater numbers of people.

 

That's fair. I still eat meat myself. This is all mostly for an assignment, I was interested to see how other people would react to a controversial stance on meat production. Personally, I find the sustainability arguments fairly convincing (not so much the ethical arguments), but whether or not that will be enough for me to change my own behaviour is a different thing.