Download
1 / 32
320 likes | 421 Views
CHAPTER 21 AGRICULTURE: RAISING LIVESTOCK A CARNIVORE’S CONUNDRUM Disease, pollution, and the true costs of meat. A CARNIVORE’S CONUNDRUM Disease, pollution, and the true costs of meat. 21.
E N D
CHAPTER 21AGRICULTURE: RAISING LIVESTOCKA CARNIVORE’S CONUNDRUMDisease, pollution, and the true costs of meat
A CARNIVORE’S CONUNDRUM Disease, pollution, and the true costs of meat 21 Affluence increases the use of meat food products. Modern techniques make meat less expensive, but with negative environmental consequences. Meat may be part of the solution to world hunger, but there are many ethical and environmental concerns. Main Concept
A CARNIVORE’S CONUNDRUM Disease, pollution, and the true costs of meat 21 • At the end of this chapter, you will know: • The methods used to produce meat and dairy products, as well as benefits, drawbacks, and safety risks involved • The effect of affluence on diet, eating lower on the food chain, and smaller portions • U.S. agricultural policies and those of the and the rest of the world Learning Outcomes
A CARNIVORE’S CONUNDRUM Disease, pollution, and the true costs of meat 21 Background: During the summer of 2007, cases of a violent illness began to appear in New York and Florida. E. coli O157:H7 was found in beef products. What public health workers call “157” is a common bacterium in the digestive tract of cattle and does them no harm. However, the bacteria cause illness in humans with a 3%−5% mortality rate. This triggered the recall and destruction of more than 9.8 million kg (21.7 million lbs) of beef as the origin of the contaminated meat was traced. The outbreak eventually affected at least 40 people (probably many more) and the losses triggered the shutdown of the processing plant.
A CARNIVORE’S CONUNDRUM Disease, pollution, and the true costs of meat 21 TERM TO KNOW: Concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) The Beef Recall of 2007 brought to national attention a debate that had been raging for years: the effects (health, social, and ethical) of raising large numbers of livestock in relatively small areas.
A CARNIVORE’S CONUNDRUM Disease, pollution, and the true costs of meat 21 The production, processing, and distribution methods in many developed countries are incompatible with environmental sustainability and increase the risk of contamination, leading to more disease outbreaks.
A CARNIVORE’S CONUNDRUM Disease, pollution, and the true costs of meat 21
A CARNIVORE’S CONUNDRUM Disease, pollution, and the true costs of meat 21
A CARNIVORE’S CONUNDRUM Disease, pollution, and the true costs of meat 21
Affluence influences diet. 21 Global affluence has increased significantly over the last few decades. Wealthier peoples consume more food; not only more calories, but more meat and eggs. While good sources of protein, these foods cause more environmental impact.
Affluence influences diet. 21 Affluent societies not only eat more meat products, but more fat and sugar as well, often combined with a decrease in physical activity. This leads to increased obesity, cardiovascular disease, and mortality rates.
Affluence influences diet. 21 Instead of livestock and other animals being intermingled in open pastures, meat- and dairy-producing animals, including cattle, poultry, and pigs, are grown in large-scale, factory-like operations, with high densities and fast growth. Although less costly, these conditions have serious consequences to human health, environmental conditions, and animal rights.
CAFOs can raise a large number of animals quickly, but they incur a huge environmental cost. 21 In order to be efficient, animals are crowded together to a point where they can barely move. They are not likely to see sunlight or the outside of the building as adults. Cattle are pasture-reared for 14 months and then brought inside, where their diet is shifted to grains. The grains and lack of movement and sunlight all contribute to growth rates of about 2 lbs per day. The goal is to produce as much beef (or pork or chicken, etc.) as quickly and in as little space as possible. In addition, the animals often require medicines to combat conditions related to being raised in close quarters.
CAFOs can raise a large number of animals quickly, but they incur a huge environmental cost. 21 We could not produce the same amount of beef, pork, or chicken in the same amount of time and space and for the same cost without CAFO methods. CAFOs account for more than 50% of the meat products on less than 5% of the animal farms.This intense management also allows for a “turn around” time of 2 years instead of longer times for pasture-raised individuals. Critics point out that the water and grain required to grow these animals could actually feed even more people than the meat products do. TERMS TO KNOW: Feed conversion ratio Water footprint
CAFOs can raise a large number of animals quickly, but they incur a huge environmental cost. 21 Part of the reason that meat is more common in affluent societies is that, in order to produce 1 pound of meat, it takes several times that amount of water and grain.
CAFOs can raise a large number of animals quickly, but they incur a huge environmental cost. 21 Meat products (such as milk and eggs), have lower conversion rates and smaller water footprints than actual meat, but it still takes more material than is produced.
CAFOs can raise a large number of animals quickly, but they incur a huge environmental cost. 21 Waste materials are another major concern of CAFOs. While some manure is used to fertilize agricultural fields, most is deposited into lagoons similar to wastewater treatment facilities. Fecal contamination and the release of hydrogen sulfide can occur. New technology may allow for electrical generation from these manure lagoons. Air pollution can arise from the trampling of dry lots stirring up dust in quantities high enough to affect human and animal health.
CAFOs can raise a large number of animals quickly, but they incur a huge environmental cost. 21 TERM TO KNOW: Carbon footprint • There are many problems with CAFOs: • Clearing land reduces the carbon that could be sequestered in vegetation. • Animals are a source of greenhouse gases. • Close quarters increases the likelihood of disease outbreaks and spreading. • Hormones and antibiotics used to prevent disease in animals end up in the food supply. • Antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria are increasing in part because of the exposure to excess antibiotics.
CAFOs can raise a large number of animals quickly, but they incur a huge environmental cost. 21 Calves are raised for a short time in open pastures before being sent to CAFOs. While it takes less land area to raise in CAFO conditions, they require significant amounts of water and food directly as well as fuel to transport the food and chemicals used.
CAFOs can raise a large number of animals quickly, but they incur a huge environmental cost. 21 New animals to the CAFO must have their diet modified to grains and other plant material they normally do not eat. After approximately 2 years, the animals are slaughtered. There is a risk of fecal contamination of the meat, in part due to CAFO conditions.
A variety of methods can reduce E. coli contamination. 21 Most varieties of E.coli are harmless or even beneficial. However, a few, such as157, produce toxins. While cattle are generally unaffected, humans can become ill. A diet of grains may be a contributing factor, but there are likely many contributing factors related to the presence of the bacteria in the cattle. The major issue is how the meat becomes contaminated and how to prevent the outbreak. Close quarters facilitates fecal contamination on the legs of the animals, and incomplete cleaning during processing allows the meat to become exposed. While outbreaks of 157 have increased recently, human cases are decreasing.
There are more sustainable ways to grow livestock. 21 Pasture-raised cattle do not reach full size as fast as CAFO cattle and require significantly more land to support them, but they are less likely to stand in their own feces (a leading cause of 157 contamination) and do not have the health problems of grain-fed cattle.
There are more sustainable ways to grow livestock. 21 • Research indicates that pasture-raising can reduce the environmental impact: • Rotation on managed lands reduces erosion and degradation. • Diversity (plant and animal) reduces pest and pathogen outbreaks. • Fewer chemicals and less fertilization are required. Proponents of “grass-fed” beef claim it is healthier; they are lower in saturated fats and higher in omega-3 fatty acids. Pasture-raised cattle actually increase the human food supply since they are raised on lands that are not capable of agricultural production and their diet does not have to be supplemented with grains.
U.S. food policies support industrial agriculture. 21 TERM TO KNOW: U.S. Farm Bill A safety net was established in the 1930s in an attempt to stabilize the food industry and protect farmers from price volatility. Critics contend updates to the U.S. Farm Bill favor CAFOs and industrialized food production through loopholes and lax regulations (use of antibiotics and not requiring waste treatment, for example). Policies are shifting: Antibiotics administered to cattle now require veterinary prescription. Some say CAFOs should have the same regulations as factories and be required to clean up their waste like any industry, even if that means meat will cost more.This would allow the true price of food to be exposed.
U.S. food policies support industrial agriculture. 21 Production of food is a balancing act between safety, security, and the environment.
Consumer choices can increase food supply. 21 If the true costs of meat are passed on to the consumer, it will be a great deal more expensive and likely lead to significantly less consumption. Eating “lower on the food chain” may be one key for a more sustainable diet, feeding more people with the current food production levels. Doing so would also decrease our ecological footprint, and it would not require a meatless diet, as raising animals is the best use of land that is not suitable for agricultural production.
