Meat has high value to most societies in the world, for instance, most people believe that meat is the only meal that is worth during celebrations. The value of meat to the community and its little benefit to the body is shocking given that over 85% of the agricultural land is used for livestock keeping mainly for their by-products and meat. According to 2010 records, beef cattle population was approximately 1.4 billion cows demonstrating the preference of people towards beef.
Global warming has been the hottest subject for the last two decades with the temperatures rising above 20C which has led to the governments to pledge to ensure that they would limit temperature increase to about 1.50C. According to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) of 2015, there is a need for change in the release and emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere to help reduce the temperature increase. Most people would be quick to call for more investments in renewable and green energy resources as the best strategy to reduce the emissions. The notion would be due to the adamant belief that fossil fuels are the leading cause of CO2, CH4, and N2O which are known to influence the rapid global warming.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
However, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO 2010), approximately 7,516 million metric tons annually of CO2 equivalents (CO2e) is emitted from cattle, sheep, goats, camels, poultry, pigs and buffalos. Ruminant animals such as cattle, sheep and goats are said to have emanated the most significant share of livestock carbon footprint which is about 85% of the total 18% of carbon footprint in the world annual emissions of GHG. The rapid increase in the global population and the preference of meat and livestock by-products such as dairy products will only lead to increasing of GHG emissions. According to FAO (2010), the continuous growth of livestock agriculture in the world will result in over 51% of the total carbon footprint by 2050.
The growth demonstrates that meat will be the leading cause of GHG emissions by 2050 hence the need to discuss the cost of meat based on environmental harm similarly as the discussion has been for the last two decades on limiting the overreliance on fossil fuels as the primary source of pollution and global warming. This paper uses literature review on the topic of meat as a source of GHG emissions. The literature from past studies demonstrates the need to reduce the preference of meat due to its high environmental costs and it little benefits on the nutritional scopes. The paper then discusses the need to change the consumers’ meat preferences and choose lower GHG emission type of dietary. The discussion will also depict the need to change the agriculture methods to preserve the environment by reducing the conventional modes towards organic farming.
Review of Meat Carbon Footprint
The carbon footprint is calculated to depict the magnitude of the emissions of GHG regarding CO2e over a 100-year horizon hence the formula:
kgCO2e=kgCH4×25×kgN2O×298+kgCO2
The above formula is accepted as the best form of depicting GHG emissions and their lifespan that enables understanding of the effects of the emissions. It also allows the calculation of the emissions by estimating the direct and indirect sources and sinks of the GHGs associated with the products. By use of carbon footprint, it will be efficient to depict the role played by livestock keeping for meat reasons such as beef cattle.
Meat is one of the most consumed products in the world with hence the extensive livestock keeping that uses more than 70% of the farming land in the world. Rearing of livestock for meat purposes has increased randomly due to the increasing population although dietary studies depict that the consumption of meat is a danger for the human body. The calories and nutrients derived from meat contribute less than 20% of the required nutrients in the body (Stephenson, 2010). However meat is not necessarily a source of GHG emission, but its lifecycle from the birth of the animal, growth and slaughtering to packaging, transporting to consumption has proved that the 18% total emissions as depicted by FAO may be an undervalued figure. Multiple studies on lifecycles of livestock and their GHGs emission demonstrate that livestock farming, the use of machinery in agriculture and the plant growth for animal feeds is a significant concern that overwhelms the natural balancing of carbon emission as depicted below.
The lifecycle depicted above is an illustration of the various interconnected factors that result in the GHG emissions by rearing beef cattle. The beef cattle consumption of animal feeds result in the emphasis of planting animal feeds using fertilizers which contaminates the soil. The plants may be viewed as a way of balancing the CO2 emission from the cattle by sinking the carbon dioxide produced by the animals but the plants also emit CO2 and N2O. The machinery also emits CO2 due to use of fossil fuels. The respiration and decomposition contribute to CO2 emissions whereas the manure from the beef cattle ferments to produce methane. The three gases are increased with deforestation to improve the farming lands. The carbon footprint of the live weight is estimated to be 12.7kg/CO2e at the farm level whereas the rumen fermentation contributes to over 48% of the carbon footprint (Flachowsky, & Kamphues, 2012). The carbon footprint is due to digestibility, and feed uptake as a study in Belgium depicts. The overall beef meat creates about 22.2kg/CO2e with the slaughtering process contributing to approximately 0.01% of total carbon footprint.
As earlier stated, red meat mainly from ruminants tends to have higher carbon footprint compared to white meat from monogastric animals. According to Sutton and Dibb (2013), pork and chicken tend to have a lower CO2e compared to beef, and meat from lambs and goats. Beef is the most consumed products with the over 1.4 beef cattle dominating the livestock rearing although it contributes to the most extensive emissions of GHGs compared to other meats as portrayed. According to Flachowsky, & Kamphues (2012), poultry and poultry DF add about 3 to 4.5 CO2-eq/kg, which very similar to pork and pork DF. Beef and Beef DF produces between 11 to 14.28 CO2-eq/kg.
Although the emissions reduce by almost 5% by improving agricultural practices from conventional to organic farming, beef cattle and rearing other ruminants for meat results in nearly three-time the discharge from breeding poultry and pigs. The high GHGs emissions of meat with the limited nutritional value compared to vegetables and fruits that have more nutritional value and lower carbon footprint are warrants a call towards changing the dietary habits.
According to Stephenson (2010), the production of livestock for meat and their by-products such as eggs and daily occupies more than 70% of the global agricultural land but provides less than 20% of the total global calories. Stephenson claims that livestock rearing is an inefficient productivity due to loss of good calories and the depletion of food-producing land towards the production of animal feeds. He argues that the aggregate GHG emissions that were about 47GT of the total GHG produced in 2005 are only deemed to increase due to the increased population and the preference of meat.
Livestock farming attributes to over 80% of the total emissions from agriculture sector due to the inclusion of land use, GHG emissions and deforestation. These issues demonstrate the adverse effects of the overproduction of meat to meet the increasing demand. The red-meat dietary compared to a vegetarian diet is compared to high consuming engines such as the SUVs compared to a low fuel consuming vehicles like sedans. The comparison is evidence that choosing a vegetarian diet would result in the reduction of about 0.73kgCO2e for every person per month (Stephenson, 2010). The cut would be more than twice than the reduction of emission from half of the world investing in renewable energy.
The current initiatives are yearning towards the reduction of GHG emission from fossil fuels but statistics and predicted emissions from livestock mainly for meat is increasing at an increasing rate which will result in temperature rising from the current 20C to 40C by 2050. The increase with the livestock carbon footprint by 2050 accounting for over 51% demonstrates that the UNFCCC agreement will not be met if the dietary preferences towards animal products such as meat, dairy and poultry do not change (Aston et al. 2012). The forecasted increment of emissions has raised concern in different fields on organic farming with Europe and America emitting the most GHGs through their livestock rearing compared to Asia due to the mode of agriculture that is dependent on the machinery.
According to Scholz, Eriksson, & Strid, (2015), the overproduction of meat in the world has contributed to food shortages in the developing countries whereas it has increased food wastage in developed nations. The study depicted that EU in 2006 accounted for more than 90 million tons per year meat products accounting for 3.5% of the total waste but 29% of the overall carbon footprint. The high perishability of fruits and vegetables accounted for 85% of the complete waste but only a 49% of the carbon footprint. The figures of waste and carbon footprint demonstrate that meat products are much harmful to the environment than fruits and vegetables. The study indicated that minced beef meat was responsible for 19% of the carbon footprint in the meat department and 5.5% of the total carbon footprint.
The study is proof that meat is one of the key GHGs emitter and hence the need for change (Scholz, Eriksson, & Strid, 2015). This study among many other demonstrates that meet dietary needs to recognize in the same scope as fossil fuels when dealing with global warming as failure to do so will only contribute to worse climatic conditions in the future. The evidence provided in the different studies with some claiming that the 18% carbon footprint of meat is an undervaluation due to failures to include some factors. For instance, respiration, methane quantities and grazing land which is often ignored by the FAO reports suggest that the CO2e can be higher than anticipated to be and failed to enhance changes in dietary will be catastrophic.
The preference of analogue recording of agricultural produces and emissions result in undervaluation of the total CO2e for instance in methane which accounts for global warming potential of 72 is ignored due to its shorter lifespan that is eight years with the primary concern being CO2 with a lifespan of 100 years. The assumptions that the CO2 emitted through the livestock metabolism is fixed by the plants through photosynthesis is misguided since it ignores the numerical factors or deforestation that can reduce the fixes or neutrality that is associated with the interrelationships. These deficiencies may not attribute to change of the carbon footprint percentages, but it is evidence that meat costs are higher than most people would consider them to be.
Proposed Changes to Reduce Meat Carbon Footprint
The global community through the Kyoto agreement and the recent UNFCCC have focused their efforts on reducing the GHG emissions in the world in the bid to mitigate global warming. Most nations such as the U.S., Australia, and EU countries have invested in renewable energy for the last decade in the bid to reduce the dependency on fossil fuel as the primary energy sources. Industrial emission taxes have been encouraged in most countries to aid the process of limiting GHG emissions from factories in the bid to attain the 1.50C above the industrial revolution temperatures.
However, the studies reviewed on the emissions of GHGs from meat production and consumption demonstrate that the strategies although positive will fail to achieve their objectives if dietary concerns are ignored with predicted temperatures expected to rise to 40C due to the increment of meat consumption and population growth. Several studies propose that adopting organic farming which reduces the GHG emissions by 5% would be a positive move, but as statistics show, the lower emissions from organic livestock rearing is still three-times the emissions from plants production. Therefore, the best approach should include limiting consumption of meat and dairy products which account for the highest emissions.
According to an analysis of the Oakland Unified School District adoption of low-carbon meals, the two-year period of limited meat products and other high carbon footprint meals has reduced the kgCO2e by 14% per meal served, that is, from 0.70 to 0.61kg CO2e (Oakland Unified Fact Sheet. 2015). The reduction may seem small, but it accounts for 600,000 kgCO2e saved annually. It is equivalent to driving 1.5 million miles less annually or covering the entire roofs of the Oakland with solar panels without any additional costs. The analysis indicated that the move also reduced water wastage by over 42 million gallons per year. The strategy of increasing fruits, vegetables and legumes by 10% and reducing meat consumption by 30% improved the health of the students and reduced GHG emissions without incurring any additional costs.
The study indicated that the preference of meat consumption by American citizens does not only raise the carbon footprint but it also increases the health issues with most Americans consuming more than 50% more meat than the U.S. Dietary Guidelines. The over-consumption of meat by over 50% is compounded with the under consumption of fruits and vegetables with only 20% of Americans consuming the recommended amounts of fruits and vegetables (Oakland Unified Fact Sheet. 2015). The cost of meat does not only increase the carbon footprint but also the consumption costs with recent studies on reducing meat consumption showing that the move has reduced the food costs in many institutions by an average of 20% following the adoption of the cut meat and balanced menus.
The reports of the changing trend from meat to plant-based proteins have improved the food production and sustainability with limited environmental harms. It is hence evident that changing the preferences of livestock keeping to plant-based proteins farming would improve the human’s health and the eco-system which is a positive for all parties involved. According to consumer behaviors, the society tends to influence consumer behavior. Americans, British, and most of the world’s population prefer meat proteins compared to plant-based proteins. The taste and norm of valuing meat are one of the main challenges in changing the consumption rates of meat products. The proposed imposing of taxes on meat due to their high carbon footprint which would discourage the consumers from purchasing the meat and hence substitute it with cheaper plant-based proteins would be a positive move. However, the tax would result in more wastes and due to the current high rates of production and result in food shortage due to the current land use being dominated by livestock nurturing.
According to a study was undertaken in the UK, consumer awareness and understanding strategies that would include labelling of carbon footprints would result in a more positive outcome compared to taxation policies that would be similar to consumer discrimination in their food consumption. That is, the tax would increase the prices thus make meat unaffordable amongst the low-income earners but would still be affordable to the mid and high-class citizens. The study demonstrated that over 72% of the UK consumers’ supported the need to include GHGs labels on the products. The study claimed that the consumers are willing to limit or change the amount of consumption due to the value of reducing global warming. However, most of food labelling is complex and contradictory at best.
Over 89% of the consumers argued that they could not understand the labels or the concept of carbon footprints. According to Grunert, Hieke, & Wills (2014), information alone did not influence consumer behaviors. Grunert and his colleagues argued that the success of labelling towards consumer behavior must be complemented with approaches such as creating awareness about dietary, the social, economic factors and the environmental impacts of consuming a product. Some of the proposed influences of consumer behaviors would include monetary and health benefits. The consumption of soft drinks for the last two decades reduced following the understanding that it has no health benefits leading to the soft drink producers to change their products towards healthy beverages. For instance, Coca Cola sugar-free Coke is evidence of the changes that the soft drinks companies have undergone due to consumer preferences of healthy drinks (Grunert, Hieke, & Wills, 2014).
Therefore, focusing on social awareness strategies and carbon footprint labelling would influence the consumer behaviors towards substituting meat as the sole source of proteins to plant-based proteins. These changes should also involve the transformation of agriculture from conventional means to organic farming while also increasing the production of plants and reducing livestock farming. By decreasing the livestock nurturing land from over 70% of the total agricultural area to about 30% to 40%, there would be more plant-based food available. The cereals have higher calories and able to balance the CO2 and N2O emissions to the atmosphere, it would result in reduced global warming and costs of mitigating GHG emissions compared to organic farming.
Conclusion
The study focused on costs of meat by reviewing past studies on carbon footprint of meat. It is clear that the lifecycle of livestock from birth to the meat on the table contributes to 18% or more kgCO2e. The studies demonstrate that reduction in fossil fuels towards renewable energy will only be sufficient to reduce global warming if it is complemented with reduced meat consumption. The paper has achieved its objective by discussing the predicted impacts if the issue is ignored and hence raised the alarm for changes. The limitations of different studies and data due to bias assumptions may have contributed to undervaluing the environmental costs of meat, but the study was able to show that increment in demand and supply of meat and animal-based proteins is detrimental to both the community’s health and finances and accelerates global warming. The lack of the timeline to implement the proposed changes may be limited but the recommendations are warranted baring the value of mitigating global warming. This study is essential for future studies to use as literature review and expound on the topic while reducing the limitations.
References
Aston, L.M., Smith, J.N., Powles, J.W., (2012). Impact of a reduced red and processed meat dietary pattern on disease risks and greenhouse gas emissions in the UK: a modelling study. BMJ Open 2:e001072 . http://www.doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001072.
FAO (2010). Greenhouse gas emissions from the dairy sector, a life cycle assessment . Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Animal Production and Health Division. Rome, p 98
Flachowsky, G., and Kamphues, J., (2012). Carbon Footprints for Food of Animal Origin: What are the Most Preferable Criteria to Measure Animal Yields? Animals 2, 108-126: http://www.doi:10.3390/ani2020108
Grunert, K.G., Hieke, S., and Wills, J., (2014). Sustainability labels on food products: Consumer motivation, understanding and use. Food Policy 44, 177-189.
Oakland Unified Fact Sheet. (2015). Retrieved December 25, 2017, from http://www.ousd.org/cms/lib07/CA01001176/Centricity/Domain/1/OUSD%20District%20Docs/OUSD%20Fast%20Facts%202014-15.pdf
Scholz, K., Eriksson, M., & Strid, I. (2015). Carbon footprint of supermarket food waste. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 94, 56–65 . Http://www.DOI:10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.11.016.
Stephenson, J., (2010). Livestock and climate policy: less meat or less carbon? Semantic Scholars Retrieved December 25, 2017 from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/22c7/4a1fa43316d5ffa7a6394fa9f5db56820dbc.pdf
Sutton, C. and Dibb, S., (2013). Prime cut- Valuing the meat we eat . A discussion paper by WWF-UK and the Food Ethics Council. Retrieved on December 25, 2017 from: http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/prime_cuts_food_report_feb2013.pdf .
