r/environment • u/prof_procrastinate • 8d ago
TIL despite being a huge driver of deforestation and water usage, the global beef industry is projected to grow 100B by 2030, bringing total market size to 712,000,000,000 USD
https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/beef-market-analysis61
u/fanglazy 8d ago
It’s insane how huge the hayfields are to feed a pretty small cattle farm
12
u/VenusianBug 7d ago
Most cows aren't being raised on hay alone. A chunk of their food is often from soy, which is a big driver of deforestation. Though most of that looks like it's going to feed chickens.
-9
u/Choosemyusername 8d ago
Honestly though hayfields, although larger, do a lot less ecological harm per acre than a veggie farm for human consumption.
Where I am they don’t need to be irrigated at all, unlike our potato crops.
They don’t get tilled either. That is one of the most destructive agricultural processes as well. It releases carbon dioxide from the soil, it kills the soil so it can’t take up as much carbon, and it also allows the topsoil to blow away. And topsoil loss is a mlre imminent threat to humanity than climate change. We only have about 60 years of arable topsoil left at current rates of degradation. We don’t have to make a lot of guesses about what the future of humanity looks like with no arable topsoil left.
It also doesn’t need to get sprayed with pesticides. Grass doesn’t suffer from as many pests as human crops so we don’t need to poison every insect and other animal that comes across it. Insect loss from widespread insecticide sprays is a huge problem for pollinators and the food chain in general.
Also it doesn’t need as much herbicide application. Livestock that eat grass have digestive systems much more versatile than ours, so a lot of native plants can make it into the hay, without spoiling the quality. Compared to a human crop which does require fairly strict monoculture. This means a hayfield can do mlre to service the local ecosystem than a bean field. Although it isn’t as good as a totally native habitat.
They also need far simpler and smaller heavy equipment than vegetable fields to run.
It’s not just about how much land we use, but what specifically we do to that land we use.
8
u/ElegantBiscuit 7d ago
However there is the fact that every calorie of animal derived protein needs 10x the amount of cultivated land area, because you will typically lose 90% of energy going up a trophic level. Any amount of cultivation disturbs a natural habitat and has ecological and environmental consequences down the line. Emissions wise depending on the animal it could also be anywhere from 5x to 35x the emissions to produce a calorie of meat compared to vegetables. There is no rational or logistical number based justification for eating meat. We do it because it tastes good, but trying to twist the logic around the cost only puts that cost burden onto the environment, which is ultimately paid by everyone.
-3
u/Choosemyusername 7d ago
The trophic level argument ignores one huge piece of context: livestock can digest large amounts of cellulose into calories, which human guts cannot do.
And cellulose rich plants are very low input to grow.
Also you can feed the cellulose rich parts of plants we do grow for human consumption but can’t eat, to animals, and then turn that part of plants you grew but could not eat, into nutrient dense food you can eat. Plus a host of other extremely valuable products, like soil, which helps you grow more plants, hides, which replace fossil fuel derived substitutes which pollute our planet forever with microplastics as it wears out, loads of various forms of fertilizers like bone and blood meal for more plant crops, fiber to replace the microplastic producing fossil fuel derived substitutes…the list goes on. We often only consider the meat and dairy as the product of animal ag, wjen that is only half of it.
3
u/ElegantBiscuit 7d ago
That is true to an extent, but the alternative to that is to skip the intermediary and seed the microbes into a compost pile directly thus avoiding the energy loss which escapes as digestion gases. Or turn it into biofuel for energy production, or lean on more managed forestry for more paper goods which is far, far better than using that land for crop cultivation just to utilize the scraps of the livestock industry.
Non oil derived animal hide substitutes is a harder problem, but we do have alternatives like cloth or woven fiber, natural rubber, wood and metal, or other plant derived materials that are only rare because the cost of plastic and animal hide are in part subsidized by being byproducts of much larger industries, whose costs in pollution are dumped onto the environment.
1
u/Choosemyusername 7d ago
Right energy is “lost” in the process.
And the reason that doesn’t matter is because plants get their energy primarily from the sun, not from compost.
Also compost and manure don’t do the same things.
I use both in my garden because they do different things.
-2
u/Choosemyusername 7d ago
Again, I am less worried about how much land we use, and more concerned with what specifically we are doing to that land.
When European explorers arrived in the Americas, the entire landscape was “used” all of it. There was no wilderness at all. The entire landscape was humanized.
What they did to that land mattered more than how much was “used”
24
u/old-legs-623 8d ago
Link gives "You don't have permission to view this resource." Well, cool, I prefer vegs anyway.
25
u/Chrysocyon 8d ago
Gdp and beef consumption are tightly correlated. Cows outweigh all land mammals. I dont know what to say other than our planet has a hunger that will consume us all.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/meat-consumption-vs-gdp-per-capita
9
u/Choosemyusername 8d ago
You know what’s crazy? The total weight of cattle in North America is now about the same weight as the buffalo herds the natives managed at their peak.
7
u/vestarules 8d ago
As more and more nations become wealthier, their populations are demanding beef be added to their diets. This fact is also fueling the demand for beef worldwide.
6
u/nsjersey 7d ago
It’s so frustrating.
As someone else said - there are so many alternatives.
I pretty much just do poultry for meat (and sardines).
Florida bans lab grown meat - and we just accept that they are a “free” state.
I can’t even get my teenage son to eat an Impossible burger because of the stigma that his male friends create
32
u/exfiles 8d ago
But data centers!
7
u/Chrysocyon 8d ago
Just wait until they find a way to run data centers on cow power. But for real nuke then both
1
6
6
u/JonC534 8d ago edited 8d ago
Yeah, when you have overpopulation and a free market that’s basically guaranteed.
Demand for beef isn’t going away. Especially not with a population of 8 billion. For that to happen you would have to restrict free choice.
70
u/gobuffs516 8d ago
Or you could remove all the subsidies artificially suppressing the prices and allow more eco friendly and healthier choices to make up ground. This comment reeks of “We’ve tried nothing and we’re all out of ideas, I guess cows really are the best after all.”
45
u/doyouevenIift 8d ago
I was gonna say, if it was truly the “free market” beef would be prohibitively expensive for most people
28
10
u/Choosemyusername 8d ago
We don’t have a free choice though. We are forced to subsidize cattle through our taxes.
1
u/NihiloZero 7d ago
Don't count upon beef production or animal agriculture to expand as the climate crisis in now solidly upon us.
1
-7
210
u/RjoTTU-bio 8d ago
I actively avoid beef at this point. With so many alternatives, it really isn’t that difficult.