Raising animals for meat, especially ruminant animals, involves the emission of greenhouse gases, researchers in Australia offer a solution to reduce environmental damage without sacrificing the main source of food for the growing population
The livestock industry contributes to global warming by emitting greenhouse gases. Another contribution is cutting down forests to create pastures for cattle and sheep, which is a significant contributor to global warming. At the same time, domestic animals are a source of livelihood and food for millions of people, most of whom are poor, so the treatment of farm animals in policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions requires caution. To this end, options were examined for raising farm animals while reducing environmental damage or for making the most of a given area with minimal damage.
Researchers have suggestions on how to reduce the environmental damage caused by eating meat and how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from raising animals for food, especially ruminants. According to researchers who publish their findings in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the contribution of farm animals to greenhouse gases can be reduced by feeding them energy-rich food. The researcher who publishes the finding is Dr. Mario Herrero Dr. Mario Herrero who works at: CSIRO, Australian Food Systems and Environment Research Institute.
According to Herrero, feeding cattle energy-rich feed will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 23% within two decades. Also, the deforestation activity linked to the growing demand for meat will decrease. Herrero claims that in the face of the growing demand to stop eating meat, it is difficult to change consumption habits and therefore it is more correct to change the way agricultural areas are used. Raising farm animals, cattle and sheep accounts for about 12% of greenhouse gas emissions (by human activity), with the main contribution coming from cutting down forests and turning them into pastures. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FDA), the global demand for meat will double to 470 million tons by 2050. According to Herrero, "the amount of meat eaten has increased due to the enrichment of the population", therefore the search is for less offensive and more sustainable ways to increase meat production to the required level.
In a study funded by the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security, the researchers found a method they called "sustainable intensification" by which it is possible to reduce the areas of forests that are cut down to meet the global demand for meat. The researchers showed that according to this method, by 2030 it will be possible to save one and a half million square kilometers of natural forest. In order to achieve a sustainable increase in meat production, it is necessary to switch from fodder with hay and grass, to rich food that includes seeds and improved mixtures. It is also possible to mix waste and food scraps that today are thrown away with food that can be lived. As the energy efficiency of the production of meat and animal food products improves, the pressure on natural resources will decrease, the same amounts of meat can be produced from fewer animals, meaning smaller areas.
In addition, animals that digest their food efficiently produce less methane, which is also a greenhouse gas and even more dangerous than carbon dioxide. According to Herrero, the main changes will be significant for the developing countries where the efficiency of turning animal food into meat and milk is extremely low.
Another researcher - Stephen Wiedemann, found that feeding cattle grains for a short period towards the end of the animals' lives reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 17% - compared to feeding them grass. According to Weidman, the data includes the calculation of all means of production, food and transport, according to him the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions was mainly because animals that are fed with kernels grow faster and therefore add more weight in less time. The animals reach "market weight" three to four months earlier than the herbivores. Also, less methane emissions were measured in cattle that were slaughtered on kernels compared to those that ate grass. According to Weidman, the method can only be applied if "with the help of a small amount of seeds it is possible to cause a significant improvement in the efficiency of raising animals, since in many cases pastures are not suitable for other uses.
After all, Dr. Herrero's method must be examined against the harm that will be caused by the increased use of areas for growing food for cattle at the expense of growing food for people, this is for the reason that growing grains for feeding cattle will be in areas where food can be grown for people and the right balance will have to be found.
In my opinion, part of the right balance would be a reduction in the feeding of the Western population with huge amounts of meat, as I wrote before: the demand from populations whose traditional economy and diet is based on raising sheep and cattle to change their customs and way of life - is not practical. On the other hand, the fat population of the Western world must be demanded to stop and let go of the "consumer culture" that damages and destroys every good part.
As part of the separation from the "culture of consumption" and for a better environmental future, it is appropriate that the fattened Western society consumes less meat, this is not a call for vegetarians and certainly not for vegans. This is a call for logical, reasonable and correct consumption of animal food and consumption in general.
It has already been said that the time has come that instead of controlling the environment for the sake of the human population, there will be control of the human population for the sake of the environment.
12 תגובות
You have no reason to base it on the fact that a change in consumption habits can be a reduction made by an enriching population,
Quitting smoking is not possible thanks to a reduction.
If change is possible, then change is detoxification.
In a world ruled by money, industrialists and countries with elected houses, will not be able to ignore those who are getting rich you wrote about. Manufacturers will only find ways to get richer, whether in the price of food for these stocks or in the price of the final "product".
There is no reason to assume that a reduction is realistic and certainly no reason to assume that a reduction is more realistic than stopping.
It is more realistic to assume that the number of people who eat meat and drink milk will decrease.
It does not bother.
It is much more comfortable.
You just have to get used to it.
I changed the settings so that the new response is the first. Does it bother you?
How did it happen that my comment jumped to be first all of a sudden?
In Israel, studies were conducted and crowned with the success of using by-products of the food industry to feed cattle with high-energy food and nutrients such as soybean meal, sunflower, peanuts, whey, molasses and lettuce, all of these materials are high in quality protein and are by-products that have no effective uses. Dr. Rosenthal, you think the opposite. You can't legislate against meat marketing, at least not in the foreseeable future, taxes? Then the meat will be for the rich. What do you expect us all to just be nice? Beyond education against meat, which is not lacking, there is nothing to do except prohibit the sale of pastured meat. With the population moving to the cities and the industrial attitude towards meat that is increasing, such a process is natural and should be encouraged and accelerated in the meantime, until the day when humanity rewards eating meat
collect,
First of all, fruits and vegetables are also grown and not produced. And as far as I'm concerned, everything that needs to drink, eat and breathe in order to exist - grows. In addition, (and I read what is written) I am still aware that the price of meat will increase due to excuses of quality, etc. And if anything, in front of the movement that promotes eating meat there is the movement to promote veganism, so it seems to me that eventually the situation will balance out.
to her daughter
Meat is produced like vegetables or fruits since there is no difference between the domestication of food plants and the domestication of farm animals,
If you had read the entire article, you would know that according to the authors' research: the cost of meat will decrease because
feeding on energy-dense food,
The article does not refer to nomadic shepherds who are considered "poor" who live directly from their herds,
"Earth" / protecting the environment is more important than any other consideration since without a healthy environment
There will be no fair living conditions - neither for the poor nor for the rich.
Regarding the matter in the same matter:
Recently, a new fashion of eating meat and animal fat is spreading, preferably raw and without vegetable additives,
Every "Polish mother" would identify "fashion" as "too much good for you, so you don't know what to do",
And indeed, like many other vanities, this fashion also comes from the XNUMXs and the sleazy society in the USA,
The "admores" of fashion define it as a "paleolithic or primitive man's way of life",
So anyone thinking of joining Abel should know that:
The term "primitive man" refers to an era of hundreds of thousands of years during which populations lived (and disappeared)
various and diverse and even a number of species of man,
If you narrow down the space and refer to the Paleolithic period,
which begins about two million years ago and ends about 20-15 years ago,
After all, there were different and varied forms of life and human existence in it, depending on the environment in which the Paleolithic lived,
But none of the groups in any of the regions lived and existed only from meat,
Like the hunter-gatherers that still exist today in Africa, the main source of food was
Collection of roots, fruits, tubers or in short a plant source,
Meat was (and is) only when they managed to hunt an animal or chase a predator from its prey,
In the last hundreds of years, a number of populations have developed that all their food comes from animals, of which two are known,
One is the shepherds in the African depression - Maasai and the like,
The second is the Inuit population in the far north.
Today, they also season their food with vegetable supplements.
The fashion promoters should also know that: in the Paleolithic period, those who reached the age of 40 were considered extremely old,
Various inflammations and illnesses were common and were normal phenomena among the majority of the population,
Findings show that the majority of Paleolithic people suffered from gingivitis,
The main causes of death in the Paleolithic population were infections of the respiratory systems,
Inflammations in the digestive systems and infectious diseases that affected all the important systems,
I read the "recommendations of the developer" of the Paleolithic diet and saw that he also recommends:
Collecting from nature and eating roots, tubers, leaves and insects...
It is clear that it is difficult for a resident of New York or Tel Aviv to implement the collection recommendation and therefore the loyal followers
of vanity, the Paleolithic are satisfied with meat (raw), animal fat and other food products from farm animals,
When calculating the size of the Paleolithic population relative to today's population
And the earth's carrying capacity turns out that: if "enough" people will adopt
Our globe will not be able to bear the stupid fashion of more than tens of millions,
What will happen to another seven billion?
I will only add that: in the Paleolithic period there were no people on the American continent,
These reached the "new" continent only in the last fifteen thousand years.
After all, if the American fools still want to continue the fashionable vanity...
Shame on them.

her daughter
If you are in favor of stopping eating meat, wouldn't it be better for you that only rich people eat meat?
Meat is not produced! Beef is raised, slaughtered and eaten. There is no creature here. In addition, energy-dense food will increase the price of meat so that only the rich can afford it. So with all due respect to the earth - we don't need to starve the poor even more. My recommendation for this whole issue is simple: visit a slaughterhouse, because at least half of the visitors will stop eating meat.
Poor people raise cattle on natural pasture because it is the cheapest solution.
These people will not have the money to buy mixtures of energy-rich seeds.
A point to think about: China emits the most carbon, but in China the popular meat is pork (does not increase rumination). If meat production is expensive, market forces can be allowed to lower consumption. It is also possible to increase the production of oxygen, by irrigating fodder and vegetation, thereby reducing desertification.