The livestock revolution - devouring the planet?
Rising affluence, particularly in some developing countries where average real incomes have doubled since the early 1960s, means that more people can afford the high-value protein that livestock products offer. As a result, global consumption of livestock products is growing faster than world population. However, this is putting natural resources, such as grazing lands, under increasing strain, particularly as in most regions there is no longer the option of expanding production onto new land. If severe degradation is to be avoided, ways must be found of increasing livestock production without further damaging the environment.
 |
| credit: FAO |
Greater pressure on grazing lands
Many of the world's rangelands are already under considerable pressure from overgrazing, a situation that recent policies have often accentuated. The best known examples come from Latin America, where deforestation and over-grazing have resulted, in part, from subsidised cattle ranching. But government policies to develop arid areas, by provision of water points, have also encouraged settlement by greater numbers of people and animals than such land can support. Similarly, the provision of feed grain for livestock during times of drought maintains animal numbers, and of course livelihoods, in the short term, but leads to longer term degradation, as the parched vegetation cannot cope with the grazing pressure from many animals, once the emergency grain stops. One proposed solution to the problem of overstocking, is to increase the costs of grazing, and charge realistic prices for water and animal health services. This would be difficult to achieve, especially on communal lands, but would encourage owners to sell their animals at a younger age, thereby reducing the build up of stock. Support for the right to land ownership could also help; currently, traditional communal rights are, in many places, being replaced with free access for all, with predictable consequences of over-use and poor maintenance. Land rights would give pastoralists much more incentive to invest in the natural resources of the rangeland.
Problems with intensive production
Intensive livestock production, for example in 'industrial' units, can also have high environmental costs. There are immediate problems of pollution, from slurry and slaughterhouse waste; rivers and groundwater can be contaminated with bacteria and nitrates from slurry dumps, land is poisoned by dumping of unmanageable quantities of organic waste, and air quality suffers from nitrate fumes. Intensive units are also criticised for being very heavy users of water and energy resources. Modern units have mechanised systems for feeding, heating and waste removal, and demand huge quantities of water for cleaning. This increases the environmental costs imposed by power production, and demands greater extraction from water tables that in many urban areas are already over-exploited. A further environmental impact of intensive systems comes from their dependence on grain, rather than pasture, to provide feed. This adds to the pressure for ecologically rich forests and rangeland to be turned over to large-scale, chemical-intensive monocropping, with all the inherent risks of erosion and degradation.
Is mixed farming the solution?
It has been suggested that mixed arable and livestock farming is the best way to meet the need for greater agricultural production, while also protecting the environment. Crop residues can be used to feed animals, and their manure in turn feeds the soil. In addition, the more varied land use found in mixed farms promotes greater bio-diversity. However, growth in production in mixed farm systems is much slower than that required by the soaring demand for animal products. Hence the solution proposed by the Food and Agriculture Organisation, of having large-scale mixed systems. Intensive arable and livestock enterprises within a larger area, such as a watershed, would be integrated, in terms of feed and manure supply. This would allow high levels of production, as enjoyed by the 'industrial units' currently found in cities and peri-urban areas, while also exploiting the environmental advantages of the mixed farm system.
Such a system might address some of the environmental problems, but would reduce the role of small-scale farmers in livestock production. The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) has therefore suggested that both environmental and poverty concerns could be addressed if small-scale, mixed farm producers were linked with large-scale processors and marketers. This, the Institute suggests, would combine the environmental and poverty alleviation benefits of small-scale livestock production, with the economies of scale and human health benefits that can be gained in larger-scale processing. If production is to meet demand, however, there will need to be greater technical and financial support for livestock productivity and health on small, mixed farms.
Making prices reflect the true costs
An alternative approach, advocated by Lester Brown in his recent book, Eco-Economy, is to incorporate environmental costs of production into prices, and thus let the market determine the way forward. In the case of livestock production, such an approach has been endorsed by an IFPRI paper 'Livestock to 2020 - The next food revolution', which states 'Policies have encouraged overstocking or deforestation by shielding producers and consumers from the true costs of environmental degradation. In high-intensity systems, the large quantities of greenhouse gases and excess levels of nutrients produced by livestock pose dangers to the environment. This pollution needs to be, but rarely is, reflected in financial costs to the producer and consumer'.
