Livestock and the environment
Demand for meat, milk and eggs is soaring, and the world's livestock sector is growing at an unprecedented rate. This puts great pressure on the global natural resource base and, as demand continues to soar, ways must be found by which livestock production can be increased without damaging the environment in which that production has to take place.
 |
| Photo credit: FAO |
Livestock are often blamed for causing environmental damage: deforestation, overgrazing, even global warming from methane emissions. But, even where there are links to livestock production, it is man's mismanagement that is the cause of the problem. Road building has opened up areas of otherwise inaccessible forest to land speculation, often induced by government schemes, and this has encouraged large scale deforestation and, subsequently, livestock ranching. Population pressure, and agricultural policies which favour cropping, have led to the loss of good pasture land. Not only does this often mean that the remaining, poorer quality grazing land is overstocked but traditional routes between dry and rainy season pasture may be blocked, further limiting farmers' options for grazing and leading to the charge that livestock are to blame.
Limiting the emission of greenhouse gases, particularly nitrous oxides and methane, is a major concern but technical solutions are available. For example, methane can be recovered from lagoons and used directly as fuel or to generate electricity. The trend to intensive production of pigs and poultry has changed the ratio of monogastrics to ruminants and this has helped to keep livestock emissions of greenhouse gases steady.
Nevertheless, livestock production, including arable land used for growing feed, is the world's largest land user. Billions of tons of waste are generated each year and, although much of this is recycled, waste poses an enormous problem.
For much of the world it is obvious that those who gain benefits from over-exploiting and degrading, or polluting, the environment have not paid the full cost. And those who preserve natural resources, or who pay the cost of conservation, gain few of the benefits. It will fall to policymakers to reverse this trend. They will meet strong opposition, not least from consumers who may be unwilling, or unable, to pay more for animal products in order to protect an environment in which they take little interest.
