Are cows bad for the planet? Beware of simple questions, and even simpler answers!
The debate about the GHG emission targets for Irish agriculture over the summer, would have you thinking that cows and cattle are the single greatest threat to the planet’s survival. Extreme views reported in Irish and international media coverage even suggested all animal farming must be eliminated in favour of lab or plant-based alternatives, for your health and that of the planet.
Of course, this is outrageously oversimplistic. It is worth reminding ourselves that the biggest global emitter is the energy sector, specifically fossil fuel use in industry, transportation and buildings.
But we must also recognise that ruminant livestock and their methane emissions are not more benign or less relevant than other GHGs, or that we are justified in continuing to produce animal protein and other foods as we have always done.
Confused consumers trying to do their best for the planet and their family’s health, and farmers quietly working at addressing their systems’ sustainability deserve better. This month, without shying away from some of the less palatable realities, we try to point to some of the poorly reported, understood or misrepresented studies and other fallacies which have been poisoning the debate on farming and climate.
Don’t beef and dairy use more resources than plant-based foods?
Water
Poore and Nemecek, in their 2018 major science literature review titled “Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers” show that freshwater withdrawals in litres per kilo of beef and cheese are far greater than those of many crops – though nuts such as those used to produce dairy alternatives are also poor performers. But those results are based on the average performances of vastly different production systems.
Fresh water or “blue water” is the water used in agricultural production which requires abstraction from water bodies or aquifers to irrigate crops, including those used for animal feed. However, “green water” or rain accounts for most water used to keep livestock in pasture systems such as Ireland’s. The study points to these big efficiency differences between producers, systems, geographies, and even between individual farms within regions. Speaking not just of water extraction, but of all resource use of different food products, Poore and Nemecek state “For many products, impacts (as reported in their review) are skewed by producers with particularly high impacts”.
In 2018, a study by Teagasc and UCD researchers titled “Water footprinting of pasture-based farms, beef and sheep” concluded that green water accounted for 98% of water use for beef and 99.5% for sheep, per kilo of carcase weight. The paper emphasised that the performance depends on the farm’s intensity and its reliance on certain feed ingredients which may require more blue water than grazed or silage grass.
A study carried out by Cranfield University for Bord Bia in 2012 also looked at water footprinting for Irish meat and dairy products. Across levels of yields, intensification and production systems for dairy and beef, it came to similar conclusions: green water accounts for over 98.6% in all dairy systems, and over 99.5% in all beef production systems.
Land
Around 10,000 years ago the move from hunting and foraging towards agriculture to feed a growing population has, over the centuries preceding the start of climate change, required reclaiming land from wilderness. Currently, livestock production takes up 80% of global agricultural land for fodder or feed – which itself accounts for 50% of the world’s habitable land – providing only 20% of the world supply of calories.
Data collected through the Poore and Nemecek study we reference several times in this newsletter shows just how out of proportion livestock products seem relative to the land use of other foods per 1000 calories (see graph below)
Many question the use of land to grow feed for animals, when it could be used to produce plant-based food for humans. However, this assumes that any land has the potential to grow any crop, and that is simply not the case.
Marginal land unsuitable to grow food crops is often used for extensive livestock grazing. Some land used for grazing, including in Ireland, may be theoretically capable to be used for crops, but at a probable land use change cost to hedgerows and other carbon sink features of the existing livestock farms. There is a strong argument that the relatively extensive grazing systems pursued by livestock farmers in Ireland are making the most sustainable use of the land available.
Exploring these issues in some detail, a scientific article titled “sustainability of ruminant livestock production in Ireland” published by Teagasc in 2021, “sets out the rationale that ruminant production systems based largely on a grazed grass diet are more sustainable food production systems than systems that import a large proportion of the animals’ diet onto the farm in the form of concentrate feed, when taken in the context of land quality and the opportunities for alternative land use.”
It seems unfair to equate pastoral systems established centuries before greenhouse gas emissions went out of kilter, such as that prevailing in Ireland, and recently deforested land in Asia or South America utilised to grow soy for animal feed or palm oil for hyper processed foods.
Don’t animal-based foods emit way more GHG than crop-based foods?
It is not possible to produce food without emitting carbon. However, different production systems perform very differently, and farming has substantial scope for mitigation and carbon capture.
The Poore and Nemecek review delves into these systems differences. Yes, meat are big emitters, but a bar of chocolate made from cocoa produced through deforestation emits more than a portion of beef from a sustainable system. Conversely, a portion of soy-based tofu, the highest emitting plant-based food, still emits less than animal proteins produced through any system.
There is no denying the significant impact of livestock, but this shows that sustainable production systems – and there is plenty evidence that the Irish grass based system is one of those – perform much better.
Isn’t vegetable protein just as good as animal protein?
The debate around nutrition from an exclusively plant-based diet has tended to focus on nutrients and vitamins like B12 which omnivores or vegetarians can source from meat, dairy or fish, but which vegans need to secure through supplementation.
Proteins essential to the human diet can be sourced from plants as well as animals, and some plant-based foods may have the same or higher protein contents as meat, dairy or fish per gramme.
However, plant proteins tend to be less bioavailable and digestible, so that you may have to consume much larger amounts of peas or beans than beef or yoghurt. This is because while protein are made from the same amino acids, the sequence and structure in plant based versus animal based products are different. And they are also significant differences in the proteins of different plants, as explained in this article by registered dietician Adria Porta.
Isn’t eating red meat terribly bad for you?
The belief that red meat should not be consumed at all which has taken hold among some commentators came from the latest Global Burden of Disease study published in the Lancet in 2019. Astonishing many experts, it multiplied by 36 the estimate of deaths attributable to unprocessed red meat consumption it had previously reported in 2017. Scientists challenged the 2019 report for its failure to clarify how it came to its conclusions and for the methodologies it used. The challengers included Prof. Alice Stanton of the School of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences of the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. In this paper, also published in the Lancet last February, they challenged among other things the zero consumption advice which ignores the well-established nutritional value of moderate meat consumption. 
Most of all, they urge the authors to publish their “new or updated reviews and meta-analyses pertaining to all dietary risks” so that they may be subjected to “comprehensive independent peer review” and in the meantime, they recommend against any use of GBD 2019 in any national or international policy or regulatory decisions.
In 2015, a study from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) linked red and processed meat consumption with an increased risk of colorectal cancer. However, when challenged, the IARC published its full findings, which showed the weakness of the link. WHO responded in the media to reassure the public that moderate meat consumption could be part of a healthy, balanced diet.
Don’t cattle emit more GHG than cars?
In 2006, the UN FAO produced a study titled “Livestock’s Long Shadow”, which continues to be quoted to this day. In it, comparisons were made between the lifecycle emissions of livestock (i.e. including all inputs) calculated at 18% of total global emissions, and the direct only emissions of transport (i.e. emissions from exhausts only, no reference to manufacture or infrastructure maintenance), at 14%. The conclusion was that livestock (all livestock, not just cattle) was more damaging to climate than all forms of transport combined.
However, the study was clearly comparing apples and oranges, and was eventually corrected by one of its lead authors, Henning Steinfeld. Furthermore, the IPCC did a comparison of direct only emission for both sectors, and came up with 14% for transport, and 5% for livestock.
But old fallacies die hard, and any hasty Google search will throw up the discredited comparison, and it continues to be confidently repeated as solid fact by poorly informed or biased commentators. It is also a substantial part of the basis for the assertion that the best thing you can do to protect the planet is to stop eating meat and dairy.
Should we just do away with animal farming to save the planet?
Proponents of regenerative agriculture have pointed out that livestock plays an intrinsic role in maintaining and growing organic matter in soils, which is crucial in optimising its carbon sequestration capacity. In certain grazing systems it also allows for selective grazing which can protect and promote biodiversity and maintain or restore ecosystems – e.g. the Burren winterage system.
Livestock also play a crucial role in producing manure to replace chemical fertiliser in a circular bioeconomy to grow sustainably the very crops which those who would argue against livestock are keen to see prioritised.
There is no sustainable, healthy agricultural environment capable of providing world populations’ food security which does not feature livestock. Globally, around 1 billion people living on grazing ecosystems depend on livestock for their livelihoods.
Dr Richard Teague and Prof Urs Kreuter of Texas A&M University develop those points in their 2020 article titled “Managing grazing to restore soil health, ecosystem function and ecosystem services”.
Question all headlines!
This newsletter only scratches the surface, and its sole aim is to urge readers to question headlines. When it comes to polarised debates such as agriculture and climate, scientific papers and reviews are frequently lazily or deliberately misrepresented, or at least over simplified, in the mainstream media. A good example: a 2018 Guardian article purporting to report the Poore and Nemecek review and titled “Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth” was diplomatically judged by a group of scientists as “imprecise and unclear”, and the scientists also agreed that the claim in the title is not actually supported by the study.
As a consumer, and someone who feels a strong affinity to farmers and food producers – they feed me three times a day – I believe we owe it to both consumers and farmers to represent fairly the diversity of production systems and the differences in their climate and environmental impacts. This is essential to allow consumers make the best-informed choices for their health and that of the planet, and to help farmers continue to produce quality food more sustainably while reducing emissions.
© Catherine Lascurettes, Cúl Dara Consultancy
