Talk:Environmental impact of meat production/Archive 1

More Schafhirt stuff

The following two paragraphs are by Skot David Wilson, and not part of the original posting: Disclaimer Should Be Required: The following "Talk" reads like a opinionated blog, and is high in opinion and low is facts. I believe that it has no place in Wiki. If the following discourse is allowed then my objection to a rant should be a companion post. From a scientific standpoint, meat production does cost, on rough average, about a 10 to 1 loss, meaning 10 lbs of grain consumed to make a pound of beef. The fact that meat is higher in value and nutrition is not disputed, but a pound of beef will not feed as many as a ten pounds of grain. (these are rough figures-each type of grain or animal changes the equations) There is no dispute as to there being more water required, or with examples of runoff causing water quality problems. Much of the central American rainforest was lost for beef production, and with the population explosion, there would be nothing wrong with high production of animal products if waste and environmental impact were controlled and minimized, but economics and greed and mismanagement do not allow that. If our civilization grew as fast as population recently has, this would not even be an issue, and whomever wrote what follows seems to be speaking from an "anti-eco" concern standpoint blindly. At this stage, there is no factual basis to deny global warming, misuse of resources, or any number of a host of man-caused problems, and a critical eye and sense of responsibility not only for production, but consumption, is perhaps the only way to offset likely disaster we are facing if we are not more cognizant of our impact upon the earth. This ends the comments by Skot David Wilson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.5.222 (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The above paragraph expresses the view that this talk page is high in opinion and low in facts. Considerable factual content has been added on this page since that paragraph was written. The above paragraph also states, "From a scientific standpoint, meat production does cost, on rough average, about a 10 to 1 loss, meaning 10 pounds of grain consumed to make a pound of beef." Some erroneous estimates of grain use in meat production have been widely circulated. Common sources of error and of discrepancies among estimates are discussed in a CAST report (Bradford, E. et al. 1999. Animal Agriculture and Global Food Supply. Council on Agricultural Science and Technology. 92 pp.). For developed countries, the report estimated 2.6 pounds of grain per pound of beef, 3.7 for pork, 2.2 for poultry meat and 0.8 for sheep and goat meat. For developing countries, the report estimated 0.3 pounds of grain per pound of beef, 1.8 for pork, 1.6 for poultry meat and 0.3 for sheep and goat meat. However, among countries in the developed world (and among countries in the developing world), one finds variation with regard to grain use in meat production.

In the US, data of USDA 2010 Agricultural Statistics Tables 1-75, 7-66 and 8-34 provide data for 2009 on fed grain, red meat production and broiler meat production, respectively. Table 8-47 provides data for 2008 on turkey production, which can be converted to meat production using USDA data on dressing percentage and boneless turkey meat recovery from carcass. Together, these data indicate that about 3.7 pounds of grain are fed to US livestock and poultry for every pound of red meat plus broiler meat plus turkey meat produced. However, some of the fed grain is used for production of milk and eggs, rather than for meat. Consequently, for US meat-producing livestock and poultry, a 10:1 ratio overestimates grain consumption per pound of meat production by a factor greater than 2.7. Considering FAOSTAT data on global livestock numbers and considering that grain use in meat production tends to be higher in the US than in most countries, the 10:1 ratio can be inferred to be even more excessive as a global generalization. The same conclusion follows from the CAST estimates. Thus the quoted statement above, commencing with the inapt phrase "From a scientific standpoint...", presents an extreme exaggeration of grain use in meat production, whether applied to the US, the developed world in general, or the entire globe. Schafhirt (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Calculation of grain consumption for milk and egg production, based on USDA, U. Minn. and other data, together with data from the above-cited sources, leads to the estimate that grain consumption by US meat-producing animals amounts to between 2.7 and 2.9 pounds of grain per pound of meat produced. Schafhirt (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality Concerns

On the table under "Water Conservation" concerning the use of water by certain crops/meats, the average for "milk" has not been averaged, but rather the results of the studies have been added together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.184.246 (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The notion of "efficiency" employed by the anti-meat extremists is meaningless. It necessarily presumes that what farmers produce, and what people want to consume, are undifferentiated food calories. This simply isn't so. People don't want to consume undifferentiated food calories - they want to consume particular foods.

It is true that more resources go into producing a pound of beef than a pound of wheat, but so what? The two outputs not only are not nutritionally equivalent, they also aren't equivalent in the preferences of consumers, and that's what counts. To say that the extra resources that go into producing a pound of meat, vs. a pound of grain for direct human consumption, are "wasted" - inefficiently used - is akin to saying that the extra resources used to produce a Rolex, vs. a Timex, are wasted. The resources are not wasted. They are directed toward the production of something that yields more satisfaction to the consumer than what some alternate use would yield. 72.245.85.43 (talk) 08:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a couple of objections to the comment above. Firstly the notion that meat production is an inefficient means of feeding people based on the resources required to produce food is not simply proposed by "Anti-Meat Extremists". The UN FAO report entitled Livestock's Long Shadow bears out that many people who have studied food production and the degradation of resources that follows found meat to be inefficient. Secondly, in regards to a page that explores the Environmental Effects of Meat Production it is certainly not 'the preference of consumers that counts' as consumers can want anything they like, but they cannot escape the consequences of their product selections no matter how ignorant they are of their means of production. We shouldn't simply compare a pound of wheat to a pound of beef. It does provide a neat illustration of how protein produced in different ways uses different resources, it can be emphasised that much plant protein like grains and soya are then fed to beef (therein lies an inefficiency). Comparing the nutrition this simplistically is unhelpful and as no-one is suggesting we replace fields of cows with fields of wheat it's a pointless distraction. And just because one can afford a Rolex, it doesn't follow that one must feel compelled to buy one. My Casio is sufficient for telling the time and I have been able to give money to charity. Then this leads to a digression into discussions about selfishness vs selflessness which is not on topic. Dman74 (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The comment "that a pound of beef however, requires 12,000 gallons of water" is totally in correct as it assumes that every drop of water that falls onto a property ends up in beef. Very many beef cattle are totally raised on natural grasses where runoff water ends up in the sea.Cgoodwin (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The 12,000 gallons per pound figure attiributed to John Robbins is essentially the same as and is presumably based on the erroneous 100,000 liters per kg figure calculated by Pimentel, which appears just below that in the article. The error is discussed in a separate section below. Schafhirt (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I just removed an assertion from the introduction that non-factory farming is more efficient in energy terms. I'm pretty sure that is false and it was still waiting for a citation from May 2008. Barnaby dawson (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

deforestation

only briefly mentioned. certainly there should be something about its effects on the countries its actually relevant to. http://rainforests.mongabay.com/defor_index.htm

i have no idea how to use wikipedia. sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.143.103 (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

kangaroo bacteria

Can following be inserted to article

Researchers in Australia are looking into the possibilty of reducing methane from cattle and sheep by introducing digestive bacteria from kangaroo intestines into livestock

Offcourse replacing all meat by protein-crops is better, the above should be argued as a midterm solution to bridge things —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.189.98 (talk) 08:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Article quality and neutrality

I deleted a recent edit that added possibly superfluous information without integrating it properly into the article. It was obvious the citations were from finding the first thing that came up on google. I am going to try to increase the citation quality on this page. It has to start with rejecting new low quality citations, especially when the information is unneeded. Also, I think the article definitely leans away from neutrality towards being anti-cow. Gregwebs (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree the edit you reverted was needed because it was original research but what do you mean by citation quality? A source is usually reliable or not and supports a statement or not, rather than having a scale of quality from low to high. If you are going to remove content or make major changes it a good idea to gain consensus first. - Shiftchange (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so the No Original Research policy means that the reversion was good. Wikipedia's guidelines clearly states what are the highest quality sources- scientific, peer reviewed journals. I am trying to move citations of this and other pages in that direction. New edits that are based on the first google result instead of scientific, peer reviewed journals will just move the articles in the opposite direction. - Gregwebs (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

"A 2006 study at the University of Chicago concluded that a person switching from a typical American diet to a vegan diet with the same number of calories would prevent the emission of 1485 kg of carbon dioxide. The difference exceeds that of an individual switching from a Toyota Camry to the hybrid Toyota Prius, and collectively amounts to over 6% of the total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.[15]"

Is most of this emissions from transportation of meat, though? This isn't really explained. How much of a difference would it make if meat transportation were switched to electric vehicles?

ABOUT GRAZING AND LAND USE: I've removed the text that discusses forest cover increase in other regions, mainly because it's completely irrelevant to the point about Brazil, plus it implies a false equivalency -- i.e., just because forest cover is increasing in the North America, that doesn't imply it's somehow "ok" that it's decreasing (greatly) in Brazil due to conversion to grazing land. Why? For starters, they're not the same forest types! There are huge differences in terms of carbon content, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and local/regional environmental impacts. So the stuff about forest increases elsewhere is an unnecessary, irrelevant distraction. Here's a useful analogy: "Air pollution from coal burning kills hundreds of thousands of people each year in numerous countries. However, in other countries the birth rate is increasing by hundreds of thousands." Get the point, fellow wiki wonks?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.27.46 (talk) 20:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Unreferenced part of the section on benefits of free range hunting

The idea that hunting within the limits of capability of the environment is less harmful to the environment than intensive farming is not true. Any savings from free hunting are minuscule and there is hardly any species in the world, which was not driven on the edge of extinction, when being designated as a food (and money) source. Another thing is that that what we understand as intensive farming and its side effects, is not how farming should be performed in the first place. It is not common knowledge, that green house gas emissions could be reduced by hunting and fishing. If somebody proposed something like that, it would need a proper reference and signature. Atmapuri (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing forth the need for citations in this section. It is important to discuss the role of hunting in the environmental impact of meat production. So while I don't like to see uncited statements, it would be worse to simply delete this content and put nothing in its place. Maybe you can come up with some citations that show how hunting effects the environment? Certainly green-house gases associated with hunting would be a complex issue. However, it is obvious that hunting normally uses existing land and ecosystems. As long as the land is capable of replenishing the hunted population, it is also obvious that hunting does not destroy the land. Certainly we should all be ashamed of the common phenomenon of humans devastating animal populations through hunting and driving them to extinction, however there is land where hunting is well managed. Gregwebs (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I made hunting and fishing a separate section, noted potential bad consequences, and removed some (uncited) detail about good consequences. Gregwebs (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

THIS PAGE BEGS FOR NEUTRALITY TAG=

Come on, this reads straight of PETA. The whole entry reads like PROGANDA FOR Veganism. Please NPOV! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.60.106 (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If the statements are true I don't see the problem. Facts should always be elevated. But if you have any rebuttals proving there are straw man arguments in the text, then we have another discussion.

Edits to add discalimer to Livestock's Long Shadow report

These edits are still not being properly cited- the *published* article should be cited according to Wikipedias guidelines. Also, this is not a World Bank source. This is also a *much* lower quality source than the 2006 report and needs to be weighted as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregwebs (talk • contribs) 03:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

World Bank employee and World Bank are not the same. This is true. However, it still does deserve to be mentioned. So what would be your suggestion? Atmapuri (talk) 06:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Added POV Tag

I tagged this article with a POV tag for some very simple reasons. The first is this article has a significant amount causation/correlation confusion in the things it implicates as being part of meat production. Second it conflates a lot of things that are practices currently/somethings employed in meat production in all/some/few/nearly-no (Depending on the practice) countries as requisite parts of meat production. Third it has no analysis of the comparative energy efficiency and land productivity of attempting to grow things on that land that are directly human consumable in amounts that can feed the same number of people, it presupposes that every lb of animal feed grown means one lb of directly human consumable food isn't grown - this is a false assumption as much of the land that can be used for making feed is entirely unsuitable to growing things directly human consumable in anywhere near the same quantity as they can grow feed that can be fed to animals which are then fed to humans. It also doesn't even compare between different practices of raising livestock. For example concentration-farming/feed-lots of cows feeding them corn is why they have to be fed lots of antibiotics, whereas if you feed them grasses (their natural diet) they don't really need those antibiotics even on concentration.

As of right now this is a piece of vegetarianist/veganist propaganda, and harms environmental arguments by associating them with extremist BS. As an environmentalist I have a problem with dishonesty and being associated with extremists. This actually got me to login to my account for the first time in 3 or 4 years. Lordkazan (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

new information from the book Meat: A Benign Extravagance should be integrated into this article. it destroys most of the content. also see http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/06/meat-production-veganism-deforestation Lordkazan (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well said by Lordkazan. As the article now stands it is total POV. There are many regions of the world that are totally unsuitable for cropping or other ag use. These lands successfully support the rearing of sheep, cattle and goats with only the normal rainfall and no irrigation. See also: Global environment and meat production

THey removed the POV tag.Readding it.Zoravar (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Disputed: Statement Re Area that Grazing "Occupies"

The Wikipedia entry asserts that "Grazing occupies 26 percent of the earth's surface". This is equivalent to asserting that grazing occupies about 89 percent of the earth's land area. The FAO source cited for the statement indicates that grazing occupies "26 percent of the earth's terrestrial surface". However, that FAO source is based on the report by Steinfeld et al. (2006), which states "26 percent of the ice-free terrestrial surface of the planet". Omitting both "ice-free" and "terrestrial", the Wikipedia entry greatly exaggerates the extent of grazing which had been alleged by Steinfeld et al. Although Steinfeld et al. cite no information source in support of their statement, that percentage agrees with the FAOSTAT world figure for "permanent meadows and pastures", if one assumes that the earth's ice-free land area is about 132 million square kilometers. (However, see the FAOSTAT definitions pertaining to this land category, and note that not all land in this category is necessarily subject to grazing by domestic livestock, although most presumably is.) Also, reference to an area that grazing "occupies" is ambiguous, insofar as grazing actually occupies only a very small fraction of pastureland area at any one time, and may occupy a particular area quite infrequently. In addition, so that readers will not be misled, it should be noted that considerable land subject to grazing is managed for multiple uses, e.g. wildlife, watershed values and recreation, in addition to grazing, and land used for grazing commonly provides multiple values, even where not deliberately managed for multiple use. Schafhirt (talk) 03:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Disputed: Statement Re Land Degradation

The entry states that "As much as 70 % of grazing land is considered degraded due to overgrazing, compaction and erosion related to livestock activity." However, the cited source indicates that this figure pertains only to dry areas, which is the land category where such degradation is most serious. By failing to specify the land category, the Wikipedia statement exaggerates the extent of such problems. Moreover, the cited source inaccurately represents its own source, which is the report by Steinfeld et al. (2006). In the latter report, the degradation estimate (which is actually given as 73 percent), referring specifically to "rangelands in dry areas", is attributed "mostly", not entirely, to livestock activity. For the figure of 73 percent, Steinfeld et al. cite UNEP (2004), but the latter publication is not the primary source. The figure of 73 percent degradation for rangelands in dry areas was estimated under UNEP by Dregne et al. (1991. In: Desertification Control Bulletin No. 20). In that publication, Dregne et al. do not indicate how much of the degradation is attributable to grazing or other livestock activity (versus other human-related causes). They do not mention compaction in such areas, but do mention degradation of vegetation and erosion of soil. [Degradation of 70 percent of dry areas is also mentioned by Steinfeld et al., citing Dregne and Chou (1994 -sic; the paper was published in 1992). However, this figure does not represent only degradation on land subject to grazing. It includes salinization ( and to a lesser extent, waterlogging) on irrigated cropland and soil erosion on rainfed cropland in dry areas.] Schafhirt (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Dubious: Riparian Impact

The entry asserts that 80 % of stream and riparian habitats in the western US have been negatively impacted by livestock grazing. The Belsky et al. (1999. J. Soil Water Cons. 54: 419-431) paper, cited for this statement, is a secondary source, citing a USDI DEIS for this information. A different statement citing the same USDI source is that of Agouridis et al. (2005. J. Am Water Resources Assoc. 41: 591-606), which is "Researchers estimate that 80 percent of the damage incurred by streams and riparian systems in these arid environments was from grazing livestock." Are both statements correct, or has one of these secondary sources made an error in describing the identical DEIS information described more accurately by the other? If the latter, which is correct: 80 percent of the habitats, or 80 percent of the damage (which might occur in a different percentage of habitats)? All of the western US (including ungrazed forest, alpine and crop lands) or just arid environments in the western US (where grazing tends to be especially common)?

Consider that in the 1980s there were about 250 million acres of US federally administered grazing land (GAO. 1988. RCED-88-105), mostly in the west. In addition, there are about 208 million acres of census-tallied (nearly all privately owned) rangeland and pasture (including pastured cropland and pastured woodland) in the 12 western states excluding Hawaii (USDA. 2009. 2007 Census of Agriculture). Thus federal plus privately owned areas subject to grazing amount to less than 38 percent of the land area of those 12 western states, which have a total area of about 1.19 billion acres. For the 11 western states (i.e. excluding both Alaska and Hawaii) the area subject to grazing is less than 58 percent. It therefore seems unlikely that 80 percent of stream and riparian habitats in the western US have been negatively impacted by grazing. For this reason, the statement should be removed from the Wikipedia entry until either confirmed or corrected by consultation of the primary source. It would also be prudent to check the corresponding FEIS to determine whether the DEIS statement was subject to amendment after review. Schafhirt (talk) 04:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Disputed: GHG Data from Study at U. Chicago

The Wikipedia entry uncritically presents an invalid conclusion based on erroneous data and flawed analysis, from the study at University of Chigago by Eshel and Martin (2006. Earth Interactions 10, Paper No. 9). Their calculations used figures on fossil fuel energy use in beef, pork, chicken and lamb production, expressed per unit protein energy production, from Table 8.2 of Pimentel and Pimentel (1996. Food, Energy and Society). That table indicates that the data source is Pimentel et al. (1980. Science 207: 843-848). However, in the latter paper, output was expressed on a protein mass basis, and conversion to a protein energy basis by Pimentel and Pimentel (1996) involved calculation error resulting in extremely inflated ratios of fossil energy to meat protein energy in their Table 8.2. The overestimation for beef, pork and chicken is by a factor of about 1.7 if intended to be on a metabolizable energy basis or about 2.2 on a gross energy basis. [Writers of the Wikipedia entry can confirm this by checking the 1996 book and the 1980 paper and consulting Merrill and Watt (USDA Handbook No. 74) for data on metabolizable and gross energy contents of meat protein. The Merrill and Watt publication is a widely accepted source, being approved, for example, by US FDA regulations (CFR 21, sec. 101.9) as a source of energy data for certain food labeling.] The "fossil fuel energy" input figure per unit lamb protein energy production used by Eshel and Martin presents a different issue. This figure vastly overestimates a realistic magnitude and bears no apparent relation to the 1980 data, despite the Pimentels' citation of the latter as the source. In the text of Chapter 8 of Pimentel and Pimentel (1996), this same figure exactly is the feed energy input per unit lamb protein energy output calculated for a range sheep production system. As such, virtually all of it represents photosynthetically captured solar energy. Its inclusion as a fossil energy figure in the Pimentels' Table 8.2 was evidently an error. For all kinds of meat production examined, Eshel and Martin failed to partition livestock production energy input between food and non-food products. Substitutes for the non-food products of livestock would require energy use and involve greenhouse gas emissions, which must be taken into account if estimation of net energy savings and greenhouse gas emission reductions associated with reduced livestock production are to be credible. If one knows how the substitution will be done, the preferred alternative is to do a calculation accounting for the energy used in substitution. If one does not know how the substitution will be done, a credible alternative is using energy partitioning between food and non-food products. With partitioning of energy input among food and non-food products on a product mass basis, Eshel and Martin's energy use figure for beef meat, for example, is found to be inflated by a factor of at least 3.5, relative to the original 1980 data. Analogous partitioning for sheep production energy indicates that their fossil energy input figure assigned to lamb meat is inflated by a factor of approximately 21, relative to a credible figure. The extreme overestimates of fossil fuel energy use assigned to beef, pork, chicken and lamb meat production by Eshel and Martin were used by them in calculating carbon dioxide emissions that they assigned to meat production. There are also other errors and omissions in their analysis, affecting results. The cited GHG results from that paper cannot be presented responsibly without calling attention to important errors that invalidate those results. Schafhirt (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Disputed: GHG Percentage Attributed to Livestock

The Wikipedia entry uncritically presents the erroneous percentage of GHGs attributed to livestock by Goodland and Anhang. (These are the authors whom the entry calls "World-Watch researchers" .) Goodland and Anhang's figure includes carbon dioxide emission from respiration by livestock. The plant biomass C amount emitted as carbon dioxide and methane from livestock would tend to be emitted as carbon dioxide and methane (but in different proportions) by other herbivores and decomposers metabolizing the biomass in the absence of livestock. In their tally, Goodland and Anhang neglect the reduction of carbon dioxide emission from non-livestock biota that thus occurs due to livestock production. This omission would be unexceptionable if they were tallying gross emissions. However, they do not tally gross emissions, omitting (for example) carbon dioxide emission by respiration from crop plants in their total, and including, as "emissions" attributed to livestock, net photosynthetic offsets foregone due to livestock-raising. They also use a large multiplier for livestock methane and a small multiplier for other methane (for conversion to carbon dioxide equivalents). In summary, they distort methane data and arbitrarily include some source and sink terms while omitting others, to inflate the percentage of emissions that they claim is attributable to livestock. As a result, their emission percentage estimate is meaningless, and uncritically citing it is inappropriate and misleading. It is not enough simply to mention that their article is not a peer-reviewed paper. Schafhirt (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Disputed: Fossil energy:food energy 35:1 Ratio

The Wikipedia entry uncritically presents the extreme, erroneous fossil energy: food energy ratio of 35:1 for feedlot beef, which had been alleged by Horrigan et al. (2002. Env. Health Perspect. 110: 445-456). It fails to indicate that no evidence or literature citation was given by those authors in support of the ratio, It fails to note that this ratio is inconsistent with another ratio asserted as fact by Horrigan et al. It fails to present much lower, credible figures derived from research on this topic by competent persons. It gratuitously alleges that the ratio applies to "typical" feedlot husbandry, falsely making this extremely erroneous ratio appear representative.

Horrigan et al. not only present the wholly unsupported fossil energy: food energy ratio of 35:1 for feedlot beef, but elsewhere they assert the erroneous ratio of 35:1 for a fossil energy to feedlot beef protein energy ratio, citing Pimentel and Pimentel (1996). This is inconsistent, because ratios of these two kinds should tend to differ by somewhat more than a factor of 3, for the following reason. For a composite of all grades of retail beef cuts trimmed to 1/4 inch of fat, protein averages 18.24 percent and lipids average 19.24 percent (USDA Ag. Handbook 8-13, p. 48). With metabolizable energy content of 4.27 kcal per g meat protein and 9.02 kcal per g meat lipids (USDA Handbook 74), protein energy thus accounts for an average of about 31 percent of food (metabolizable) energy in retail beef.

Some other content of the paper by Horrigan et al. is problematic. Biographical data for Horrigan et al. indicate no academic credentials in agricultural or environmental sciences, and they are not known to have done research on energy use in agriculture. Checking, e.g. by comparison of the unsupported figure with data from actual studies, would be good practice, even without these considerations. Data of Cook et al. (1980. In: Handbook of Energy Utilization in Agriculture) and Heitschmidt et al. (1996. J. Anim. Sci. 74: 1395-1405) encompass a very wide variety of common calving, backgrounding and feedlot beef finishing scenarios. Production input energy:beef energy ratios estimated by these investigators are in the range of about 2.5 to 5:1 on a gross energy basis. The 5:1 figure corresponds to about 5.7:1 on a metabolizable energy basis. As an example, for spring calving with an 80 percent calf crop, followed by backgrounding of stockers, followed by 84 days of feedlot finishing, data of Heitschmidt et al. indicate a ratio (production energy input to protein-plus-fat energy output) of about 3.0:1 on a gross energy basis (equivalent to about 3.3:1 on a metabolizable food energy basis) for the beef production system that includes support of breeding stock. For the same system, except with slaughter stock in the feedlot for 126 days, their data yield a ratio of 3.0:1 on a metabolizable energy basis. The production input energy estimate took into account manufacturing, distribution and operation of vehicles and farm machinery; manufacturing, distribution and application of fertilizers and herbicides; etc. Also, the production input energy figures of Cook et al. and Heitschmidt et al. are cultural energy, which includes not only fossil energy, but also human labor energy. Beef data of Pimentel et al. (1980) would be equivalent to a ratio of about 6.4:1 on a metabolizable food energy basis. Thus an independent check of multiple sources spanning a very wide range of production scenarios provides no support for the 35:1 ratio alleged by Horrigan et al. The discrepancies are so large that there is no reason to consider their ratio credible, and there is no basis for Wikipedia writers to describe it as being applicable to "typical" feedlot husbandry. Schafhirt (talk) 04:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Dubious: Water Use Estimate for Beef

Without critical comment, the Wikipedia entry presents one of Pimentel's faulty water use estimates for beef production, based on Pimentel's erroneous estimate of 100 kg of hay and 4 kg of grain consumed per kg of beef produced. These hay and grain figures given in the Wikipedia entry do not appear in the reference cited there. Pimentel et al. (1997. Biosci. 47: 97-106) do present these hay and grain figures, for which they cite Pimentel et al. (1980. Science 207: 843-848), but in fact, careful reading (double-checked by computer searches for occurrence of "hay", "grain", "100", "4", "forage" and "concentrates" in the document) finds that the 1980 paper actually provides no support for these figures.

The error can be demonstrated by various independent calculations. A very large fraction of the total dietary intake in beef production systems generally is grazed forages. However, even if a beef production system involved no grazing and the breeding stock and slaughter cattle ate nothing but hay and grain, Pimentel's hay plus grain intake estimate would still be too high, by about a factor of 2. Expressed as corn of equivalent feeding value, the US average total feed consumption by beef cattle per unit beef cattle live mass production is about 12.5 to 13 kg/kg, according to USDA Agricultural Statistics over several years (USDA NASS. 2009. Agricultural Statistics 2009, Table 1-76). One can convert the USDA figures to a typical diet (averaged for an entire beef production system, including slaughter stock, breeding stock and replacements) and a boneless beef basis, using typical ME (ruminant-metabolizable energy) data for various feeds, e.g. 3.2, 3.0, 3.0 and 2.1 Mcal per kg DM (dry matter) for corn grain, barley grain, soymeal and numerous forages, respectively, which can be checked in a number of university, government and National Research Council publications), a boneless beef yield from unshrunk liveweight of 0.3565 (Realini et al. 2001. J. Anim. Sci. 79: 1378-1385) which is somewhat more conservative than USDA average figures, standard moisture contents of corn grain and barley grain and 12 and 9.0 percent moisture, respectively, for hay and soymeal. One obtains a figure of about 44.5 kg dry matter consumed per kg boneless beef production. This would be about 51 kg feed consumption per kg boneless beef production, if expressed as hay-plus-grain-plus-soymeal equivalent at the above-indicated moisture contents. This is slightly less than half of the figure alleged by Pimentel. For an independent check of the figure for beef in USDA (2009, Table 1-76), one will find that data from National Research Council (2000. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle) (used with reasonable assumptions about herd composition, birth rate, predation and other mortality, breeding stock replacement, diet composition, and average daily gains of replacements and slaughter stock at various growth stages) yield an estimate in good agreement with the USDA figures. In addition, Pimentel's assumption of about 1000 L of water use per kg feed production is questionable. Although many published figures for grain crops are about 1000 L per kg grain DM produced, partitioning between grain and economically valuable residues (including those feedable to beef cattle breeding stock when on maintenance diets) would reduce the water amount assignable to the grain. (Feedable grain crop residues include chaff, straw, grazable stubble and corn stover.) Forages greatly dominate overall feed consumption in complete beef cattle production systems (i.e. including breeding stock) even if the slaughter stock are finished in feedlots. In peer-reviewed research papers, most estimates of water use by forages are in the range 400 to 800 L per kg forage DM production, although some figures are higher and some are somewhat lower. For example, reviewing peer-reviewed publications on water use in irrigated and non-irrigated alfalfa production, over 88 % of data were found to be within this range. Water use per kg on an as-fed mass basis is lower than on a DM basis. One would need good statistical data based on broad, regional sampling to determine a North American on-the-ground average, but the assumption of about 1000 L per kg clearly exceeds greatly an average of published data, weighted according to the proportions of grain and hay consumed by beef cattle. Thus Pimentel's water use estimate for beef production was obtained by multiplying a questionable figure by a feed consumption figure that was overestimated by a factor of about 2. Such a problematic estimate should not be presented without critical comment in a Wikipedia entry. Schafhirt (talk) 04:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Dubious: 54:1 energy ratio and associated comments

The Wikipedia entry alleges ratios of input energy to protein output energy ranging from 4:1 to 54:1 for meat, milk and eggs, referring to these ratios as inefficiencies of production. The 54:1 ratio is of dubious validity, and the associated allusion to inefficiencies is inappropriate.

The cited 1997 press release by Segelken, reporting a presentation by Pimentel, indicates that the 54:1 ratio applies to beef production. However, citing the same 1997 presentation referred to in the press release, Pimentel and Pimentel (2003. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 78(suppl.): 660S-663S) allege a ratio of 40:1 for beef protein production. Pimentel and Pimentel (1996) had indicated a ratio of 35:1 for beef protein production, but this is the beef figure noted above (in critiquing the Eshel and Martin study) that was found to be overestimated by a factor of 1.7 (or more, depending on whether a metabolizable or gross energy basis was intended), due to a serious calculation error. Since Pimentel's 40 is higher than Pimentel's 35, but Pimentel's 35 was too high by a factor of 1.7 (or more), one may reasonably infer error in the 1997 presentation. The inference of error is further supported because of the water use estimate given for beef in the press release . This water use estimate is also given elsewhere by Pimentel, where it is found to be based partly on an erroneous feed consumption figure that was overestimated by about a factor of 2 (as shown in the section above). In ruminant livestock production, except where almost wholly based on grazing, most non-renewable energy use is commonly for production, harvesting and transportation of feed. Thus if the extremely exaggerated feed consumption figure was also used in calculating production energy use, it greatly inflated the energy ratio alleged for beef in this press release. The 54:1 ratio of input energy:protein energy output and the 40:1 ratio greatly exceed production:protein energy ratios based on data of Cook et al. (1980) and Heitschmidt et al. (1996). With all these matters considered, it seems clear that assertion of the 54:1 ratio as fact is not warranted. Moreover, the press release ratio for lamb greatly exceeds nearly all independent estimates derived from independent studies and also disagrees with the production:protein energy ratio for lamb given by Pimentel and Pimentel (2003), for which they cite the 1997 presentation purported to be described by the press release. Because these considerations cast doubt on validity of energy data found in the press release, it is inappropriate for the Wikipedia entry to assert energy data from the press release as facts and it would seem advisable to remove the Wikipedia statement regarding "eight times as much fossil fuel energy", which is based on the press release, unless the "eight times" can be shown to be supported by independent data, preferably in capably peer-reviewed papers.

The implication that the 54:1 ratio is a measure of inefficiency of production is incorrect. Note that the press release refers to energy use "from the feed through to the dinner table", although the sentence containing the 54:1 ratio refers only to production. Farm-to-fork energy input includes not only energy use assignable to agricultural production, but also energy use in processing, packaging, transportation, wholesaling, retailing, home or food service storage and cooking. Pimentel and Pimentel (2003) indicate a production energy input:beef protein energy output ratio of just 40:1, not 54:1, citing the same 1997 presentation described in the press release. This leaves one uncertain whether the 54 actually refers to energy used in production or perhaps energy used in the whole farm-to-fork system. Moreover, protein is only one of numerous valued outputs from the input energy. The exclusive focus on protein energy output ignores about 69 percent of the food energy output. Also, the non-food outputs are not represented. Many of the outputs (e.g. dietarily essential amino acids, vitamins, pharmaceuticals, leather) are highly valued (but not primarily, if at all, valued for their energy content). Even the fertilizer produced from abbatoir tankage should be recognized as an important output, insofar as between 43 and 88 MJ of fossil energy per kg nitrogen would be used in production of synthetic nitrogenous fertilizers to replace it. Since one must be uncertain whether inputs involved in the press release ratios are only for production, and since protein represents only a fraction of the useful output from production inputs, there is no apparent justification for referring to these ratios as inefficiencies of production. Schafhirt (talk) 05:02, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Rangeland Condition versus Rangeland Health

Citing Gussow (1994), the Wikipedia entry states "In the United States, 60-68 percent of the federal grazing land maintained by the US Bureau of Land Management (170 million acres) is classified in poor or fair condition." This wording makes the statement incorrect. Gussow cites GAO (1991. Rangeland Management. Comparison of Rangeland Condition Reports. GAO/RCED-91-191), which actually indicates that both the BLM and the GAO estimated that 60 percent of the classified (not the total) federal grazing land administered by the BLM was then classified as being in poor or fair condition. (For example, as of 1989, only 52 percent of BLM grazing land was classified in poor or fair condition. However, 14 percent of its land remained unclassified; i.e. 52/86 = 60 percent). GAO (1991) indicates that the 68 percent figure was estimated by the NRDC. Also, BLM grazing land in 2011 amounted to about 157 million, not 170 million acres (see http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/grazing.html). At about the time of the 1991 GAO publication, it was about 163 million acres (GAO. 1992. Rangeland Management. Profile of the Bureau of Land Management's Grazing Allotments and Permits. GAO/RCED-92-213FS).

Unless explained, the significance of the range condition class names is very likely to be misinterpreted by many readers. These names reflect ecological theory of some time ago, which idealized climax plant communities. "Fair" range condition, for example, simply means that 26 to 50 percent of a plant community represents the climax plant community (US SCS. 1976. National Range Handbook. sec. 305.5.) From most perspectives, fair range condition is not undesirable unless it occupies an excessive fraction of rangeland area. According to GAO (1991), the BLM indicated that "rangeland ranked as fair can often produce high-quality forage, wildlife cover, watershed protection, and an aesthetic landscape." From an environmentalist perspective reflecting the value of biodiversity, one would not want a large area of rangeland to be entirely in "excellent" condition, i.e. 76 to 100 percent climax vegetation. This is because having different seral stages represented, in addition to a climax community, provides a higher level of biodiversity among plant communities, which can in turn support a higher level of biodiversity with regard to other biota. (Also, with recognition of state-and-transition models in rangeland plant succession, the once-dominant Clementsian climax theory has diminished in importance among range ecologists.) Note also that there is nothing in the Wikipedia statement on this matter that explicitly identifies livestock impact.

From the standpoint of environmental impact of livestock on BLM rangeland, it is arguable that information more meaningful to most Wikipedia readers would be conveyed by some estimates of rangeland health, if it is noted that such estimates reflect soil and site stability, hydrologic function and biotic integrity. [For details of estimation criteria and procedures see National Research Council (1994. Rangeland Health. New Methods to Classify, Inventory and Monitor Rangelands. Nat. Acad. Press. 182 pp.). By the end of 2002, the BLM had evaluated rangeland health on 7,437 grazing allotments (i.e. 35 percent of its grazing allotments or 36 percent of the land area contained in its grazing allotments) and found that 16 percent of these failed to meet rangeland health standards due to existing grazing practices or levels of grazing use. This led the BLM to infer that a similar percentage would be obtained when such evaluations were completed (US BLM. 2004. Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands. FES 04-39). Schafhirt (talk) 05:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Terminology

This Wikipedia entry refers to "factory farming". This term is commonly used as a pejorative in anti-meat advocacy. Consequently, its usage may be perceived by some readers as reflecting lack of neutrality. In mainstream scientific and technical writing, where writers tend to avoid objectionable and inflammatory language, one finds usage of more neutral, descriptive terms such as "intensive livestock production", and where appropriate, "animal feeding operations" and "concentrated animal feeding operations". Schafhirt (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Livestock Contribution to US GHG Emissions

This Wikipedia entry states: "At a local level, livestock represents up to half of New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions, and nearly 20% of the total methane emissions of the United States of America". The figures pertain to national, not local levels. For the figure of nearly 20 percent of total US methane emissions, the EPA reference cited is insufficient, because it tallies only anthropogenic emissions. (Total methane emissions include those from natural wetlands, lakes, and other non-anthropogenic sources.)

The second part of the above sentence (regarding US methane emissions) could be deleted altogether. Instead, to inform readers better about the relative contribution of livestock to US emissions, the Wikipedia entry could state that livestock sources (including enteric fermentation and manure) account for about 3.1 percent of US anthropogenic GHG emissions expressed as carbon dioxide equivalents. This figure (for 2009) is from data of EPA (2011. Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990-2009. United States Environmental Protection Agency. EPA 430-R-11-005. 459 pp.). The EPA data are based on methodologies agreed to by the Conference of Parties of the UNFCCC, with 100-year global warming potentials from the IPCC Second Assessment Report used in estimating GHG emissions as carbon dioxide equivalents. Schafhirt (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Source Attribution Issues

Under the heading "Grazing and land use", one statement is prefaced by "According to the United Nations" and the following sentence commences with "The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) agrees". Elsewhere there is reference to "a 2006 report by the Livestock, Environment and Development Initiative", and a sentence commencing "In 2006 FAO estimated..." All of these actually represent the same source, i.e. the report by Steinfeld et al. (2006). The first and second attributions are particularly misleading, because they imply independent agreement from different sources.

The statement "The UN has admitted..." is inappropriate. Dr. P. Gerber, one of the co-authors of the report by Steinfeld et al. (2006), has acknowledged an error in that report. Although he is one of the FAO Livestock Policy Officers, it is misleading to describe this as an admission by the UN, despite the FAO's status as an organization within the UN.

The reference to an earlier FAO study does not cite the specific study; it cites a website that alludes to such a study. The primary source should be cited (after verifying that it contains the content for which it is credited, and that that content appears to be correct).

Incomplete references are given for Belsky et al. and for Palmquist et al.

The quotation attributed to Dr. D. Pimentel, regarding his calculation of water use in beef production, does not appear in the reference cited for it.

This entry attributes several virtual water figures to Chapagain and Hoekstra (2003). However, none of those figures appears in their paper. This entry also attributes several virtual water figures to Hoekstra and Hung (2003), but none of these figures appears in their paper.

With regard to the error in the report by Steinfeld et al. (2006), discussed by Dr. F. Mitloehner, the nature of that error was explained by Pitesky, Stackhouse and Mitloehner. The peer-reviewed reference which should be cited for this is Pitesky, M. E. et al. 2009. Clearing the air. Adv. Agron. 103: 1-40. It is appropriate to cite the Daily Telegraph's reporting that an author of the report [i.e. Dr. Gerber] acknowledged the error. However, in reference to "the original press release in which Dr. Mitloehner's assertions appeared", the "outlookseries" webpage cited is obviously not a press release, nor does it refer to one. Nothing identifying "the original press release" is presented. Schafhirt (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Authors' Funding

The Wikipedia entry mentions Mitloehner's funding sources. Some readers may suspect that this is done for anti-livestock advocacy purposes, to insinuate that funding-related bias may be involved in the finding (by Pitesky, Stackhouse and Mitloehner) of an error in the report by Steinfeld et al. However, because a co-author of that report acknowledged that Pitesky et al. were correct, bias is not an issue there. Funding sources are not identified for other authors. For example, where uncritically presenting a wholly unsupported and egregiously exaggerated figure for energy use in beef production from the paper of Horrigan et al., this Wikipedia entry does not indicate that funding for preparation of that paper came from a person who financially promotes anti-meat advocacy. Such inconsistency in identifying cited authors' funding sources contributes to perceived lack of neutrality in this Wikipedia entry. For these reasons, content referring to Mitloehner`s funding should be deleted. Schafhirt (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Virtual Water Interpretation

Virtual water data are presented with no discussion of the environmental implications of such data. In a Wikipedia entry purporting to inform regarding environmental effects, it would be appropriate to inform readers that virtual water use per kg of food production is unrelated to sustainability of water use and is often unrelated to environmental impacts of water use. For example, in a high-rainfall area, if similar soil infiltration capacity is maintained across different land uses, mm of groundwater recharge and hence sustainability of water use tends to be about the same for food crop production, meat-yielding livestock production, and saddle horse production, although virtual water use per kg of food produced is several hundred L, several thousand L, and an infinite number of L, respectively . In contrast, in some low-rainfall areas, some livestock production is more sustainable than food crop production, from a water use standpoint, despite higher virtual water use per kg of food produced. This is because unirrigated land in many water-short areas may support grassland ecosystems in perpetuity, and thus may be able to support well-managed, extensive production of grazing cattle or sheep with a sustainable level of water use, even where large-scale production of more water-demanding food crops would be unsustainable in the long run due to inadequate surface water supplies and inadequate groundwater recharge to sustain a high level of withdrawn water use for irrigation. Such considerations are important on much rangeland in western North America and elsewhere that can support cow-calf operations, backgrounding of stocker cattle, and sheep flocks.

The Wikipedia entry's juxtaposition of virtual water figures for various foods could easily lead to misinterpretation by readers, who may intuitively but wrongly infer that the higher figures for meat necessarily imply reduction of water use if food crops are produced, instead of livestock. To prevent such misunderstanding, some interpretive comment on this matter would be appropriate. For example, some grazing lands are unsuitable for food crop production, so that evapotranspirational water use would continue on land vacated by livestock, while additional water would be needed for crops to provide substituting food from lands elsewhere, and additional water would also be needed to produce substitutes for the non-food products of livestock. Consequently, in some places, the most efficient use of water for support of humans on agricultural land will involve a mosaic of food crop and livestock production, spatially influenced strongly by agricultural land capability and suitability limitations. Schafhirt (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Water and Grain

The entry states that "Animals fed on grain need more water than grain crops". The Wikipedia statement does not specify whether the water need basis is per unit mass of food produced or per unit land area or some other basis, and it fails to indicate anything about environmental impact of the water use. Such information should be added if the statement is retained.

If the writer intended to refer to water need per unit mass of food produced, the statement is incorrect. For example, if only slaughter stock are fed some grain, the water need by sheep that are fed some grain may be about 62 kg of water consumed (including consumption in feed) per kg TBRM (trimmed boneless retail meat) produced, plus about 5.5 kg per kg TBRM, representing water produced by the animals themselves during cellular respiration. In comparison, about 870 kg of water might be used in growing season evapotranspiration in wheat crop production, per kg grain produced (where grain mass is determined at standard moisture content). This example illustrates that, per kg of food produced, a grain crop needs far more water than animals do. Perhaps the writer meant to refer not to water that the animals need, but to water needed in the production system, including water needed for production of animal feed.

Relative water need will vary depending on whether need is expressed per kg of food produced or per unit land area, and will also vary with the circumstances. Environmental implications associated with relative water need will differ accordingly. For example, on a parcel of rain-fed vegetated land, comparisons of water use per kg of food produced may be environmentally unimportant, because roughly similar amounts of water will be used on that parcel, regardless of whether that rain-fed land grows natural vegetation, grain crops, or forage crops, and regardless of whether livestock are produced there. Even on irrigated land, comparisons on a food mass basis commonly have little environmental significance. (Exceptions occur in some circumstances, which should be specified if the comparisons are to be meaningful in terms of environmental implications.) Irrigation water use per unit land area (commonly expressed in mm of water per year, i.e. liters per square meter per year) is often likely to be of much greater environmental significance, notably in places where there is intense competition for surface water or concern regarding aquifer drawdown. Some idea of irrigation water use for agricultural production is indicated by the following examples: in the US, about 2 percent of land area producing livestock forage (including silage, greenchop, hay and grazed forages) is irrigated, about 14 percent of corn-for-grain land and 11 percent of soybean land, compared with 66 percent of vegetable land and 79 percent of orchard land. (These area percentages are based on data of USDA 2007 Census of Agriculture and 2007 Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey, USFS 2000 Grazing Statistical Summary, and the BLM grazing land data cited above). However, because withdrawable water supplies, irrigated area percentages and mm of irrigation for particular crops vary geographically, environmental implications of irrigation water use must commonly be assessed for individual watershed areas or individual aquifer areas. Schafhirt (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Beneficial Environmental Impacts: Omissions

This Wikipedia entry wholly ignores beneficial environmental impacts of livestock and meat production. This contributes to the entry's lack of neutrality. Among environmental benefits is conversion of materials that might otherwise be wasted, to produce high-protein food. For example, Elferink et al. (2008. J. Cleaner Prod. 16: 1227-1233) state that "Currently, 70 % of the feedstock used in the Dutch feed industry originates from the food processing industry." (The source cited for this by Elferink et al. is Agricultural-Economics Research Institute & Central Bureau of Statistics. Land- en tuinbouwcijfers 2005.) US examples of "waste" conversion with regard to grain include feeding livestock the distillers grains (with solubles) remaining from ethanol production. Considering the magnitude of US corn production for ethanol in recent years, this has great quantitative importance. Much soy meal used as livestock feed is produced from material left after extraction of the soybean oil used in foods and in production of biodiesel, soaps and industrial fatty acids. Similarly, canola meal for livestock feed is produced from material left after oil extraction (for food and biodiesel) from canola seed. Examples with regard to roughages include straw from barley and wheat crops (feedable especially to large-ruminant breeding stock when on maintenance diets), and corn stover. Also, small ruminant flocks in North America (and elsewhere) are sometimes used on fields for removal of various crop residues inedible by humans, converting them to food.

A balanced discussion would also mention environmental benefits of meat-producing small ruminants for control of specific invasive or noxious weeds (such as spotted knapweed, tansy ragwort, leafy spurge, yellow starthistle, tall larkspur, etc.) on rangeland. Small ruminants are also useful for vegetation management in forest plantations, and for clearing brush on rights-of-way, as food-producing alternatives to herbicide use. There are numerous peer-reviewed references on these uses, many of which are cited in Launchbaugh, K. (ed.) (2006. Targeted Grazing: a natural approach to vegetation management and landscape enhancement. American Sheep Industry. 199 pp.). Schafhirt (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Effects on Wildlife: Omissions

Effects on wildlife are not discussed currently in the Wikipedia entry, but may be implied by the comment regarding loss of biodiversity. Grazing (especially, overgrazing) may detrimentally affect certain wildlife species, e.g. by altering cover and food supplies. However, habitat modification by livestock grazing can also benefit some wildlife species. For example, in North America, various studies have found that grazing can sometimes improve habitat for elk (Anderson and Scherzinger. 1975. J. Range Mgt. 25: 120-125), blacktailed prairie dogs (Knowles. 1986. Great Basin Naturalist 46: 198-203), sage grouse (Neel. 1980. M.Sc. thesis, U. Nevada), mule deer (Jensen et al. 1972. J. Range Mgt. 25:346-352; Smith et al. 1979. J. Range Mgt. 32:40-45), and numerous other species. A survey of refuge managers on 123 National Wildlife Refuges in the US tallied 86 species of wildlife considered positively affected and 82 considered negatively affected by refuge cattle grazing or haying (Strassman. 1987. Environmental Mgt. 11: 35-44). Such mixed effects indicate that wildlife diversity may be enhanced and maintained by grazing livestock in some places while excluding livestock in some places. The kind of grazing system employed (e.g. rest-rotation, deferred grazing, HILF grazing) is often important in achieving grazing benefits for particular wildlife species (Holechek et al. 1982. Wildlife Soc. Bull. 10:204-210). Different effects of livestock on wildlife may also be obtained through the differences in habitat management achievable with cattle (grazers), goats (browsers/concentrate selectors), or sheep (intermediate feeders). Because conversion of forest land for grazing sometimes has adverse impacts on species at risk or other values, estimation of environmental impact is desirable where such conversion is contemplated. in some regions occupied by extensive forest, some clearing of forest land for grazing may enhance diversity, not only by providing open-area habitats preferred by certain wildlife species, but also by providing forest edge habitats, favored by other species. Schafhirt (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Efficient Use of Animal Waste: Omissions

The only "more efficient" use of animal waste mentioned in the entry is biogas production. "More efficient" than what and under what circumstances? The failure to mention other efficient uses may lead some readers to infer that animal waste is not used efficiently where biogas is not being produced. Manure deposited on pastures by grazing animals themselves is applied efficiently for maintaining soil fertility. Animal manures are also commonly collected from barns and concentrated feeding areas for efficient re-use of many nutrients in crop production, sometimes after composting. For many areas with high livestock density, manure application substantially replaces application of synthetic fertilizers on surrounding cropland. This has important implications for energy use and GHG emissions, considering that between about 43 and 88 MJ (i.e. between about 10 and 21 Mcal) of fossil fuel energy are used per kg of N in production of synthetic nitrogenous fertilizers (see estimates reviewed by Shapouri et al. 2002. USDA Agricultural Economic Report 814). The energy and economic costs associated with synthetic fertilizer use versus manure application can be weighed when considering whether biogas energy yield represents more efficient use of animal waste. With economic and energy costs of hauling being part of such assessment, biogas production may tend to be a more efficient use primarily when manure haul distances would become rather long. In most, but not all, US counties where manure production exceeds amounts agronomically usable on the originating livestock operations, cropland elsewhere within the county is sufficient for agronomic use of the excess manure (Gollehon et al. 2001. USDA Ag. Info. Bull. AIB771). Separation of solids and liquids from manure slurries yields fractions with dissimilar N:P ratios. The material with a lower N:P ratio can be used effectively in crop establishment where high P inputs are beneficial, and the material with a higher N:P ratio can be used later in crop development, avoiding unnecessary P loading of soils while meeting crop N requirements. The differences in composition thus enable manure slurry from certain intensive livestock operations to be used efficiently in some circumstances where synthetic fertilizers might otherwise be preferred. Schafhirt (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Added Disputed Tag

Disputed tag added.Schafhirt (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Water and Grain

Under the Water Resources heading, an edit has inserted the following: "However it is important to evaluate this alongside the fact that over half of the grain in the US is fed to animals.16 In conclusion, while grazing cattle may be more sustainable in some areas, grain fed cattle requires a large amount of water and hence is unsustainable when considering American aquifers are currently in decline. Additionally, only 9% of livestock worldwide is grass fed, making the overall cattle industry unsustainable with regard to water consumption.17 " The "over half" estimate with regard to grain is from a 1997 press release; it is not currently valid. USDA Agricultural Statistics 2011 indicates that in 2010, grain consumed by US livestock and poultry accounted for about 34 percent of US grain production and 40 percent of domestic grain disappearance. With grain exports taken into account and partitioned into feed grain and other grain, the data indicate that less than half of US grain production was fed to foreign and domestic livestock and poultry in 2010 (the most recent year for which wheat export data have been published in USDA Agricultural Statistics). Reference 17 in the edit is an FAO report which does not support the statement regarding unsustainability of the overall cattle industry with regard to water consumption. With regard to grain, USDA Agricultural Statistics 2011 data indicate that 91.8 percent of the grain fed to US livestock and poultry in 2010 was corn, and the most recent Census of Agriculture indicates that only 14 percent of US corn-for-grain land is irrigated. Unirrigated (rainfed) agriculture is hydrologically sustainable. Consequently, these and other irrigation statistics indicate that most of the feed consumed not only by US beef cattle, but also by US livestock and poultry overall, is produced sustainably with regard to water use. Also, while some American aquifers are currently "in decline" (i.e. undergoing depletion), some are not. (See, for example, the USGS Groundwater Atlas of the United States.) For all of the above reasons, some revision of the recent edit will be appropriate. However, such revision should acknowledge issues relating to aquifers. Schafhirt (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Livestock Farming Systems and their Environmental Impacts

See http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03016226/96/1 , http://edepot.wur.nl/138168 and http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871141309003692 According to Quest magazine, september 2009, the report says that:

• 1 kg of porc meat produced 3,9 to 10 kg CO², 8,9 to 12,1 m² of land is required (land use)
• 1 kg of beef (cattle) produced 14 to 32 kg CO², 27 to 49 m² of land is required (land use)
• 1 kg of milk produced 0,8 to 1,3 kg CO², 1,1 to 2 m² of land is required (land use)
• 1 kg of chicken meat produced 3,7 to 6,9 kg CO², 8,1 to 9,9 m² of land is required (land use)
• 1 kg of eggs produced 3,9 to 4,9 kg CO², 4,5 to 6,2 m² of land is required (land use)

A car generates 1 kg of co² per 6 km 91.182.79.223 (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Problematic Greenhouse Gas Information from the Guardian

Citing a 2008 issue of the UK's Guardian newspaper, an insert in this Wikipedia article (25 November 2012) includes "The United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organisation has estimated that meat production accounts for nearly a fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions. These are generated during the production of animal feeds, for example, while ruminants, particularly cows, emit methane, which is 23 times more effective as a global warming agent than carbon dioxide." The "nearly a fifth" sentence contains quantitatively useless information, i.e. we are not told whether this is a fifth of total tonnage of GHGs (greenhouse gases), or if instead, the intended meaning is "nearly a fifth" of GHG emissions expressed as CO₂ equivalents; if the latter, we cannot tell whether this is estimated on a 100-year basis or for some other time interval. (Because emissions associated with livestock and feed production include significant amounts of methane, nitrous oxide and carbon dioxide, which have differing atmospheric residence times, the fraction will differ greatly when calculated for different time intervals.) Moreover, we are not told whether the reference is to a fifth of total or of just anthropogenic GHG emissions. The Guardian article does not cite a specific UN source for this figure, and consequently, a Wikipedia reader will be unable to find, with certainty, the primary source used by the Guardian, in order to find out what that source really said. Moreover, even if such ambiguities are resolved, the statement appears inaccurate. The UN report "Livestock's Long Shadow" by Steinfeld et al. (2006) attributes 18 percent of anthropogenic GHG emissions , in terms of 100-year CO₂ equivalents, to the livestock (including poultry) sector. Although 18 percent is nearly a fifth, that figure is for the entire livestock sector; it does not pertain to meat production alone. If one deducts the amounts associated with livestock used for production of draft power (mostly in the developing world), wool, eggs, and dairy products, the fraction attributable to meat production is found to be lower. The statement that methane is "23 times more effective as a global warming agent than carbon dioxide" fails to tell us that this is on a 100-year basis. Also, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) 2001 estimate of 23 as the 100-year GWP for methane was superseded by its estimate of 25, published in its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007, a figure already appearing in the Wikipedia article. Is there a justification for ignoring that and using the figure of 23 in this context now? Also, there is ambiguity in the statement that "ruminants, particularly cows, emit methane". For example, if interpreted per kg of body mass, it would be appropriate to say "`... e.g. cows ...", rather than "... particularly cows ... ". Misinterpretation could be avoided by appropriate rewording. However, considering that the Wikipedia article already discussed methane emissions from ruminants more throroughly and more accurately, insertion of the problematic sentence seems superfluous. Although the Guardian is cited as a source, quotation marks are lacking around most of the content taken verbatim from the Guardian article. In contrast, in the recent Wikipedia insert, quotation marks do appear around a statement attributed to R. Pachauri, for which the Guardian article is cited. but this is misleading, because wording of this alleged quotation has been altered from that appearing in the Guardian article. For the above reasons, some deletions and other editing of the recently inserted content appear desirable. Schafhirt (talk) 19:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Methods of obtaining Meat

I understand why it is crucial that the person understands that there are multiple methods of obtaining meat, however, could someone add percentage? If (as many books suggest) Industrial Meat production is in fact over 90% of the meat being produced, it is even more crucial to mention that, so as to not confuse the reader and make it seem like it is even close to being evenly divided.

Kidsil (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Figures over 90 % do not seem credible. A CAST report indicates that more than 50 percent of the world's meat is produced on mixed crop-livestock farms, in contrast to intensive livestock production systems (Bradford. E. et al. 1999. Animal agriculture and global food supply. Task Force Report No. 135. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa. 92 pp.) In a paper titled "Livestock-Environment interactions in industrial production systems", Henning Steinfeld (Senior Officer, Livestock Planning, FAO) indicates that "industrial production" accounted for about 43 percent of global meat production in 1996. He states that in 1996, it contributed globally over half of broiler and pork production and 10 percent of beef and mutton production. Schafhirt (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Erroneous attribution of 18 percent of GHG emissions to livestock raised for meat

An edit dated 19 August 2013 states "According to a 2006 Food and Agriculture Organization report, livestock raised specifically for meat release 18 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions." No supporting citation is given for this statement. As already noted in the Wikipedia article, the 2006 FAO report of Steinfeld et al. attributes 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions (expressed as 100-year CO2 equivalents) to the livestock sector (see p. 112 of that report). Only some fraction of this is attributable to livestock raised specifically for meat. For example, examination of Tables 3.7, 3.8 and 3.12 of the report shows that enteric emissions from dairy cattle and emissions from dairy manure management are among several contributions to the 18 percent that are not associated with raising of livestock specifically for meat. Without such contributions, the figure would be less than 18 percent. Moreover, the included emissions are attributed not only to release from livestock per se, but to the entire livestock production sector, including fertilizer use in feed production, emissions associated with tillage, deforestation, processing, etc. , as indicated in detail in Chapter 3 of that report. Schafhirt (talk) 07:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Livestock vs. Meat

Seems like there's a lot of crossover in this article into the milk and egg territory - almost to the extent that this would be more aptly named "Environmental Impact of Livestock." This would align with many of the facts presented, and would prevent the need for separate articles on the relatively small topics of Environmental Impacts of Milk and Eggs. A disadvantage though would be that it might preclude hunting from being discussed in this article. Even so, milk and egg production seem far closer to meat production than hunting, to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.44.189.15 (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

To me, the article topic seems reasonably circumscribed. I don’t see a compelling reason for broadening this focused article to include all livestock impact or impact relating to all foods of animal origin. (There is already a Wikipedia article addressing environmental impacts of agriculture more broadly.) In the article’s history, the most common problem relating to a broader scope appears to have been portrayal of livestock impacts as if all were assignable to meat production. Some of the article’s statements pertaining to livestock in general are clearly applicable to meat production, and that does not represent a problem. However, a problem is caused by inserting information descriptive of livestock effects in this article when that information is not known to be descriptive of meat production effects.

Recent inclusion of a quotation from Livestock’s Long Shadow is an example. It describes the livestock sector as one of the largest sources of greenhouse gases, one of the leading causal factors in loss of biodiversity, and perhaps the leading source of water pollution. This was inserted without clarifying that those descriptions (e.g. “one of the largest”, “perhaps the leading”) do not necessarily apply to meat production. The insertion also fails to clarify that “livestock” in FAO usage includes poultry, although some usage of the term elsewhere does not. Given the article topic and context, these omissions can tend to give readers an exaggerated impression of the environmental impact of meat production. The inserted content presents some additional issues. The quotation had been slightly modified, needing a minor editorial tweak for reversion to its original form. In comparison with other article content, it was given undeserved special prominence by unique formatting, despite the fact that the quotation is not even descriptive of meat production impacts. Also, instead of conforming to the citation style used throughout the rest of the article, it used only hypertext reference to Wikipedia pages. Editorial opinion about the source was included. (Analogous comment about sources, if used generally, would unduly clutter the article. Selective use of such editorial comment for a single source in an article containing numerous highly regarded sources seems inappropriate.) Schafhirt (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Soy meal and canola meal

The article’s claims regarding soy and canola meal were recently deleted, alleging that “The statement about soy and canola get it exactly backwards, soy/canola oil are byproducts of meal production for livestock.” The deletion appears to be supported only by opinion. The deleted claim was supported by citations, and it said nothing about “byproduct”. It was “Much soy meal used as livestock feed is produced from material left after extraction of the soybean oil used in foods and in production of biodiesel, soaps and industrial fatty acids. Similarly, canola meal for livestock feed is produced from material left after oil extraction (for food and biodiesel) from canola seed.” Soy industry sources indicate that globally, soybean oil is second only to palm oil in terms of vegetable oil consumption. Whole beans can be (and are) fed to livestock (Soybeans and soybean byproducts for dairy cattle. Penn. State Co-op. Extension); crushed beans, without oil extraction, can be (and are) fed to livestock (CIGA Soybean Feed Industry Guide, 2010). Many of the smaller and mid-size plants producing soy meal do so without oil extraction, which involves a high capital cost (CIGA Soybean Feed Industry Guide, 2010). Thus extraction of the oil (which has a high metabolizable energy concentration) is not for livestock benefit. It occurs presumably because of demand and economic advantage for large-scale processors: recent US prices are about $610 per short ton of soybean oil, versus about $318 per short ton for soybeans. The meal produced after oil extraction is marketed to some extent for soy flour and protein for human consumption, in addition to being used for livestock feed. For these reasons, the deletion is not justified, and restoration of the deleted claim seems appropriate.Schafhirt (talk) 06:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)