Livestock Overproduction: The Unnatural Truth

Are we (as humans) abusing the world around us? I’d like to talk about the overproduction of livestock in the world today and my goal is to inform the class about the environmental and social impact of the ‘livestock revolution.’ Specifically, I aim to draw attention the global livestock industry’s occupation of ¼ of the Earth’s total land and its contribution of 18% of all greenhouse gas emissions worldwide along with the associated consequences like the health effects associated with eating probiotic stuffed livestock. If countries start to adopt policies that provide incentives for better management practices of land conservation and efficient water use, it would make a huge difference environmentally and socially. The ‘livestock revolution’ has consequences to human health, the environment, and the global economy. The overproduction of livestock throughout the world has negative environmental and social consequences.

Looking into the moralistic side of things, the livestock industry seems to have no remorse for their crimes against their stock. From piling up live animals like their inanimate objects to stabbing animals with weapons, the cruelty is almost unimaginable. No living being nourishes itself. Each component of the Earth community is dependent on every other member of the community for the nourishment and assistance it needs for its own survival. However, there is a mindful way to produce and raise livestock. What is being done with regards to the velocity of the production of animal byproducts is a gross abuse of modern technology.

It is widely documented that the world currently produces sufficient food to feed every human on Earth, and the problem is one of distribution. In addition, food waste is an enormous problem, and some have estimated that roughly 33% of produced food is wasted. The scale of the problem can also be seen in land use: around ¼ of the Earth’s land is currently used for livestock farming. Since food, water and land are scarce in many parts of the world, this represents an inefficient use of resources. Meat production is highly inefficient – this is particularly true when it comes to red meat. To produce one kilogram of beef requires 25 kilograms of grain – to feed the animal – and roughly 15,000 liters of water. Pork is a little less intensive and chicken less still. Ecological law would emphasize tackling the human population growth problem itself, rather than accepting it and placing the extra burden on the ecosystem and other lives within it.  

Now, some have argued that industrial animal agriculture is the most efficient way to satisfy the demands of the growing global human population and its increasing wealth. However, ecological law might ask whether more animal products are a need or a want. For example, the human need to eat meat is very different in the far North or in extreme drought conditions than in Western urban contexts. In addition, while eating animal products is a personal choice, these choices are very often shaped and limited by the industrial food system, the laws and subsidies that support it, and the economic. Many societies—such as some indigenous peoples, hunter-gatherers, and fishing groups—have maintained balanced relationships with other species and ecosystems for generations as interdependent communities of life without captivity, cruelty, or exploitation of other species and ecosystems.

In conclusion, neither human health, animal welfare, environmental sustainability, nor human food preferences have been the driving force behind industrialization of livestock production. The transition to an industrial- animal-agriculture system was based on producing more at less cost. Livestock farming has a vast environmental footprint. It contributes to land and water degradation, biodiversity loss, acid rain, coral reef degeneration and deforestation. Nowhere is this impact more apparent than climate change – livestock farming contributes 18% of human produced greenhouse gas emissions worldwide. As our glaciers melt and our sea levels rise, maybe we should all be a little more aware of how we contribute to our planet’s demise.

Works Cited: Bouvier, Jaime. “How Cities Are Responding to the Urban Agriculture Movement with Micro-Livestock Ordinances.” Urban Lawyer, vol. 47, no. 1, Winter 2015, pp. 85–117. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=a9h&AN=110929688&site=eds-live&scope=site. Key, Nigel, and Gregoire Tallard. “Mitigating Methane Emissions from Livestock: A Global Analysis of Sectoral Policies.” Climatic Change, vol. 112, no. 2, May 2012, pp. 387–414. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0206-6. Kizeková, M., et al. “Changes in the Area of Permanent Grassland and Its Implications for the Provision of Bioenergy: Slovakia as a Case Study.” Grass & Forage Science, vol. 73, no. 1, Mar. 2018, pp. 218–232. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/gfs.12333. McLeod-Kilmurray, Heather1. “Does the Rule of Ecological Law Demand Veganism?: Ecological Law, Interspecies Justice, and the Global Food System.” Vermont Law Review, vol. 43, no. 3, Spring 2019, pp. 455–483. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=lgs&AN=137139423&site=eds-live&scope=site. Ruscheva, D. “Environmental Aspects of the Production of Food Products.” Trakia Journal of Sciences, vol. 17, no. Supplement 1, Sept. 2019, pp. 324–328. EBSCOhost, doi:10.15547/tjs.2019.s.01.053.