Can the livestock industries that contribute the most to animal protein be truly "sustainable"?
文：Eva Fan
Source: Foodaily Daily Food (ID: foodaily)
The second article in this series, "In-Depth | In "Alternative Proteins and Aquaculture, Not optimal solutions", we took the two protein production methods that have attracted much attention at present, alternative proteins and aquaculture, as the core, and conducted an in-depth discussion on nutritional value, employment space and the relationship between industrial development and natural ecology.
In this article, we will return to the "original intention" of these two major industries - sustainable development, to analyze the thorns and challenges faced by animal protein production systems on the road to sustainability.
As the world's largest meat consumer and major pork producer, China's livestock industry (including feed production and processing) is an important part of the global social ecological blueprint. In the face of the megatrend of food production mode transformation, China has been trying to find truly sustainable ways to produce and consume protein to complete the livestock industry innovation.
With the proposal of China's "double carbon" vision in 2020, the issue of greenhouse gas emissions for animal husbandry and even agriculture as a whole has been frequently put on the table. Traditional livestock production has instantly become the bull's-eye of "environmentalist" criticism: some people have called for the old to be broken and the new, and to change to the production mode of plant-derived food; There are hopes for technological innovation to enhance the capacity advantage of the livestock industry and weaken its negative environmental impact; There are proposals to build renewable livestock production systems to alleviate the global ecological crisis... But these seemingly "no deductions" answers, is it a foolproof solution?
Highlights of this article:
1. Does the traditional animal husbandry industry, which does not perform well in carbon emission indicators, represent an equal sign with unsustainability?
2. Can scientific and technological innovation promote the rapid development of the animal husbandry industry and gradually expand the industrial income, can it dilute the increasingly severe environmental impact?
3. What are the obstacles to the beautiful vision of building a renewable livestock system, improving the climate and soil ecology?
01
Carbon emission households and the backbone of people's livelihood:
The two faces of animal husbandry
In 2006, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations released a report, Livestock's Long Shadow, which for the first time identified livestock as a major contributor to land degradation, air pollution, water pollution, overexploitation and biodiversity loss. Since then, research on the environmental impact of livestock has surged, and voices about unsustainability in the livestock industry have become more common.
Many commentators, organizations and the average consumer are beginning to see meat production as contrary to the mission and goals of global sustainability. Greenpeace, an environmental group, believes the meat industry is a driver of widespread problems such as climate change and forest fires. In order to conserve land resources and protect biodiversity, nature conservation societies such as the World Wide Fund for Nature have also been emphasizing the importance of reducing the production of meat and food of animal origin.
The animal husbandry industry that once depended on the survival of the world has become the target of public criticism, and even more has instigated the fire in it, completely pushing the entire industry to the opposite of sustainable development, trying to create the illusion that "animal husbandry and sustainable development are difficult to coexist". But in fact, the output of animal husbandry to society and to the global ecology is not only a seemingly higher carbon emission figure, but also the economic value and other positive environmental impacts that are difficult to quantify.
1. The stronger the intensification, the higher the carbon emissions?
When considering the associated impacts of ecological environment, human health and industrial development, the highly diverse characteristics of livestock systems in different countries and regions are always ignored in the discussion of sustainable issues, resulting in the global livestock industry being labeled "high carbon emissions".
The high diversity of the world's livestock systems reflects different resource endowments, demand patterns, market structures, agro-climatic conditions and government support across regions. In many countries around the world, the trend of animal husbandry intensification is becoming more and more obvious, and the scale is getting bigger and bigger. But it would be a mistake to blame production intensification for the increase in greenhouse gas emissions associated with food production.
Image source: farm4trade suite
In many cases, intensive, high-input livestock production methods emit much smaller greenhouse gas emissions per unit product than extensive, low-input production methods. Among them, the reduction of greenhouse gases in the process of cattle breeding is particularly evident. Cattle produce methane during digestion, and cow manure as fertilizer also produces nitrous oxide and methane. Therefore, herd farming is a major "contributor" to greenhouse gas emissions in the agricultural production process.
Compared with countries with a predominantly extensive agriculture, developed countries have more intensive agricultural systems and are more climate-friendly. In more intensive livestock systems, farmers replace some of the pasture with grain-based concentrated feed. Grains are more easily digested by cattle than pasture, helping to reduce the amount of methane produced during their digestion, resulting in a more desirable emission reduction effect.
Intensive beef and dairy production in Europe and North America emits lower greenhouse gas emissions per unit than other more extensive livestock systems. In sub-Saharan Africa, for example, the greenhouse gas emissions from producing 1 gallon (about 3.78 liters) of milk are almost six times higher than in North America.
Photo credit: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
A 2010 study published in the Annual Review of Animal Biosciences showed that the roll-out of intensive production systems worldwide has a high potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from livestock, both in terms of production and carbon emissions associated with land-use change. However, on the whole, livestock production patterns and their respective risks/benefits vary significantly from region to region today. It therefore seems biased to confuse intensive and extensive livestock production into the anti-sustainable camp.
2. The "dual personality" of animal husbandry
With the rapid development of the global economy and science and technology, livestock production has gradually shifted to intensification and specialization, thus becoming the main driver of environmental pollution, climate change and biodiversity loss. Among them, the most well-known environmental impact assessment indicator is carbon emissions. According to data released by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, livestock production of meat and dairy products accounts for 14.5% of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.
But it is undeniable that livestock, which bears the stigma of being "unsustainable", has been the backbone of the global economy, food supply, employment and livelihoods. In both developed and developing countries, livestock accounts for up to 40 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) in agriculture. In terms of dietary nutrition, the livestock industry provides 34% of the world's protein intake and 18% of dietary energy, as well as provides micronutrients that are not readily available in the plant-based diet. In particular, billions of people around the world rely on livestock or livestock-derived products as a basic source of income.
Many families are able to generate income by selling food and non-food products in the livestock chain in the market, such as wool harvesting in high-altitude tropical regions such as Bolivia, Peru and Nepal, which is an important source of income for local people.
Image credit: science ABC
And livestock itself is also a powerful tool for agricultural production. In western Kenya, livestock are able to provide animal power for agriculture and transportation, and nutrients for the plantation industry in the form of manure. The use of livestock manure as fertilizer can reduce fertilizer expenditure while improving soil structure and soil fertility. This is a key resource, particularly for mixed farming systems in sub-Saharan Africa.
In addition to their human health, economic and environmental roles, livestock also have important social and cultural roles. In many parts of Africa, social relations are somewhat related to livestock, and the size of a family's livestock may give it a corresponding social importance.
In developed countries, livestock farming also has considerable cultural value. Characteristic animal species often complement local natural landscapes, such as the large-scale pig industry in the Mediterranean oak forests of the Iberian Peninsula.
Iberian pigs grow in the south and southwest of Spain, similar in blood to wild boars, after thousands of years of breeding, Mediterranean unique climate and special breeding methods, so that it grows into the most noble pig breed. Known as "the world's best pork", it is a national treasure of Spain. As a result, local livestock farming has become a key element of the country's cultural system.
Image source: goodfoodyou
02
Technological innovation is not the master key to the rescue of traditional animal husbandry
For a long time, the livestock industry has faced great challenges at the sustainable level. However, as science and technology empower the animal husbandry industry to improve quality and efficiency, more and more people believe that the emergence of new technologies will play an important role in reducing the environmental impact of the industry.
Proponents of technological innovation claim that the current livestock production methods are outdated and inefficient. Technological innovations have made "sustainable meat production" possible. Cargill, one of the world's four largest grain merchants, launched the "BeefUp Sustainability" program in 2020 to reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of its North American beef supply chain by 30% by 2030, aiming to develop new technologies based on the "protein production chain" to transform the animal production industry and enhance sustainability.
Image credit: Cargill
In 2021, the Agriculture Innovation Mission for Climate, a multilateral partnership between the U.S. and UAE governments and a number of businesses, plans to invest $5 million to reduce methane emissions from herd guts through selective reproduction, feed additives and supplements, and AI monitoring. They argue that "livestock needs new technologies, products and approaches to mitigate and adapt to climate change while supporting growth and employment." ”
It is undeniable that the industrial changes brought about by technological innovation are obvious to all, but it is not a "panacea" that can make the livestock industry once and for all. The booming animal husbandry industry has a variety of production scales, different capital backgrounds, different technical forces, coupled with the two sides of the technology itself, which makes it difficult for us to deify the scientific and technological effects in the sustainable development of animal husbandry.
1. Innovative technologies are difficult to solve deep-seated structural problems
In many cases, industrial development plans formulated from the perspective of technological innovation are usually preferentially adapted to capital-intensive large farms, resulting in decentralized, small-scale production merchants not benefiting easily.
For example, the U.S. state of California has issued policy subsidies for anaerobic digesters used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from livestock and poultry manure, with plans to expand to other parts of the U.S. But small and medium-sized producers can't afford the $3-5 million cost of building digesters, and daily production can't produce enough waste, so subsidies can only be forced to limit technology to large farms. Similarly, the U.S. dairy industry has increased milk production with recombinant bovine growth hormone, milk prices have been further reduced, and the living space of small-scale dairy factories has been greatly compressed.
Anaerobic digesters to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from livestock and poultry manure
Image credit: MV Technologies
In China, the basic national conditions of more people and less land, coupled with the traditional family-based agricultural business model that has lasted for thousands of years, make today's livestock breeding industry cover a large number of individual farmers. To a certain extent, retail farming has solved many problems such as people, finances and land faced by the early development of animal husbandry, and effectively met the domestic market demand. However, with the development of economic and social development, the adaptability of small-scale farming to the social environment is becoming more and more insufficient.
The standardized production level of retail farming is not high, the ability to prevent and control the epidemic is weak, the investment capacity of environmental protection equipment is insufficient, the scale benefit of unit output is low, and the high-quality development and innovation are prominent. From the perspective of the macro environment, the red lines of national laws and policies such as environmental protection ecology and land use are becoming more and more stringent, and scattered farms built by retail households are facing unprecedented pressure on land and environmental protection policies.
Yan Peihua, a researcher at the Research Center for Urban-Rural Integration Development of South China Agricultural University, believes that in the future, the development of animal husbandry in the mainland must realize the transformation from labor-intensive quantitative growth to capital- and innovation-intensive quality and efficiency growth, and the main strategy to promote the structural reform of the supply side of animal husbandry is to achieve intensive, large-scale, efficient, standardized and ecological development of animal husbandry.
2, the surface of the bright technical buff, the actual risk
It must be acknowledged that many of the latest livestock technologies do play a positive role in enhancing production yields. But problems that arise during the application phase of certain technologies may be hindering the healthy development of the livestock industry.
First, new means of so-called productivity increases could increase the frequency of animal injuries and illnesses and hurt the expected productivity gains of practitioners. In the early stages of these technological developments, these risks are often poorly understood. For example, the bimuscular Belgian Blue Bull breed exhibits typical bimuscular characteristics due to mutations in genes that control muscle growth, greatly improving meat performance and high yield. However, this comes at the expense of high potential health risks – higher mortality, difficulty giving birth naturally, dependence on more damaging caesarean sections, etc.
Image source: CRV NZ
In addition, some innovative technologies have not yet entered the mature application period, the unknown risk is extremely high, but because of the early publication of the excellent effect claims have been wildly hyped. Over the past few decades, genetic engineering techniques for manipulating plant, animal, and microbial genetic material have received widespread attention from the international community, creating new challenges and business opportunities.
Animals that introduce foreign DNA sequences outside the gene pool of the target species into their genomes are known as transgenic animals. Compared to GMOs, gene drives (GMOs) are still a new technical concept and are still in the reliability and risk assessment phase. Gene drives are a natural phenomenon that is biased by a particular gene to the next generation. With the help of CRISPR gene editing technology known as "gene scissors", scientists have developed artificial "gene drive" systems and confirmed in yeast, fruit flies and mosquitoes that can achieve external introduction of gene multi-generational inheritance.
Gene editing can quickly obtain specific genotypes that occur naturally at low frequencies, have an effect equivalent to natural mutations, and are an important new animal breeding technology. In GDO, the original base arrangement of the genome was altered using CRISPR/Cas-9 genome editing. The changes in the genome will be passed on to the offspring of the organism, which will help to strengthen the research of livestock and poultry breeding technology.
Image source: prezi
Given the results of previous studies, gene drive technology can be used to prevent certain zoonotic diseases and even prevent epidemics that may occur in the future. For example, laboratory tests have shown that as an important vector for malaria, mosquitoes are genetically modified to greatly reduce the probability of malaria transmission. However, the potential environmental and health impacts associated with GDO release remain unclear. So far, only a few potential applications have reached the R&D stage.
03
Beyond the sustainable "renewable revolution",
Can animal husbandry be reinvented?
In the literal sense, "sustainable" means not completely depleting or destroying natural resources, being able to operate for a sustained or long period of time. Today, intensive agricultural production methods are moving towards the goal of "sustainability".
Objectively speaking, however, the sustainable strategy we are currently concerned about is more of a remedy after a helpless reality. From a longer-term perspective, if human society wants to pursue an ideal state of development, it needs to consider a new agricultural production method that transcends the current concept of sustainable development.
Image credit: cool farm tool
In the 1970s, Robert Rodale first proposed the concept of "renewable organic agriculture". "Renewable" focuses on improving the resources it uses, not destroying or depleting them. Renewable agriculture has a natural tendency to regenerate when the ecosystem is disturbed, adopts a holistic and systematic approach to agricultural production, and encourages continuous innovation to promote the healthy development of climate, society, economy and nature. Renewable organic agriculture is characterized by a tendency to closed nutrient cycles and greater biodiversity.
However, in helping the livestock industry solve environmental problems, renewable agricultural systems are beginning to be given an increasingly "omnipotent" setting, the benefits of which are being exaggerated and the complexity, uncertainty and social context of the system's construction are downplayed.
1. Lack of normative standards, everyone can call themselves "renewable"
The concept of renewable agriculture quickly spread to various sectors, especially the much-maligned livestock industry in environmental issues, which has also begun to propose the construction of a renewable livestock production system. However, due to the lack of specific indicators and the lack of a clear assessment method to ensure that they can produce the desired effect, it is easy to become a means for some enterprises to package themselves.
A survey released in March by the World Benchmarking Alliance found that only 6 percent of companies claiming to seek regenerative methods to improve soil health and agrobial biodiversity used quantitative data or set company-wide targets to justify their commitment to regeneration.
The definition of renewable agriculture adopted by General Mills, the world's sixth-largest food company, includes understanding the local environment, maintaining soil cover, minimizing soil disturbance, maximizing crop diversity, keeping ground roots alive throughout the year, and integrating livestock; But in the Global Responsibility Report 2021, General Mills also acknowledges that there are currently no indicators to assess whether suppliers are "achieving" regenerative agriculture.
Image source: General Mill
2, "renewable" transformation road, resources are the cost
Renewable livestock systems need to be built on the reuse and management of land resources. In practice, however, nearly 50 per cent of the Earth's land is considered pasture (including savannahs, savannahs, shrubs, tundra and woodlands), but the use of these lands is not necessarily linked to livestock in the long term. Some ranches are publicly managed for natural environmental protection needs or resource development, such as wildlife habitats or recreational industry developments, further limiting the land resources of renewable livestock systems.
In the United States, calls for a transition to a renewable livestock system are becoming more frequent. It is understood that there are about 100 million cows (including dairy cows) in the United States. The exact land needs of a single grazing cow depend on factors such as animal genetics, precipitation, soil and management practices, but overall each animal requires about 1 to 2 acres of pasture per month.
Image source: food tank
But for a few months each year, most of the U.S. ranch is covered in snow and the plants are dormant, drastically reducing the number of acres of land available. Therefore, taking into account the actual and renewable system conditions of animal numbers and resource preparation, it is estimated that the demand for land for 100 million cattle in the United States is about 800 million acres, that is, the average cow needs about 8 acres of land, which is roughly equivalent to the amount of land currently used by cattle in the United States, which includes farmland used to grow forage crops.
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations estimates that about 8 billion acres of farmland worldwide are used for grazing. According to a statistical report released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture this year, the global cattle inventory in 2021 is about 1 billion head, an increase of 13.2 million heads over the previous year, and if the amount of land used by "American cattle" is used as the average, it means that about 8 billion acres of grazing area are needed to have enough pasture to meet the needs of the cattle, even if all the farmland currently used for animal feed is converted to pasture, it is still not enough to feed other grazing animals, including sheep, goats, horses and buffalo. Therefore, given global land restrictions, any claim that the current number of livestock can enable renewable production systems can be misleading.
04
summary
Focusing on meat diets, protein supply and consumption, alternative proteins and sustainability, the "Rethinking Protein" series provides an in-depth discussion of the future direction of the global food system. In response to today's protein-centric discussion and controversy, we re-evaluated various popular views from another perspective and were open to others.
At present, many protein-related claims are not absolutely wrong, but often only under specific scenarios and specific conditions. But in the process of information transmission, protein claims are repeatedly simplified, and cognitive biases are eventually formed. In some news reports, the nuances of scientific research are often obscured to the point of disappearing; Unclear evidence is rife with reports, and speculation and speculation have intensified, leading to misleading conclusions and inferences about protein issues in public debate and policy discussions – over-strengthening the status of protein in the food system, viewing livestock carbon emissions as the only guide to sustainability, ignoring the specific reality of food production, weakening differences in regions around the world, and failing to consider the complexity of the entire food system.
Image source: EU40
At the end of the Politics of Protein report, the IPES expert group launched an initiative: to shift the focus from "protein" to the construction of sustainable and even renewable food systems and related policies, and to promote sustainable development in all aspects according to regional differences and local conditions (rather than just focusing on food sustainability), and more importantly, to get out of the "protein myth", re-examine the current propositions, and combine innovative approaches with the public interest in a down-to-earth manner.
The solid progress of the food industry has never been easy, but we believe that "the road is long and long, the line is coming, the line is not quitting, and the future can be expected." ”
Write at the end:
The "Re-understanding Protein" series has come to an end. But Foodaily will never stop exploring and speculating on fundamental topics in human diet, agriculture and food production. Looking to the future, perhaps our discussion of animal protein production methods, nutritional and social values, and sustainable models today still carries the limitations of our time. But only by thinking first can we have the possibility of perfecting and making progress.
It is expected that China's protein industry can more objectively and rationally examine every hot spot and every ladder to the future.
Reference material:
1.Politics of Protein：Examining Claims About Livestock, Fish,‘Alternative Proteins’ and Sustainability. IPES-Food, 2022.04..
2. Addressing Climate Change: Is the Industrial Agricultural Model Technological Innovation or a Dead End? China Dialogue Ocean, December 21, 2015
3. Wasted Wealth: A Global Economic Review on Livestock. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, February 2007
4.Give a Man a Fishpond: Modeling the Impacts of Aquaculture in the Rural Economy. Mateusz Filipski , Ben Belton. World Development, 2018.10.01
5. Promote the transformation and upgrading of animal husbandry with supply-side structural reform. Guangming Daily, November 15, 2019
6.The EU not ready for the release of Gene drive organisms into the environment. Pensoft Publishers. 2020.05.07
Cover image source: foodtank