See 1
Shelby See
Phillips
Comp 120
8 February, 2010
Environmental Activism
You sit down to a delicious, quick burger on your lunch break. The French
fries are salted. The meat is oozing with mouth-watering sauce. You lift the burger
to your lips, your taste buds tingling. Did you ever stop to think about where that
meat came from? In 1961 the world demand for meat was 71 million tons. That
amount soared to a whopping 284 million tons in 2007 (Bittman 1). With the rising
demand the industrial big businesses moved in and cattle were forced in to closer
and closer proximity for a growing profit. Today you can’t come across a cattle farm
without seeing the over stocked hordes of cattle. Bittman described these
companies as “assembly-line meat factories” that “consume enormous amounts of
energy, pollute water supplies, and generate significant greenhouse gases...” (1). The
beef industry produces harmful greenhouse gases, overgrazes cattle, and wastes
large amounts of water in the process, destroying the environment. To prevent this
devastation, there needs to be a national shift away from meat, not all together, but
less dependency on the product.
Despite the many scientific studies suggesting global environmental
disruption directly linked to the meat industry, some still believe otherwise. The
cattle industry feels that the economic benefits outweigh the health, environmental,
and other multiple risks. According to Issitt, a proponent of the American lifestyle,
See 2
the meat industry brings in billions of dollars every year, which are indispensable to
the economy. The meat industry “accounts for 15% of the United States Gross
Domestic Product” (1). This is a fair chunk of change that the country can’t due
without. What the industry doesn’t disclose to the public are the federal subsides
given each year. Subsides are the biggest problem, according to Bittman, with
addressing changes to the industry to improve the treatment of the environment.
Michael Pollan, a renowned author, reported “...farmers received about a quarter of
the roughly $20 billion in farm subsidies paid by U.S. taxpayers each year” (Glazer
1). The federal government’s behavior only encourages companies to continue
disregarding the environment as something they don’t have to worry about. When
in fact, if it weren’t for our environment there would be no beef to be had. I
understand that to get rid of this entity would hurt the American economy. That is
why I’m suggesting that we simply limit our intake of meat for the safety of all those
involved.
Another gripe about the transition to a less-meat driven society is that the
alternative is just as harmful. Some have complained, “Vegetarianism does not
automatically constitute a more ecologically friendly alternative to eating meat”
(Issitt 1). This is also true. Some organic farms do not use environmentally friendly
products, but these are small percentage. But this argument is steering you away
from all the cons of beef processing to the cons of alternative growing. The beef
industry would like you to believe that the alternative free-range farming is just as
environmentally detrimental as their industrial farming. But again, I’m not
suggesting that all beef production be halted. The process of production just needs
See 3
to be monitored. Big corporations need to be limited to animal and environmentally
friendly methods. The beef industry has spun out of control and we need to take a
deeper look into what’s going on.
The catalyst of the environmental problems is the amount of methane
expelled because numerous cattle big business insists on packing onto their land.
The University of Florida published a study showing that a half-acre is required to
graze one cow (1). On these factory farms, cattle are packed like sardines, which
cause an excess of methane gas to be released. Contrary to what many people think,
flatulence is not the culprit of this release of methane. Actually it comes from the
manure. Weeks reported, “A single dairy cow produces more than 20 tons of
manure annually...” (1). When cattle are crowded, their manure cannot be as easily
absorbed into the soil. This process allows the methane to escape from the manure
into the atmosphere in greater quantities. Methane gas emissions are now the
second largest percentage of greenhouse gases (Bittman 1). Johnson and Johnson,
brothers in the cattle industry, ran a test on their own cattle, testing the effects of
different foods on methane emissions. They found that “Ruminant livestock can
produce 250 to 500 Liters of methane per day” (2483). No wonder cattle produce
“16% of the world’s methane” every year (Mayell 2). In total, the meat industry
accounts for 15% of the greenhouse gas emission (Bittman 1). Another way to think
about the amount of pollution was explained by Bittman in terms of carbon dioxide
emissions: 2.2 pounds of beef is equivalent to driving 155 miles. This is like eating
the appropriate amount of meat every meal (up to 4 oz. per day) for 8.5 days or
driving 60 miles for about a day and a half. Both of these methods pollute the
See 4
atmosphere. Cattle are accounting for more and more pollution each year because of
their methane gas emissions.
Land pollution in the form of overgrazing is another major problem linked to
cattle farming that causes soil erosion and loss of vegetation. Overgrazing is when
the topsoil is overworked to the point that grass can no longer grow in a particular
area. A study at the University of Florida pointed out that cattle should be moved
every 12 to 24 hours to a new section (1). As the massive herds of cattle eat a
section of land, they erode the soil. Because cattle only eat the grass and do not pull
the root up also, they do not permanently harm the ecosystem. The land does,
though, need a rest period. Just like farmers rotate their crops, they should also
rotate the land on which their cattle roam. Bittman asserted, “30% of the earth’s icefree land is directly or indirectly involved in livestock production.” With all this land
being used for grazing cattle, it is important to remember that the soil can only
sustain a certain amount of livestock. Many big farm companies insist upon the
maximum cattle and therefore profit, rather than thinking of what the environment
can handle.
Meat processing is using and polluting millions of gallons of drinkable water
each year to sustain the industry. Astonishingly “more than half of all water use in
the United States is dedicated to irrigating livestock feed crop” (Ballaro 1). Whether
it is directly or indirectly, the meat industry uses too much vital water. Water is
becoming a nonrenewable resource in the sense that there is only so much fresh
water that the earth can naturally recycle. The planet has a limited supply of fresh
water springs and so much ice left on glaciers. As the Environmental Literacy
See 5
Council stated, only three percent of the water on our planet is freshwater. Of that,
two percent is locked in glaciers or icecaps, leaving one percent of useable
freshwater (1). With the cattle industry polluting much of our water resources,
water is becoming a scarcity. A writer for the National Geographic said, “Producing
eight ounces of beef requires 6,600 gallons of water” (Mayell 2). To make 100 halfpound hamburgers, it takes enough water to fill an Olympic size pool. Not to
mention the numerous fertilizers, outgoing water is contaminated with “bacteria,
hormones, nutrients, antibiotics and toxic chemicals” (Weeks 1). The water used
after meat processing is completely fowl and unusable. This water could have a
bigger purpose than just washing and preparing meat for Americans to devour.
There are so many ways this crisis could be solved. First we need to establish
that it’s not all about dollars and cents. The environment is more important to
sustain than our pocketbooks. In order to save what we have left, farmers should
practice sustainable farming methods by limiting the number of cattle per acre.
Ensuring the cattle are not crowded and therefore the methane gas is able to
dissolve naturally. The number of cattle per acre would encourage grazing rotation
and curb overgrazing. Water resources would be better managed and filtered for
sanitation. But the best thing that we can all do to help save the environment is to
reduce the amount of meat we eat. When are we going to decide that the
environment is worth saving? When are Americans going to do something about the
meat industry and the destructive path it’s paving? The repercussions of the beef
industry are too great to over look them. We need to pay attention to how our
lifestyles influence our environment.
See 6
Works Cited
Ballaro, Beverly, Nancy Sprague. “Vegetarianism Promotes Both Human and
Planetary Health.” 8 Feb 2010.
Bittman, Mark. “Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler.” The New York Times. 27 Jan. 2008. 8
Feb. 2010.
“Water.” Environmental Literacy Council. 16 Jun. 2008. 19 Feb. 2010.
Glazer, Sarah. “Slow Food Movement.” CQ Researcher. 26 Jan. 2007. 19 Feb. 2010.
Issitt, Micah, Rosalyn Carson-Dewitt. “Vegetarianism is an Unhealthy Dietary
Choice.” 8 Feb 2010.
Johnson, K.A., D.E. Johnson. “Methane emissions from cattle.” Journal of Animal
Science. 8 Feb. 2010.
Mayell, Hillary. “As Consumerism Spreads, Earth Suffers, Study Says.” National
Geographic News. 12 Jan. 2004. 8 Feb. 2010.
Sollenberger, L.E., Y.C. Newman, J.M.B. Vendramini. “General Guidelines for
managing Pastures for Dairy Cows.” University of Florida. 2009. 19 Feb. 2010.
Weeks, Jennifer. “Factory Farms.” CQ Researcher. 12 Jan. 2007. 19 Feb. 2010.