Should the world go vegetarian? Scientists say “no”

American Society of Animal Science Board of Directors  |  Updated: 08/31/2012

 Resize text        

Official statement from the American Society of Animal Science Board of Directors:

Limiting animal agriculture is not a healthy, sustainable way to save water. In a recent paper, the Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI) recommends that the world population save water by reducing the consumption of animal products by 75 percent. This recommendation is based on flawed data.

Meat, milk and eggs are important sources of protein and other nutrients. Apart from dietary necessity, animal agriculture also promotes environmental sustainability and the quality of cropland through the use of manure as a soil nutrient and pastures and rangelands through grazing.

The SIWI paper assumes that livestock are raised on land where rainfall could water crops instead. In reality, much of the land used for livestock grazing is too hilly or dry to support crops. According to Dr. Steve Washburn, animal science professor and extension specialist at North Carolina State University, grazing animals on pasture allows farmers to make the most of marginal land.

Data from the USDA Economic Research Service show that in 2007, less than nine percent of pastureland was productive enough to be classified as cropland. In countries like Ireland and New Zealand, even more farmers rely on non-crop land for livestock grazing.

Many farmers have good reasons when they do raise livestock on cropland.

“It is part of a rotation so you are not continually cropping the same crop on the same land,” Washburn said.

Rotating animals between fields helps protect crop health. Manure from grazing animals also improves soil quality. Dr. Jude Capper, an adjunct professor of animal sciences at Washington State University and independent sustainability consultant, disagrees with the SIWI report. Capper said raising fewer animals would make it harder to fertilize crops.

“The fewer animals we have, the less fertilizer we have,” said Capper.

Management of livestock and crops in a sustainable, responsible fashion means more food for the growing world population.

There are many ways to save water in agriculture. Scientists today are working to reduce food wastage and develop more drought-tolerant crops. Reducing water use is vital, but the world cannot afford to go without animal agriculture.


Related Articles

The 21st vegetarian stamp

The case of the meat-eating vegetarians

Three percent of Americans are vegetarian

Becoming vegetarian "can harm the environment"

Sponsored Links

Comments (9) Leave a comment 

Name
e-Mail (required)
Location

Comment:

characters left

Tom    
Milwaukee, WI  |  August, 31, 2012 at 02:49 PM

The pasture land taken up by the pastures free-range-raised food animals is NOT the issue!

If all food animals were raised outside on pastures that provided their food, there would be very few problems with raising food animals.

The problem is that most of the cropland in the developed world goes to feed food animals. Many of these animals are raised in factory farms where they are locked in tiny cages and fed food from conveyor belts, food that is grown on that cropland.

Such factory farms, and the huge amount of crops -- and irrigation water -- that are needed to support them, are necessary because the peoples of developed nations by and large consume an unsustainably large amount of meat in their diets.

If the developed world did reduce their consumption of meat to sustainable levels (perhaps 75 percent is a good figure), then perhaps factory farms could be eliminated and all food animals could in fact be kept on pastureland that is unfit for crops, or kept on cropland as part of the crop rotation cycle, as this article suggests.

But to state that we are there now, as the article does, is pure fantasy.

averageman    
USA  |  August, 31, 2012 at 05:27 PM

"(perhaps 75 percent is a good figure),"
You made that up.
You are making the rest up too.
How about some credible sources.

JC    
August, 31, 2012 at 06:53 PM

"As environmental science has advanced, it has become apparent that the human appetite for animal flesh is a driving force behind virtually every major category of environmental damage now threatening the human future: deforestation, erosion, fresh water scarcity, air and water pollution, climate change, biodiversity loss, social injustice, the destabilization of communities, and the spread of disease." Worldwatch Institute, "Is Meat Sustainable?"

"The livestock sector emerges as one of the top contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. The findings of this report suggest that it should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity. Livestock’s contribution to environmental problems is on a massive scale and its potential contribution to their solution is equally large. The impact is so significant that it needs to be addressed with urgency." UN Food and Agricultural Organization's report "Livestock's Long Shadow"

“If every American skipped one meal of chicken per week and substituted vegetables and grains... the carbon dioxide savings would be the same as taking more than half a million cars off of U.S. roads.” Environmental Defense Fund

Why would someone choose to be vegan? To slow global warming for one! Here are two uplifting videos to help everyone understand why so many people are making this life affirming choice: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKr4HZ7ukSE and http://www.veganvideo.org

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." ~ Albert Einstein

Bea Elliott    
Florida  |  August, 31, 2012 at 09:35 PM

That these are the conclusions of an "animal science professor and extension specialist" --- What a surprise!

Neglected crops and ignored nutritional sources might begin with quinoa and amaranth. Extremely drought hardy as
well. But please, please! Let's not start growing these as yet another source to fatten livestock with!

maxine    
SD  |  September, 02, 2012 at 08:26 PM

At least as 'not surprising' is the conclusion by the activist groups claiming their own 'sources' for numbers are accurate and an indictment of eating meat!

You anti-meat activists make so many claims that we who are actively raising food animals on native grass pastures, many in arid lands in places of extreme heat and cold, the 'Great American Desert', KNOW that there are huge numbers of cattle, sheep, and other animals raised in similar conditions. Some of us even have educations and understand how 'facts' can be manipulated, even manufactured.

Why is it you never state how much meat is consumed by people, only that the amount must be reduced, or eliminated? Really, around two ounces of meat per day for adults is NOT over-consumption other than in the minds of vegans!!!

Eric    
Missouri  |  September, 03, 2012 at 05:01 PM

Hitler was a vegetarian, and highly critical of meat eaters.

michael    
kansas  |  September, 04, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Woohoo! The vegan Troll avalanche of sanctimonious, logic-free spitting and drooling hate has arrived. The volume of cultists hailing from centers of food production like downtown Milwaukee and somewhere in Florida who share wisdom like that from noted farming & food expert Albert Einstein (and Bea Elliot - sad and negelected amaranth expert) is giggle worthy. It is truly pathetic to see what I would hope are people with good intentions, so deeply immersed in pseudo-religious echo chambers of group-think. Please seek help and free yourselves from this slavish, ill-informed obsession.
Oh, and to Eric - while it's true Hitler was a radical veg too, he's such an over-used example. Here's some others of comparable value: Charles Manson, Pol Pot, Jim Jones and one that surprised me - Genghis Khan. They all had great thought-free cultish followers too.

Dave    
Ontario  |  September, 04, 2012 at 07:07 PM

Michael, I enjoyed your comments. I subscribe to the CattleNetwork daily emails and read a majority of the articles. I often shake my head, as you probably do, as I read these comments below the article. Who are these people that clearly have no interest in animal agriculture trying to convince? I don't go onto vegan websites and try and heckle the vegan extremists into eating a steak. Does anyone think that if I went onto a vegan blog and started stateing actual scientific fact about the health benefits of meat and talking about my farm and how we've completed environmental farm plans for our cattle farm and explaining the details of our animal husbandry, that any single vegan is going to say to themselves, 'ah man I've totally been brain washed by HSUS and PETA, even donated some money to there cause and I've been spewing this garbage to all my friends this whole time even though I had never been out of my town house and only listened to Sir Paul McCartney and all the other vegan celebs that don't know anything first hand about animal agriculture except what some other anti ag extremist has told them. I'm totally going to come to my senses and add meat back into my balanced diet. ' Probably not, so I'm going to go out on a limb and say anyone legitmately subscribing to the CATTLENETWORK isn't going to take even a second to give any weight to anything you (Bea Elliott, JC, Tom) vegans or anti ag nuts have to say! Farmers Feed Cities! Try not to forget that!

Tobias    
Norway  |  September, 12, 2012 at 02:27 AM

Averageman: you made that up without reading the article that was being commented, does meat make you more stupid?