Global InformationEnvironmental impact of cattle information
 | It has been suggested that this article be merged into Environmental impacts of animal agriculture. (Discuss) Proposed since March 2024. |
 | This article's lead section may be too long. (March 2024) |
The production of cattle has a significant environmental impact, whether measured in terms of methane emissions, land use, consumption of water, discharge of pollutants, or eutrophication of waterways.
| Hoekstra & Hung (2003) |
Chapagain & Hoekstra (2003) |
Zimmer & Renault (2003) |
Oki et al. (2003) |
Average | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beef | 15,977 | 13,500 | 20,700 | 16,730 | |
| Pork | 5,906 | 4,600 | 5,900 | 5,470 | |
| Cheese | 5,288 | 5,290 | |||
| Poultry | 2,828 | 4,100 | 4,500 | 3,810 | |
| Eggs | 4,657 | 2,700 | 3,200 | 3,520 | |
| Rice | 2,656 | 1,400 | 3,600 | 2,550 | |
| Soybeans | 2,300 | 2,750 | 2,500 | 2,520 | |
| Wheat | 1,150 | 1,160 | 2,000 | 1,440 | |
| Maize | 450 | 710 | 1,900 | 1,020 | |
| Milk | 865 | 790 | 560 | 740 | |
| Potatoes | 160 | 105 | 130 |
| Food Types | Land Use (m2·year per 100 g protein) |
|---|---|
| Lamb and Mutton | 185
|
| Beef | 164
|
| Cheese | 41
|
| Pork | 11
|
| Poultry | 7.1
|
| Eggs | 5.7
|
| Farmed Fish | 3.7
|
| Peanuts | 3.5
|
| Peas | 3.4
|
| Tofu | 2.2
|
Significant numbers of dairy, as well as beef cattle, are confined in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), defined as "new and existing operations which stable or confine and feed or maintain for a total of 45 days or more in any 12-month period more than the number of animals specified"[3] where "[c]rops, vegetation, forage growth, or post-harvest residues are not sustained in the normal growing season over any portion of the lot or facility."[4] They may be designated as small, medium and large. Such designation of cattle CAFOs is according to cattle type (mature dairy cows, veal calves or other) and cattle numbers, but medium CAFOs are so designated only if they meet certain discharge criteria, and small CAFOs are designated only on a case-by-case basis.[5]
| Food Types | Eutrophying Emissions (g PO43-eq per 100 g protein) |
|---|---|
| Beef | 365.3
|
| Farmed Fish | 235.1
|
| Farmed Crustaceans | 227.2
|
| Cheese | 98.4
|
| Lamb and Mutton | 97.1
|
| Pork | 76.4
|
| Poultry | 48.7
|
| Eggs | 21.8
|
| Peanuts | 14.1
|
| Peas | 7.5
|
| Tofu | 6.2
|
| Food Types | Acidifying Emissions (g SO2eq per 100 g protein) |
|---|---|
| Beef | 343.6
|
| Cheese | 165.5
|
| Pork | 142.7
|
| Lamb and Mutton | 139.0
|
| Farmed Crustaceans | 133.1
|
| Poultry | 102.4
|
| Farmed Fish | 65.9
|
| Eggs | 53.7
|
| Peanuts | 22.6
|
| Peas | 8.5
|
| Tofu | 6.7
|
A CAFO that discharges pollutants is required to obtain a permit, which requires a plan to manage nutrient runoff, manure, chemicals, contaminants, and other wastewater pursuant to the US Clean Water Act.[6] The regulations involving CAFO permitting have been extensively litigated.[7]
Commonly, CAFO wastewater and manure nutrients are applied to land at agronomic rates for use by forages or crops, and it is often assumed that various constituents of wastewater and manure, e.g. organic contaminants and pathogens, will be retained, inactivated or degraded on the land with application at such rates; however, additional evidence is needed to test reliability of such assumptions.[8] Concerns raised by opponents of CAFOs have included risks of contaminated water due to feedlot runoff,[9] soil erosion, human and animal exposure to toxic chemicals, development of antibiotic resistant bacteria and an increase in E. coli contamination.[10] While research suggests some of these impacts can be mitigated by developing wastewater treatment systems[9] and planting cover crops in larger setback zones,[11] the Union of Concerned Scientists released a report in 2008 concluding that CAFOs are generally unsustainable and externalize costs.[12]
Another concern is manure, which if not well-managed, can lead to adverse environmental consequences. However, manure also is a valuable source of nutrients and organic matter when used as a fertilizer.[13] Manure was used as a fertilizer on about 6,400,000 hectares (15.8 million acres) of US cropland in 2006, with manure from cattle accounting for nearly 70% of manure applications to soybeans and about 80% or more of manure applications to corn, wheat, barley, oats and sorghum.[14] Substitution of manure for synthetic fertilizers in crop production can be environmentally significant, as between 43 and 88 megajoules of fossil fuel energy would be used per kg of nitrogen in manufacture of synthetic nitrogenous fertilizers.[15]
Grazing by cattle at low intensities can create a favourable environment for native herbs and forbs by mimicking the native grazers who they displaced; in many world regions, though, cattle are reducing biodiversity due to overgrazing.[16] 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.[17] Proper management of pastures, notably managed intensive rotational grazing and grazing at low intensities can lead to less use of fossil fuel energy, increased recapture of carbon dioxide, fewer ammonia emissions into the atmosphere, reduced soil erosion, better air quality, and less water pollution.[12]
- ^ "Virtual Water Trade" (PDF). Wasterfootprint.org. Retrieved 30 March 2015.
- ^ a b c Nemecek, T.; Poore, J. (1 June 2018). "Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers". Science. 360 (6392): 987–992. Bibcode:2018Sci...360..987P. doi:10.1126/science.aaq0216. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 29853680.
- ^ ""What is a Factory Farm?" Sustainable Table". Sustainabletable.org. Archived from the original on 5 June 2012. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
- ^ US Code of Federal Regulations 40 CFR 122
- ^ ""Regulatory Definitions of Large CAFOs, Medium CAFO, and Small CAFOs." Environmental Protection Agency Fact Sheet" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 24 September 2015. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
- ^ US Code of Federal Regulations 40 CFR 122.23, 40 CFR 122.42
- ^ Waterkeeper Alliance et al. v. EPA, 399 F.3d 486 (2nd cir 2005).National Pork Producers Council, et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 635 F. 3d 738 (5th Cir 2011).
- ^ Bradford, S. A., E. Segal, W. Zheng, Q. Wang, and S. R. Hutchins. 2008. Reuse of concentrated animal feeding operation wastewater on agricultural lands. J. Env. Qual. 37 (supplement): S97-S115.
- ^ a b Koelsch, Richard; Balvanz, Carol; George, John; Meyer, Dan; Nienaber, John; Tinker, Gene. "Applying Alternative Technologies to CAFOs: A Case Study" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 17 October 2013. Retrieved 16 January 2018.
- ^ "Ikerd, John. The Economics of CAFOs & Sustainable Alternatives". Web.missouri.edu. Archived from the original on 10 August 2014. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
- ^ "Hansen, Dave, Nelson, Jennifer and Volk, Jennifer. Setback Standards and Alternative Compliance Practices to Satisfy CAFO Requirements: An assessment for the DEF-AG group" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 May 2012. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
- ^ a b "Gurian-Sherman, Doug. CAFOs Uncovered: The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 26 January 2013. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
- ^ "Manure management". FAO. Archived from the original on 3 September 2013. Retrieved 15 October 2013.
- ^ McDonald, J. M. et al. 2009. Manure use for fertilizer and for energy. Report to Congress. USDA, AP-037. 53pp.
- ^ Shapouri, H. et al. 2002. The energy balance of corn ethanol: an update. USDA Agricultural Economic Report 814.
- ^ E.O. Wilson, The Future of Life, 2003, Vintage Books, 256 pages ISBN 0-679-76811-4
- ^ Strassman, B. I. 1987. Effects of cattle grazing and haying on wildlife conservation at National Wildlife Refuges in the United States. Environmental Mgt. 11: 35–44 .