2002 242 million tons of meat were produced. Only for Switzerland,
this
figure amounts to 600’000 tons.[1]
In Switzerland, the quantative consumption of meat
has already surpassed the one of bread (this
has probably happened in other countries as well).[2] This fact has enormous
ecological as well as
economical consequences worldwide.
Unfortunately, these consequences do not receive much attention.
Liquid manure causes dying of forests
The latest scientific research indicates clearly that today’s mass
keeping of livestock is one of the main causes of the dying of forests.
Biologist Dr. Hans Mohr[3]
states in «Spektrum der Wissenschaft»
of January 1994:
«An essential insight gained by ten years of research
on forest damage
is that atmospheric amounts of nitrogen and especially ammonium[4]
nitrogen, which first of all stems from agriculture, must be reduced.
[...] The disposal of the steadily increasing quantity of liquid manure
and human excrements remains the cardinal problem.»
Emmissions of ammonia from agriculture stem to about 90% from
liquid manure and dung.[5]
Nowadays, human excrements are for the most part being disposed of by
sewage plants; animal excrements, however, are still being poured
respectively sprayed onto the fields. The result of this is that
nitrogen (N) in the form of ammonia (NH3),
which is today considered to be mainly responsible for the dying of
forests, is being caused to 85% by the emissions of livestock.[6]
Nitrogen, actually an essential nutrient for meadows, forests and life
in the water, can lead to over-fertilization if available in excess.
This was noticed too late because forests would first grow faster with
high nitrogen supply and react with first damages only when the soil
was over-saturated with nitrogen.
In 1992, the research committee of the German Bundestag on the topic
«Preservation of earth atmosphere» reached the same
conclusion.
Regarding ammonia (NH3), they published in «Climatic
changes threaten national development»:
«The NH3-emissions are nationally (FRG),
continentally (Western Europe) and globally to be assigned to 90% to
agriculture and to 80% to the keeping of livestock. 528’000 tons of NH3
are emitted annually in the Federal Republic of Germany. Ammonia is
found and starts in the stable area, on the pasture as well as when
storing and bringing out organic fertilizer. [...] Ammonia and nitrogen
release could be decreased by reducing the number of livestock, changes
in feeding and reduction of bringing out liquid manure. [...] This
would be desirable not only in ecological, but also in economical
respects.»[8]
To get a picture of economical consequences of the dying of forests,
these consequences were calculated taking as an example the Swiss
resort of Davos[9]:
Partial deforestation of local forests would therefore cause appr. SFr.
267 mio. of resulting costs, a complete deforestation would cost appr.
SFr. 508 mio. Even if all steeper areas of forest would have to be
replaced by avalanche barriers, it would cause costs of SFr. 415 mio.
Destruction of water
Ammonia does not only
have terrible consequences for forests, but als for water.
Over-fertilization causes among other things an unnatural growth of
algae, which in turn extract oxygen from the water. Animal-factories,
which nowadays work independent of soil, produce such an amount of
liquid manure that ground water is being seriously threatened.[10]
For example, the Swiss lake of Sempach as well as the lake of Baldegg
are given artificial respiration with a huge oxygen blower. About 50%
of water pollution in Europe is caused by mass keeping of livestock.
Nitrate from agriculture has already today penetrated so deep into the
ground water that some of the mineral water labels no longer comply
with guiding values for drinking water.[11] In the USA, the share of agriculture on water
pollution is already bigger than all cities and industries together![12]
Over-acidification of the soil
Cattle pastures already cover one third of
the land mass of this planet.[16] Worldwatch Institute
Ammonia and nitrogen oxide (NOX)
contribute substantially to over-acidification of the soil. This
happened to such an extent in Holland already in 1989 that the
department had to take on the problem. Results of the Dutch Institute
for Health and Protection of the Environment[13]:
«Nitrate from liquid manure being released as ammonia into the
air is
an environmental poison which causes so-called acid rain and other
deposits containing acid. In Holland, most part of the precipitation
comes from ammonia gases out of cow barns - they cause more damage to
the country than all of the automobiles and factories.»
Hothouse effect
Up until now, mainly traffic
and industry have been held responsible for the hothouse effect. The
influence of agricultural keeping of livestock has also been neglected
for a long time in this respect. The head of the Wuppertal-Institute
for Climate, Environment and Energy, Ernst U. v. Weizäcker
comments on
this: «The contributions of cattle breeding to the hothouse
effect are
about the same as for the total of automobile traffic, if we take into
consideration clearing of forests for cattle and for fodder. [...] And
the transformation from savannas into deserts, the erosion of mountain
areas, the excessive need of water for cattle, the gigantic need of
energy for keeping fattening animals are only further reasons for our
taking a lot out of our environment with each pound of beef.»[14]
Since 1970 more than 20 million hectares
(1 hectare = 2.47 acres) of tropical forests have been changed into
pastures for cattles. Worldwatch Institute
Among other things, the hothouse effect is caused by the three gases of
methane, carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide. All three of them originate
in the agicultural keeping of livestock in big numbers. 12% of methane
gas emissions are caused only by the 1.3 billion cattle kept worldwide.
Breeding of livestock causes 115 mio. tons (115’000’000’000 kg) of
methane gas yearly. This gets even more critical if one considers that
one molecule of methane contributes 25 times more to the hothouse
effect than one molecule of carbon dioxide.[15]
Waste of resources
Consumers who are responsible for the production of meat are also
mainly responsible for wasteful use of resources. On the same piece of
land that is needed to produce one kilogram of meat, one could harvest
200 kg of tomatoes or 160 kg of potatoes in the same period of time. In
Switzerland, approximately 67% of productive land are being used for
keeping livestock and growing fodder.
Approximately 100 liters of water are needed to grow 1 kg of grain, the
production of 1 kg of meat, however, takes 2’000 to 3’000 liters of
water.
One piece of land can produce the
following quantities of foodstuff: [17]
Cherries 1’000 kg Carrots 6’000 kg Apples 4’000 kg
Beef 50 kg
Waste of foodstuff
One needs 7 to 16 kg of grain or soya beans to produce 1 kg of meat.
This can easily be defined as one of the most effective ways to waste
foodstuff. This artificial extension of the foodchain due to the
transformation from grain into meat causes, among other things, 90% of
protein, 99% of carbo- hydrates and 100% of fibre to be lost. In
addition to this, only a small portion of the body of a slaughtered
animal consists of the actually desired meat. Only 35% of the weight of
a cattle or 39% of a calf (without bones).[18]
Nevertheless, in Switzerland 57% of the grain are still being fed to
animals (1990). In the USA, 80% of the grain harvest are being fed to
about 8 billion slaughter animals. Regarding soya beans, this amounts
to even 90% worldwide.[19]
About half of the worldwide produced grain is being fed to animals in
order to eat their meat. If e.g. Americans would eat 10% less meat, the
quantity of the grain thus saved could save about one billion people
from starvation. About 1’200’000 tons of concentrated feed are being
fed to livestock in Switzerland only, mostly grain. Switzerland can
afford this waste, however, it hardly looks any better with developing
countries: As FAO reports, in 1981 75% of the grain imports into the
Third World were used for fodder. But also domestic cultivation of
foodstuff is competing with worldwide cultivation of fodder: In Egypt
e.g., over the last 25 years, cultivation of corn as fodder has taken
over fields that used to produce wheat, rice and millet as staple food.
The margin of grain used for fodder has increased from 10% to 36%.[20]
A similar thing happened to other countries that increased their meat
consumption. During 1950, 170 kg of grain per head were adequate to
nourish the population of Taiwan. Until 1990, meat as well as egg
consumption had multiplied sixfold. Grain requirement per head has
increased to 390 kg because of this extension of the food chain. Taiwan
can only meet this rising demand by imports, despite steadily
increasing harvests. While Taiwan was exporting grain in 1950, in 1990
it had to import its needed quantity from abroad, mostly as fodder.[21]
Similar numbers apply to the former Soviet Union: Meat consumption has
tripled since 1950, the demand for fodder has quadrupled. In 1990 the
cattle of the former Soviet Union consumed three times as much grain as
the people. Imports of grain used as fodder reflect this: They
increased from almost zero in 1970 to 25 million tons per year in 1990.
The Soviet Union became the world’s second largest importer of fodder.
Effects on health
A vegetarian diet is not only possible, but also very healthy.
Through
the extension of the food chain by feeding plantlike foodstuff first to
animals and then eating their meat, there is another disadvantage:
pesticides, heavy metals and other poisons contained in the fodder add
up in the animal’s body. This causes e.g. contents of pesticides in
meat to be 14 times higher than in plantlike foodstuff, the contents of
the pesticides in dairy products to be 5.5 times higher. Consumption of
animal products on a massive scale has increased so much over the last
decades that the disadvantages of such a diet are now becoming obvious:
high blood pressure, heart diseases as well as diseases of the
circulation system, rheumatism, gout, neurodermatitis and certain kinds
of cancer are only a few of the so-called illnesses caused by
civilization of which we know that consumption of animal products is
the main trigger. The claim used to be heard quite often that man would
need meat to stay healthy. This has been disproved by scientists for a
long time and is only being stated by a few of the representatives of
the meat lobby.
Economy
How is it possible that meat
consumption is still increasing worldwide despite the above mentioned
tremendous disadvantages of a meat orientated society?[22]
Besides a few psychological and social reasons mostly caused by
advertising (e.g. meat gives you strength, etc.), there is one aspect
that should not be underestimated: money. At first glance this seems to
be a contradiction as under normal conditions a branch of the economy
programmed to destroy foodstuff and resources would have collapsed long
since. There is no longer any reasonable relation between the costs and
the advantage of this worldwide meat production.
Costs are being shifted onto the taxpayer
One
reason why the meat industry still exists is that the revenues of this
business are being transferred into private ownership, the costs,
however, are still being shifted onto the public (and therefore onto
the taxpayer). This is well known of other branches of the economy
(e.g. automobile industry). No trace of cost truthfulness in
agriculture either: According to estimates made by the renowned
Worldwatch Institute in Washington, the price for meat would have to be
doubled or tripled if one took into consideration the full ecological
costs including burning of fossile fuel, lowering of the ground water
level, chemical pollution of the soil and release of gases like ammonia
and methane.[23] Let alone
the resulting costs of the public
health system.
State-subsidized madness
In contrast to other branches of the economy, the meat industry ist
state-subsidized in almost all of the countries because it would not be
profitable (despite shifting the costs). In Switzerland, the state uses
approx. 84% of agricultural subsidies to support the production of
meat, dairy products and eggs. Only 16% are available for production of
plantlike foods.[24]
Federal spending to secure prices and sales (1992
in SFr.)[25]:
For livestock business:
1’205.9 million
For growth of plants:
332.1 million
In no other branch of the market is the picture being so distorted as
in the agricultural sector. Could you imagine a private company
receiving more subsidies from the state than it takes in through the
sale of produced goods? This even if the purchase of goods is granted
through the state? The whole economy of the Eastern Bloc countries was
led into an abyss by such politics. In countries with a free-market
economy, such politics are limited to agriculture.
77% of the revenues of the Swiss economy are traced back to direct
and
indirect subsidies as well as countless interventions by the state.
This costs the state SFr. 7 billion each year.[26]
Up until now, there are 3’500 people working for the agricultural
bureaucracy of Switzerland. They spend SFr. 900 mio. per year on the
support of agricultural organisations only.[27]
Approximately 99.5% of this figure are available for keepers of
livestock. The same goes for the other industrial countries. Livestock
business is not only supported and kept alive nationally, but also
internationally: from 1963 until 1985, the World Bank pumped US$ 1.5
billion into livestock business of Latin America only, mostly into big
cattle ranches.[28] Despite
shifting of
the costs and despite horrendous subsidies, agriculture remains a
double-faced and crazy business for farmers and banks alike: In the
USA, at certain times about 2000 farmers per week quit their jobs
because they cannot keep up with the intensifying of today’s meat
production.
Farmers need more and more expensive machines and in order for them to
be able to buy these machines, they need higher loans from the banks.
During 1986 e.g., 160 US banks went bankrupt, most of them were driven
into their ruin by agricultural business.[29]
Concluding remarks
Because one’s diet is something very personal, reflection over the
consquences it might have is very unpopular. Nevertheless, this article
tries to outline the ecological and economical consequences a diet
based on animal products can have to those people who are conscious and
know of their responsibility towards their environment. All topics
mentioned in this article do have serious economical consequences. A
lasting and environmentally compatible economic system is not possible
without taking into consideration these facts. One can only hope and
desire that in the future not only environmentalists and people who
want to prevent cruelty against animals will try to deal with the
problems of the consumption of meat, but also economists and
politicians. For pioneers for a free-economy[30],
like e.g. Werner Zimmermann, this was natural; they committed
themselves to a vegetarian way of life as well as to changes in our
economic system. Contrary to changing our economic system, which might
prove to be very difficult, everyone can start making changes in his
diet. ================================================================================================================ Recommendation of books:
Rifkin, Jeremy: Beyond Beef. The Rise and Fall of the Cattle
Culture, Campus, 1992
Robbins, John: Diet for A New America, Stillpoint
Publishing, ISBN 0-913299-54-5.
A. Durning, H. Brough: Animal Farming and the Environment,
Worldwatch-Paper 103.
================================================================================================================ Further reasons for a vegetarian way of life can be asked for
at the office of the Swiss Union for Vegetarianism (Schweizerische
Vereinigung für Vegetarismus):
Vegi-Büro Schweiz, Bahnhofstr. 52, CH-9315 Neukirch-Egnach
Tel.: 041 / 477 33 77, Fax: 071 / 477 33 78, PC-Konto 90-21299-7.
e-Mail: vegi-buero@vegetarismus.ch
This text was written for the congress of INWO-Switzerland about
sustainable economy.
53 kg of bread per year per head versus 55.5
kg of meat. According to the Swiss Co-operative for Slaughter Animals
and Meat Supply. (return)
Belongs to the German Academy of Natural
scientists at and to the Academy of Sciences of Heidelberg whose
research centre is under his guidance since 1986. Honorary doctor of
the Universities of Strassburg and Limburg. (return)
Ammonium (NH4+) is formed
in the air from ammonia (NH3). (return)
Hans Mohr in «Spektrum der
Wissenschaft» January 1994, page 50 (return)
Study-work during studies of environmental
protection technics at TU Munich: Contribution from Dipl. Eng. Matthias
Holzer regarding nitrate and ammonia emissions relating to the dying of
forests, 1993 (return)
Dr. Klaus Isermann, at the symposium
«Ammonia
in the environment - cycles, effects» in Braunschweig from
October 10
through 12, 1990 (return)
Joint declaration of 27 membes of the
Enquete-committee where all governing parties and 14 scientists are
represented (return)
From: Contribution regarding forestry by the
field of forest economy and forest politics, ETH Zurich 1989/8: The
consequences of forest damages by David Altweg, pages 279-280. (return)
To produce pork for the Swiss population,
890’000 tons of fodder are needed and 2.5 milliion m3 liquid
manure are produced (calculated by »Konsum und Umwelt”, WWF
Switzerland, magazine No. 1/94) (return)
According to the TV-show «Meat eats
people» of the WDR (West German Television) of 12/17/1987 (return)
Cross, Russell H., Byers, Floyd M., and
others: «Current Issues in Food Production A Perspective on Beef
as a
Component in Diets of Americans», page 5.26, April 1990 (return)
Quoted from Worldwatch paper «Zeitbombe
Viehwirtschaft» (Time bomb livestock business), page 22 (return)
From his preface in: Jeremy Rifkin «Das
Imperium der Rinder», (The imperium of the cattle), Campus
Verlag, page 12, 1992 (return)
Including areas of land for production of
fodder. Source: EarthSave Foundation. Depending on production or
breeding method, values can vary strongly. (return)
According to numbers from Swiss Co-operative for
Slaughter Animals and Meat Supply (return)
Even though changes are noticeable (because
of health reasons), worldwide meat production is not decreasing. The
steadily increasing surplus of the meat producers is exported at
ridiculously low prices into developing countries instead and there
they drive the meat consumption higher. At the same time, local markets
are being destroyed by this cheap meat. (return)
According to Prof. Frederic Vester, biochemist,
publicist in the TV-show «Meat eats people» of WDR on
12/17/87. (return)
Theory of an alternative, fair, ecological
and social economic system without interest, compound interest and
inflation. More information on this subject: INWO Switzerland, P.O. Box, CH-5001
Aarau. (return)
================================================================================================================ Back to SVV-info
overview URL: http://vegetarismus.ch/info/eoeko.htm
COPYRIGHT NOTICE: ALL AUDIO AND VIDEO RECORDINGS, WRITINGS, COMPILATION, AND OTHER WORKS BY REZA GANJAVI ARE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT LAWS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.