Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell
Sources – Does eating less meat ACTUALLY make a difference?
We would like to thank the following experts for their support:
Hannah Ritchie
Our World in Data
Joseph Poore
Oxford Martin Programme on Food Sustainability Analytics, University of Oxford
Matthew Hayek
Department of Environmental Studies, NYU
Walter Fraanje
Wageningen University & Research, TABLE
Tara Garnett
University of Oxford, TABLE
Sources
Some of our information is based on a research paper by J. Poore and T. Nemecek (2018). Here you will find a good overview of the global impacts of food production in general and a lot of in-depth information and further readings about the impacts of meat production in particular.
– Feeding billions of people is impossible without causing emissions. Even if someday we have zero-carbon tractors, refrigerators and cookers running on renewable energy and electric trucks to move our food, there are still unavoidable emissions. Rice emits methane. We cut down forests to make room for pastures and crops. And we emit nitrous oxide when we use fertilizers and manure.
The following report from World Resources Institute provides potential solutions for reducing emissions from different contributors in food production, from alternative rice cultivation techniques that cause less emissions to increasing nitrogen absorbed from fertilizers.
#WRI, How to Sustainably Feed 10 Billion People by 2050, in 21 Charts, 2018
https://www.wri.org/insights/how-sustainably-feed-10-billion-people-2050-21-charts
Quote: “There is a big shortfall between the amount of food we produce today and the amount needed to feed everyone in 2050. There will be nearly 10 billion people on Earth by 2050—about 3 billion more mouths to feed than there were in 2010. As incomes rise, people will increasingly consume more resource-intensive, animal-based foods. At the same time, we urgently need to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agricultural production and stop conversion of remaining forests to agricultural land.”
– Worldwide food production is responsible for about 26% of all human-made greenhouse gas emissions.
Following study is the most extensive meta-analysis conducted so far on the environmental impact of global food production. Authors analyzed data from 570 studies, for 40 different animal- and plant- based food products from 38,000 farms around the world.
#Poore and Nemecek, Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers, 2018.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6392/987
Following OWID chart is based on the data from this study:
#OWID, Environmental impacts of food production, 2021
This is not the only study looking into the environmental impact of food production though. GHG emissions attributed to food ranges from one-quarter to more than one-third of global emissions. A 2021 study for example put the estimates at 34% of global emissions:
#Crippa et al., Food systems are responsible for a third of global anthropogenic GHG emissions, 2021.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-021-00225-9
Quote: “In 2015, food-system emissions amounted to 18 Gt CO2 equivalent per year globally, representing 34% of total GHG emissions. The largest contribution came from agriculture and land use/land-use change activities (71%), with the remaining were from supply chain activities: retail, transport, consumption, fuel production, waste management, industrial processes and packaging.”
The difference is mainly due to the different methods used by the studies and how they assessed the different stages of food production. For instance, Poore and Nemecek's study did not include cooking and waste, whereas Crippa did include these post-retail stages as well. Other differences are the differences in the amount of deforestation two studies attributed to agriculture and whether non-food agricultural products such as biofuels and textiles are included.
Following OWID chart demonstrates the difference between the distributions of emissions as analysed in two studies.
#OWID, How much of global greenhouse gas emissions come from food?, 2021
There is one important note here though: 26% was calculated based on the deforestation emissions over the last 20 years which is the standard time period. Agriculture, however, has been responsible for a lot more historically. Since the dawn of agriculture, 4.8 billion hectares of land has been converted into agriculture. A big chunk of this was previously forest or other lands which held a lot of carbon in the vegetation biomass.
Converting that land released a lot of carbon into the atmosphere. All those historical emissions sum up to about 1400 billion tonnes of CO2. Therefore, we could technically regrow forests and put a big chunk of that 1400 billion tonnes of CO2 back into vegetation, with diet changes or improvements in farming practices.
#OWID, 2021
https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-opportunity-costs-food
Quote: “Over the last 10,000 years agricultural land has expanded into forests, wild grasslands and other ecosystems. The world lost one-third of its forests, and today agricultural land makes up half of the world’s ice- and desert-free land. The loss of these forests and other natural vegetation has released a lot of carbon into the atmosphere: we have emitted around 1400 billion tonnes of CO2 over millennia.1 That’s equal to 40 years’ worth of our current emissions from fossil fuels.2“
– While 26% doesn’t sound THAT bad, it means that even if we extinguished all other sources of emissions today, the emissions from food alone would still use up our entire carbon budget by 2100.
We can emit only another 1405 billion tonnes until 2100 in order to keep the temperature rise below 2°C with a 67% chance. If we were to keep the annual food emissions for another 80 years, we would emit 1356 Gt in total until 2100. This leaves us 49 billion tonnes for all the other sectors which is currently about the same amount of emissions in one year. So if we were to go business as usual with good production, we would have to emit 80 times less for all the other sectors if we wanted to stay on budget. The following numbers are calculated given the corresponding scenarios are adopted by 2050 and they represent the cumulative emissions under these scenarios by 2100.
#Clark et al., Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5° and 2°C climate change targets, 2020.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/370/6517/705
Quote: “We find that cumulative food system GHG emissions from 2020 to 2100 can be reduced by 14 to 48% through changes in dietary composition and healthier caloric consumption, through increased crop yields, through decreased food loss and waste, or through increased emissions efficiency of food production, provided that these strategies are adopted individually and gradually such that they are fully adopted by 2050 ”
Using the data from the study above, OWID created the following infographic which represents the emissions budgets until 2100 for different global temperature increase restrictions.
#OWID, Emissions from food alone could use up all of our budget for 1.5°C or 2°C – but we have a range of opportunities to avoid this, 2021
https://ourworldindata.org/food-emissions-carbon-budget
Quote: “Even if we stopped emissions from fossil fuels right now, emissions from food production alone would take us well beyond the carbon budget for 1.5°C, and leave little room to reach our 2°C target.”
– Foods’ climate impact is most often based on “life cycle assessments”: an analysis that looks at all the emissions of a product throughout its existence, from production to transportation, packaging, use and waste management.
#Stefanie Hellweg and Llorenç Milà i Canal, Emerging approaches, challenges and opportunities in life cycle assessment, 2014
Quote: “The currently accepted definition of LCA is the “compilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs, and potential environmental impacts of a product system throughout its life cycle,” which typically occurs in four steps.”
Following image from the same paper describes the four stages of life cycle assessment:
– In the most detailed meta analysis of life cycle analyses to date, beef emissions stand out at the top. On average, a kilogram of beef emits 71 kilograms of CO2 equivalents. Lamb is also high, with 40 kilograms. Pork emits 12 and poultry 10 kilograms. At the bottom we have lots of plant-based foods: Potatoes, for example, emit around 150 times less than beef.
Following study is the most extensive meta-analysis conducted so far on the environmental impact of global food production. Authors analyzed data from 570 studies, for 40 different animal- and plant- based food products from 38,000 farms around the world.
#Poore and Nemecek, Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers, 2018.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6392/987
Following OWID chart is created based on this data:
#OWID, Environmental impacts of food production, 2021
Emissions from beef are calculated as a weighted average of beef herd and dairy herd:
According to the meta-analysis above, the 2009-11 average of beef production from dairy was 31.4k t and 40.6k t was from beef herd. Therefore, 56% was coming from the beef herd and 44% was coming from the dairy herd. In order to calculate the weighted average, we multiplied the percentages by their corresponding emissions.
99.48*0.56+33.3*0.44 ≈ 71 kg CO2eq per kg
We can read the emission value per kg of potatoes as 0.46 kg CO2eq from the same chart above. Then, potatoes would emit 71/0.46 = 154 times less beef.
– The most important aspect of food isn’t weight though, it's nutrient density. A kilogram of beef would keep you alive much longer than a kilogram of potatoes– so how does the ranking change if we compare emissions per calories or protein?
Beef nutrition facts: 150 kcal, 18.5 gr protein, 7.9 gr fat in 100 gr boneless beef
Potatoes nutrition facts: 67 kcal, 1.6 gr protein, 0.1 gr fat in 100 gr potatoes
#Nutritional Values
http://www.fao.org/3/X9892E/X9892e05.htm#P8217_125315
– Not much. Animal protein is still the most costly for the environment and beef and lamb are also outliers in emissions per calorie.
Based on Poore and Nemecek study, OWID prepared the following charts that demonstrate emissions per 100 gr of protein and 1000 kilocalories of different foods. We calculated the beef emissions per 100 grams of protein and 1000 kcals shown in the video as weighted averages:
Beef - emissions per 100 grams of protein:
49.89*0.56+16.87*0.44 ≈ 35 kg CO2eq per kg
Beef - emissions per 1000 kcals:
36.44*0.56+12.2*0.44 ≈ 26 kg CO2eq per kg
#OWID, Environmental impacts of food production, 2021
#OWID, Environmental impacts of food production, 2021
– But is this fair? After all, not all beef is the same. There are all sorts of ways to rear cattle, from pure grass fed to factory farming. The worst beef comes in at 105 kilograms of emissions per 100 grams of protein – the best at only 9 – a tenfold difference. In contrast, most other foods, especially plant based, have much narrower spectrum. Still, the best beef is worse than the worst plant.
#Poore and Nemecek, Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers, 2018.
The least and the most emissions are taken as the 10th and 90th percentile of the emissions per 100 gr protein. So the min is 9.1 kg CO2eq emissions corresponding to the 10th percentile value of beef (dairy herd) based on the figure above. The highest was indicated with an arrow on the Beef (beef herd) since it was higher than the max value, 75, fitted on the chart. All numbers can be found in the supplementary DataS2 where 90th percentile of beef (beef herd) was reported as 105 kg CO2eq :
Here is a chart from OWID utilizing the same dataset:
#OWID, Environmental impacts of food production, 2021
– By buying locally, you are trying to avoid emissions from transportation and packaging. But it turns out these only account for 0.5 to 2% of beef's total emissions.
Transport emissions account for 0.5% of all emissions from beef coming from beef herds and 2% of all emissions from beef coming from dairy herds:
#OWID, Environmental impacts of food production, 2021
– Actually, transport and packaging combined are only about 11% of all food emissions.
Transport contributes 6% to all emissions from food whereas packaging takes up 5%, so they add up to 11% together.
#OWID, Food production is responsible for one-quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, 2019
– Nearly all food transport emissions are produced over the last few miles, the regional travel on the road supplying the markets and shops in your area. International food transport happens mostly on freight ships, which are insanely efficient.
#OWID, Whether food travels by sea or air makes all the difference
Quote: “Transporting food by air emits around 50 times as much greenhouse gases as transporting the same amount by sea. More specifically, 0.023 kilograms of carbon dioxide-equivalents (CO2eq) per tonne-kilometer by sea, versus 1.13 kilograms CO2eq by air. We see these emission factors for different transport modes in the table.
For food that is transported by sea, transportation doesn’t actually add much to the carbon footprint. Since most of our food is transported by sea, transport emissions only account for 6% of the carbon footprint of food, on average”
– For example, shipping one kilogram of avocado from South America to Europe generates about 0.3 kilograms of CO2 equivalents in transport emissions and around 2.5 kilograms overall – while one kilogram of beef from your local butcher will come in at 18 kg in CO2 equivalents at least. So even when shipped at great distances, emissions from almost all plant-based foods cause lower emissions than locally produced animal products.
Most of the avocados coming to Europe are from Central and South America. The biggest exporters are Mexico, Peru, Dominican Republic and Colombia. We based the calculation here on a freight route from Peru to Belgium which is around 12000km, and generates about 0.3kg CO2eq.
12000km * 0.023kg per tonne-kilometer / 1000 ~ 0.3 kg CO2eq per kg
We have the average emission of avocados and per tonne-kilometer emission value from OWID:
#OWID, You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food? Focus on what you eat, not whether your food is local, 2020.
Quote: “Many of the foods people assume to come by air are actually transported by boat – avocados and almonds are prime examples. Shipping one kilogram of avocados from Mexico to the United Kingdom would generate 0.21kg CO2eq in transport emissions.11 This is only around 8% of avocados’ total footprint.12 Even when shipped at great distances, its emissions are much less than locally-produced animal products. [...] We get this footprint value as: [9000km * 0.023kg per tonne-kilometer / 1000 = 0.207kg CO2eq per kg]. The average footprint of avocados is around 2.5kg CO2eq per kg.”
#Ministry of Foreign Affairs Netherlands, CBI, 2021
Quote: “The worldwide production of avocados is increasing and competition is fierce. Temporary shortfalls in supply or demand (e.g. through border closures or climate) have a huge impact on prices. Mexico is the largest producer with almost 1.5 million tonnes in 2013. The Dominican Republic, Colombia, Peru and Indonesia all produce between 0.2 and 0.4 million tonnes of avocados. The main supplier to the European market is Peru, followed by Chile, South Africa, Israel, Mexico and Kenya. All are increasing their supply to Europe while the demand is still growing. Colombia and Morocco are also becoming important suppliers.”
#SeaRates, 2021
Estimate for the minimum emissions from beef comes from the supplementary DataS2 of Poore and Nemecek study:
#Poore and Nemecek, Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers, 2018.
– By far the largest share of beef emissions consists of methane released directly by the animals. While CO2 hangs around for centuries, methane only stays in the atmosphere for decades. But in these short periods, it is very powerful. All in all, methane has already caused 23 to 40% of human-made warming so far. There is controversy about how bad this is exactly and we don’t want to dive in too deep here – but the way things stand, any kind of extra emissions are not great.
#OWID, 2020
https://ourworldindata.org/carbon-footprint-food-methane
Quote: “It could be argued that red meat and dairy have a much higher footprint because its emissions are dominated by methane – a greenhouse gas that is much more potent but has a shorter lifetime in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. Methane emissions have so far driven a significant amount of warming – with estimates ranging from around 23% to 40% of the total – to date.1 ”
#Michelle Cain, Guest post: A new way to assess ‘global warming potential’ of short-lived pollutants, 2018.
Quote: “Greenhouse gas emissions are commonly presented in units of billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (Gt CO2e). The de facto way of converting non-CO2 emissions to CO2e is to multiply the gas by its GWP100 (global warming potential over 100 years). The value of GWP100 for methane (CH4) from the last IPCC assessment report is 28. This means that methane has 28 times as much “global warming potential” as CO2, so 1Gt CH4 equates to 28 GtCO2e.
This masks the fact that 1 GtCH4 has a strong warming influence when it is first emitted, which then diminishes rapidly over a few decades. This is because chemical reactions cause it to be removed from the atmosphere, with a half life of about a decade. So, at the end of that 100 years, that methane is no longer causing strong warming, because it has almost all been destroyed.”
– It makes a difference if the beef comes from a dairy herd or one dedicated to beef production. 44% of the world’s beef comes from dairy cows, sharing its footprint with dairy products.
According to Poore and Nemecek study, the 2009-11 average of beef production from dairy was 31.4k t and 40.6k t was from beef herd. Therefore, 56% was coming from the beef herd and 44% was coming from the dairy herd. All numbers can be found in the supplementary DataS2.
#Poore and Nemecek, Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers, 2018.
– Dairy cows tend to get higher quality feed, which makes them grow faster and emit less methane.
#Kleefisch, Maria-Theresia et al. Effects of feeding high-quality hay with graded amounts of concentrate on feed intake, performance and blood metabolites of cows in early lactation, 2018.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29856664/
Quote: “Dairy cows are commonly fed energy-dense diets with high proportions of concentrate feedstuffs to meet the increased energy needs of early lactation. However, feeding large amounts of concentrates may cause rumen acidosis and impact cow health. The hypothesis tested was that the energy supply and metabolic health of early-lactation Simmental cows can be maintained when high-quality hay rich in water-soluble carbohydrates (WSC) and crude protein (CP) is fed, despite the proportion of concentrates in the diet being reduced or even excluded.”
# Larry Tranel and Dr. Dave Combs, Feeding Dairy Cows on Quality Pasture
https://www.extension.iastate.edu/dairyteam/files/page/files/FeedingDairyCowsonQualityPasture.pdf
Quote: “Many studies suggest that quality pasture reduces input costs and increases net returns. Benefits cited include: 1) increased yield and quality of forage 2) decreased purchased feed 3) decreased equipment and fuel 4) decreased manure handling and bedding 5) better animal health and 6) reduced labor to feed or harvest the forage. Successes at maintaining good milk yield are generally due to an ability to optimize pasture yield and quality; supplement rations to meet energy requirements; and balance diets for undegradable protein.”
– Geography also plays a role, because it determines which farming methods are possible.
#OWID, Environmental impacts of food production
https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food
Quote: “Geography also plays a role in the large variations we see for beef, lamb and aquaculture: farming approaches are often adopted in line with local conditions such as soil fertility, terrain and temperature.35 Opportunities for food producers to reduce emissions are therefore very specific to local conditions.”
– The worst factor by far is the destruction of forests for farmland. Not only does this release the CO2 that was bound in the flora, it sets free carbon that was stored in the soil and destroys its ability to store it in the future.
#Lewis Simon L, Tropical forests and the changing earth system, 2006
Quote: “Recent research on deforestation rates and ecological changes within intact forests, both areas of recent research and debate, are reviewed, and the implications for biodiversity (species loss) and climate change (via the global carbon cycle) addressed. Recent impacts have most likely been: (i) a large source of carbon to the atmosphere, and major loss of species, from deforestation and (ii) a large carbon sink within remaining intact forest, accompanied by accelerating forest dynamism and widespread biodiversity changes.”
– This aspect accounts for much of the range of emissions in beef: the worst emitters are farms burning down rainforest for farmland, especially in Brazil.
Even though it is difficult to rank the factors causing the large spectrum of emissions, top three reasons could be listed as:
1-Deforestation emissions: it can double or even triple the impacts of beef
2-Feed quality – cows fed low quality grass or other low quality feeds create more methane emissions from digestion and take longer to grow.
3-Manure management – leaving manure in open slurry pits creates substantial emissions, while trapping the gases and turning them into electricity creates far lower emissions.
#OWID, Drivers of Deforestation
– There is a sinister truth hidden here: The more animals suffer, the better they are in terms of climate change because they are way more efficient. They use less land and their food is brought right to them, so they grow faster and don’t expend energy on things like walking. Cattle in a factory farm that never gets to roam pastures can sometimes be less destructive for the climate than cattle grazing peacefully on a formally lush piece of rainforest.
#Tara Garnett, Cécile Godde et al., Grazed and confused , Food Climate Research Network Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford
https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/reports/fcrn_gnc_report.pdf
Quote: “Most life cycle assessments of ruminant products assume that the soil carbon balance is in equilibrium when there is no change in land use or management practice in line with IPCC guidelines. Greenhouse gas emission from pasture-based systems are generally greater per kg of meat produced than from more intensive systems in which animals are fed grains and concentrates. This is because in the latter, animals grow and reach slaughter weight faster, or in the case of dairy cows, are more productive. Lifetime emissions are therefore lower overall.”
– About half of the world’s ice- and desert-free land is used for agriculture, an area the size of the entire Americas plus China.
The total area devoted to agriculture is around 50 million km2, this corresponds to an area of the entire Americas –which is around 42 million km2– plus China, around 9 million km2. The total area is also depicted in the OWID map below as Livestock and Crops together.
#OWID, Land Use, 2019
#OWID, Land Use, 2019
– Half of all agriculturally used land is dedicated to animals. Most of it is grassland, 65% of which can not be converted to cropland, so pasturing animals is actually a very efficient way to use those areas, since we can’t grow human food there anyway.
According to the following study, of the 2 billion hectares of grassland used for feeding livestock, 1.3 billion hectares are not suitable for cultivating crops –which corresponds to 1.3/2 = 0.65, 65%.
#Mottet et al, Livestock: On our plates or eating at our table? A new analysis of the feed/food debate, 2017.
Quote: “The production of global feed requires 2.5 billion ha of land, which is about half of the global agricultural area. Most of this area, 2 billion ha, is grassland, of which about 1.3 billion ha cannot be converted to cropland (rangeland). This means that 57% of the land used for feed production is not suitable for food production.”
– Even though it is so massive, pastureland alone can’t support the ruminants living on it. Globally, grazing systems sustain only 13% of beef production.
There are different feeding systems currently used for raising cattle. Following table provided the definitions of the common systems.
#Tara Garnett, Cécile Godde et al., Grazed and confused , Food Climate Research Network Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, 2017
https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/reports/fcrn_gnc_report.pdf
One important note here is that even the standard grass-fed systems rely partly on crops as supplementary feed, for instance during winter months when there is not enough feed through grazing.
The same report also provides estimates for meat and milk production from each system:
#Tara Garnett, Cécile Godde et al., Grazed and confused , Food Climate Research Network Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, 2017
https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/reports/fcrn_gnc_report.pdf
Quote: “As to grazing systems, very recent data are not available, but in the year 2000 they yielded about 13% of the cattle meat and 6% of the cattle milk by weight – and a higher share in the case of small ruminants (Table 3).”
– So if we were to switch to 100% grass fed, we'd simply have to eat much less beef – in the US beef production would crash by some 70% if it were to exclusively rely on grass. The only way to sustain our high demand for meat is by growing crops and feeding them to our cattle.
Scientists estimated in the following paper that the current pastureland in the USA is only enough to provide for 27% of the beef supply of the country. So the remaining which is around 70% should come from the cropland-raised cattle.
#M. N. Hayek & R. D. Garrett, Nationwide shift to grass-fed beef requires larger cattle population, 2018.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401
Quote: “We also find that the current pastureland grass resource can support only 27% of the current beef supply (27 million cattle), an amount 30% smaller than prior estimates. If grass-fed systems include cropland-raised forage, a definition that conforms to typical grass-fed certifications, these supplemental feeds can support an additional 34 million cattle to produce up to 61% of the current beef supply. ”
– And we haven’t even talked about chickens and pigs, who exclusively eat feed crops.
#Tara Garnett, Cécile Godde et al., Grazed and confused , Food Climate Research Network Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford
https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/reports/fcrn_gnc_report.pdf
Quote: “When microbes break down and digest carbohydrates they generate fatty acids, nutrients which the ruminant can absorb into its blood through the rumen walls. During this metabolic process, hydrogen is produced, which is subsequently incorporated into methane (CH4) which the ruminant eructs or burps – this is enteric fermentation. [...] The advantage of this process is that ruminants are able to digest coarse cellulosic material such as grass, husks, stalks and so forth, which monogastric animals such as pigs, poultry and people cannot. The disadvantage is of course that they generate methane emissions.”
– Because of this feed demand, less than half of the world’s cereals are used directly as human food. 41% is fed to animals.
#OWID, If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares, 2021.
Quote: “Less than half – only 48% – of the world’s cereals are eaten by humans. 41% is used for animal feed, and 11% for biofuels.”
– The same is true for soy. There is a lot of talk about Amazon deforestation for soy production, which makes us think of soy milk and tofu. But only 19% of global soy production goes towards products for humans. About 77% are used to feed animals.
#W. Fraanje & T. Garnett, Soy: food, feed, and land use change, 2020
https://www.tabledebates.org/building-blocks/soy-food-feed-and-land-use-change
Quote: “An argument could be made, however, that increases in the production of soy have primarily been driven not by the demand for animal feed, but by the demand for soy oil for human consumption. One might view soy cake as only a by-product of the production of soy oil, as its economic value is much lower (a kilogram of soy oil is about twice the value of a kilogram of soy cake). However, since the crushing of soybeans produces much less oil (20% by weight) than cake (80%), only a third of the overall value of a kilogram crushed soybeans is derived from the oil, as compared with two thirds from the cake8,31. Soy oil is also one of the cheapest vegetable oils on the commodity market, whereas soy cake is the most valuable of all oilseed cakes due to its favourable amino acid profile and the low levels of anti-nutritive compounds it contains after heat treatment34,35.
It is therefore likely that the growth in soy production has primarily been driven by the demand of soy cake for feed, and hence by the growing demand for animal-based products. However, because the oil and the cake originate from the same bean, there is a mutual and economically convenient dependency between their uses. The rapid expansion of soy and its use for feed is therefore likely to have been facilitated by concurrent increases in the demand for vegetable oil31.”
#Mottet et al, Livestock: On our plates or eating at our table? A new analysis of the feed/food debate, 2017.
Quote: “In the current state of the industry, Soyatech (2003) estimate that ‘About 85% of the world's soybeans are processed annually into soybean cake and oil, of which approximately 97% of the meal is further processed into animal feed’. Soybean cakes can therefore be considered inedible for humans but they are derived from an edible product and can be considered as the main driver of soybean production, as per our methodology (EFA > 66%).”
#OWID, Soy
https://ourworldindata.org/soy
Quote: “Although the research suggests that by far the largest driver of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon has been driven by the expansion of pasture land for beef production, soy is likely to have played at least some role in the loss of forest.
More than three-quarters (77%) of global soy is fed to livestock for meat and dairy production. Most of the rest is used for biofuels, industry or vegetable oils. Just 7% of soy is used directly for human food products such as tofu, soy milk, edamame beans, and tempeh. The idea that foods often promoted as substitutes for meat and dairy – such as tofu and soy milk – are driving deforestation is a common misconception.”
– Besides, land without food crops isn’t automatically ecologically useless. A beef free diet would free up around 2 billion hectares, a vegan diet would free up around 3 billion hectares of land.
#OWID, If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares, 2021
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets#more-plant-based-diets-tend-to-need-less-cropland
#OWID, If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares, 2021.
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
Quote: “This is why eating less meat would mean eliminating large losses of calories and thereby reduce the amount of farmland we need. This would free up billions of hectares for natural vegetation, forests and ecosystems to return.”
– We could use this land to grow forests or restore wild grasslands – basically anything that could suck carbon out of the atmosphere. If we spared 3 billion hectares of land, it could remove about 800 billion tonnes of CO2 from the air over 100 years. For comparison we emit about 50 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalents per year at the moment.
#Poore and Nemecek, Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers, 2018.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6429/eaaw9908
Quote: “Moving from current diets to a diet that excludes animal products (table S13) (35) has transformative potential, reducing food’s land use by 3.1 (2.8 to 3.3) billion ha (a 76% reduction), including a 19% reduction in arable land; food’s GHG emissions by 6.6 (5.5 to 7.4) billion metric tons of CO2eq (a 49% reduction); acidification by 50% (45 to 54%); eutrophication by 49% (37 to 56%); and scarcity-weighted freshwater withdrawals by 19% (−5 to 32%) for a 2010 reference year. The ranges are based on producing new vegetable proteins with impacts between the 10th- and 90th-percentile impacts of existing production.In addition to the reduction in food’s annual GHG emissions, the land no longer required for food production could remove ~8.1 billion metric tons of CO2 from the atmosphere each year over 100 years as natural vegetation re-establishes and soil carbon re-accumulates, based on simulations conducted in the IMAGE integrated assessment model (17)”
#OWID, Total greenhouse gas emissions, 2020
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/total-ghg-emissions?tab=chart&country=~OWID_WRL
