Jump to content

Main menu Navigation ●Main page ●Contents ●Current events ●Random article ●About Wikipedia ●Contact us ●Donate Contribute ●Help ●Learn to edit ●Community portal ●Recent changes ●Upload file

●Create account ●Log in ●Create account ● Log in Pages for logged out editors learn more ●Contributions ●Talk

Editing Environmental impacts of animal agriculture

●Article ●Talk ●Read ●Edit ●View history Tools Actions ●Read ●Edit ●View history General ●What links here ●Related changes ●Upload file ●Special pages ●Page information ●Get shortened URL ●Download QR code ●Wikidata item Appearance

You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log inorcreate an account, your edits will be attributed to a username, among other benefits.

Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources.

You are about to undo an edit. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only.

{{Short description|Impact of farming animals on the environment}}
<noinclude>{{multiple image
| perrow = 2
| total_width = 300
| image1 = Los Llanos, Venezuela (12832335223).jpg
| image2 = Hog confinement barn interior.jpg
| image3 = CSIRO ScienceImage 1898 Testing Sheep for Methane Production.jpg
| image4 = NRCSNC00012 - North Carolina (5133)(NRCS Photo Gallery).jpg
| footer = Examples of environmental impacts of animal agriculture: Meat production is a main driver of deforestation in [[Venezuela]]; [[Pig]]s in intensive farming; Testing [[Australian sheep]] for exhaled methane production to reduce [[greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture]]; Farms often pump their animal waste directly into a large lagoon, which has environmental consequences. 
}}</noinclude>

The '''environmental impacts of animal agriculture''' vary because of the wide variety of [[Agriculture|agricultural]] practices employed around the world. Despite this, all agricultural practices have been found to have [[environmental impact of agriculture|a variety of effects on the environment]] to some extent. Animal agriculture, in particular [[meat production]], can cause [[pollution]], [[greenhouse gas emissions]], [[biodiversity loss]], disease, and significant [[Land consumption|consumption of land]], food, and water. Meat is obtained through a variety of methods, including [[organic farming]], [[Free range|free-range farming]], [[Intensive animal farming|intensive livestock production]], and [[subsistence agriculture]]. The livestock sector also includes wool, [[Dairy farming#Concerns|egg and dairy production]], the livestock used for [[tillage]], and [[fish farming]].

Animal agriculture is a significant contributor to [[greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture|greenhouse gas emissions]]. Cows, sheep, and other [[ruminant]]s digest their food by [[enteric fermentation]], and their [[Burping|burps]] are the main source of [[methane emissions]] from [[land use, land-use change, and forestry]]. Together with methane and [[nitrous oxide]] from [[manure]], this makes livestock the main source of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture.<ref name="IPCC Sixth Assessment Report-2022">{{Cite report |url=https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-3/ |title=Mitigation of Climate Change: Full report |publisher=[[IPCC Sixth Assessment Report]] |year=2022 |at=7.3.2.1 page 771}}</ref> A significant reduction in meat consumption is essential to mitigate climate change, especially as the human population increases by a projected 2.3 billion by the middle of the century.<ref name="Carrington-2018" /><ref name="Eisen-2022">{{Cite journal |last1=Eisen |first1=Michael B. |last2=Brown |first2=Patrick O. |date=2022-02-01 |title=Rapid global phaseout of animal agriculture has the potential to stabilize greenhouse gas levels for 30 years and offset 68 percent of {{CO2}} emissions this century |journal=PLOS Climate |language=en |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=e0000010 |doi=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000010 |issn=2767-3200 |s2cid=246499803 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

== Consumption and production trends ==
[[File:Total annual meat consumption by type of meat.png|thumb|Total annual meat consumption by type of meat]]

[[File:Cereals allocated to food, animal feed and fuel, World.png|thumb|Cereal-use statistic show an estimated large fraction of crops used as fodder]]
{{Bar chart
| title = Nutritional value and environmental impact of animal products, compared to agriculture overall<ref>Damian Carrington, [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth "Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth "], [[The Guardian]], 31 May 2018 (page visited on 19 August 2018).</ref>
| float = right
| label_type = Categories
| data_type = Contribution of farmed animal product [%]
| bar_width = 20
| width_units = em
| data_max = 100
| label1 = [[Calorie]]s
| data1 = 18
| label2 = [[Protein (nutrient)|Protein]]s
| data2 = 37
| label3 = [[Land use]]
| data3 = 83
| label4 = [[Greenhouse gas]]es
| data4 = 58
| label5 = [[Water pollution]]
| data5 = 57
| label6 = [[Air pollution]]
| data6 = 56
| label7 = [[Water footprint|Freshwater withdrawals]]
| data7 = 33
}}
Multiple studies have found that increases in meat consumption are currently associated with [[human population growth]] and rising individual incomes or [[Gross domestic product|GDP]], and therefore, the environmental impacts of meat production and consumption will increase unless current behaviours change.<ref name="10.1146/annurev-resource-111820-032340" /><ref>{{cite news |last=Devlin |first=Hannah |date=July 19, 2018 |title=Rising global meat consumption 'will devastate environment' |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/19/rising-global-meat-consumption-will-devastate-environment |access-date=July 21, 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Godfray |first1=H. Charles J. |last2=Aveyard |first2=Paul |display-authors=etal. |date=2018 |title=Meat consumption, health, and the environment |url=https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:cc174e1d-0e3e-43ce-9d3b-ad7e204d0845 |journal=Science |volume=361 |issue=6399 |pages= |bibcode=2018Sci...361M5324G |doi=10.1126/science.aam5324 |pmid=30026199 |s2cid=49895246|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="Carrington-2018">{{cite news |last=Carrington |first=Damian |date=October 10, 2018 |title=Huge reduction in meat-eating 'essential' to avoid climate breakdown |work=[[The Guardian]] |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/10/huge-reduction-in-meat-eating-essential-to-avoid-climate-breakdown |access-date=October 16, 2017}}</ref>

Changes in demand for meat will influence how much is produced, thus changing the environmental impact of meat production. It has been estimated that global meat consumption may double from 2000 to 2050, mostly as a consequence of the increasing world population, but also partly because of increased per capita meat consumption (with much of the per capita consumption increase occurring in the developing world).<ref name="FAOGPU2006">FAO. 2006. World agriculture: towards 2030/2050. Prospects for food, nutrition, agriculture and major commodity groups. Interim report. Global Perspectives Unit, United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. 71 pp.</ref> The [[World population|human population]] is projected to [[Population growth|grow]] to 9 billion by 2050, and meat production is expected to increase by 40%.<ref>{{cite book |last= Nibert |first=David |editor1=Steven Best|editor2=Richard Kahn|editor3=Anthony J. Nocella II|editor4=Peter McLaren|author-link=David Nibert |editor1-link= Steven Best|editor4-link=Peter McLaren |date=2011|title=The Global Industrial Complex: Systems of Domination|chapter=Origins and Consequences of the Animal Industrial Complex |publisher=[[Rowman & Littlefield]] |page=208|url=https://rowman.com/ISBN/9780739136973/The-Global-Industrial-Complex-Systems-of-Domination |isbn=978-0739136980}}</ref> Global production and consumption of [[poultry]] meat have been growing recently at more than 5% annually.<ref name="FAOGPU2006" /> Meat consumption typically increases as people and countries get richer.<ref name="Meat and Dairy Production">{{Cite journal|last1=Ritchie|first1=Hannah|last2=Roser|first2=Max|date=2017-08-25|title=Meat and Dairy Production|url=https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production|journal=Our World in Data}}</ref> Trends also vary among livestock sectors. For example, global [[pork]] consumption per capita has increased recently (almost entirely due to changes in consumption [[Chinese cuisine|within China]]), while global consumption per capita of [[ruminant]] meats has been declining.<ref name="FAOGPU2006" />

[[File:Per capita annual meat consumption by region.png|thumb|Per capita annual meat consumption by region<ref name="10.1146/annurev-resource-111820-032340" />]]
[[File:Total annual meat consumption by region.png|thumb|Total annual meat consumption by region]]

==Resource use==
=== Food production efficiency ===
About 85% of the world's soybean crop is processed into meal and vegetable oil, and virtually all of that meal is used in animal feed.<ref name="Information About Soya-2011">{{Cite web|url=http://72.32.142.180/soy_facts.htm|title=Information About Soya, Soybeans|date=2011-10-16|access-date=2019-11-11|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111016221906/http://72.32.142.180/soy_facts.htm|archive-date=2011-10-16}}</ref> Approximately 6% of soybeans are used directly as human food, mostly in Asia.<ref name="Information About Soya-2011" />

For every 100 kilograms of food made for humans from crops, 37 kilograms byproducts unsuitable for direct human consumption are generated. <ref>{{Cite journal |last=Fadel |first=J. G |date=1999-06-30 |title=Quantitative analyses of selected plant by-product feedstuffs, a global perspective |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377840199000310 |journal=Animal Feed Science and Technology |language=en |volume=79 |issue=4 |pages=255–268 |doi=10.1016/S0377-8401(99)00031-0 |issn=0377-8401}}</ref> Many countries then repurpose these human-inedible crop byproducts as livestock feed for cattle.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Schingoethe |first=David J. |date=1991-07-01 |title=Byproduct Feeds: Feed Analysis and Interpretation |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749072015307878 |journal=Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice |language=en |volume=7 |issue=2 |pages=577–584 |doi=10.1016/S0749-0720(15)30787-8 |pmid=1654177 |issn=0749-0720}}</ref> Raising animals for human consumption accounts for approximately 40% of total agricultural output in industrialized nations.<ref name="Steinfeld2006">{{Citation |last1=Steinfeld |first1=Henning |title=Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options |url=http://www.europarl.europa.eu/climatechange/doc/FAO%20report%20executive%20summary.pdf |year=2006 |location=Rome |publisher=FAO |last2=Gerber |first2=Pierre |last3=Wassenaar |first3=Tom |last4=Castel |first4=Vincent |last5=Rosales |first5=Mauricio |last6=de Haan |first6=Cees}}</ref> Moreover, the efficiency of meat production varies depending on the specific production system, as well as the type of feed. It may require anywhere from 0.9 and 7.9 kilograms of grain to produce 1 kilogram of beef, between 0.1 to 4.3 kilograms of grain to produce 1 kilogram of pork, and 0 to 3.5 kilograms of grains to produce 1 kilogram of chicken.<ref name="Gerber, P.-2022" /><ref name="Mottet-2017" />
[[File:Bridleway past Crop Field - geograph.org.uk - 1874041.jpg|thumb|Field of crops for animal consumption. These fields occupy a large amount of land. This limits the land available for local people to grow crops for their own consumption.]][[Food and Agriculture Organization|FAO]] estimates, however, that about 2 thirds of the pasture area used by livestock is not convertible to crop-land.<ref name="Gerber, P.-2022" /><ref name="Mottet-2017" />

Major corporations purchase land in different developing nations in [[Latin America]] and [[Asia]] to support large-scale production of [[animal feed]] crops, mainly corn and soybeans. This practice reduces the amount of land available for growing crops that are fit for human consumption in these countries, putting the local population at risk of [[food security]].<ref>{{Citation |last1=Borsari |first1=Bruno |title=Agriculture Production and Consumption |date=2020 |url=https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95726-5_78 |work=Responsible Consumption and Production |pages=1–11 |editor-last=Leal Filho |editor-first=Walter |access-date=2023-02-20 |place=Cham |publisher=Springer International Publishing |language=en |doi=10.1007/978-3-319-95726-5_78 |isbn=978-3-319-95726-5 |last2=Kunnas |first2=Jan |series=Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals |editor2-last=Azul |editor2-first=Anabela Marisa |editor3-last=Brandli |editor3-first=Luciana |editor4-last=özuyar |editor4-first=Pinar Gökçin}}</ref>

According to a study conducted in Jiangsu, China, individuals with higher incomes tend to consume more food than those with lower incomes and larger families. Consequently, it is unlikely that those employed in animal feed production in these regions do not consume the animals that eat the crops they produce. The lack of space for growing crops for consumption, coupled with the need to feed larger families, only exacerbates their [[Food security|food insecurity]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Zheng |first1=Zhihao |last2=Henneberry |first2=Shida Rastegari |date=2010 |title=The Impact of Changes in Income Distribution on Current and Future Food Demand in Urban China |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/23243036 |journal=Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics |volume=35 |issue=1 |pages=51–71 |jstor=23243036 |issn=1068-5502}}</ref>

According to [[Food and Agriculture Organization|FAO]], crop-residues and by-products account for 24% of the total dry matter intake of the global livestock sector.<ref name="Gerber, P.-2022" /><ref name="Mottet-2017" /> A 2018 study found that, "Currently, 70% of the feedstock used in the Dutch feed industry originates from the [[food processing]] industry."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Elferink |first1=E. V. |display-authors=etal |year=2008 |title=Feeding livestock food residue and the consequences for the environmental impact of meat |journal=J. Clean. Prod. |volume=16 |issue=12 |pages=1227–1233 |doi=10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.06.008}}</ref> Examples of grain-based waste conversion in the United States include feeding livestock the distillers grains (with solubles) remaining from [[ethanol]] production. For the marketing year 2009–2010, dried distillers grains used as livestock feed (and residual) in the US was estimated at 25.5 million metric tons.<ref>Hoffman, L. and A. Baker. 2010. Market issues and prospects for U.S. distillers' grains supply, use, and price relationships. USDA FDS-10k-01</ref> Examples of waste roughages include straw from barley and wheat crops (edible especially to large-ruminant breeding stock when on maintenance diets),<ref name="NRC2000">National Research Council. 2000. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle. National Academy Press.</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Anderson |first1=D. C. |year=1978 |title=Use of cereal residues in beef cattle production systems |journal=J. Anim. Sci. |volume=46 |issue=3 |pages=849–861 |doi=10.2527/jas1978.463849x}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Males |first1=J. R. |year=1987 |title=Optimizing the utilization of cereal crop residues for beef cattle |journal=J. Anim. Sci. |volume=65 |issue=4 |pages=1124–1130 |doi=10.2527/jas1987.6541124x}}</ref> and corn stover.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ward |first1=J. K. |year=1978 |title=Utilization of corn and grain sorghum residues in beef cow forage systems |journal=J. Anim. Sci. |volume=46 |issue=3 |pages=831–840 |doi=10.2527/jas1978.463831x}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Klopfenstein |first1=T. |display-authors=etal |year=1987 |title=Corn residues in beef production systems |journal=J. Anim. Sci. |volume=65 |issue=4 |pages=1139–1148 |doi=10.2527/jas1987.6541139x}}</ref>

=== Land use ===
{{Bar chart|title=Mean [[land use]] of different foods<ref name="Nemecek 987–992">{{Cite journal|last1=Nemecek|first1=T.|last2=Poore|first2=J.|date=2018-06-01|title=Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers|journal=Science|volume=360|issue=6392|pages=987–992|doi=10.1126/science.aaq0216|issn=0036-8075|pmid=29853680|bibcode=2018Sci...360..987P|doi-access=free}}</ref>|float=right|label_type=Food Types|data_type=Land Use (m2year per 100g protein)|bar_width=20|width_units=em|data_max=185|label1=[[Lamb and mutton]]|data1=185|label2=[[Beef]]|data2=164|label3=[[Cheese]]|data3=41|label4=[[Pork]]|data4=11|label5=[[Poultry]]|data5=7.1|label6=[[Egg as food|Eggs]]|data6=5.7|label7=[[Aquaculture|Farmed fish]]|data7=3.7|label8=[[Faboideae|Groundnuts]]|data8=3.5|label9=[[Peas]]|data9=3.4|label10=[[Tofu]]|data10=2.2|label11=|data11=|label12=|data12=|label13=|data13=}}Permanent meadows and pastures, grazed or not, occupy 26% of the Earth's ice-free terrestrial surface.<ref name="Gerber, P.-2022">{{Cite book |author1=Mottet, A. |author2=de Haan, C. |author3=Falcucci, A. |author4=Tempio, G. |author5=Opio, C. |author6=Gerber, P. |url=https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cc3134en |title=More fuel for the food/feed debate |publisher=FAO |year=2022}}</ref><ref name="Mottet-2017">{{Cite journal |last1=Mottet |first1=Anne |last2=de Haan |first2=Cees |last3=Falcucci |first3=Alessandra |last4=Tempio |first4=Giuseppe |last5=Opio |first5=Carolyn |last6=Gerber |first6=Pierre |date=2017-09-01 |title=Livestock: On our plates or eating at our table? A new analysis of the feed/food debate |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211912416300013 |journal=Global Food Security |series=Food Security Governance in Latin America |language=en |volume=14 |pages=1–8 |doi=10.1016/j.gfs.2017.01.001 |issn=2211-9124}}</ref> Feed crop production uses about one-third of all arable land.<ref name="Gerber, P.-2022" /><ref name="Mottet-2017" /> More than one-third of U.S. land is used for pasture, making it the largest land-use type in the contiguous United States.<ref>{{Cite news |last1=Merrill |first1=Dave |last2=Leatherby |first2=Lauren |date=2018-07-31 |title=Here's How America Uses Its Land |newspaper=Bloomberg.com |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-us-land-use/ |access-date=2019-11-11}}</ref>[[File:Land-use-of-different-diets-Poore-Nemecek.png|thumb|The amount of globally needed agricultural land would be reduced by almost half if no beef or mutton would be eaten.|325x325px]]In many countries, livestock graze from the land which mostly cannot be used for growing human-edible crops, as seen by the fact that there is three times as much [[agricultural land]]<ref>{{Cite web |title=Agricultural land (% of land area) {{!}} Data |url=https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.AGRI.ZS |access-date=2023-01-13 |website=data.worldbank.org}}</ref> as arable land.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Arable land (% of land area) {{!}} Data |url=https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.ARBL.ZS |access-date=2023-01-13 |website=data.worldbank.org}}</ref>

A 2023 study found that a [[vegan]] diet reduced land use by 75%.<ref name="Carrington-2023">{{cite news |last1=Carrington |first1=Damian |date=20 July 2023 |title=Vegan diet massively cuts environmental damage, study shows |work=[[The Guardian]] |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/20/vegan-diet-cuts-environmental-damage-climate-heating-emissions-study |access-date=20 July 2023}}</ref>

Free-range animal production, particularly [[Beef#Environmental impact|beef production]], has also caused tropical [[deforestation]] because it requires land for grazing.<ref name="snmeat">{{cite news |date=5 May 2022 |title=How much does eating meat affect nations' greenhouse gas emissions? |work=Science News |url=https://www.sciencenews.org/article/food-emissions-data-diet-carbon-greenhouse-gas-climate-agriculture |access-date=27 May 2022}}</ref> The livestock sector is also the primary driver of deforestation in [[Deforestation of the Amazon rainforest|the Amazon]], with around 80% of all deforested land being used for cattle farming.<ref>{{cite news |last=Wang |first=George C. |date=April 9, 2017 |title=Go vegan, save the planet |work=[[CNN]] |url=http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/08/opinions/go-vegan-save-the-planet-wang/ |access-date=August 25, 2019}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Liotta |first=Edoardo |date=August 23, 2019 |title=Feeling Sad About the Amazon Fires? Stop Eating Meat |work=[[Vice Media|Vice]] |url=https://www.vice.com/en_in/article/bjwzk4/feeling-sad-about-the-amazon-fires-stop-eating-meat |access-date=August 25, 2019}}</ref> Additionally, 91% of deforested land since 1970 has been used for cattle farming.<ref name="fao">{{cite book |author1=Steinfeld, Henning |url=http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm |title=Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options |author2=Gerber, Pierre |author3=Wassenaar, T. D. |author4=Castel, Vincent |publisher=[[Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations]] |year=2006 |isbn=978-92-5-105571-7 |access-date=August 19, 2008}}</ref><ref name="worldbank">{{cite book |last=Margulis |first=Sergio |url=http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2004/02/02/000090341_20040202130625/Rendered/PDF/277150PAPER0wbwp0no1022.pdf |title=Causes of Deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon |type=World Bank Working Paper No. 22 |publisher=The World Bank |year=2004 |isbn=0-8213-5691-7 |location=Washington D.C. |page=9 |access-date=September 4, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080910042549/http://www-wds.worldbank.org/servlet/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2004/02/02/000090341_20040202130625/Rendered/PDF/277150PAPER0wbwp0no1022.pdf |archive-date=September 10, 2008 |url-status=live}}</ref> Research has argued that a shift to meat-free diets could provide a safe option to feed a growing population without further deforestation, and for different yields scenarios.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Erb KH, Lauk C, Kastner T, Mayer A, Theurl MC, Haberl H |date=19 April 2016 |title=Exploring the biophysical option space for feeding the world without deforestation |journal=[[Nature Communications]] |volume=7 |pages=11382 |bibcode=2016NatCo...711382E |doi=10.1038/ncomms11382 |pmc=4838894 |pmid=27092437}}</ref> However, according to [[Food and Agriculture Organization|FAO]], grazing livestock in drylands “removes vegetation, including dry and flammable plants, and mobilizes stored biomass through depositions, which is partly transferred to the soil, improving fertility. Livestock is key to creating and maintaining specific habitats and green infrastructures, providing resources for other species and dispersing seeds”.<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://doi.org/10.4060/cc2280en |title=Grazing with trees. A silvopastoral approach to managing and restoring drylands |year=2022 |publisher=FAO |isbn=978-92-5-136956-2 |location=Rome|doi=10.4060/cc2280en |hdl=2078.1/267328 |s2cid=252636900 }}</ref>

=== Water use ===
Globally, the amount of water used for agricultural purposes exceeds any other industrialized purpose of water consumption.<ref name="Velasco-Muñoz-2018">{{Cite journal |last=Velasco-Muñoz |first=Juan F. |date=2018-04-05 |title=Sustainable Water Use in Agriculture: A Review of Worldwide Research |journal=Sustainability |language=en |volume=10 |issue=4 |pages=1084 |doi=10.3390/su10041084 |issn=2071-1050 |doi-access=free |hdl=10835/7355 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> About 80% of water resources globally are used for agricultural ecosystems. In developed countries, up to 60% of total water consumption can be used for irrigation; in developing countries, it can be up to 90%, depending on the region's economic status and climate. According to the projected increase in food production by 2050, water consumption would need to increase by 53% to satisfy the world population's demands for meat and agricultural production.<ref name="Velasco-Muñoz-2018" />

Groundwater depletion is a concern in some areas because of sustainability issues (and in some cases, land subsidence and/or [[saltwater intrusion]]).<ref>Konikow, L. W. 2013. Groundwater depletion in the United States (1900-2008). [[United States Geological Survey]]. Scientific Investigations Report 2013-5079. 63 pp.</ref> A particularly important North American example of depletion is the High Plains (Ogallala) Aquifer, which underlies about 174,000 square miles in parts of eight states of the USA and supplies 30 percent of the groundwater withdrawn for irrigation there.<ref>{{Cite web |title=HA 730-C High Plains aquifer. Ground Water Atlas of the United States. Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah |url=https://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_c/C-text5.html |access-date=2018-10-13 |website=[[United States Geological Survey]]}}</ref> Some irrigated livestock feed production is not hydrologically sustainable in the long run because of aquifer depletion. [[Rainfed agriculture]], which cannot deplete its water source, produces much of the livestock feed in North America. Corn (maize) is of particular interest, accounting for about 91.8% of the grain fed to US livestock and poultry in 2010.<ref name="USDA2011">USDA. 2011. USDA Agricultural Statistics 2011.</ref>{{rp|table 1–75}} About 14 percent of US corn-for-grain land is irrigated, accounting for about 17% of US corn-for-grain production and 13% of US irrigation water use,<ref>USDA 2010. 2007 Census of agriculture. AC07-SS-1. Farm and ranch irrigation survey (2008). Volume 3, Special Studies. Part 1. (Issued 2009, updated 2010.) 209 pp. + appendices. Tables 1 and 28.</ref><ref name="USDA2009">USDA. 2009. 2007 Census of Agriculture. United States Summary and State Data. Vol. 1. Geographic Area Series. Part 51. AC-07-A-51. 639 pp. + appendices. Table 1.</ref> but only about 40% of US corn grain is fed to US livestock and poultry.<ref name="USDA2011" />{{rp|table 1–38}} Irrigation accounts for about 37% of US withdrawn freshwater use, and groundwater provides about 42% of US irrigation water.<ref name="Kenny2009" /> Irrigation water applied in the production of livestock feed and forage has been estimated to account for about 9 percent of withdrawn freshwater use in the United States.<ref>Zering, K. D., T. J. Centner, D. Meyer, G. L. Newton, J. M. Sweeten and S. Woodruff.2012. Water and land issues associated with animal agriculture: a U.S. perspective. CAST Issue Paper No. 50. Council for Agricultural Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa. 24 pp.</ref>

Almost one-third of the water used in the western United States goes to crops that feed cattle.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Richter |first1=Brian D. |last2=Bartak |first2=Dominique |last3=Caldwell |first3=Peter |last4=Davis |first4=Kyle Frankel |last5=Debaere |first5=Peter |last6=Hoekstra |first6=Arjen Y. |last7=Li |first7=Tianshu |last8=Marston |first8=Landon |last9=McManamay |first9=Ryan |last10=Mekonnen |first10=Mesfin M. |last11=Ruddell |first11=Benjamin L. |date=2020-03-02 |title=Water scarcity and fish imperilment driven by beef production |url=http://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-0483-z |journal=Nature Sustainability |language=en |volume=3 |issue=4 |pages=319–328 |doi=10.1038/s41893-020-0483-z |bibcode=2020NatSu...3..319R |issn=2398-9629 |s2cid=211730442}}</ref> This is despite the claim that withdrawn surface water and groundwater used for crop [[irrigation]] in the US exceeds that for livestock by about a ratio of 60:1.<ref name="Kenny2009">Kenny, J. F. et al. 2009. [http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1344/pdf/c1344.pdf Estimated use of water in the United States in 2005], ''[[United States Geological Survey|US Geological Survey]] Circular'' 1344. 52 pp.</ref> This excessive use of river water distresses ecosystems and communities, and drives scores of species of fish closer to [[extinction]] during times of drought.<ref>{{cite news |last=Borunda |first=Alejandra |date=March 2, 2020 |title=How beef eaters in cities are draining rivers in the American West |work=[[National Geographic]] |url=https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/03/burger-water-shortages-colorado-river-western-us/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200303025435/https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/03/burger-water-shortages-colorado-river-western-us/ |url-status=dead |archive-date=March 3, 2020 |access-date=April 27, 2020}}</ref>

A 2023 study found that a [[vegan]] diet reduced water usage by 54%.<ref name="Carrington-2023" />

A study in 2019 focused on linkages between water usage and animal agricultural practices in China.<ref name="Xiao-2019">{{Cite journal |last1=Xiao |first1=Zhengyan |last2=Yao |first2=Meiqin |last3=Tang |first3=Xiaotong |last4=Sun |first4=Luxi |date=2019-01-01 |title=Identifying critical supply chains: An input-output analysis for Food-Energy-Water Nexus in China |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2018.11.006 |journal=Ecological Modelling |volume=392 |pages=31–37 |doi=10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2018.11.006 |bibcode=2019EcMod.392...31X |s2cid=92222220 |issn=0304-3800}}</ref> The results of the study showed that water resources were being used primarily for animal agriculture; the highest categories were animal husbandry, agriculture, slaughtering and processing of meat, fisheries, and other foods. Together they accounted for the consumption of over 2400 billion m3 embodied water, roughly equating to 40% of total embodied{{clarify|date=May 2023}} water by the whole system.<ref name="Xiao-2019" /> This means that more than one-third of China's entire water consumption is being used for food processing purposes, and mostly for animal agricultural practices.
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:right"
|+Estimated water requirements for various foods<ref>{{Cite web |last=Fabrique [merken |first=design & interactie |title=Water footprint of crop and animal products: a comparison |url=https://www.waterfootprint.org/time-for-action/what-can-consumers-do/#cropvanimal/ |access-date=2023-01-13 |website=waterfootprint.org |language=en}}</ref>
!rowspan=2|Foodstuff
!colspan=4|Litres per
|-
!kilocalorie
!gram of protein
!kg of foodstuff
!gram of fat
|-
!Sugar crops
|0.69
|N/A
|197
|N/A
|-
!Vegetables
|1.34
|26
|322
|154
|-
!Starchy roots
|0.47
|31
|387
|226
|-
!Fruits
|2.09
|180
|962
|348
|-
!Cereals
|0.51
|21
|1644
|112
|-
!Oil crops
|0.81
|16
|2364
|11
|-
!Pulses
|1.19
|19
|4055
|180
|-
!Nuts
|3.63
|139
|9063
|47
|-
!Milk
|1.82
|31
|1020
|33
|-
!Eggs
|2.29
|29
|3265
|33
|-
!Chicken meat
|3.00
|34
|4325
|43
|-
!Butter
|0.72
|N/A
|5553
|6.4
|-
!Pig meat
|2.15
|57
|5988
|23
|-
!Sheep/goat meat
|4.25
|63
|8763
|54
|-
!Bovine meat
|10.19
|112
|15415
|153
|}

=== Water pollution ===
Water pollution due to animal waste is a common problem in both developed and developing nations.<ref name="Steinfeld2006" /> The USA, Canada, India, Greece, Switzerland and several other countries are experiencing major [[environmental degradation]] due to water pollution via animal waste.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Livestock and the Environment |url=http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/lead/x6130e/x6130e02.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190129063720/http://www.fao.org/WAIRDOCS/LEAD/X6130E/X6130E02.htm |archive-date=2019-01-29 |access-date=2017-06-07}}</ref>{{rp|Table I-1}} Concerns about such problems are particularly acute in the case of CAFOs ([[concentrated animal feeding operation]]s). In the US, a permit for a CAFO requires the implementation of a plan for the management of manure nutrients, contaminants, wastewater, etc., as applicable, to meet requirements under the Clean Water Act.<ref>the US Code of Federal Regulations 40 CFR 122.42(e)</ref> There were about 19,000 CAFOs in the US as of 2008.<ref>United States Environmental Protection Agency. Appendix to EPA ICR 1989.06: Supporting Statement for the Information Collection Request for NPDES and ELG Regulatory Revisions for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (Final Rule)</ref> In fiscal 2014, the [[United States Environmental Protection Agency]] (EPA) concluded 26 enforcement actions for various violations by CAFOs.<ref>the US EPA. National Enforcement Initiative: Preventing animal waste from contaminating surface and groundwater. http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/national-enforcement-initiative-preventing-animal-waste-contaminating-surface-and-ground#progress {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180910042655/https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/national-enforcement-initiative-preventing-animal-waste-contaminating-surface-and-ground#progress |date=2018-09-10 }}</ref>

A 2023 study found that a [[vegan]] diet reduced water pollution by 75%.<ref name="Carrington-2023" />[[File:River algae Sichuan.jpg|thumb|A green algae bloom has been observed in Sichuan, China. In normal conditions, river water is transparent, but algae blooms result in green algae covering the surface. This prevents other plants at the bottom of the river from getting sunlight, causing them to lose their ability to photosynthesise. Oxygen levels in rivers fall when there is no other vegetation, resulting in the death of other species.]]Effective use of [[fertilizer]] is crucial to accelerate the growth of animal feed production, which in turn increases the amount of feed available for livestock.<ref name="Zhou 2010 80–102">{{Cite journal |last1=Zhou |first1=Yuan |last2=Yang |first2=Hong |last3=Mosler |first3=Hans-Joachim |last4=Abbaspour |first4=Karim C. |date=2010 |title=Factors affecting farmers' decisions on fertilizer use: A case study for the Chaobai watershed in Northern China |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/26167133 |journal=Consilience |issue=4 |pages=80–102 |jstor=26167133 |issn=1948-3074}}</ref> However, excess fertilizer can enter water bodies via runoff after rainfall, resulting in [[eutrophication]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=HERNÁNDEZ |first1=DANIEL L. |last2=VALLANO |first2=DENA M. |last3=ZAVALETA |first3=ERIKA S. |last4=TZANKOVA |first4=ZDRAVKA |last5=PASARI |first5=JAE R. |last6=WEISS |first6=STUART |last7=SELMANTS |first7=PAUL C. |last8=MOROZUMI |first8=CORINNE |date=2016 |title=Nitrogen Pollution Is Linked to US Listed Species Declines |journal=BioScience |volume=66 |issue=3 |pages=213–222 |doi=10.1093/biosci/biw003 |jstor=90007566 |issn=0006-3568|doi-access=free }}</ref> The addition of nitrogen and phosphorus can cause the rapid growth of algae, also known as an [[Algal bloom|algae bloom]]. The reduction of oxygen and nutrients in the water caused by the growth of algae ultimately leads to the death of other species in the [[ecosystem]]. This ecological harm has consequences not only for the native animals in the affected water body but also for the water supply for people.<ref name="Zhou 2010 80–102" />

To dispose of animal waste and other pollutants, animal production farms often spray manure (often contaminated with potentially toxic bacteria) onto empty fields, called "spray-fields", via sprinkler systems. The toxins within these spray-fields oftentimes run into creeks, ponds, lakes, and other bodies of water, contaminating bodies of water. This process has also led to the contamination of drinking water reserves, harming the environment and citizens alike.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Berger |first=Jamie |date=2022-04-01 |title=How Black North Carolinians pay the price for the world's cheap bacon |url=https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23003487/north-carolina-hog-pork-bacon-farms-environmental-racism-black-residents-pollution-meat-industry |access-date=2023-11-30 |website=Vox |language=en}}</ref>

=== Air pollution ===
{{Bar chart|title=Mean [[Acid rain|acidifying emissions]] (air pollution) of different foods per 100g of protein<ref name="Nemecek 987–992"/>|float=right|label_type=Food Types|data_type=Acidifying Emissions (g SO2eq per 100g protein)|bar_width=20|width_units=em|data_max=300.6|label1=[[Beef]]|data1=343.6|label2=[[Cheese]]|data2=165.5|label3=[[Pork]]|data3=142.7|label4=[[Lamb and mutton|Lamb and Mutton]]|data4=139.0|label5=[[Aquaculture|Farmed Crustaceans]]|data5=133.1|label6=[[Poultry]]|data6=102.4|label7=[[Aquaculture|Farmed Fish]]|data7=65.9|label8=[[Egg as food|Eggs]]|data8=53.7|label9=[[Faboideae|Groundnuts]]|data9=22.6|label10=[[Peas]]|data10=8.5|label11=[[Tofu]]|data11=6.7|label12=|data12=|label13=|data13=}}
Animal agriculture is a cause of harmful [[Particulates|particulate matter]] pollution in the atmosphere. This type of production chain produces byproducts; endotoxin, hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and particulate matter (PM), such as dust,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Merchant |first1=James A. |last2=Naleway |first2=Allison L. |last3=Svendsen |first3=Erik R. |last4=Kelly |first4=Kevin M. |last5=Burmeister |first5=Leon F. |last6=Stromquist |first6=Ann M. |last7=Taylor |first7=Craig D. |last8=Thorne |first8=Peter S. |last9=Reynolds |first9=Stephen J. |last10=Sanderson |first10=Wayne T. |last11=Chrischilles |first11=Elizabeth A. |year=2005 |title=Asthma and Farm Exposures in a Cohort of Rural Iowa Children |journal=Environmental Health Perspectives |volume=113 |issue=3 |pages=350–356 |doi=10.1289/ehp.7240 |pmc=1253764 |pmid=15743727}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Borrell |first=Brendan |date=December 3, 2018 |title=In California's Fertile Valley, a Bumper Crop of Air Pollution |url=https://undark.org/article/air-pollution-california/ |access-date=2019-09-27 |website=Undark |language=en-US}}</ref> all of which can negatively impact human respiratory health.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Viegas |first1=S. |last2=Faísca |first2=V. M. |last3=Dias |first3=H. |last4=Clérigo |first4=A. |last5=Carolino |first5=E. |last6=Viegas |first6=C. |year=2013 |title=Occupational Exposure to Poultry Dust and Effects on the Respiratory System in Workers |journal=Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A |volume=76 |issue=4–5 |pages=230–239 |doi=10.1080/15287394.2013.757199 |pmid=23514065 |bibcode=2013JTEHA..76..230V |s2cid=22558834}}</ref> Furthermore, [[Methane emissions|methane]] and {{CO2}}—the primary greenhouse gas emissions associated with meat production—have also been associated with respiratory diseases like asthma, bronchitis, and COPD.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=George |first1=Maureen |last2=Bruzzese |first2=Jean-Marie |last3=Matura |first3=Lea Ann |year=2017 |title=Climate Change Effects on Respiratory Health: Implications for Nursing |journal=Journal of Nursing Scholarship |volume=49 |issue=6 |pages=644–652 |doi=10.1111/jnu.12330 |pmid=28806469 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

A study found that [[concentrated animal feeding operation]]s (CAFOs) could increase perceived asthma-like symptoms for residents within 500 meters.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Radon |first1=Katja |last2=Schulze |first2=Anja |last3=Ehrenstein |first3=Vera |last4=Van Strien |first4=Rob T. |last5=Praml |first5=Georg |last6=Nowak |first6=Dennis |year=2007 |title=Environmental Exposure to Confined Animal Feeding Operations and Respiratory Health of Neighboring Residents |journal=Epidemiology |volume=18 |issue=3 |pages=300–308 |doi=10.1097/01.ede.0000259966.62137.84 |pmid=17435437 |s2cid=15905956|doi-access=free }}</ref> Concentrated hog feeding operations release air pollutants from confinement buildings, manure holding pits, and land application of waste. Air pollutants from these operations have caused acute physical symptoms, such as respiratory illnesses, wheezing, increased breath rate, and irritation of the eyes and nose.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Schinasi |first1=Leah |last2=Horton |first2=Rachel Avery |last3=Guidry |first3=Virginia T. |last4=Wing |first4=Steve |last5=Marshall |first5=Stephen W. |last6=Morland |first6=Kimberly B. |year=2011 |title=Air Pollution, Lung Function, and Physical Symptoms in Communities Near Concentrated Swine Feeding Operations |journal=Epidemiology |volume=22 |issue=2 |pages=208–215 |doi=10.1097/ede.0b013e3182093c8b |pmc=5800517 |pmid=21228696}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Mirabelli |first1=M. C. |last2=Wing |first2=S. |last3=Marshall |first3=S. W. |last4=Wilcosky |first4=T. C. |year=2006 |title=Asthma Symptoms Among Adolescents Who Attend Public Schools That Are Located Near Confined Swine Feeding Operations |journal=Pediatrics |volume=118 |issue=1 |pages=e66–e75 |doi=10.1542/peds.2005-2812 |pmc=4517575 |pmid=16818539}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Pavilonis |first1=Brian T. |last2=Sanderson |first2=Wayne T. |last3=Merchant |first3=James A. |year=2013 |title=Relative exposure to swine animal feeding operations and childhood asthma prevalence in an agricultural cohort |journal=Environmental Research |volume=122 |pages=74–80 |bibcode=2013ER....122...74P |doi=10.1016/j.envres.2012.12.008 |pmc=3980580 |pmid=23332647}}</ref> That prolonged exposure to airborne animal particulate, such as swine dust, induces a large influx of inflammatory cells into the airways.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Müller-Suur |first1=C. |last2=Larsson |first2=K. |last3=Malmberg |first3=P. |last4=Larsson |first4=P.H. |year=1997 |title=Increased number of activated lymphocytes in human lung following swine dust inhalation |journal=European Respiratory Journal |volume=10 |issue=2 |pages=376–380 |doi=10.1183/09031936.97.10020376 |pmid=9042635 |doi-access=free}}</ref> Those in close proximity to CAFOs could be exposed to elevated levels of these byproducts, which may lead to poor health and respiratory outcomes.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Carrie |first=Hribar |date=2010 |title=Understanding Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and Their Impact on Communities |url=https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehs/docs/understanding_cafos_nalboh.pdf |journal=2010 National Association of Local Boards of Health |via=Centres for Disease Control and Prevention}}</ref> Additionally, since CAFOs tend to be located in primarily rural and low-income communities, low-income people are disproportionately affected by these environmental health consequences. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1637958/]

Especially when modified by high temperatures, air pollution can harm all regions, socioeconomic groups, sexes, and age groups. Approximately seven million people die from air pollution exposure every year. Air pollution often exacerbates respiratory disease by permeating into the lung tissue and damaging the lungs.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Areal |first1=Ashtyn Tracey |last2=Zhao |first2=Qi |last3=Wigmann |first3=Claudia |last4=Schneider |first4=Alexandra |last5=Schikowski |first5=Tamara |date=2022-03-10 |title=The effect of air pollution when modified by temperature on respiratory health outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969721074131 |journal=Science of the Total Environment |language=en |volume=811 |pages=152336 |bibcode=2022ScTEn.811o2336A |doi=10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152336 |issn=0048-9697 |pmid=34914983 |s2cid=245204902}}</ref>

Despite the wealth of environmental consequences listed above, local US governments tend to support the harmful practices of the animal production industry due to its strong economic benefits. Due to this protective legislature, it is extremely difficult for activists to regulate industry practices and diminish environmental impacts. <ref>{{Cite web |last=Cooke |first=Christina |date=2017-05-09 |title=NC GOP Protects Factory Farms' Right to Pollute |url=https://civileats.com/2017/05/09/north-carolina-factory-farms-lose-effort-to-limit-pollution-lawsuits/ |access-date=2023-11-30 |website=Civil Eats |language=en}}</ref>

== Climate change aspects ==

=== Energy consumption ===
[[File:Energy efficiency of meat and dairy production, OWID.svg|thumb|400px|Energy efficiency of meat and dairy production]]
An important aspect of energy use in livestock production is the energy consumption that the animals contribute. Feed Conversion Ratio is an animal's ability to convert feed into meat. The Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR) is calculated by taking the energy, protein, or mass input of the feed divided by the output of meat provided by the animal. A lower FCR corresponds with a smaller requirement of feed per meat output, and therefore the animal contributes less GHG emissions. Chickens and pigs usually have a lower FCR compared to ruminants.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Röös |first1=Elin |last2=Sundberg |first2=Cecilia |last3=Tidåker |first3=Pernilla |last4=Strid |first4=Ingrid |last5=Hansson |first5=Per-Anders |date=2013-01-01 |title=Can carbon footprint serve as an indicator of the environmental impact of meat production? |journal=Ecological Indicators |volume=24 |pages=573–581 |doi=10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.08.004|bibcode=2013EcInd..24..573R }}</ref>

Intensification and other changes in the livestock industries influence energy use, emissions, and other environmental effects of meat production.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Capper |first1=J. L. |year=2011 |title=The environmental impact of beef production in the United States: 1977 compared with 2007. |journal=J. Anim. Sci. |volume=89 |issue=12 |pages=4249–4261 |doi=10.2527/jas.2010-3784 |pmid=21803973 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

Manure can also have environmental benefits as a renewable energy source, in digester systems yielding [[biogas]] for heating and/or electricity generation. Manure biogas operations can be found in Asia, Europe,<ref>Erneubare Energien in Deutschland - Rückblick und Stand des Innovationsgeschehens. Bundesministerium fűr Umwelt, Naturschutz u. Reaktorsicherheit. http://www.bmu.de/files/pdfs/allgemin/application/pdf/ibee_gesamt_bf.pdf{{dead link|date=September 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref><ref>Biogas from manure and waste products - Swedish case studies. SBGF; SGC; Gasföreningen. 119 pp. http://www.iea-biogas.net/_download/public-task37/public-member/Swedish_report_08.pdf{{dead link|date=September 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> North America, and elsewhere.<ref>{{cite web |date=2014-06-02 |title=U.S. Anaerobic Digester |url=http://www.epa.gov/agstar/documents/digester_status_report2010.pdf |access-date=2015-03-30 |publisher=Agf.gov.bc.ca}}</ref> System cost is substantial, relative to US energy values, which may be a deterrent to more widespread use. Additional factors, such as odour control and carbon credits, may improve benefit-to-cost ratios.<ref>NRCS. 2007. An analysis of energy production costs from anaerobic digestion systems on U.S. livestock production facilities. US Natural Resources Conservation Service. Tech. Note 1. 33 pp.</ref> Manure can be mixed with other organic wastes in anaerobic digesters to take advantage of economies of scale. Digested waste is more uniform in consistency than untreated organic wastes, and can have higher proportions of nutrients that are more available to plants, which enhances the utility of [[digestate]] as a fertiliser product.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ramirez |first1=Jerome |last2=McCabe |first2=Bernadette |last3=Jensen |first3=Paul D. |last4=Speight |first4=Robert |last5=Harrison |first5=Mark |last6=van den Berg |first6=Lisa |last7=O'Hara |first7=Ian |date=2021 |title=Wastes to profit: a circular economy approach to value-addition in livestock industries |url=https://www.publish.csiro.au/an/Fulltext/AN20400 |journal=Animal Production Science |volume=61 |issue=6 |page=541 |doi=10.1071/AN20400 |s2cid=233881148|doi-access=free }}</ref> This encourages circularity in meat production, which is typically difficult to achieve due to environmental and food safety concerns.

=== Greenhouse gas emissions ===
{{excerpt|Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture#Livestock|paragraphs=1-4|file=no}}

==== Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from cattle ====

The [[Food and Agriculture Organization]] estimates that in 2015 around 7% of global [[greenhouse gas emissions]] (GHG) were due to cattle,{{refn|FAO say that in 2015 livestock production created around 12% of greenhouse gas emissions, some 62% of which is due to cattle, thus 7%.<ref>{{Cite web |title=New FAO report maps pathways towards lower livestock emissions |url=https://www.fao.org/newsroom/detail/new-fao-report-maps-pathways-towards-lower-livestock-emissions/en |access-date=2024-03-25 |website=Newsroom}}</ref>|group=note}} but this is uncertain.<ref name=":32">{{Cite web |title=Livestock Don't Contribute 14.5% of Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions |url=https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/food-agriculture-environment/livestock-dont-contribute-14-5-of-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions |access-date=2024-03-25 |website=The Breakthrough Institute}}</ref> Another estimate is 12% of global GHG.<ref name=":4">{{Cite news |date=2 October 2021 |title=Treating beef like coal would make a big dent in greenhouse-gas emissions |url=https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/10/02/treating-beef-like-coal-would-make-a-big-dent-in-greenhouse-gas-emissions |url-access=subscription |access-date=3 November 2021 |newspaper=The Economist |issn=0013-0613}}</ref> More recently [[Climate TRACE|Climate Trace]] estimates 4.5% directly from cattle in 2022. Reducing [[Methane emissions from livestock|methane emissions]] quickly helps [[Climate change mitigation|limit climate change]].<ref name=":32" />[[File:Carbon_footprint_of_protein_foods.png|thumb|Beef and lamb have the largest carbon footprint of protein-rich foods.]]

{| class="wikitable"
|+Estimates by Climate TRACE<ref>{{Cite web |title=Sectors - Climate TRACE |url=https://climatetrace.org/sectors |access-date=2024-03-27 |website=climatetrace.org |language=en}}</ref>
!Billion tonnes CO2eq (% of total global emissions)
!2022
!2023
|-
|'''Enteric fermentation cattle feedlot'''
|7.95 (1.76)
|
|-
|'''Enteric fermentation cattle pasture'''
|8.55 (1.90)
|
|-
|'''Manure left on pasture cattle'''
|2.91 (0.65)
|
|-
|'''Manure management cattle feedlot'''
|0.70 (0.16)
|
|-
|Total
|20.11 (4.47)
|
|}

[[File:Environmental-impact-of-food-by-life-cycle-stage.png|thumb|Methane production from cows, and land conversion for grazing and animal feed means beef from dedicated beef herds has a very high carbon footprint.]]

[[Gut flora]] in cattle include [[methanogen]]s that [[methanogenesis|produce methane]] as a byproduct of [[enteric fermentation]], which cattle belch out. Additional methane is produced by anaerobic fermentation of manure in [[manure lagoon]]s and other manure storage structures.<ref>US EPA. 2012. Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gase emissions and sinks: 1990–2010. US. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA 430-R-12-001. Section 6.2.</ref> Manure can also release [[nitrous oxide]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Rivera |first1=Julián Esteban |last2=Chará |first2=Julian |date=2021 |title=CH4 and N2O Emissions From Cattle Excreta: A Review of Main Drivers and Mitigation Strategies in Grazing Systems |journal=Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems |volume=5 |doi=10.3389/fsufs.2021.657936 |issn=2571-581X |doi-access=free}}</ref> Over 20 years [[atmospheric methane]] has 81 times the [[global warming potential]] of the same amount of [[Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere|atmospheric carbon dioxide]].<ref name=":0">{{Citation |title=7.SM.6 Tables of greenhouse gas lifetimes, radiative efficiencies and metrics |date=2021 |page=7SM-24 |url=https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter_07_Supplementary_Material.pdf |publisher=[[IPCC]]}}.</ref>

As conditions vary a lot<ref name=":1">{{cite journal |last1=Eckard |first1=R. J. |last2=Grainger |first2=C. |last3=de Klein |first3=C.A.M. |year=2010 |title=Options for the abatement of methane and nitrous oxide from ruminant production: A review |journal=Livestock Science |volume=130 |issue=1–3 |pages=47–56 |doi=10.1016/j.livsci.2010.02.010}}</ref> the [[IPCC]] would like these taken into account when estimating [[methane emissions]], in other words countries where cattle are significant should use Tier 3 methods in their national [[Greenhouse gas inventory|greenhouse gas inventories]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Ghassemi Nejad |first1=J. |last2=Ju |first2=M. S. |last3=Jo |first3=J. H. |last4=Oh |first4=K. H. |last5=Lee |first5=Y. S. |last6=Lee |first6=S. D. |last7=Kim |first7=E. J. |last8=Roh |first8=S. |last9=Lee |first9=H. G. |date=2024 |title=Advances in Methane Emission Estimation in Livestock: A Review of Data Collection Methods, Model Development and the Role of AI Technologies |journal=Animals |volume=14 |issue=3 |page=435 |doi=10.3390/ani14030435 |pmc=10854801 |pmid=38338080 |doi-access=free}}</ref> Although well-managed perennial [[Pasture|pastures]] sequester [[Soil carbon|carbon in the soil]], {{As of|2023|lc=y}} [[Life-cycle assessment|life cycle assessments]] are required to fully assess pastoral dairy farms in all environments.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal |last1=Soder |first1=K. J. |last2=Brito |first2=A. F. |date=2023 |title=Enteric methane emissions in grazing dairy systems |journal=JDS Communications |volume=4 |issue=4 |pages=324–328 |doi=10.3168/jdsc.2022-0297 |pmc=10382831 |pmid=37521055}}</ref>
===Mitigation options===
[[File:Development of per capita meat consumption and gross domestic product (GDP) over time (1990–2017).png|thumb|Per capita meat consumption and [[gross domestic product|GDP]] 1990–2017]]
[[Climate change mitigation|Mitigation options]] for reducing methane emission from livestock include a change in diet, that is consuming less meat and dairy.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Poore |first1=J. |last2=Nemecek |first2=T. |date=2018-06-01 |title=Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers |journal=Science |volume=360 |issue=6392 |pages=987–992 |bibcode=2018Sci...360..987P |doi=10.1126/science.aaq0216 |issn=1095-9203 |pmid=29853680 |s2cid=206664954|doi-access=free }}</ref> A significant reduction in meat consumption will be essential to mitigate climate change, especially as the human population increases by a projected 2.3 billion by the middle of the century.<ref name="Carrington-2018" /> A 2019 report in ''[[The Lancet]]'' recommended that global meat consumption be halved to mitigate climate change.<ref>{{cite news |last=Gibbens |first=Sarah |date=January 16, 2019 |title=Eating meat has 'dire' consequences for the planet, says report |work=[[National Geographic]] |url=https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/commission-report-great-food-transformation-plant-diet-climate-change/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190117010915/https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/01/commission-report-great-food-transformation-plant-diet-climate-change/ |url-status=dead |archive-date=January 17, 2019 |access-date=January 21, 2019}}</ref> A study [[Carbon dioxide removal|quantified]] climate change mitigation potentials of 'high-income' nations shifting diets – away from meat-consumption – and [[Restoration ecology|restoration]] of the spared land, finding that if these were combined they could "reduce annual agricultural production emissions of high-income nations' diets by 61%".<ref>{{cite news |title=How plant-based diets not only reduce our carbon footprint, but also increase carbon capture |language=en |work=[[Leiden University]] |url=https://phys.org/news/2022-01-plant-based-diets-carbon-footprint-capture.html |access-date=14 February 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Sun |first1=Zhongxiao |last2=Scherer |first2=Laura |last3=Tukker |first3=Arnold |last4=Spawn-Lee |first4=Seth A. |last5=Bruckner |first5=Martin |last6=Gibbs |first6=Holly K. |last7=Behrens |first7=Paul |date=January 2022 |title=Dietary change in high-income nations alone can lead to substantial double climate dividend |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357723207 |journal=Nature Food |language=en |volume=3 |issue=1 |pages=29–37 |doi=10.1038/s43016-021-00431-5 |pmid=37118487 |issn=2662-1355 |s2cid=245867412 |url-access=subscription}}</ref>

In addition to reduced consumption, emissions can also be reduced by changes in practice. One study found that shifting compositions of current feeds, production areas, and informed land restoration could enable greenhouse gas emissions reductions of 34–85% annually (612–1,506 megatons CO2 equivalent per year) without increasing costs or changing diets.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Castonguay |first1=Adam C. |last2=Polasky |first2=Stephen |last3=H. Holden |first3=Matthew |last4=Herrero |first4=Mario |last5=Mason-D’Croz |first5=Daniel |last6=Godde |first6=Cecile |last7=Chang |first7=Jinfeng |last8=Gerber |first8=James |last9=Witt |first9=G. Bradd |last10=Game |first10=Edward T. |last11=A. Bryan |first11=Brett |last12=Wintle |first12=Brendan |last13=Lee |first13=Katie |last14=Bal |first14=Payal |last15=McDonald-Madden |first15=Eve |date=March 2023 |title=Navigating sustainability trade-offs in global beef production |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-022-01017-0 |journal=Nature Sustainability |language=en |volume=6 |issue=3 |pages=284–294 |doi=10.1038/s41893-022-01017-0 |bibcode=2023NatSu...6..284C |s2cid=255638753 |issn=2398-9629}}</ref>

Producers can reduce ruminant enteric fermentation using genetic selection,<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.genomecanada.ca/en/programs/large-scale-science/past-competitions/strategic-initiatives/bovine-genomics |title=Bovine genomics project at Genome Canada |access-date=2018-11-30 |archive-date=2019-08-10 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190810023632/https://www.genomecanada.ca/en/programs/large-scale-science/past-competitions/strategic-initiatives/bovine-genomics |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine |title=Canada Is Using Genetics to Make Cows Less Gassy |date=2017-06-09 |magazine=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]] |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230524194330/https://www.wired.com/story/canada-is-using-genetics-to-make-cows-less-gassy/ |archive-date=2023-05-24 |url-status=live |url=https://www.wired.com/story/canada-is-using-genetics-to-make-cows-less-gassy/}}</ref> immunization, rumen [[defaunation]], competition of methanogenic archaea with [[acetogens]],<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Joblin |first1=K. N. |year=1999 |title=Ruminal acetogens and their potential to lower ruminant methane emissions |journal=Australian Journal of Agricultural Research |volume=50 |issue=8 |pages=1307 |doi=10.1071/AR99004}}</ref> introduction of [[Methanotroph|methanotrophic bacteria]] into the rumen,<ref>[https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01137190/document The use of direct-fed microbials for mitigation of ruminant methane emissions: a review]</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Parmar |first1=N.R. |last2=Nirmal Kumar |first2=J.I. |last3=Joshi |first3=C.G. |year=2015 |title=Exploring diet-dependent shifts in methanogen and methanotroph diversity in the rumen of Mehsani buffalo by a metagenomics approach |journal=Frontiers in Life Science |volume=8 |issue=4 |pages=371–378 |doi=10.1080/21553769.2015.1063550 |s2cid=89217740}}</ref> diet modification and grazing management, among others.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Boadi |first1=D |year=2004 |title=Mitigation strategies to reduce enteric methane emissions from dairy cows: Update review |journal=Can. J. Anim. Sci. |volume=84 |issue=3 |pages=319–335 |doi=10.4141/a03-109 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>Martin, C. et al. 2010. Methane mitigation in ruminants: from microbe to the farm scale. ''Animal'' 4 : pp 351-365.</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Eckard |first1=R. J. |display-authors=etal |year=2010 |title=Options for the abatement of methane and nitrous oxide from ruminant production: A review |journal=Livestock Science |volume=130 |issue=1–3 |pages=47–56 |doi=10.1016/j.livsci.2010.02.010}}</ref> The principal mitigation strategies identified for reduction of agricultural [[nitrous oxide]] emissions are avoiding over-application of [[nitrogen fertilizers]] and adopting suitable [[manure management]] practices.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Dalal |first1=R.C. |display-authors=etal |year=2003 |title=Nitrous oxide emission from Australian agricultural lands and mitigation options: a review |journal=[[Australian Journal of Soil Research]] |volume=41 |issue=2 |pages=165–195 |doi=10.1071/sr02064 |s2cid=4498983}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Klein |first1=C. A. M. |last2=Ledgard |first2=S. F. |year=2005 |title=Nitrous oxide emissions from New Zealand agriculture – key sources and mitigation strategies |journal=Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems |volume=72 |issue=1 |pages=77–85 |doi=10.1007/s10705-004-7357-z |bibcode=2005NCyAg..72...77D |s2cid=42756018}}</ref> Mitigation strategies for reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the livestock sector include adopting more efficient production practices to reduce agricultural pressure for deforestation (such as in Latin America), reducing fossil fuel consumption, and increasing [[carbon sequestration]] [[Soil carbon|in soils]].<ref name="Gerber2013">Gerber, P. J., H. Steinfeld, B. Henderson, A. Mottet, C. Opio, J. Dijkman, A. Falcucci and G. Tempio. 2013. Tackling climate change through livestock - a global assessment of emissions and mitigation opportunities. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 115 pp.</ref>

Methane belching from cattle might be reduced by intensification of farming,<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Reisinger |first1=Andy |last2=Clark |first2=Harry |last3=Cowie |first3=Annette L. |last4=Emmet-Booth |first4=Jeremy |last5=Gonzalez Fischer |first5=Carlos |last6=Herrero |first6=Mario |last7=Howden |first7=Mark |last8=Leahy |first8=Sinead |date=2021-11-15 |title=How necessary and feasible are reductions of methane emissions from livestock to support stringent temperature goals? |journal=Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences |language=en |volume=379 |issue=2210 |pages=20200452 |bibcode=2021RSPTA.37900452R |doi=10.1098/rsta.2020.0452 |issn=1364-503X |pmc=8480228 |pmid=34565223}}</ref> [[selective breeding]],<ref name=":2" /> [[immunization]] against the many methanogens,<ref name=":2" /> rumen [[defaunation]] (killing the bacteria-killing protozoa),<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=L. Aban |first1=Maita |last2=C. Bestil |first2=Lolito |date=2016 |title=Rumen Defaunation: Determining the Level and Frequency of Leucaena leucocephala Linn. Forage |url=http://www.ijfe.org/uploadfile/2016/0512/20160512062938837.pdf |journal=International Journal of Food Engineering |volume=2 |issue=1}}</ref> diet modification (e.g. [[seaweed]] fortification),<ref>{{Cite news |last=Lewis Mernit |first=Judith |date=2 July 2018 |title=How Eating Seaweed Can Help Cows to Belch Less Methane |url=https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-eating-seaweed-can-help-cows-to-belch-less-methane |access-date=29 January 2022 |work=Yale School of the Environment}}</ref> decreased [[antibiotic]] use,<ref>{{Cite web |last=Axt |first=Barbara |date=25 May 2016 |title=Treating cows with antibiotics doubles dung methane emissions |url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/2089867-treating-cows-with-antibiotics-doubles-dung-methane-emissions/ |access-date=5 October 2019 |website=New Scientist}}</ref> and [[grazing]] management.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Willis |first=Katie |title=Grazing livestock could reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, study shows |url=https://www.ualberta.ca/folio/2021/03/grazing-livestock-could-reduce-greenhouse-gases-in-the-atmosphere-study-shows.html |access-date=2024-04-10 |website=www.ualberta.ca |language=en}}</ref>

Measures that increase state revenues from meat consumption/production could enable the use of these funds [[Research and development#Government expenditures|for related research and development]] and "to cushion social hardships among low-income consumers". Meat and livestock are important sectors of the contemporary socioeconomic system, with livestock value chains [[employment|employing]] an estimated >1.3 billion people.<ref name="10.1146/annurev-resource-111820-032340" />

Sequestering carbon into soil is currently not feasible to cancel out planet-warming emissions caused by the livestock sector. The global livestock annually emits 135 billion metric tons of carbon, way more than can be returned to the soil.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Wang |first1=Yue |last2=de Boer |first2=Imke J. M. |last3=Persson |first3=U. Martin |last4=Ripoll-Bosch |first4=Raimon |last5=Cederberg |first5=Christel |last6=Gerber |first6=Pierre J. |last7=Smith |first7=Pete |last8=van Middelaar |first8=Corina E. |date=2023-11-22 |title=Risk to rely on soil carbon sequestration to offset global ruminant emissions |journal=Nature Communications |language=en |volume=14 |issue=1 |pages=7625 |doi=10.1038/s41467-023-43452-3 |pmid=37993450 |issn=2041-1723|pmc=10665458 |bibcode=2023NatCo..14.7625W }}</ref> Despite this, the idea of sequestering carbon to the soil is currently advocated by livestock industry as well as grassroots groups.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Fassler |first=Joe |date=2024-02-01 |title=Research Undermines Claims that Soil Carbon Can Offset Livestock Emissions |url=https://www.desmog.com/2024/02/01/climate-change-livestock-methane-carbon-sequestration-claims/ |access-date=2024-02-02 |website=DeSmog |language=en-US}}</ref>

[[Agricultural subsidy|Agricultural subsidies]] for cattle and their feedstock could be stopped.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Carrington |first=Damian |last2= |first2= |date=2021-09-14 |title=Nearly all global farm subsidies harm people and planet – UN |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/14/global-farm-subsidies-damage-people-planet-un-climate-crisis-nature-inequality |access-date=2024-03-27 |work=[[The Guardian]] |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> A more controversial suggestion, advocated by [[George Monbiot]] in the documentary "Apocalypse Cow", is to stop farming cattle completely, however farmers often have political power so might be able to resist such a big change.<ref>{{Cite web |date=13 May 2022 |title=George Monbiot: "Agriculture is arguably the most destructive industry on Earth" |url=https://www.newstatesman.com/encounter/2022/05/george-monbiot-agriculture-is-arguably-the-most-destructive-industry-on-earth |access-date=4 June 2022 |website=[[New Statesman]]}}</ref>

==Effects on ecosystems==

=== Soils ===
[[File:ParaguayChaco Clearings for cattle grazing.jpg|thumb|Clearings for cattle grazing in the [[Gran Chaco|Chaco]] region of [[Paraguay]]]]Grazing can have positive or negative effects on rangeland health, depending on management quality,<ref>{{cite book |last1=Bilotta |first1=G. S. |chapter=The impacts of grazing animals on the quality of soils, vegetation, and surface waters in intensively managed grasslands |last2=Brazier |first2=R. E. |last3=Haygarth |first3=P. M. |title=Advances in Agronomy |year=2007 |isbn=9780123741073 |series=Advances in Agronomy |volume=94 |pages=237–280 |doi=10.1016/s0065-2113(06)94006-1}}</ref> and grazing can have different effects on different soils<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Greenwood |first1=K. L. |last2=McKenzie |first2=B. M. |year=2001 |title=Grazing effects on soil physical properties and the consequences for pastures: a review |journal=Austral. J. Exp. Agr. |volume=41 |issue=8 |pages=1231–1250 |doi=10.1071/EA00102}}</ref> and different plant communities.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Milchunas |first1=D. G. |last2=Lauenroth |first2=W. KI. |year=1993 |title=Quantitative effects of grazing on vegetation and soils over a global range of environments |journal=Ecological Monographs |volume=63 |issue=4 |pages=327–366 |doi=10.2307/2937150 |jstor=2937150|bibcode=1993EcoM...63..327M }}</ref> Grazing can sometimes reduce, and other times increase, biodiversity of grassland ecosystems.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Olff |first1=H. |last2=Ritchie |first2=M. E. |year=1998 |title=Effects of herbivores on grassland plant diversity |url=https://pure.rug.nl/ws/files/14659214/1998TrendsEcolEvolOlff.pdf |journal=Trends in Ecology and Evolution |volume=13 |issue=7 |pages=261–265 |doi=10.1016/s0169-5347(98)01364-0 |pmid=21238294 |hdl=11370/3e3ec5d4-fa03-4490-94e3-66534b3fe62f}}</ref><ref>Environment Canada. 2013. Amended recovery strategy for the Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus urophasianus) in Canada. Species at Risk Act, Recovery Strategy Series. 57 pp.</ref> In beef production, cattle ranching helps preserve and improve the natural environment by maintaining habitats that are well suited for grazing animals.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations |title=The contributions of livestock species and breeds to ecosystem services |url=http://www.fao.org/3/i6482e/i6482e.pdf}}</ref> Lightly grazed grasslands also tend to have higher biodiversity than overgrazed or non-grazed grasslands.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations |date=2016 |title=The contributions of livestock species and breeds to ecosystem services |url=http://www.fao.org/3/i6482e/i6482e.pdf |access-date=2021-05-15 |website=[[FAO]]}}</ref>

Overgrazing can decrease [[soil quality]] by constantly depleting it of necessary nutrients.<ref>National Research Council. 1994. Rangeland Health. New Methods to Classify, Inventory and Monitor Rangelands. Nat. Acad. Press. 182 pp.</ref> By the end of 2002, the US [[Bureau of Land Management]] (BLM) found that 16% of the evaluated 7,437 grazing allotments had failed to meet [[rangeland health]] standards because of their excessive grazing use.<ref>US BLM. 2004. Proposed Revisions to Grazing Regulations for the Public Lands. FES 04-39</ref> [[Overgrazing]] appears to cause soil [[erosion]] in many dry regions of the world.<ref name="Steinfeld2006" /> However, on US farmland, soil erosion is much less on land used for livestock grazing than on land used for crop production. According to the US [[Natural Resources Conservation Service]], on 95.1% of US pastureland, [[Sheet erosion|sheet]] and [[rill erosion]] are within the estimated [[soil loss tolerance]], and on 99.4% of US pastureland, [[wind erosion]] is within the estimated soil loss tolerance.<ref>NRCS. 2009. Summary report 2007 national resources inventory. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 123 pp.</ref>[[File:Two cows grazing.jpg|thumb|Dryland grazing on the [[Great Plains]] in [[Colorado]]]]

Grazing can affect the [[Carbon sequestration|sequestration]] of carbon and nitrogen in the soil. This sequestration helps mitigate the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, and in some cases, increases ecosystem productivity by affecting [[nutrient cycle|nutrient cycling]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=De Mazancourt |first1=C. |last2=Loreau |first2=M. |last3=Abbadie |first3=L. |year=1998 |title=Grazing optimization and nutrient cycling: when do herbivores enhance plant production? |journal=Ecology |volume=79 |issue=7 |pages=2242–2252 |doi=10.1890/0012-9658(1998)079[2242:goancw]2.0.co;2 |s2cid=52234485}}</ref> A 2017 meta-study of the scientific literature estimated that the total global soil carbon sequestration potential from grazing management ranges from 0.3–0.8 gigatons CO2eq per year, which is equivalent to 4–11% of total global livestock emissions, but that "Expansion or intensification in the grazing sector as an approach to sequestering more carbon would lead to substantial increases in methane, nitrous oxide and [[land use change]]-induced CO2 emissions".<ref>{{cite web |last1=Garnett |first1=Tara |last2=Godde |first2=Cécile |year=2017 |title=Grazed and confused? |url=https://www.tabledebates.org/sites/default/files/2020-10/fcrn_gnc_report.pdf |access-date=11 February 2021 |publisher=Food Climate Research Network |page=64 |quote=The non-peer-reviewed estimates from the Savory Institute are strikingly higher – and, for all the reasons discussed earlier (Section 3.4.3), unrealistic.}}</ref> Project Drawdown estimates the total carbon sequestration potential of improved managed grazing at 13.72–20.92 gigatons CO2eq between 2020–2050, equal to 0.46–0.70 gigatons CO2eq per year.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2020-02-05 |title=Table of Solutions |url=https://drawdown.org/solutions/table-of-solutions |access-date=2023-07-23 |website=Project Drawdown |language=en}}</ref> A 2022 peer-reviewed paper estimated the carbon sequestration potential of improved grazing management at a similar level of 0.15–0.70 gigatons CO2eq per year.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Bai |first1=Yongfei |last2=Cotrufo |first2=M. Francesca |date=2022-08-05 |title=Grassland soil carbon sequestration: Current understanding, challenges, and solutions |url=https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abo2380 |journal=Science |language=en |volume=377 |issue=6606 |pages=603–608 |bibcode=2022Sci...377..603B |doi=10.1126/science.abo2380 |issn=0036-8075 |pmid=35926033 |s2cid=251349023}}</ref> A 2021 peer-reviewed paper found that sparsely grazed and natural grasslands account for 80% of the total cumulative carbon sink of the world’s grasslands, whereas managed grasslands have been a net greenhouse gas source over the past decade.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Chang |first1=Jinfeng |last2=Ciais |first2=Philippe |last3=Gasser |first3=Thomas |last4=Smith |first4=Pete |last5=Herrero |first5=Mario |last6=Havlík |first6=Petr |last7=Obersteiner |first7=Michael |last8=Guenet |first8=Bertrand |last9=Goll |first9=Daniel S. |last10=Li |first10=Wei |last11=Naipal |first11=Victoria |last12=Peng |first12=Shushi |last13=Qiu |first13=Chunjing |last14=Tian |first14=Hanqin |last15=Viovy |first15=Nicolas |date=2021-01-05 |title=Climate warming from managed grasslands cancels the cooling effect of carbon sinks in sparsely grazed and natural grasslands |journal=Nature Communications |language=en |volume=12 |issue=1 |pages=118 |bibcode=2021NatCo..12..118C |doi=10.1038/s41467-020-20406-7 |issn=2041-1723 |pmc=7785734 |pmid=33402687}}</ref> Another peer-reviewed paper found that if current pastureland was restored to its former state as wild grasslands, shrublands, and sparse savannas without livestock this could store an estimated 15.2–59.9 gigatons additional carbon.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Hayek |first1=Matthew N. |last2=Harwatt |first2=Helen |last3=Ripple |first3=William J. |last4=Mueller |first4=Nathaniel D. |date=January 2021 |title=The carbon opportunity cost of animal-sourced food production on land |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00603-4 |journal=Nature Sustainability |language=en |volume=4 |issue=1 |pages=21–24 |doi=10.1038/s41893-020-00603-4 |issn=2398-9629 |s2cid=221522148}}</ref> A study found that grazing in US virgin grasslands causes the soil to have lower soil organic carbon but higher soil nitrogen content.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bauer |first1=A. |last2=Cole |first2=C. V. |last3=Black |first3=A. L. |year=1987 |title=Soil property comparisons in virgin grasslands between grazed and nongrazed management systems |journal=Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. |volume=51 |issue=1 |pages=176–182 |bibcode=1987SSASJ..51..176B |doi=10.2136/sssaj1987.03615995005100010037x}}</ref> In contrast, at the High Plains Grasslands Research Station in [[Wyoming]], the soil in the grazed pastures had more organic carbon and nitrogen in the top 30&nbsp;cm than the soil in non-grazed pastures.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Manley |first1=J. T. |last2=Schuman |first2=G. E. |last3=Reeder |first3=J. D. |last4=Hart |first4=R. H. |year=1995 |title=Rangeland soil carbon and nitrogen responses to grazing |journal=J. Soil Water Cons. |volume=50 |pages=294–298}}</ref> Additionally, in the [[Piedmont (United States)|Piedmont]] region of the US, well-managed grazing of livestock on previously eroded soil resulted in high rates of beneficial carbon and nitrogen sequestration compared to non-grazed grass.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Franzluebbers |first1=A.J. |last2=Stuedemann |first2=J. A. |year=2010 |title=Surface soil changes during twelve years of pasture management in the southern Piedmont USA |journal=Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. |volume=74 |issue=6 |pages=2131–2141 |bibcode=2010SSASJ..74.2131F |doi=10.2136/sssaj2010.0034}}</ref>

In Canada, a review highlighted that the methane and nitrous oxide emitted from manure management comprised 17% of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, while nitrous oxide emitted from soils after application of manure, accounted for 50% of total emissions.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Kebreab |first1=E. |last2=Clark |first2=K. |last3=Wagner-Riddle |first3=C. |last4=France |first4=J. |date=2006-06-01 |title=Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from Canadian animal agriculture: A review |journal=Canadian Journal of Animal Science |language=en |volume=86 |issue=2 |pages=135–157 |doi=10.4141/A05-010 |issn=0008-3984|doi-access=free }}</ref>

Manure provides environmental benefits when properly managed. Deposition of manure on pastures by grazing animals is an effective way to preserve soil fertility. Many nutrients are recycled in crop cultivation by collecting animal manure from barns and concentrated feeding sites, sometimes after composting. For many areas with high livestock density, manure application substantially replaces the application of synthetic fertilizers on surrounding cropland.<ref>McDonald, J. M. et al. 2009. Manure use for fertilizer and for energy. Report to Congress. USDA, AP-037. 53pp.</ref> Manure is also spread on forage-producing land that is grazed, rather than cropped.<ref name="USDA2009" />

Also, small-ruminant flocks in North America (and elsewhere) are sometimes used on fields for removal of various crop residues inedible by humans, converting them to food. Small ruminants, such as sheep and goats, can control some invasive or [[noxious weed]]s (such as [[spotted knapweed]], [[tansy ragwort]], [[Euphorbia virgata|leafy spurge]], [[yellow starthistle]], [[tall larkspur]], etc.) on rangeland.<ref>{{cite web |title=Livestock Grazing Guidelines for Controlling Noxious weeds in the Western United States |url=https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/rx-grazing/Livestock_Graizng_Guidelines(Davison_et_al.%202007).pdf |access-date=24 April 2019 |publisher=University of Nevada}}</ref> Small ruminants are also useful for vegetation management in forest plantations and for clearing brush on rights-of-way. Other ruminants, like Nublang cattle, are used in Bhutan to help remove a species of bamboo, ''Yushania microphylla'', which tends to crowd out indigenous plant species.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations |title=The contributions of livestock species and breeds to ecosystem services |url=http://www.fao.org/3/i6482e/i6482e.pdf}}</ref> These represent alternatives to herbicide use.<ref>Launchbaugh, K. (ed.) 2006. Targeted Grazing: a natural approach to vegetation management and landscape enhancement. American Sheep Industry. 199 pp.</ref>

=== Biodiversity ===
{{Pie chart
 | caption = '''[[Biomass (ecology)|Biomass]] of [[mammal]]s on Earth'''<ref>Damian Carrington, [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/21/human-race-just-001-of-all-life-but-has-destroyed-over-80-of-wild-mammals-study "Humans just 0.01% of all life but have destroyed 83% of wild mammals – study"], [[The Guardian]], 21 May 2018 (page visited on 19 August 2018).</ref><ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1126/science.aau1397 |pmid=30213888 |title=Space for nature |journal=Science |volume=361 |issue=6407 |pages=1051 |year=2018 |last1=Baillie |first1=Jonathan |last2=Zhang |first2=Ya-Ping |bibcode=2018Sci...361.1051B |doi-access=free }}</ref>
 | label1 = [[Livestock]], mostly [[cattle]] and [[pig]]s
 | value1 = 60 | color1 = blue
 | label2 = [[Human]]s
 | value2 = 36 | color2 = red
 | label3 = [[Wildlife|Wild mammals]]
 | value3 = 4 | color3 = green
 }}

Meat production is considered one of the prime factors contributing to the current [[Holocene extinction|biodiversity loss crisis]].<ref name="ReferenceA" /><ref>{{cite news |last=Woodyatt |first=Amy |date=May 26, 2020 |title=Human activity threatens billions of years of evolutionary history, researchers warn |work=[[CNN]] |url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/26/world/species-loss-evolution-climate-scn-intl-scli/index.html |access-date=May 27, 2020}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Hentschl |first1=Moritz |last2=Michalke |first2=Amelie |last3=Pieper |first3=Maximilian |last4=Gaugler |first4=Tobias |last5=Stoll-Kleemann |first5=Susanne |date=2023-05-11 |title=Dietary change and land use change: assessing preventable climate and biodiversity damage due to meat consumption in Germany |journal=Sustainability Science |language=en |doi=10.1007/s11625-023-01326-z |issn=1862-4057|doi-access=free }}</ref> The 2019 [[IPBES]] ''[[Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services]]'' found that [[industrial agriculture]] and [[overfishing]] are the primary drivers of the extinction, with the [[meat industry|meat]] and dairy industries having a substantial impact.<ref>{{Cite news |last=McGrath |first=Matt |date=6 May 2019 |title=Humans 'threaten 1m species with extinction' |work=[[BBC]] |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48169783 |access-date=3 July 2019 |quote=Pushing all this forward, though, are increased demands for food from a growing global population and specifically our growing appetite for meat and fish.}}</ref><ref name="Watts2019">{{cite news |last=Watts |first=Jonathan |date=6 May 2019 |title=Human society under urgent threat from loss of Earth's natural life |work=[[The Guardian]] |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/06/human-society-under-urgent-threat-loss-earth-natural-life-un-report |access-date=3 July 2019 |quote=Agriculture and fishing are the primary causes of the deterioration. Food production has increased dramatically since the 1970s, which has helped feed a growing global population and generated jobs and economic growth. But this has come at a high cost. The meat industry has a particularly heavy impact. Grazing areas for cattle account for about 25% of the world’s ice-free land and more than 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions.}}</ref> The global livestock sector contributes a significant share to anthropogenic GHG emissions, but it can also deliver a significant share of the necessary mitigation effort.<ref name="FAO-2013">{{Cite book |url=https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/030a41a8-3e10-57d1-ae0c-86680a69ceea |title=Tackling Climate Change through Livestock |publisher=FAO |year=2013 |isbn=9789251079201}}</ref> [[Food and Agriculture Organization|FAO]] estimates that the adoption of already available best practices can reduce emissions by up to 30%.<ref name="FAO-2013" />

Grazing (especially [[overgrazing]]) may detrimentally affect certain wildlife species, e.g. by altering cover and food supplies. The growing demand for meat is contributing to [[Holocene extinction|significant biodiversity loss]] as it is a significant driver of [[deforestation]] and habitat destruction; species-rich habitats, such as significant portions of the Amazon region, are being converted to agriculture for meat production.<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.theguardian.com/environment/radical-conservation/2015/oct/20/the-four-horsemen-of-the-sixth-mass-extinction|title=How humans are driving the sixth mass extinction|first=Jeremy |last=Hance|date=October 20, 2015|work=[[The Guardian]] |access-date=January 10, 2017}}</ref><ref name="ReferenceA">{{cite journal |last1=Morell |first1=Virginia |year=2015 |title=Meat-eaters may speed worldwide species extinction, study warns |url=https://www.science.org/content/article/meat-eaters-may-speed-worldwide-species-extinction-study-warns |journal=Science |doi=10.1126/science.aad1607}}</ref><ref name="Machovina 2015 419–431">{{cite journal|first1=B.|last1=Machovina|first2=K. J.|last2=Feeley|first3=W. J.|last3=Ripple|year=2015|title=Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption|journal=Science of the Total Environment|volume= 536|pages=419–431|doi=10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.07.022|pmid=26231772|bibcode=2015ScTEn.536..419M}}</ref> World Resource Institute (WRI) website mentions that "30 percent of global forest cover has been cleared, while another 20 percent has been degraded. Most of the rest has been fragmented, leaving only about 15 percent intact."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.wri.org/our-work/topics/forests|title=Forests|website=World Resources Institute|language=en|access-date=2020-01-24}}</ref> WRI also states that around the world there is "an estimated 1.5 billion hectares (3.7 billion acres) of once-productive croplands and pasturelands – an area nearly the size of Russia – are degraded. Restoring productivity can improve food supplies, [[water security]], and the ability to fight climate change."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.wri.org/strategic-plan/tackling-global-challenges|title=Tackling Global Challenges|date=2018-05-04|website=World Resources Institute|access-date=2020-01-24}}</ref> Around 25% to nearly 40% of global land surface is being used for livestock farming.<ref name="Watts2019" /><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/12/world/sutter-vanishing-help/|title=How to stop the sixth mass extinction |first=John D. |last=Sutter |date=December 12, 2016|work=[[CNN]]|access-date=January 10, 2017}}</ref>

A 2022 report from [[World Animal Protection]] and the [[Center for Biological Diversity]] found that, based on 2018 data, some 235 million pounds (or 117,500 tons) of pesticides are used for animal feed purposes annually in the United States alone, in particular [[glyphosate]] and [[atrazine]]. The report emphasizes that 100,000 pounds of glyphosate has the potential to harm or kill some 93% of species listed under the [[Endangered Species Act]]. Atrazine, which is banned in 35 countries, could harm or kill at least 1,000 listed species. Both groups involved in the report advocate for consumers to reduce their consumption of animal products and to transition towards [[plant-based diets]] in order to reduce the growth of factory farming and protect endangered species of wildlife.<ref>{{cite news |last=Boyle |first=Louise |date=February 22, 2022 |title=US meat industry using 235m pounds of pesticides a year, threatening thousands of at-risk species, study finds |work=[[The Independent]] |location= |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/pesticides-factory-farm-wildlife-food-chain-vegan-b2017811.html |access-date=February 28, 2022}}</ref>

A 2023 study found that a [[vegan]] diet reduced [[wildlife]] destruction by 66%.<ref name="Carrington-2023" />

In North America, various studies have found that grazing sometimes improves habitat for elk,<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Anderson|first1=E. W.|last2=Scherzinger|first2=R. J.|s2cid=53006161|year=1975|title=Improving quality of winter forage for elk by cattle grazing|journal=J. Range MGT.|volume=25|issue=2|pages=120–125|doi=10.2307/3897442|jstor=3897442|hdl=10150/646985|hdl-access=free}}</ref>
blacktailed prairie dogs,<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Knowles|first1=C. J.|year=1986|title=Some relationships of black-tailed prairie dogs to livestock grazing|journal=Great Basin Naturalist|volume=46|pages=198–203}}</ref>
sage grouse,<ref>Neel. L.A. 1980. Sage Grouse Response to Grazing Management in Nevada. M.Sc. Thesis. Univ. of Nevada, Reno.</ref>
and mule deer.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Jensen|first1=C. H.|s2cid=81449626|display-authors=etal|year=1972|title=Guidelines for grazing sheep on rangelands used by big game in winter|journal=J. Range MGT.|volume=25|issue=5|pages=346–352|doi=10.2307/3896543|jstor=3896543|hdl=10150/647438|hdl-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Smith|first1=M. A.|display-authors=etal|year=1979|title=Forage selection by mule deer on winter range grazed by sheep in spring|journal=J. Range MGT.|volume=32|issue=1|pages=40–45|doi=10.2307/3897382|jstor=3897382|hdl=10150/646509|hdl-access=free}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Strassman|first1=B. I.|year=1987|title=Effects of cattle grazing and haying on wildlife conservation at National Wildlife Refuges in the United States|url=https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/48162/1/267_2005_Article_BF01867177.pdf|journal=Environmental MGT.|volume=11|issue=1|pages=35–44|bibcode=1987EnMan..11...35S|doi=10.1007/bf01867177|hdl=2027.42/48162|s2cid=55282106}}</ref> The kind of grazing system employed (e.g. rest-rotation, deferred grazing, HILF grazing) is often important in achieving grazing benefits for particular wildlife species.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Holechek|first1=J. L.|display-authors=etal|year=1982|title=Manipulation of grazing to improve or maintain wildlife habitat|journal=Wildlife Soc. Bull.|volume=10|pages=204–210}}</ref>

The biologists [[Rodolfo Dirzo]], Gerardo Ceballos, and [[Paul R. Ehrlich]] write in an opinion piece for ''[[Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B]]'' that reductions in meat consumption "can translate not only into less heat, but also more space for biodiversity." They insist that it is the "massive planetary monopoly of industrial meat production that needs to be curbed" while respecting the cultural traditions of indigenous peoples, for whom meat is an important source of protein.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Dirzo|first1=Rodolfo|last2=Ceballos|first2=Gerardo|last3=Ehrlich|first3=Paul R. |date=2022 |title=Circling the drain: the extinction crisis and the future of humanity|url= |journal=[[Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B]]|volume=377|issue=1857 |pages= |doi=10.1098/rstb.2021.0378|pmid=35757873 |pmc=9237743|quote=The dramatic deforestation resulting from land conversion for agriculture and meat production could be reduced via adopting a diet that reduces meat consumption. Less meat can translate not only into less heat, but also more space for biodiversity . . . Although among many Indigenous populations, meat consumption represents a cultural tradition and a source of protein, it is the massive planetary monopoly of industrial meat production that needs to be curbed}}</ref>

=== Aquatic ecosystems ===
{{Bar chart|title=Mean [[Eutrophication|eutrophying emissions]] (water pollution by phosphates) of different foods per 100g of protein<ref name="Nemecek 987–992"/>|float=right|label_type=Food type|data_type=Eutrophying emissions (g PO43-eq per 100g protein)|bar_width=20|width_units=em|data_max=360|label1=[[Beef]]|data1=301.4|label2=[[Aquaculture|Farmed Fish]]|data2=235.1|label3=[[Aquaculture|Farmed Crustaceans]]|data3=227.2|label4=[[Cheese]]|data4=98.4|label5=[[Lamb and mutton|Lamb and Mutton]]|data5=97.1|label6=[[Pork]]|data6=76.4|label7=[[Poultry]]|data7=48.7|label8=[[Egg as food|Eggs]]|data8=21.8|label9=[[Faboideae|Groundnuts]]|data9=14.1|label10=[[Peas]]|data10=7.5|label11=[[Tofu]]|data11=6.2|label12=|data12=|label13=|data13=}}
Global agricultural practices are known to be one of the main reasons for environmental degradation. Animal agriculture worldwide encompasses 83% of [[Farmland (disambiguation)|farmland]] (but only accounts for 18% of the global calorie intake), and the direct consumption of animals as well as over-harvesting them is causing environmental degradation through [[Habitat destruction|habitat alteration]], biodiversity loss, climate change, pollution, and [[Trophic level|trophic]] interactions.<ref name="Pena-Ortiz-2021">{{Cite journal |last=Pena-Ortiz |first=Michelle |date=2021-07-01 |title=Linking aquatic biodiversity loss to animal product consumption: A review |url=https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/industrial_animal_agriculture/pdfs/Pena-Ortiz_Literature_Review.pdf |journal=Freshwater and Marine Biology |pages=57}}</ref> These pressures are enough to drive biodiversity loss in any habitat, however [[freshwater ecosystem]]s are showing to be more sensitive and less protected than others and show a very high effect on biodiversity loss when faced with these impacts.<ref name="Pena-Ortiz-2021" />

In the [[Western United States]], many [[stream]] and riparian [[habitat]]s have been negatively affected by livestock grazing. This has resulted in increased [[phosphate]]s, [[nitrate]]s, decreased dissolved oxygen, increased temperature, [[turbidity]], and [[eutrophication]] events, and reduced [[species diversity]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Belsky |first1=A. J. |display-authors=etal |year=1999 |title=Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States |journal=J. Soil Water Cons. |volume=54 |pages=419–431}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Agouridis |first1=C. T. |display-authors=etal |year=2005 |title=Livestock grazing management impact on streamwater quality: a review |url=http://lshs.tamu.edu/docs/lshs/end-notes/livestock%20grazing%20management%20impacts%20on%20stream%20water%20quality-1995420186/livestock%20grazing%20management%20impacts%20on%20stream%20water%20quality.pdf |journal=Journal of the American Water Resources Association |volume=41 |issue=3 |pages=591–606 |bibcode=2005JAWRA..41..591A |doi=10.1111/j.1752-1688.2005.tb03757.x |s2cid=46525184}}</ref> Livestock management options for riparian protection include salt and mineral placement, limiting seasonal access, use of alternative water sources, provision of "hardened" stream crossings, herding, and fencing.<ref>{{cite web |date=2006-06-28 |title=Pasture, Rangeland, and Grazing Operations - Best Management Practices &#124; Agriculture &#124; US EPA |url=http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/anprgbmp.html |access-date=2015-03-30 |publisher=Epa.gov}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |year=2006 |title=Grazing management processes and strategies for riparian-wetland areas. |url=https://www.blm.gov/or/programs/nrst/files/Final%20TR%201737-20.pdf |publisher=US Bureau of Land Management |pages=105}}</ref> In the [[Eastern United States]], a 1997 study found that waste release from pork farms has also been shown to cause large-scale eutrophication of bodies of water, including the [[Mississippi River]] and Atlantic Ocean (Palmquist, et al., 1997).<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Williams |first=C. M. |date=July 2008 |title=Technologies to mitigate {{as written|envir|omental [sic]}} impact of swine production |journal=Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia |language=en |volume=37 |issue=SPE |pages=253–259 |doi=10.1590/S1516-35982008001300029 |issn=1516-3598|doi-access=free }}</ref> In North Carolina, where the study was done, measures have since been taken to reduce the risk of accidental discharges from manure lagoons, and since then there has been evidence of improved environmental management in US hog production.<ref name="Key">Key, N. et al. 2011. Trends and developments in hog manure management, 1998-2009. USDA EIB-81. 33 pp.</ref> Implementation of manure and wastewater management planning can help assure low risk of problematic discharge into aquatic systems.<ref name="Key" />

In Central-Eastern Argentina, a 2017 study found large quantities of metal pollutants (chromium, copper, arsenic and lead) in their freshwater streams, disrupting the aquatic biota.<ref name="Regaldo-2017">{{Cite journal |last1=Regaldo |first1=Luciana |last2=Gutierrez |first2=María F. |last3=Reno |first3=Ulises |last4=Fernández |first4=Viviana |last5=Gervasio |first5=Susana |last6=Repetti |first6=María R. |last7=Gagneten |first7=Ana M. |date=2017-12-22 |title=Water and sediment quality assessment in the Colastiné-Corralito stream system (Santa Fe, Argentina): impact of industry and agriculture on aquatic ecosystems |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-0911-4 |journal=Environmental Science and Pollution Research |volume=25 |issue=7 |pages=6951–6968 |doi=10.1007/s11356-017-0911-4 |pmid=29273985 |hdl=11336/58691 |s2cid=3685205 |issn=0944-1344|hdl-access=free }}</ref> The level of [[chromium]] in the freshwater systems exceeded 181.5× the recommended guidelines necessary for survival of aquatic life, while lead was 41.6×, copper was 57.5×, and arsenic exceeded 12.9×. The results showed excess metal accumulation due to agricultural runoff, the use of [[pesticide]]s, and poor mitigation efforts to stop the excess runoff.<ref name="Regaldo-2017" />

Animal agriculture contributes to [[Climate change|global warming]], which leads to [[ocean acidification]]. This occurs because as carbon emissions increase, a chemical reaction occurs between carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and ocean water, causing seawater acidification.<ref>{{Cite journal |date=2012 |title=Ocean acidification |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/43748533 |journal=Journal of College Science Teaching |volume=41 |issue=4 |pages=12–13 |jstor=43748533 |issn=0047-231X}}</ref> The process is also known as the dissolution of inorganic carbon in seawater.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=DONEY |first1=SCOTT C. |last2=BALCH |first2=WILLIAM M. |last3=FABRY |first3=VICTORIA J. |last4=FEELY |first4=RICHARD A. |title=Ocean Acidification |date=2009 |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/24861020 |journal=Oceanography |volume=22 |issue=4 |pages=16–25 |doi=10.5670/oceanog.2009.93 |jstor=24861020 |issn=1042-8275|hdl=1912/3181 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> This chemical reaction creates an environment that makes it difficult for [[Marine biogenic calcification|calcifying organisms]] to produce protective shells and causes seagrass overpopulation.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Johnson |first1=Ashanti |last2=White |first2=Natasha D. |date=2014 |title=Ocean Acidification: The Other Climate Change Issue |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/43707749 |journal=American Scientist |volume=102 |issue=1 |pages=60–63 |doi=10.1511/2014.106.60 |jstor=43707749 |issn=0003-0996}}</ref> A reduction in marine life can have an adverse effect on people’s way of life, since limited sea life may reduce food availability and reduce coastal protection against storms.<ref>{{Cite journal |date=2014 |title=Fisheries, Food Security, and Climate Change in the Indo-Pacific Region |journal=Sea Change |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep10916.12 |pages=111–121}}</ref>

==Effects on antibiotic resistance==
{{excerpt|Antibiotic use in livestock}}There are concerns about meat production's potential to [[Meat#Infectious diseases|spread diseases]] as an environmental impact.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Walker |first1=Polly |last2=Rhubart-Berg |first2=Pamela |last3=McKenzie |first3=Shawn |last4=Kelling |first4=Kristin |last5=Lawrence |first5=Robert S. |date=June 2005 |title=Public health implications of meat production and consumption |journal=Public Health Nutrition |language=en |volume=8 |issue=4 |pages=348–356 |doi=10.1079/PHN2005727 |issn=1475-2727 |pmid=15975179 |s2cid=59196|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hafez |first1=Hafez M. |last2=Attia |first2=Youssef A. |date=2020 |title=Challenges to the Poultry Industry: Current Perspectives and Strategic Future After the COVID-19 Outbreak |journal=Frontiers in Veterinary Science |volume=7 |page=516 |doi=10.3389/fvets.2020.00516 |issn=2297-1769 |pmc=7479178 |pmid=33005639 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Greger |first1=Michael |date=September 2021 |title=Primary Pandemic Prevention |journal=American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine |language=en |volume=15 |issue=5 |pages=498–505 |doi=10.1177/15598276211008134 |issn=1559-8276 |pmc=8504329 |pmid=34646097 |s2cid=235503730}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Mehdi |first1=Youcef |last2=Létourneau-Montminy |first2=Marie-Pierre |last3=Gaucher |first3=Marie-Lou |last4=Chorfi |first4=Younes |last5=Suresh |first5=Gayatri |last6=Rouissi |first6=Tarek |last7=Brar |first7=Satinder Kaur |last8=Côté |first8=Caroline |last9=Ramirez |first9=Antonio Avalos |last10=Godbout |first10=Stéphane |date=1 June 2018 |title=Use of antibiotics in broiler production: Global impacts and alternatives |journal=Animal Nutrition |language=en |volume=4 |issue=2 |pages=170–178 |doi=10.1016/j.aninu.2018.03.002 |issn=2405-6545 |pmc=6103476 |pmid=30140756}}</ref>

== Alternatives to meat production and consumption ==
{{Main|Sustainable consumption#Sustainable food consumption|Sustainable food system}}

A study shows that [[novel food]]s such as [[cultured meat]] and [[cellular agriculture|dairy]], [[Algaculture#Food|algae]], existing [[Microbial food cultures|microbial foods]], and [[Insects as food|ground-up insects]] are shown to have the potential to [[sustainable food|reduce environmental impacts]]<ref name="10.1146/annurev-resource-111820-032340" /><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Rzymski |first1=Piotr |last2=Kulus |first2=Magdalena |last3=Jankowski |first3=Maurycy |last4=Dompe |first4=Claudia |last5=Bryl |first5=Rut |last6=Petitte |first6=James N. |last7=Kempisty |first7=Bartosz |last8=Mozdziak |first8=Paul |title=COVID-19 Pandemic Is a Call to Search for Alternative Protein Sources as Food and Feed: A Review of Possibilities |journal=Nutrients |date=January 2021 |volume=13 |issue=1 |pages=150 |doi=10.3390/nu13010150 |pmid=33466241 |pmc=7830574 |language=en |issn=2072-6643|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="10.1016/j.appet.2020.105058" /><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Humpenöder |first1=Florian |last2=Bodirsky |first2=Benjamin Leon |last3=Weindl |first3=Isabelle |last4=Lotze-Campen |first4=Hermann |last5=Linder |first5=Tomas |last6=Popp |first6=Alexander |title=Projected environmental benefits of replacing beef with microbial protein |journal=Nature |date=May 2022 |volume=605 |issue=7908 |pages=90–96 |doi=10.1038/s41586-022-04629-w |pmid=35508780 |bibcode=2022Natur.605...90H |s2cid=248526001 |language=en |issn=1476-4687|url=https://publications.pik-potsdam.de/pubman/item/item_27105 }} News article: {{cite news |title=Replacing some meat with microbial protein could help fight climate change |url=https://www.sciencenews.org/article/meat-microbial-protein-climate-change-deforestation-fungi-algae |access-date=27 May 2022 |work=Science News |date=5 May 2022}}</ref> – by over 80%.<ref>{{cite web |title=Lab-grown meat and insects 'good for planet and health' |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-61182294 |website=BBC News|date=25 April 2022 |access-date=25 April 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |title=Incorporation of novel foods in European diets can reduce global warming potential, water use and land use by over 80% |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-022-00489-9 |journal=Nature Food|date=25 April 2022 |doi=10.1038/s43016-022-00489-9 |access-date=25 April 2022|last1=Mazac |first1=Rachel |last2=Meinilä |first2=Jelena |last3=Korkalo |first3=Liisa |last4=Järviö |first4=Natasha |last5=Jalava |first5=Mika |last6=Tuomisto |first6=Hanna L. |volume=3 |issue=4 |pages=286–293 |pmid=37118200 |hdl=10138/348140 |s2cid=257158726 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> Various combinations may further reduce the environmental impacts of these alternatives – for example, a study explored [[solar-energy]]-driven production of microbial foods from [[direct air capture]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Leger |first1=Dorian |last2=Matassa |first2=Silvio |last3=Noor |first3=Elad |last4=Shepon |first4=Alon |last5=Milo |first5=Ron |last6=Bar-Even |first6=Arren |title=Photovoltaic-driven microbial protein production can use land and sunlight more efficiently than conventional crops |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |date=29 June 2021 |volume=118 |issue=26 |pages=e2015025118 |doi=10.1073/pnas.2015025118 |pmid=34155098 |s2cid=235595143 |language=en |issn=0027-8424|pmc=8255800 |bibcode=2021PNAS..11815025L |doi-access=free }}</ref> Alternatives are not only relevant for human consumption but also for [[pet food]] and other [[animal feed]].

===Meat reduction and health===
[[File:Soy-whey-protein-diet.jpg|thumb|An insight to a vegetarian diet]]
With care, meat can be substituted in most diets with a wide variety of foods such as [[fungi]]<ref>{{cite web |title=Plant-based meat substitutes - products with future potential {{!}} Bioökonomie.de |url=https://biooekonomie.de/en/topics/in-depth-reports/plant-based-meat-substitutes-products-future-potential |website=biooekonomie.de |access-date=25 May 2022 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Berlin |first1=Kustrim CerimiKustrim Cerimi studied biotechnology at the Technical University in |last2=biotechnology |first2=is currently doing his PhD He is interested in the broad field of fungal |last3=Artists |first3=Has Collaborated in Various Interdisciplinary Projects with |last4=Artists |first4=Hybrid |title=Mushroom meat substitutes: A brief patent overview |url=https://blogs.biomedcentral.com/on-biology/2022/01/28/mushroom-meat-substitutes-a-brief-patent-overview/ |website=On Biology |access-date=25 May 2022 |date=28 January 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Lange |first1=Lene |title=The importance of fungi and mycology for addressing major global challenges* |journal=IMA Fungus |date=December 2014 |volume=5 |issue=2 |pages=463–471 |doi=10.5598/imafungus.2014.05.02.10 |pmid=25734035 |pmc=4329327 |s2cid=13755426 |issn=2210-6340}}</ref> or "[[meat substitute]]s". However, substantially reducing meat intake could result in nutritional deficiencies if done inadequately, especially for children, adolescents, and pregnant and lactating women "in low-income countries".<ref name="10.1146/annurev-resource-111820-032340" /> A review suggests that the reduction of meat in people's diets should be accompanied by an increase in alternative sources of protein and micronutrients to avoid nutritional deficiencies for [[healthy diet]]s such as [[iron]] and [[zinc]].<ref name="10.1146/annurev-resource-111820-032340">{{cite journal |last1=Parlasca |first1=Martin C. |last2=Qaim |first2=Matin |title=Meat Consumption and Sustainability |journal=Annual Review of Resource Economics |date=5 October 2022 |volume=14 |pages=17–41 |doi=10.1146/annurev-resource-111820-032340 |issn=1941-1340|doi-access=free }}</ref> Meats notably also contain [[vitamin B12|vitamin B12]],<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Gille |first1=Doreen |last2=Schmid |first2=Alexandra |title=Vitamin B12 in meat and dairy products |journal=Nutrition Reviews |date=February 2015 |volume=73 |issue=2 |pages=106–115 |doi=10.1093/nutrit/nuu011 |pmid=26024497 |issn=1753-4887|doi-access=free }}</ref> [[collagen]]<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Weston |first1=A. R. |last2=Rogers |first2=R. W. |last3=Althen |first3=T. G. |title=Review: The Role of Collagen in Meat Tenderness |journal=The Professional Animal Scientist |date=1 June 2002 |volume=18 |issue=2 |pages=107–111 |doi=10.15232/S1080-7446(15)31497-2 |language=en |issn=1080-7446|doi-access=free }}</ref> and [[creatine]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ostojic |first1=Sergej M. |title=Eat less meat: Fortifying food with creatine to tackle climate change |journal=Clinical Nutrition |date=1 July 2020 |volume=39 |issue=7 |pages=2320 |doi=10.1016/j.clnu.2020.05.030 |pmid=32540181 |s2cid=219701817 |language=English |issn=0261-5614}}</ref> This could be achieved with specific types of foods such as iron-rich [[bean]]s and a [[amino acid profile|diverse variety]] of protein-rich foods<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Mariotti |first1=François |last2=Gardner |first2=Christopher D. |title=Dietary Protein and Amino Acids in Vegetarian Diets—A Review |journal=Nutrients |date=4 November 2019 |volume=11 |issue=11 |pages=2661 |doi=10.3390/nu11112661 |pmid=31690027 |pmc=6893534 |issn=2072-6643|doi-access=free }}</ref> like [[red lentils]], plant-based protein powders<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Tsaban |first1=Gal |last2=Meir |first2=Anat Yaskolka |last3=Rinott |first3=Ehud |last4=Zelicha |first4=Hila |last5=Kaplan |first5=Alon |last6=Shalev |first6=Aryeh |last7=Katz |first7=Amos |last8=Rudich |first8=Assaf |last9=Tirosh |first9=Amir |last10=Shelef |first10=Ilan |last11=Youngster |first11=Ilan |last12=Lebovitz |first12=Sharon |last13=Israeli |first13=Noa |last14=Shabat |first14=May |last15=Brikner |first15=Dov |last16=Pupkin |first16=Efrat |last17=Stumvoll |first17=Michael |last18=Thiery |first18=Joachim |last19=Ceglarek |first19=Uta |last20=Heiker |first20=John T. |last21=Körner |first21=Antje |last22=Landgraf |first22=Kathrin |last23=Bergen |first23=Martin von |last24=Blüher |first24=Matthias |last25=Stampfer |first25=Meir J. |last26=Shai |first26=Iris |title=The effect of green Mediterranean diet on cardiometabolic risk; a randomised controlled trial |journal=Heart |date=1 July 2021 |volume=107 |issue=13 |pages=1054–1061 |doi=10.1136/heartjnl-2020-317802 |pmid=33234670 |s2cid=227130240 |language=en |issn=1355-6037}}</ref> and high-protein [[Wrap (food)|wraps]], and/or [[dietary supplement]]s.<ref name="10.1016/j.appet.2020.105058">{{cite journal |last1=Onwezen |first1=M. C. |last2=Bouwman |first2=E. P. |last3=Reinders |first3=M. J. |last4=Dagevos |first4=H. |title=A systematic review on consumer acceptance of alternative proteins: Pulses, algae, insects, plant-based meat alternatives, and cultured meat |journal=Appetite |date=1 April 2021 |volume=159 |pages=105058 |doi=10.1016/j.appet.2020.105058 |pmid=33276014 |s2cid=227242500 |language=en |issn=0195-6663|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Craig |first1=Winston John |title=Nutrition concerns and health effects of vegetarian diets |journal=Nutrition in Clinical Practice|date=December 2010 |volume=25 |issue=6 |pages=613–620 |doi=10.1177/0884533610385707 |pmid=21139125 |issn=1941-2452}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last1=Zelman |first1=Kathleen M. |last2=MPH |last3=RD |last4=LD |title=The Truth Behind the Top 10 Dietary Supplements |url=https://www.webmd.com/diet/features/truth-behind-top-10-dietary-supplements |access-date=2022-06-18 |website=WebMD |language=en}}</ref> Dairy and fish and/or specific types of other foods and/or supplements contain [[Omega-3 fatty acid|omega 3]], [[vitamin K2|vitamin K2]], [[vitamin D3|vitamin D3]], [[iodine]], [[magnesium]] and [[calcium]], many of which were generally lower in people consuming types of plant-based diets in studies.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Neufingerl |first1=Nicole |last2=Eilander |first2=Ans |title=Nutrient Intake and Status in Adults Consuming Plant-Based Diets Compared to Meat-Eaters: A Systematic Review |journal=Nutrients |date=January 2022 |volume=14 |issue=1 |pages=29 |doi=10.3390/nu14010029 |pmid=35010904 |pmc=8746448 |language=en |issn=2072-6643|doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last1=Boston |first1=677 Huntington Avenue |last2=Ma 02115 +1495‑1000 |date=2012-09-18 |title=Vitamin K |url=https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/vitamin-k/ |access-date=2022-06-18 |website=The Nutrition Source |language=en-us}}</ref>

Nevertheless, observational studies find beneficial effects from plant-based diets (compared to consumption of meat products) on health and mortality rates.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Fadnes |first1=Lars T. |last2=Økland |first2=Jan-Magnus |last3=Haaland |first3=Øystein A. |last4=Johansson |first4=Kjell Arne |title=Estimating impact of food choices on life expectancy: A modeling study |journal=PLOS Medicine |date=8 February 2022 |volume=19 |issue=2 |pages=e1003889 |doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003889 |pmid=35134067 |pmc=8824353 |language=en |issn=1549-1676 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="10.1146/annurev-resource-111820-032340" /><ref>{{cite journal |title=Quality of plant-based diet determines mortality risk in Chinese older adults |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s43587-022-00178-z |access-date=27 May 2022 |journal=Nature Aging |date=March 2022 |volume=2 |issue=3 |pages=197–198 |language=en |doi=10.1038/s43587-022-00178-z|pmid=37118375 |s2cid=247307240 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Jafari |first1=Sahar |last2=Hezaveh |first2=Erfan |last3=Jalilpiran |first3=Yahya |last4=Jayedi |first4=Ahmad |last5=Wong |first5=Alexei |last6=Safaiyan |first6=Abdolrasoul |last7=Barzegar |first7=Ali |title=Plant-based diets and risk of disease mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies |journal=Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition |date=6 May 2021 |volume=62 |issue=28 |pages=7760–7772 |doi=10.1080/10408398.2021.1918628 |pmid=33951994 |s2cid=233867757 |issn=1040-8398}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Medawar |first1=Evelyn |last2=Huhn |first2=Sebastian |last3=Villringer |first3=Arno |last4=Veronica Witte |first4=A. |title=The effects of plant-based diets on the body and the brain: a systematic review |journal=Translational Psychiatry |date=12 September 2019 |volume=9 |issue=1 |page=226 |doi=10.1038/s41398-019-0552-0 |pmid=31515473 |pmc=6742661 |language=en |issn=2158-3188}}</ref>

===Meat-reduction strategies===
Strategies for implementing meat-reduction among populations include large-scale [[Education#Development|education]] and awareness building to promote more sustainable consumption styles. Other types of policy interventions could accelerate these shifts and might include "[[rationing|restrictions]] or fiscal mechanisms such as [[meat tax|[meat] taxes]]".<ref name="10.1146/annurev-resource-111820-032340" /> In the case of fiscal mechanisms, these could be based on forms of [[Externality#Scientific calculation of external costs|scientific calculation of external costs]] (externalities currently not reflected in any way in the monetary price)<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Pieper |first1=Maximilian |last2=Michalke |first2=Amelie |last3=Gaugler |first3=Tobias |title=Calculation of external climate costs for food highlights inadequate pricing of animal products |journal=Nature Communications |date=15 December 2020 |volume=11 |issue=1 |pages=6117 |doi=10.1038/s41467-020-19474-6 |pmid=33323933 |pmc=7738510 |bibcode=2020NatCo..11.6117P |s2cid=229282344 |issn=2041-1723}}</ref> to make the [[Polluter pays principle|polluter pay]], e.g. for the damage done by excess nitrogen.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-01-16 |title=Have we reached 'peak meat'? Why one country is trying to limit its number of livestock |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/16/netherlands-european-union-regulations-livestock |access-date=2023-01-16 |website=the Guardian |language=en}}</ref> In the case of restrictions, this could be based on limited domestic supply or [[Personal carbon trading|Personal (Carbon) Allowances (certificates and credits which would reward sustainable behavior)]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Fuso Nerini |first1=Francesco |last2=Fawcett |first2=Tina |last3=Parag |first3=Yael |last4=Ekins |first4=Paul |title=Personal carbon allowances revisited |journal=Nature Sustainability |date=December 2021 |volume=4 |issue=12 |pages=1025–1031 |doi=10.1038/s41893-021-00756-w |s2cid=237101457 |language=en |issn=2398-9629|doi-access=free |bibcode=2021NatSu...4.1025F }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=A blueprint for scaling voluntary carbon markets {{!}} McKinsey |url=https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/a-blueprint-for-scaling-voluntary-carbon-markets-to-meet-the-climate-challenge |access-date=2022-06-18 |website=www.mckinsey.com}}</ref>

Relevant to such a strategy, estimating the environmental impacts of food products in a [[standardization|standardized]] way – as has been done with [[Life-cycle assessment#LCA dataset creation|a dataset]] of more than 57,000 food [[Product (business)|products]] in supermarkets – could also be used to inform consumers or in [[policy]], making consumers more aware of the environmental impacts of animal-based products (or requiring them to take such into consideration).<ref>{{cite news |title=These are the UK supermarket items with the worst environmental impact |url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/2332392-these-are-the-uk-supermarket-items-with-the-worst-environmental-impact/ |access-date=14 September 2022 |work=New Scientist}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Clark |first1=Michael |last2=Springmann |first2=Marco |last3=Rayner |first3=Mike |last4=Scarborough |first4=Peter |last5=Hill |first5=Jason |last6=Tilman |first6=David |last7=Macdiarmid |first7=Jennie I. |last8=Fanzo |first8=Jessica |last9=Bandy |first9=Lauren |last10=Harrington |first10=Richard A. |title=Estimating the environmental impacts of 57,000 food products |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |date=16 August 2022 |volume=119 |issue=33 |pages=e2120584119 |doi=10.1073/pnas.2120584119 |pmid=35939701 |pmc=9388151 |bibcode=2022PNAS..11920584C |language=en |issn=0027-8424|doi-access=free}}</ref>

Young adults that are faced with new physical or social environments (for example, moving away from home) are also more likely to make dietary changes and reduce their meat intake.<ref name="van den Berg-2022">{{Cite journal |last1=van den Berg |first1=Saskia W. |last2=van den Brink |first2=Annelien C. |last3=Wagemakers |first3=Annemarie |last4=den Broeder |first4=Lea |date=2022-01-01 |title=Reducing meat consumption: The influence of life course transitions, barriers and enablers, and effective strategies according to young Dutch adults |journal=Food Quality and Preference |volume=100 |pages=104623 |doi=10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104623 |s2cid=248742133 |issn=0950-3293|doi-access=free }}</ref> Another strategy includes increasing the prices of meat while also reducing the prices of plant-based products, which could show a significant impact on meat-reduction.<ref name="Collier-2021">{{Cite journal |last1=Collier |first1=Elizabeth S. |last2=Oberrauter |first2=Lisa-Maria |last3=Normann |first3=Anne |last4=Norman |first4=Cecilia |last5=Svensson |first5=Marlene |last6=Niimi |first6=Jun |last7=Bergman |first7=Penny |date=2021-12-01 |title=Identifying barriers to decreasing meat consumption and increasing acceptance of meat substitutes among Swedish consumers |journal=Appetite |language=en |volume=167 |pages=105643 |doi=10.1016/j.appet.2021.105643 |pmid=34389377 |s2cid=236963808 |issn=0195-6663|doi-access=free }}</ref> [[File:Plant-Based_Preferences.png|thumb|Meat reduction and increased plant-based preferences seen based on social and other life changes.|336x336px]]A reduction in meat portion sizes could potentially be more beneficial than cutting out meat entirely from ones diet, according to a 2022 study.<ref name="van den Berg-2022" /> This study revolved around young Dutch adults, and showed that the adults were more reluctant to cut out meat entirely to make the change to plant-based diets due to habitual behaviours. Increasing and improving plant-based alternatives, as well as the education about plant-based alternatives, proved to be one of the most effective ways to combat these behaviours. The lack of education about plant-based alternatives is a road-block for most people - most adults do not know how to properly cook plant-based meals or know the health risks/benefits associated with a [[Vegetarianism|vegetarian]] diet - which is why education among adults is important in meat-reduction strategies.<ref name="van den Berg-2022" /><ref name="Collier-2021" />
In the Netherlands, a meat tax of 15% to 30% could show a reduction of meat consumption by 8% to 16%.<ref name="van den Berg-2022" /> as well as reducing the amount of livestock by buying out farmers.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2022-11-30 |title=Up to 3,000 'peak polluters' given last chance to close by Dutch government |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/30/peak-polluters-last-chance-close-dutch-government |access-date=2023-01-16 |website=the Guardian |language=en}}</ref> In 2022, the city of [[Haarlem]], [[Netherlands]] announced that advertisements for factory-farmed meat will be banned in public places, starting in 2024.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Fortuna |first=Carolyn |date=2022-09-08 |title=Is It Time To Start Banning Ads For Meat Products? |url=https://cleantechnica.com/2022/09/08/is-it-time-to-start-banning-ads-for-meat-products/ |access-date=2022-11-01 |website=[[CleanTechnica]] |language=en-US}}</ref>

A 2022 review concluded that "low and moderate meat consumption levels are compatible with the climate targets and broader sustainable development, even for 10 billion people".<ref name="10.1146/annurev-resource-111820-032340" />

In {{Dts|June 2023}}, the [[European Commission]]'s [[Scientific Advice Mechanism]] published a review of all available evidence and accompanying policy recommendations to promote sustainable food consumption and reducing meat intake. They reported that the evidence supports policy interventions on pricing (including "meat taxes, and pricing products according to their environmental impacts, as well as lower taxes on healthy and sustainable alternatives"), availability and visibility, food composition, labelling and the social environment.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Towards sustainable food consumption – SAPEA |url=https://sapea.info/topic/food-consumption/ |access-date=2023-06-29 |language=en-GB}}</ref> They also stated:
<blockquote>People choose food not just through rational reflection, but also based on many other factors: food availability, habits and routines, emotional and impulsive reactions, and their financial and social situation. So we should consider ways to unburden the consumer and make sustainable, healthy food an easy and affordable choice.</blockquote>

== By type of animal ==
=== Cattle ===
{{See also|Environmental effects of meat production|Milk#Environmental impact|Deforestation of the Amazon rainforest|Beef#Environmental impact}}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.

{| class="wikitable" style="float:right; clear:left; margin:0 0 0.5em 1em;"
|+Estimated [[virtual water]] requirements for various foods (m3 water/ton)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Report12.pdf|title=Virtual Water Trade|publisher=Wasterfootprint.org|access-date=30 March 2015}}</ref>
!
!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
|}

{{Bar chart|title=Mean [[land use]] of different foods<ref name="Nemecek 987–992"/>|float=right|label_type=Food Types|data_type=Land Use (m2·year per 100&nbsp;g protein)|bar_width=20|width_units=em|data_max=185|label1=[[Lamb and mutton|Lamb and Mutton]]|data1=185|label2=[[Beef]]|data2=164|label3=[[Cheese]]|data3=41|label4=[[Pork]]|data4=11|label5=[[Poultry]]|data5=7.1|label6=[[Egg as food|Eggs]]|data6=5.7|label7=[[Aquaculture|Farmed Fish]]|data7=3.7|label8=[[Peanut]]s|data8=3.5|label9=[[Peas]]|data9=3.4|label10=[[Tofu]]|data10=2.2|label11=|data11=|label12=|data12=|label13=|data13=}}

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"<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/factoryfarming/ |title="What is a Factory Farm?" Sustainable Table |publisher=Sustainabletable.org |access-date=15 October 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120605014129/http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/factoryfarming/ |archive-date=5 June 2012 }}</ref> 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."<ref>US Code of Federal Regulations 40 CFR 122</ref> 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.<ref name=size>{{cite web |url=http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/sector_table.pdf |title="Regulatory Definitions of Large CAFOs, Medium CAFO, and Small CAFOs." Environmental Protection Agency Fact Sheet. |access-date=15 October 2013 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924094619/http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/sector_table.pdf |archive-date=24 September 2015 }}</ref>

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]].<ref>US Code of Federal Regulations 40 CFR 122.23, 40 CFR 122.42</ref> The regulations involving CAFO permitting have been extensively litigated.<ref>{{ cite court | litigants=Waterkeeper Alliance et al. v. EPA | vol= 399 | reporter= F.3d 486 | court= 2nd cir |date=2005}}{{pb}}{{ cite court | litigants=National Pork Producers Council, et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency | vol= 635 | reporter= F. 3d 738 | court=5th Cir | date=2011 }}</ref>

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.<ref>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.</ref> Concerns raised by opponents of CAFOs have included risks of contaminated water due to [[feedlot]] runoff,<ref name=Koelsch>{{cite web |url=http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/waste_mgt/natlcenter/sanantonio/balvanz.pdf |title=Applying Alternative Technologies to CAFOs: A Case Study |first1=Richard |last1=Koelsch |first2=Carol |last2=Balvanz |first3=John |last3=George|first4=Dan |last4=Meyer|first5=John |last5=Nienaber |first6=Gene |last6=Tinker |access-date=16 January 2018 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131017230339/http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/waste_mgt/natlcenter/sanantonio/balvanz.pdf |archive-date=17 October 2013 }}</ref> soil erosion, human and animal exposure to toxic chemicals, development of [[antibiotic resistant bacteria]] and an increase in ''[[E. coli]]'' contamination.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/Fairfield%20IA%20-%20Economics%20of%20CAFOs.htm |title=Ikerd, John. The Economics of CAFOs & Sustainable Alternatives |publisher=Web.missouri.edu |access-date=15 October 2013 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140810081852/http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/Fairfield%20IA%20-%20Economics%20of%20CAFOs.htm |archive-date=10 August 2014 }}</ref> While research suggests some of these impacts can be mitigated by developing wastewater treatment systems<ref name=Koelsch /> and planting cover crops in larger setback zones,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://dda.delaware.gov/nutrients/Draft_TechStandards/CAFO_BMPassessment.pdf |title=Hansen, Dave, Nelson, Jennifer and Volk, Jennifer. Setback Standards and Alternative Compliance Practices to Satisfy CAFO Requirements: An assessment for the DEF-AG group |access-date=15 October 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120502130352/http://dda.delaware.gov/nutrients/Draft_TechStandards/CAFO_BMPassessment.pdf |archive-date=2 May 2012 }}</ref> the [[Union of Concerned Scientists]] released a report in 2008 concluding that CAFOs are generally unsustainable and [[Cost externalizing|externalize costs]].<ref name=UCS>{{cite web |url=http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/cafos-uncovered.pdf |title=Gurian-Sherman, Doug. CAFOs Uncovered: The Untold Costs of Confined Animal Feeding Operations |access-date=15 October 2013 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130126213408/http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/cafos-uncovered.pdf |archive-date=26 January 2013 }}</ref>

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.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/programmes/en/lead/toolbox/Tech/20ManMgn.htm |title=Manure management |publisher=FAO |access-date=15 October 2013 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130903054645/http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/programmes/en/lead/toolbox/Tech/20ManMgn.htm |archive-date=3 September 2013 }}</ref> Manure was used as a fertilizer on about {{convert|15.8|e6acre|ha|order=flip|abbr=off}} 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.<ref>McDonald, J. M. et al. 2009. Manure use for fertilizer and for energy. Report to Congress. USDA, AP-037. 53pp.</ref> Substitution of manure for synthetic fertilizers in crop production can be environmentally significant, as between 43 and 88 [[megajoule]]s of fossil fuel energy would be used per kg of nitrogen in manufacture of synthetic nitrogenous fertilizers.<ref>Shapouri, H. et al. 2002. The energy balance of corn ethanol: an update. USDA Agricultural Economic Report 814.</ref>

Grazing by cattle at low intensities can create a favourable environment for native herbs and [[forb]]s by mimicking the native grazers who they displaced; in many world regions, though, cattle are reducing [[biodiversity]] due to [[overgrazing]].<ref>E.O. Wilson, ''The Future of Life'', 2003, Vintage Books, 256 pages {{ISBN|0-679-76811-4}}</ref> 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.<ref>Strassman, B. I. 1987. [https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/48162/267_2005_Article_BF01867177.pdf?sequence=1 Effects of cattle grazing and haying on wildlife conservation at National Wildlife Refuges in the United States]. Environmental Mgt. 11: 35–44 .</ref> 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.<ref name="UCS" />{{-}}

=== Pigs ===
{{Excerpt|Environmental impact of pig farming|paragraphs=1-2|file=no}}

== See also ==

{{Portal|Environment|Agriculture}}

*[[Agroecology]]
*[[Animal-free agriculture]]
*[[Animal–industrial complex]]
*[[Carbon tax]]
*[[Meat price]]
*[[Cultured meat]]
*[[Economic vegetarianism]]
*[[Factory farming divestment]]
*[[Environmental impact of agriculture]]
*[[Environmental impact of fishing]]
*[[Environmental vegetarianism]]
*[[Food vs. feed]]
*[[Stranded asset#Agriculture and forestry|Stranded assets in the agriculture and forestry sector]]
*[[Sustainable agriculture]]
*[[Sustainable diet]]
*[[Veganism]]

== Notes ==
{{reflist|group=note}}

==References==
{{Reflist|30em}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Environmental Effects Of Meat Production}}
[[Category:Food and the environment|Meat]]
[[Category:Environmental impact of agriculture]]
[[Category:Meat]]
[[Category:Climate change and agriculture]]
[[Category:Cattle]]
[[Category:Human impact on the environment]]

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 4.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.

Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)

Copy and paste: – — ° ′ ″ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § Cite your sources: <ref></ref>

{{}} {{{}}} | [] [[]] [[Category:]] #REDIRECT [[]]   <s></s> <code></code> <pre></pre> <blockquote></blockquote> <ref></ref> <ref name="" /> {{Reflist}} <references /> <includeonly></includeonly> <noinclude></noinclude> {{DEFAULTSORT:}} <nowiki></nowiki>

Symbols: ~ | ¡ ¿ † ‡ ↔ ↑ ↓ • ¶ # ∞ ‹› «» ¤ ₳ ฿ ₵ ¢ ₡ ₢ $ ₫ ₯ € ₠ ₣ ƒ ₴ ₭ ₤ ℳ ₥ ₦ № ₧ ₰ £ ៛ ₨ ₪ ৳ ₮ ₩ ¥ ♠ ♣ ♥ ♦ 𝄫 ♭ ♮ ♯ 𝄪 © ® ™
Latin: A a Á á À à Â â Ä ä Ǎ ǎ Ă ă Ā ā Ã ã Å å Ą ą Æ æ Ǣ ǣ B b C c Ć ć Ċ ċ Ĉ ĉ Č č Ç ç D d Ď ď Đ đ Ḍ ḍ Ð ð E e É é È è Ė ė Ê ê Ë ë Ě ě Ĕ ĕ Ē ē Ẽ ẽ Ę ę Ẹ ẹ Ɛ ɛ Ǝ ǝ Ə ə F f G g Ġ ġ Ĝ ĝ Ğ ğ Ģ ģ H h Ĥ ĥ Ħ ħ Ḥ ḥ I i İ ı Í í Ì ì Î î Ï ï Ǐ ǐ Ĭ ĭ Ī ī Ĩ ĩ Į į Ị ị J j Ĵ ĵ K k Ķ ķ L l Ĺ ĺ Ŀ ŀ Ľ ľ Ļ ļ Ł ł Ḷ ḷ Ḹ ḹ M m Ṃ ṃ N n Ń ń Ň ň Ñ ñ Ņ ņ Ṇ ṇ Ŋ ŋ O o Ó ó Ò ò Ô ô Ö ö Ǒ ǒ Ŏ ŏ Ō ō Õ õ Ǫ ǫ Ọ ọ Ő ő Ø ø Œ œ Ɔ ɔ P p Q q R r Ŕ ŕ Ř ř Ŗ ŗ Ṛ ṛ Ṝ ṝ S s Ś ś Ŝ ŝ Š š Ş ş Ș ș Ṣ ṣ ß T t Ť ť Ţ ţ Ț ț Ṭ ṭ Þ þ U u Ú ú Ù ù Û û Ü ü Ǔ ǔ Ŭ ŭ Ū ū Ũ ũ Ů ů Ų ų Ụ ụ Ű ű Ǘ ǘ Ǜ ǜ Ǚ ǚ Ǖ ǖ V v W w Ŵ ŵ X x Y y Ý ý Ŷ ŷ Ÿ ÿ Ỹ ỹ Ȳ ȳ Z z Ź ź Ż ż Ž ž ß Ð ð Þ þ Ŋ ŋ Ə ə
Greek: Ά ά Έ έ Ή ή Ί ί Ό ό Ύ ύ Ώ ώ Α α Β β Γ γ Δ δ Ε ε Ζ ζ Η η Θ θ Ι ι Κ κ Λ λ Μ μ Ν ν Ξ ξ Ο ο Π π Ρ ρ Σ σ ς Τ τ Υ υ Φ φ Χ χ Ψ ψ Ω ω {{Polytonic|}}
Cyrillic: А а Б б В в Г г Ґ ґ Ѓ ѓ Д д Ђ ђ Е е Ё ё Є є Ж ж З з Ѕ ѕ И и І і Ї ї Й й Ј ј К к Ќ ќ Л л Љ љ М м Н н Њ њ О о П п Р р С с Т т Ћ ћ У у Ў ў Ф ф Х х Ц ц Ч ч Џ џ Ш ш Щ щ Ъ ъ Ы ы Ь ь Э э Ю ю Я я ́
IPA: t̪ d̪ ʈ ɖ ɟ ɡ ɢ ʡ ʔ ɸ β θ ð ʃ ʒ ɕ ʑ ʂ ʐ ç ʝ ɣ χ ʁ ħ ʕ ʜ ʢ ɦ ɱ ɳ ɲ ŋ ɴ ʋ ɹ ɻ ɰ ʙ ⱱ ʀ ɾ ɽ ɫ ɬ ɮ ɺ ɭ ʎ ʟ ɥ ʍ ɧ ʼ ɓ ɗ ʄ ɠ ʛ ʘ ǀ ǃ ǂ ǁ ɨ ʉ ɯ ɪ ʏ ʊ ø ɘ ɵ ɤ ə ɚ ɛ œ ɜ ɝ ɞ ʌ ɔ æ ɐ ɶ ɑ ɒ ʰ ʱ ʷ ʲ ˠ ˤ ⁿ ˡ ˈ ˌ ː ˑ ̪ {{IPA|}}

Wikidata entities used in this page

environmental impacts of animal agriculture: Title, Description: en, Sitelink

Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page (help):

Antibiotic use in livestock (edit)
Environmental impact of pig farming (edit)
Environmental impacts of animal agriculture (edit)
Greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture (edit)
File:Ar-infographic-950px.jpg (view source)
Template:- (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Anthropogenic effects on the environment (edit)
Template:As of (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:As written (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Bar chart (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Bar chart/bar (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Bar chart/styles.css (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:CO2 (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Catalog lookup link (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Category handler (view source) (protected)
Template:Citation (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite book (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite court (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Cite journal (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite magazine (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite news (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite report (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Cite web (view source) (protected)
Template:Clarify (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Clear (view source) (protected)
Template:Climate change (view source) (semi-protected)
Template:Convert (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:DMCA (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Date table sorting (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Dated maintenance category (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Dated maintenance category (articles) (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Dead link (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Delink (view source) (protected)
Template:Dts (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Excerpt (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Excerpt/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:FULLROOTPAGENAME (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Fix (view source) (protected)
Template:Fix-span (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Fix/category (view source) (protected)
Template:Greater color contrast ratio (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Hatnote (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Hlist/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Template:Human impact on the environment (edit)
Template:ISBN (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Icon (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:If all (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Legend (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Legend/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Main (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Main other (view source) (protected)
Template:Multiple image (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Multiple image/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Navbox (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Not a typo (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Nowrap (view source) (protected)
Template:Ns has subpages (view source) (protected)
Template:Pagetype (view source) (protected)
Template:Paragraph break (view source) (protected)
Template:Pb (view source) (protected)
Template:Pie chart (view source) (extended confirmed protected)
Template:Pie chart/slice (view source) (extended confirmed protected)
Template:Portal (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Portal-inline (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:R/superscript (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:R/where (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Reflist (view source) (protected)
Template:Reflist/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Template:Refn (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Replace (view source) (protected)
Template:Rp (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:SDcat (view source) (protected)
Template:See also (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Short description (view source) (protected)
Template:Short description/lowercasecheck (view source) (protected)
Template:Sic (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Webarchive (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Yesno (view source) (protected)
Template:Yesno-no (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Yesno-yes (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Arguments (view source) (protected)
Module:Catalog lookup link (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Category handler (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/blacklist (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/data (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/shared (view source) (protected)
Module:Check for unknown parameters (view source) (protected)
Module:Check isxn (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Citation/CS1 (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/COinS (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Utilities (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Color contrast (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Color contrast/colors (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Convert (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Convert/data (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Convert/text (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Date table sorting (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:DecodeEncode (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Delink (view source) (protected)
Module:Disambiguation/templates (view source) (protected)
Module:Excerpt (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Excerpt/config (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Format link (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:GetParameters (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Hatnote (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Hatnote/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Hatnote list (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Icon (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Icon/data (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Labelled list hatnote (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Multiple image (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Namespace detect/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Namespace detect/data (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar/configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbox (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Navbox/configuration (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Navbox/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Navbox with collapsible groups (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Ns has subpages (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/disambiguation (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/rfd (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Pagetype/setindex (view source) (protected)
Module:Pagetype/softredirect (view source) (protected)
Module:Plain text (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Portal (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Portal-inline (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Portal/images/a (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Portal/images/c (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Portal/images/e (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Portal/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:SDcat (view source) (protected)
Module:String (view source) (protected)
Module:String2 (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:TNT (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Transcluder (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Unsubst (view source) (protected)
Module:Webarchive (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Webarchive/data (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Wikitext Parsing (view source) (protected)
Module:Yesno (view source) (protected)

This page is a member of 12 hidden categories (help):

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impacts_of_animal_agriculture" ●Privacy policy ●About Wikipedia ●Disclaimers ●Contact Wikipedia ●Code of Conduct ●Developers ●Statistics ●Cookie statement ●Mobile view