Beef Enviromental Costs Called Exceptionally High
June eleven, 2018
Choice matters: The environmental costs of producing meat, seafood
Industrial beefiness product is i of the most costly to the surroundings, a new study shows.JacquelinNix/Istock/Thinkstock
Which food type is more than environmentally costly to produce — livestock, farmed seafood, or wild-caught fish?
The answer is, it depends. Just in general, industrial beef product and farmed catfish are the most taxing on the environment, while pocket-sized, wild-caught fish and farmed mollusks like oysters, mussels and scallops have the lowest ecology touch on, according to a new assay.
Growing oysters at a farm in Thailand. jomkwan/Istock/Thinkstock
The written report appears online June 11 in the journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, and its authors believe it is the most comprehensive await at the ecology impacts of different types of animal protein production.
"From the consumer's standpoint, choice matters," said atomic number 82 author Ray Hilborn, a University of Washington professor in the Schoolhouse of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences. "If yous're an environmentalist, what y'all eat makes a difference. We plant at that place are obvious skilful choices, and really obvious bad choices."
The study is based on nearly a decade of analysis, in which the co-authors reviewed hundreds of published life-cycle assessments for various types of animate being protein production. Also called a "cradle-to-grave" analysis, these assessments look at environmental impacts associated with all stages of a production's life.
Of the more than than 300 such assessments that be for animate being nutrient production, the authors selected 148 that were comprehensive and not considered too "boutique," or specialized, to inform their new study.
As decisions are made well-nigh how food production expands through agricultural policies, trade agreements and environmental regulations, the authors notation a "pressing need" for systematic comparisons of environmental costs across beast food types.
"I retrieve this is ane of the most important things I've ever done," Hilborn said. "Policymakers need to be able to say, 'In that location are certain nutrient production types we need to encourage, and others we should discourage.'"
Broadly, the report uses 4 metrics as a way to compare environmental impacts across the many different types of fauna food production, including subcontract-raised seafood (called aquaculture), livestock farming and seafood caught in the wild. The four measures are: free energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, potential to contribute excess nutrients — such as fertilizer — to the environment, and the potential to emit substances that contribute to acid rain.
A angling boat off the coast of Republic of ireland.FrankMirgach/Istock/Thinkstock
The researchers compared environmental impacts across food types by using a standard amount of 40 grams of protein — roughly the size of an boilerplate hamburger patty, and the daily recommended protein serving. For instance, they calculated how much greenhouse gas was produced per xl grams of protein beyond all nutrient types, where data were available.
"This method gives u.s. a really consistent measurement people can relate to," Hilborn said.
The analysis showed clear winners that had low environmental impacts across all measures, including farmed shellfish and mollusks, and capture fisheries such equally sardines, mackerel and herring. Other capture fish choices with relatively low impact are whitefish similar pollock, hake and the cod family. Farmed salmon also performed well. Merely the study also illuminated striking differences across animal proteins, and the researchers suggest that consumers must make up one's mind what environmental impacts are well-nigh important to them when selecting their food choices.
Some of the additional findings include:
- Overall, livestock production used less energy than nearly forms of seafood aquaculture. Farmed catfish, shrimp and tilapia used the near energy, mainly considering constant h2o circulation must be powered past electricity.
- Catfish aquaculture and beef produce about twenty times more than greenhouse gases than farmed mollusks, small capture fisheries, farmed salmon and craven.
- Mollusk aquaculture — such equally oysters, mussels and scallops — actually absorb excess nutrients that are harmful to ecosystems. In contrast, livestock beef production rated poorly in this measure, and capture fisheries consistently scored amend than aquaculture and livestock considering no fertilizer is used.
- Because livestock emit ammonia in their manure, and producing their feed requires burning fossil fuels, they performed poorly in the acid rain category. Farmed mollusks again performed the best, with pocket-sized capture fisheries and salmon aquaculture close behind.
- For capture fisheries, fuel to power fishing boats is the biggest factor, and differences in fuel use created a large range of performance in the greenhouse gas category. Using a purse sein net to catch small-scale schooling fish similar herring and anchovy uses the least fuel and, perhaps surprisingly, pot fisheries for lobster use a bully deal of fuel and thus accept a high impact per unit of poly peptide produced. Dragging nets through h2o, known every bit trawling, is quite variable and the impact appears to exist related to the abundance of the fish. Good for you stocks take less fuel to capture.
- When compared to other studies of vegetarian and vegan diets, a selective diet of aquaculture and wild capture fisheries has a lower ecology impact than either of the constitute-based diets.
In the future, the researchers plan to look at biodiversity impacts as some other way to measure ecology costs. The analysis also mentions a range of other environmental impacts such equally water demand, pesticide apply, antibiotic use and soil erosion that were addressed in some of the studies they reviewed, only not consistently plenty to summarize in the written report.
Co-authors are Jeannette Banobi, a former UW enquiry assistant in aquatic and fishery sciences; Teresa Pucylowski and Tim Walsworth, former UW graduate students; and Stephen Hall of Avalerion Capital.
The study was partially funded by the Seafood Industry Research Fund.
###
For more than information, contact Hilborn at rayh@uw.edu.
Tag(due south): College of the Environs • Ray Hilborn • School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences
Source: https://www.washington.edu/news/2018/06/11/choice-matters-the-environmental-costs-of-producing-meat-seafood/