JavaScript disabled. Please enable JavaScript to use My News, My Clippings, My Comments and user settings.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

If you have trouble accessing our login form below, you can go to our login page.

Not eating red meat won’t save the planet

Date

Asa Wahlquist

Video settings

Please Log in to update your video settings

Video will begin in 5 seconds.

Video settings

Please Log in to update your video settings

Change to cow diet cuts methane emissions

With the dairy, beef and sheep industries responsible for 11 per cent of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions, scientists are striving to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture and may have found the answer.

PT1M33S 620 349

It sounds so easy: stop eating red meat to lower greenhouse gas emissions. But nature is far more complicated than that.

There are three critical questions you need to ask before cutting beef and lamb out of your diet for environmental reasons: what will happen to the grasslands that cattle and sheep  graze; how will alternate protein be produced; and what will the greenhouse consequences of that production be?

If you decide not to eat meat, where are you going to get your protein?

If you decide not to eat meat, where are you going to get your protein? Photo: Getty

About 60 per cent of the world's agricultural land is grasslands, land that is too poor and too dry to be cropped. In Australia, about 70 per cent of the country is grassland. The only way food can be produced  from grasslands is by grazing ruminants. Mammals cannot digest grass, but ruminants have special stomachs filled with grass-digesting bacteria. The problem is those bacteria produce methane, which the ruminant burps out.

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas with a rating 25 times that of carbon dioxide over 100 years, although it has a lifetime of 9 to 12 years in the atmosphere.

The experience worldwide is that if cattle are removed from grasslands, the original ruminants re-establish themselves, or ferals invade.

In Australia the main ferals are goats, as well as camels in drier regions. Contrary to popular belief, kangaroos do produce methane, although the actual quantities, and their alternate pathways for digesting cellulose from grass, are the subject of ongoing research. Even termites produce methane: they are responsible for about three per cent of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions.

What if everyone did go vegetarian and the grasslands were not grazed at all? In Australia, they would most likely burn.  Bushfire accounts for about 3 per cent of Australia's net greenhouse gas emissions.

The argument overseas focuses largely on the huge quantities of grain, that could otherwise be consumed by humans, that are fed to livestock. This is a practice that is indefensible on environmental grounds. In Australia, most cattle and all sheep are grassfed. Dairy cattle are usually given supplementary feed, which is mostly forage or hay with some grain.

If you decide not to eat meat, where are you going to get your protein, and what are the greenhouse gas consequences?  Soy beans, chickpeas, lentils - all the high-protein legumes - are crops that are grown on cleared land, land that is ploughed, fertilised, planted, irrigated and harvested by greenhouse-gas producing machines.

Australia is at its limit of land that can be cleared for cropping, and is in the process of reducing irrigation in its food bowl, the Murray-Darling basin. And talking of irrigation, under Australian conditions soybeans need almost as much water as cotton. Australia produces roughly 15 per cent of the soybeans that it consumes, although much of that is used in stock feed.

Pigs and chickens are monogastric and as a result produce a small fraction, per kilo, of the methane produced by ruminants. Unlike cattle they cannot live on grass. In traditional farm situations they were fed on crop residues and waste, but now significant quantities of grains are grown to feed them.

Meat protein substitutes, ranging from tofu to synthetic meat, are all highly processed and that means more greenhouse gas production.

Estimating methane production is a tricky business. There are a number of figures for the percentage of greenhouse gas emissions agriculture is responsible for, and they are getting better. On Monday, the CSIRO announced methane emissions from Australian cattle were actually 24 per cent lower than previously thought.

Critics of meat consumption like to compare ruminant-produced methane with transport emissions. But fossil fuels are releasing carbon that was sequestered hundreds of millions of years ago that will never be replaced. The methane burped by a cow comes from carbon sequestered in the grass during the last growing season. If that grass keeps growing, or produces seedlings, carbon will be sequestered again next season.

There is no comparison: burning fossil fuels is a one-way street. The methane produced by ruminants is a natural part of an ancient life cycle. 

Asa Wahlquist is a rural journalist.

95 comments so far

  • A welcome voice of reason in this part of the environmental debate. Thank you.

    Commenter
    Decima
    Date and time
    December 14, 2015, 7:34PM
    • G'day Decima. .
      Asa – thank you.
      You're absolutely correct. If everyone immediately stopped eating red meat, it would not 'save the planet' - however, it's one of the many options being considered regarding what might 'help' the plant.
      Also,
      There are other important dimensions - to this issue of eating 'red meat'.
      This morning an article by Paul Sheehan challenged us to reassess our thoughts - on what we eat and the suffering we cause to millions of animals in our desire for meat.
      He raised the concept of the sentient animal - and surely this is something we can no longer chose to ignore.
      Up to now, the focus has generally been on securing our food source - and not all the animal suffering and butchery inflicted in our name.
      This notion of animal brutality has not intruded to any depth in the minds of most people; well, it's about time it did.
      So
      Any substantial action on this issue - will significantly impact on our lifestyle; for many people, that may be a bridge too far - despite their stated concerns about 'animals suffering'
      Are we serious and that determined to change our behaviour?
      Unless there is a huge shift in attitude by an enormous number of people - then nothing of note will change.
      People will find good and 'sensible' reasons - why they can't go 'that far' in changing their dietary habits.
      Nothing occurs in isolation - in choosing what we eat; everything is connected and has flow on effects; it is something to remember - when determining the competing things to balance and compromises to make; there is a sliding scale of priorities.

      Commenter
      Howe Synnott
      Location
      Sydney
      Date and time
      December 14, 2015, 9:25PM
    • Lentils give me gas. Ban lentils. Save the planet.

      Seriously agree that some reason should be applied to discussions about food choices without save the planet being the mantra for extreme arguments on both sides. Do you think those people who have not got access to adequate food and water are interested?

      Commenter
      Bernie
      Location
      HV
      Date and time
      December 15, 2015, 8:34AM
    • I found this a good article with some useful information but it gives the impression that it's been written to defend meat production rather than examine the impact of meat production on the climate. And so, for me at least, it looses a lot of credibility.

      Commenter
      Rafferty
      Location
      Sydney
      Date and time
      December 15, 2015, 10:13AM
    • What a croc - plant foods are rich in amino acids you need to build proteins. Humans do not need to eat animals (and eat second hand protein) to thrive, intact humans are healthier if they don't. Surplus land if there is any after feeding a potential 9Billion humans can revert to habitat.

      Commenter
      rollo
      Location
      Perth
      Date and time
      December 15, 2015, 11:57AM
    • What about water use and land degradation? How does agriculture and grazing compare?

      Commenter
      sangela
      Date and time
      December 15, 2015, 12:27PM
    • Use an ethical butcher like Feather and Bone in Sydney (I am not associated with Feather and Bone except as a happy customer). The problem is the pricing of the negative externality. we need to price food miles, animal welfare etc etc. It will substantially raise the price of meat leading to a reduction in consumption and a resumption in the use of secondary cuts.

      Commenter
      Franky
      Location
      Sydney
      Date and time
      December 15, 2015, 2:31PM
    • The writer needs to look at a world map, overlay cropping and red meat production, human density and yields. Then sit back in surprise. India in the past twenty years has become self sufficient in protein production and not through livestock. Legumes and grains are constituted of the same amino acids of which she bleats (sorry). They just take a different form. Basic biology helps. For additional information, to alleviate starvation, the WFP distributes legumes (usually lentils, soy or broad beans), flour/rice and oil as the best means of providing a balanced diet. Wonder why?

      Commenter
      Troppo
      Date and time
      December 15, 2015, 2:48PM
    • Correct - Not eating red meat won't save the planet. But it sure will help!

      Commenter
      Jim400
      Location
      Sydney
      Date and time
      December 15, 2015, 4:22PM
    • Not so reasonable a voice I'm afraid. There are so many straw men in this argument!! First, it implies that all beef is farmed on marginal grassland - not so. Then it implies the only alternate use of that land is to turn it over to ferals - what about rehabilitating some to the forested state that used to exist before we clear felled so much? Then it implies we need to replace all the protein we currently consume through meat - which is rubbish, as the average Westerner eats way more protein than is required (way more calories in total - heard of the obesity epidemic?). And who has claimed everyone has to go vegetarian and that that will save the planet? Reduce, yes, part of a multifaceted response, yes - absolutes no.

      Commenter
      Elise
      Date and time
      December 15, 2015, 5:55PM

More comments

Make a comment

You are logged in as [Logout]

All information entered below may be published.

Error: Please enter your screen name.

Error: Your Screen Name must be less than 255 characters.

Error: Your Location must be less than 255 characters.

Error: Please enter your comment.

Error: Your Message must be less than 300 words.

Post to

You need to have read and accepted the Conditions of Use.

Thank you

Your comment has been submitted for approval.

Comments are moderated and are generally published if they are on-topic and not abusive.

Related Coverage

HuffPost Australia

Featured advertisers

Special offers

Credit card, savings and loan rates by Mozo