Rivers of Waste

Pandemics Ahead: Number 9 in a series looking at the link between animal protein and global health disasters.

Excerpt from Meat Climate Change: The 2nd Leading Cause of Global Warming by Moses Seenarine, (2016). Xpyr Press, 348 pages. ISBN: 0692641157. http://amzn.to/2yn7XrC

Animal-based agribusiness generates a lot of manure and excretions that decompose and turns into greenhouse gasses (GHGs) and cause disease. Lagoons and spray-fields are the most common methods that concentrated animal feed operations (CAFOs) use for dealing with animal waste, or sludge. Farms generally collect waste from the area containing a concentrated number of animals and store it, untreated, in huge open-air waste lagoons, often as big as several football fields, and holding as many as 40 million gallons.

The quantity of livestock manure and other wastes produced each year in the US is vast, estimated to be 1.5 bTons. A single cow raised for milk excretes around 88 lbs (40 kg) of manure for every kilogram of edible cow flesh it puts on. Each cow produces approximately 120 lbs (54 kg) of wet manure per day, equal to that of 20 - 40 people. Disposing of billions of gallons of sludge is a serious environmental issue.(918)

A farm with 2,500 cows raised for milk produces the same volume of waste as a city of 411,000 people. The massive waste lagoons often break, leak or overflow, polluting underground water supplies and rivers with nitrogen, phosphorus, and nitrates. In recent decades, livestock production systems have moved closer to urban areas, causing water and food to be frequently contaminated with manure.(919)

Some of the sludge are applied at agronomic rates as fertilizer onto land called spray-fields. Agronomic rates provide nitrogen for vegetation growth while minimizing the quantity that passes below the root zone. However, factory farms have superfluous quantities of sludge and routinely spray excess amounts on fields which leeches out and damages the environment. Industrial animal agriculture is the largest sectoral source of water pollutants which includes fertilizers, pesticides, animal wastes, antibiotics, and hormones. To boot, the sector is responsible for water pollution from chemicals in tanneries and sediments from eroded pastures.

Animal waste can contain pathogens like Giardia and Cryptosporidium, as well as heavy metals. Excess sludge sprayed on fields can contaminate food crops meant for humans and lead to disease outbreaks. Manure contamination often result in Listeria outbreaks on fruits and vegetables. Medical treatment generates further CO2 pollution and other problems. For example, the cost of cleaning up the soil under US hog and dairy CAFOs could approach US$4.1 billion.(920) 

The manure problem from factory farms will only worsen with intensification and expansion. And, wastage of food represents another huge loss to the environment, and to the animals themselves. Waste chemicals often seep from lagoons and spray-fields into groundwater, streams, and wetlands, and contaminate drinking water. In addition to numerous adverse effects on human health, contaminated runoff and spills are causing dead zones and fish kills.(921) 

The volume of antibiotics being used on factory farms pose serious hazards to public and environmental health as well. Antibiotic residue is conducive to antibiotic resistance in pathogens that cause illness in people.(922) In the US alone, animal agriculture consumes 29 million pounds of antibiotics, about 80% of the nation's antibiotics use in total. The effects of pollution on biodiversity from antibiotics are largely unknown. One concern is that some wells and waterways have tested positively for estrogenic and endocrine-disrupting compounds.

One pending lawsuit alleges that manure spreading by five large dairies has caused nitrate and other contamination of groundwater, and violates the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The plaintiffs contend that the way the manure is being applied is the equivalent of dumping solid waste. This activity is covered by RCRA but it has not been applied to manure spreading.

Chapter 25: WASTE POLLUTION, page 239. 

   Previous  |  Home  |  Next

For more information, see MeatClimateChange.org

Hothouse Earth: Plants and Climate Change

Hothouse Earth: Plants and Climate Change

by Moses Seenarine, 12/19/17

Raising carbon dioxide levels are not necessarily good for agriculture. The benefits of CO2 for plants may be less than previously thought and potentially counteracted by the damaging effects of the proliferation of surface ozone. Agriculture has always faced the challenge of weather variability, and altered agricultural conditions under a transforming climate could exceed farmers’ ability to adapt. 

Farming could easily become adversely affected by (i) extreme heat and escalating water demands; (ii) inflated frequency of severe weather events, such as drought and flood; (iii) sea level rise and flooding of coastal lands; and (iv) modification in crop nutrient content. Variability is also likely to occur in (v) the number and type of pathogens and pests affecting plants and livestock; (vi) altered use of pesticides; (vii) damage to fisheries and aquaculture; and (viii) mycotoxin contamination. 

There are numerous fine-scale processes that can moderate vegetation responses to nitrogen deposits. While smaller amount of nitrogen may act as fertilizer, stimulating growth in plants, large accumulated amounts can (ix) decrease soil health and cause a loss in the number of plant species. These vital food security issues need to be dealt with and modeled into future plans for livestock expansion. 

The reality is animal-based diets will become even less efficient and further wasteful as planetary heating intensifies. The FAO's 2006 and 2013 assessments do not fully factor in the effects of climate warming on plants and crops. In particular, as the land warms, drought may reduce tree productivity and survival across many forest ecosystems. If the vapor-pressure deficit continues to climb, forest drought-stress by the 2050s will exceed that of the most severe droughts in the past 1,000 years. 

The world's food authority uses different baseline scenarios for improved land management for livestock over a 20-year period. But they model weather data from 1987 – 2006. This climate assumption is challenged by recent weather-related (a) lower crop yields, (b) feed crop failures, and (c) livestock die-offs. Upwards of 60% of crop yield variability can be attributed to climate irregularity. And unnervingly, this variation occurs in regions that are principal producers of major crops, like the Midwestern US, the North China Plains, western Europe and Japan. 

Direct climate impacts to maize, soybean, wheat, and rice under a RCP 8.2 scenario could involve average losses of 400–2,600 calories, or 8 to 43% of the present-day total. Freshwater limitations in some heavily irrigated regions could necessitate reversion of 20–60 Mha (77k – 231k mi) of cropland from irrigated to rain-fed management, and a further loss of 600–2,900 Pcal. 

These projections are a major cause for concern. Many subtropical arid and semi-arid regions will probably experience less precipitation. In wet tropical regions, extreme precipitation events will be further intense and frequent. Monsoon onset dates will start earlier while withdrawal rates are going to be delayed, resulting in a lengthening of the season. Tropical cyclones are expected to become extra intense, with stronger winds and heavier rainfall. In addition, variability of climate, such as El Niño events, has large impacts on crop production. 

Africa will be the part of the world that is most vulnerable to climate variability and alteration. East Africa will experience further short rains, while west Africa will get heavier monsoons. Much higher temperatures could reduce the length of the growing period in some parts of Africa by up to 20%. 

Excerpt from "Meat Climate Change: The 2nd Leading Cause of Global Warming," by Dr. Moses Seenarine.

Whose Carbon Footprint is Larger? Diet Versus Over-Population

Whose Carbon Footprint is Larger? Diet Versus Over Population

by Moses Seenarine 12/15/17

Many parts of the world expect substantial modifications in population size, age structure, and urbanization this century. These variations can affect energy use and GHG outflows. In particular, aging, urbanization and variations in household size can substantially influence GHG footprints in some regions. 

Aging will occur in most regions, due to declines in both fertility and mortality. Aging is expected to be particularly rapid in regions like China that have recently experienced sharp falls in fertility. On the positive side, slowing population growth could provide 16–29% of the GHG reductions suggested to be necessary by 2050 to avoid dangerous climate transformation. 

There is an inverse relationship between the two main drivers behind increased land requirements for food – as socioeconomic development improves, population growth declines. At the same time, diets become richer. Typically, consumption of animal protein, vegetable oil, fruit and vegetable swells, while starchy staples become less essential. With higher purchasing power comes higher consumption and a greater demand for processed food, animal carcass, cow milk products, chicken eggs, and fish, all of which add pressure to the food supply system. This over-consumption severely affects global sustainability, equity, food security, and GHG emissions. 

During a span of 46 years, from 1961 to 2007, a review of FAO data showed that in most regions, diets became richer while the land needed to feed one person diminished. In many regions, dietary change may override population growth as a major driver behind land requirements for food in the near future. Potential land savings through yield improvements are offset by a combination of population growth and dietary change. These dynamics were the largest in developing regions and emerging economies. 

Notably, additions to the total per capita food supply were not observed everywhere around the world. In most developed regions, the share of animal products is extraordinary high. From 1961 to 2007, food animals constituted one-third of the available calories in the global North, compared to 10% or less in many of the poorer regions in the global South. These over-consumption dynamics are slowly changing but remains highly skewed. 

The FAO projects that world population will expand 34 to 41% by 2050 to reach 8.9 - 9.1 billion. Food demand will soar upwards by 70%, and daily per person calorie intake will rise to 3,130 calories. Food is a major part of climate warming, but it is essential for survival, security and equity. Although the consumption per capita of cereals is likely to stabilize, population growth will escalate the demand for both food animals (almost doubling) and cereals for feed (50%) by 2050. 

Another problem related to over-consumption is the hidden population of obesity. The average body mass is climbing at a sharp pace. For the first time in human history obese people outnumber underweight people. Almost 11% of men and 15% percent of women worldwide are obese, while under 9% of men and 10% of women are underweight. In 2005, global adult human biomass was 287 million tonnes, of which 15 million tonnes came from being overweight. This extra mass is equivalent to that of 242 million people of average body mass or 5% of global human biomass. Biomass from obesity was 3.5 million tonnes, the equivalent of another 56 million people of average body mass. 

In 2012, the US came in third following the Pacific island nations Micronesia and Tonga for having the highest average weight in the world. By comparison, Americans are 33 pounds heavier than the French and 70 pounds bigger than the average Bangladeshi. In addition to extra energy and food demands, severe and morbid obesity are associated with highly elevated risks of adverse health outcomes.

Excerpt from "Meat Climate Change: The 2nd Leading Cause of Global Warming," by Dr. Moses Seenarine.

Yes but No! Doesn't Global Warming Help Plants?

Yes, but No! Doesn't Global Warming Help Plants?

by Moses Seenarine, 11/17/17

Global Warming deniers claim that natural negative feedback absorbs excess CO2. While this is true, this weathering process takes hundreds of thousands of years. In the ancient past, excess CO2 came mostly from volcanoes that released very little compared to what humans do now. The excess GHG was removed from the atmosphere through the weathering of mountains, which takes in CO2. 

Modern humans are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere 14,000 times faster than nature has over the past 600,000 years, far too quickly for natural negative feedbacks to respond. The system is now entirely out of equilibrium and it will take a long time to become balanced again. Oddly, despite evidence to the contrary, deniers argue that negative feedbacks dominate the climate. But the spiral in natural disasters and spread of extreme weather events suggests just the opposite, that amplifying positive feedbacks are dominating.

'Skeptics' maintain that warming is not necessarily bad and a small amount of warming is a good thing. On the contrary, one-degree warming is already causing a lot of problems, as the IPCC AR5 report on climate impacts documents. To boot, business-as-usual GHG outflows could bring forth a 3°C to 5°C (5.4 - 9°F) rise fairly quickly. 

Another common contrarian argument is that CO2 is not bad since it is necessary for life on Earth, and accounts for only 4 parts in 10,000 of the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is not a dangerous gas, but it is a pollutant since too much causes climate shifts. The whole lifecycle of the gas has to be taken into account, not just the limited function it serves for plants. And it causes ocean acidification, which is another huge problem. 

Deniers assert that climate theory is contradictory and cannot be supported by both floods and droughts, or too much snow and too little snow. But these events are part of the natural process of climate adjustment. Moreover, these variations can be explained by climate science. 

Higher temperatures augment evaporation, exacerbating droughts and adding larger amounts of moisture to the air for stronger storms. And, the warming is happening to a greater extent at higher latitudes. This phenomenon reduces the temperature difference between higher and lower latitudes, which slows down storms and dumps extra precipitation in localized areas. Correspondingly, it causes greater snow and flooding in these areas, and less snow and drought outside of them. 

Excerpt from "Meat Climate Change: The 2nd Leading Cause of Global Warming," by Dr. Moses Seenarine.