Lean, green, mean, obscene…? What is efficiency? And is it sustainable? Animal production and consumption reconsidered

First paragraph: “Food systems need to become more efficient. We need to produce food in ways that use fewer resources and generate fewer negative environmental impacts. This drive towards efficiency is essential if we are to achieve more sustainable food systems.”  Such is the typical conclusion of numerous policy documents and industry statements, based on academic papers published in agricultural science and life cycle assessment journals.  It is a well-rehearsed observation that the food system today is undermining the environment upon which future food production depends. We know too that given current trends, our problems are set to grow, not just because our population is growing, meaning more mouths to feed, but also because our food demands are changing. As people on average become richer, they demand and can afford not just more food, but more of the foods that they like, notably those of animal origin. The rearing of animals for flesh, eggs and milk generates some 14.5% of total global GHG emissions, occupies 70% of agricultural land and is the main cause of the environmental problems such as biodiversity loss and water pollution.1,2 Moving from land to water, there are major concerns about the depletion of wild fish stocks and the negative effects of over fishing on aquatic ecosystems. Aquaculture production bridges and is linked to concerns in both the terrestrial and aquatic domains: it is a user of land based resources, but its production has been underpinned in recent years on wild fish stocks used as feed inputs.  While there is general agreement that action is needed to address the environmental problems caused by the food system, what such ‘action’ should be is the subject of substantial attention and debate within the policy, academic, business and NGO communities. One word that comes up time and again in discussions about the way forward is ‘efficiency.&rsquo

Immaterial animals and financialized forests: Asset manager capitalism, ESG integration and the politics of livestock

This article uses interviews with responsible investment professionals to examine the extent to which institutional equity investors, and specifically ‘universal owners’ with highly diversified shareholdings, engage with public issues associated with livestock agriculture. As share ownership becomes increasingly concentrated, and the market for Environmental, Social and Governance investment products grows, these investors are increasingly involved in governing the activities of publicly traded corporations (including leading agribusinesses). This paper brings together political economy and marketization studies research to explore how universal owners become concerned about particular environmental and ethical problems, why they overlook other public concerns, and in what ways their selective engagement with ethico-political issues might be altering the content of food politics. Comparing universal owners’ engagements with farm animal welfare issues and with tropical deforestation within animal feed supply chains, we argue that these institutions engage with tropical deforestation because it presents a financially material risk to firms across multiple industries. By contrast, the specificity of farm animal welfare issues to agribusinesses means that they do not pose a material risk to the overall performance of universal owners’ highly diversified asset portfolios. Efforts to concern universal owners about livestock agriculture's social, environmental and health impacts thus generate a food politics which focuses primarily on risks to global economic systems and renders animals themselves distinctly immaterial

Protein futures for Western Europe: potential land use and climate impacts in 2050

Multiple production and demand side measures are needed to improve food system sustainability. This study quantified the theoretical minimum agricultural land requirements to supply Western Europe with food in 2050 from its own land base, together with GHG emissions arising. Assuming that crop yield gaps in agriculture are closed, livestock production efficiencies increased and waste at all stages reduced, a range of food consumption scenarios were modelled each based on different ‘protein futures’. The scenarios were as follows: intensive and efficient livestock production using today’s species mix; intensive efficient poultry–dairy production; intensive efficient aquaculture–dairy; artificial meat and dairy; livestock on ‘ecological leftovers’ (livestock reared only on land unsuited to cropping, agricultural residues and food waste, with consumption capped at that level of availability); and a ‘plant-based eating’ scenario. For each scenario, ‘projected diet’ and ‘healthy diet’ variants were modelled. Finally, we quantified the theoretical maximum carbon sequestration potential from afforestation of spared agricultural land. Results indicate that land use could be cut by 14–86 % and GHG emissions reduced by up to approximately 90 %. The yearly carbon storage potential arising from spared agricultural land ranged from 90 to 700 Mt CO2 in 2050. The artificial meat and plant-based scenarios achieved the greatest land use and GHG reductions and the greatest carbon sequestration potential. The ‘ecological leftover’ scenario required the least cropland as compared with the other meat-containing scenarios, but all available pasture was used, and GHG emissions were higher if meat consumption was not capped at healthy levels.&nbsp

Grazed and confused? : Ruminating on cattle, grazing systems, methane, nitrous oxide, the soil carbon sequestration question - and what it all means for greenhouse gas emissions

In the context of planetary boundaries on the one hand and the need for human development (in its widest sense) on the other, what role – if any – do farmed animals play in a sustainable food system? If they do have a role, which systems and species are to be preferred, in which contexts, at what scale and at what level of overall production and consumption? How could the required changes happen

Soil carbon sequestration in grazing systems : managing expectations

The inputs of C.M.G., M.H., and P.S. contribute to the project DEVIL [NE/M021327/1]. The input of P.S. also contributes to the following projects: U-GRASS [NE/M016900/1] and Soils-R-GRREAT [NE/P019455/1]. We thank the Centre of Organic Production and Consumption (EPOK) at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences for funding E.R.’s part of the research.Peer reviewedPostprin

Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector

Acknowledgements This paper constitutes an output of the Belmont Forum/FACCE-JPI funded DEVIL project (NE/M021327/1). Financial support from the CGIAR Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS) and the EU-FP7 AnimalChange project is also recognized. P.K.T. acknowledges the support of a CSIRO McMaster Research Fellowship.Peer reviewedPostprin

A restatement of the natural science evidence base concerning grassland management, grazing livestock and soil carbon storage

Approximately a third of all annual greenhouse gas emissions globally are directly or indirectly associated with the food system, and over a half of these are linked to livestock production. In temperate oceanic regions, such as the UK, most meat and dairy is produced in extensive systems based on pasture. There is much interest in the extent to which such grassland may be able to sequester and store more carbon to partially or completely mitigate other greenhouse gas emissions in the system. However, answering this question is difficult due to context-specificity and a complex and sometimes inconsistent evidence base. This paper describes a project that set out to summarize the natural science evidence base relevant to grassland management, grazing livestock and soil carbon storage potential in as policy-neutral terms as possible. It is based on expert appraisal of a systematically assembled evidence base, followed by a wide stakeholders engagement. A series of evidence statements (in the appendix of this paper) are listed and categorized according to the nature of the underlying information, and an annotated bibliography is provided in the electronic supplementary material.</p

What is a sustainable healthy diet? A discussion paper

The food system today is destroying the environment upon which future food production depends. While the food system generates enough food energy for our population of over 7 billion it does not deliver adequate and affordable nutrition for all. About half the global population is inadequately or inappropriately nourished. Without action, these problems are set to become acute. As our global population grows, urbanises and becomes wealthier, it is demanding more resource intensive, energy rich foods. What, and how much we eat directly affects what, and how much is produced. We therefore need to consume more „sustainable diets‟ – diets that have lower environmental impacts, and are healthier. But what does such a diet look like? Can health, environmental sustainability, and all the other goals we have for our food system really be reconciled, or will there be trade offs