[ Envirowatchers ] [ Main Menu ]
18554
From: Eve, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Industrial animal agriculture leading contributor of water pollutants
|
EXCERPT: Today, industrial or intensive farming dominates U.S. livestock production. Nearly all the meat, poultry and dairy products consumed in the U.S. come from industrial-scale operations where thousands of cattle, tens of thousands of pigs and hundreds of thousands of chickens are kept in closely confined conditions, indoors or on dirt lots. But when you confine large numbers of animals in one place, you also have to deal with the huge volumes of excrement they produce. Research shows that U.S. industrial livestock farms produce up to 1.37 billion tons of manure each year—that’s 20 times more fecal waste than the entire U.S. human population! This poses serious pollution risks to water resources and the air around us. Water Pollution  Water-soluble nutrients and other toxic contaminants from inadequate farm waste disposal systems often finds its way into waterways and groundwater systems, polluting drinking water and killing aquatic life. Industrial agriculture is the leading contributor of pollutants to lakes, rivers and reservoirs in the U.S. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), many states with high concentrations of large industrial livestock operations experience 20 to 30 serious water quality problems a year as a result of manure management problems. Whether we’re talking cattle, hogs or poultry, industrial livestock operations produce vast quantities of concentrated waste–a toxic concoction of feces, heavy metals, antibiotic and other drug residues, growth hormones, animal blood and harmful bacteria such as E. coli. Even moderately intensive livestock operations can produce as much manure as a small sized city: a 2,500-head dairy cattle operation, for example, can produce as much waste as 61,000 people. However, there are two important differences. First, livestock wastes can be up to 100 times more concentrated than human wastes; second, human waste must be treated before it is discharged into the environment. Most industrial livestock operations pump the toxic liquid waste output into vast open containment tanks or lagoons (as in the Georgia hog operation at the top of this page). Some of these lagoons are as big as several football fields (zoom in on this Google Map of two relatively small intensive hog operation in North Carolina for an idea of the scale). One of the cheapest–and therefore most common–disposal methods is to periodically spray the liquid waste on surrounding fields. The problem is the waste is often sprayed at such high application rates—or so frequently—that the soil and plants cannot absorb it, let alone utilize it. This over-application leads to toxic run-off, where water-soluble nutrients and other contaminants find their way into waterways and groundwater systems, polluting our drinking water and rivers. Leaks or breaks in storage or containment units, as well as accidents and storm floods, can also result in massive releases of the toxic waste into our waterways. Researchers state that, based on available data, “generally accepted livestock waste management practices do not adequately or effectively protect water resources from contamination with excessive nutrients, microbial pathogens, and pharmaceuticals present in the waste.” Water tests also reveal other contamination, including hormones in surface waters around industrial livestock farms where hormones are routinely used to promote animal growth or productivity. Research shows these hormones can alter the reproductive habits of aquatic species, affecting the fertility of female fish and other species. The threat to our water supplies from industrial livestock farming is not limited to toxic manure effluent. Vast quantities of fertilizer are used to grow millions of acres of grain crops for livestock feed. Combined with the toxic manure effluent, fertilizer runoff from intensive grain production is directly contributing to the 230 recognized oxygen-deprived Dead Zones along the U.S. coast where almost no life exists beneath the water, such as in Chesapeake Bay and the Gulf of Mexico. In 2014, the Gulf Dead Zone measured 5,052 square miles–more than twice the size of the state of Delaware. ............Continues at link provided with how this issue pollutes the air, etc................. |
18555
From: pamela, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Industrial animal agriculture leading contributor of water...
| They really should stop that. |
18556
From: Eve, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Industrial animal agriculture leading contributor of water...
|
Over consumption on the part of the people is the major issue preventing it coupled with supply and demand consumerism. It's just too much strain on the earth elements not just that but the water consumption of this industry as cattle takes massive water intake to maintain the numbers for food used to day makes for a huge imbalance in the elements. People need to control their violent delight appetites. |
Responses:
[18557]
18557
From: Eve, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Industrial animal agriculture leading contributor of water...
URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212371713000024
|
EXCERPT: Agriculture accounts for 92% of the freshwater footprint of humanity; almost one third relates to animal products. In a recent global study, Mekonnen and Hoekstra (2012) [31] show that animal products have a large water footprint (WF) relative to crop products. We use the outcomes of that study to show general trends in the WFs of poultry, pork and beef. We observe three main factors driving the WF of meat: feed conversion efficiencies (feed amount per unit of meat obtained), feed composition and feed origin. Efficiency improves from grazing to mixed to industrial systems, because animals in industrial systems get more concentrated feed, move less, are bred to grow faster and slaughtered younger. This factor contributes to a general decrease in WFs from grazing to mixed to industrial systems. The second factor is feed composition, particularly the ratio of concentrates to roughages, which increases from grazing to mixed to industrial systems. Concentrates have larger WFs than roughages, so that this factor contributes to a WF increase, especially blue and grey WFs, from grazing and mixed to industrial systems. The third factor, the feed origin, is important because water use related to feed crop growing varies across and within regions. The overall resultant WF of meat depends on the relative importance of the three main determining factors. In general, beef has a larger total WF than pork, which in turn has a larger WF than poultry, but the average global blue and grey WFs are similar across the three meat products. When we consider grazing systems, the blue and grey water footprints of poultry and pork are greater than those for beef. Keywords Water footprintNatural resourcesMeatExtensive grazingMixed farmingIntensive livestock farming 1. Introduction Food takes an important share in the total use of natural resources, such as water [2], [23]. Animal products have a particularly large water requirement per unit of nutritional energy compared to food of plant origin. For example, the total water footprint (WF) of pork (expressed as litres per kcal) is two times larger than the WF of pulses and four times larger than the WF of grains [31]. Today, the global WF of animal production constitutes almost one third of the WF of total agricultural production [25] and this fraction is likely to increase [29]. Worldwide, a nutrition transition is taking place in which many people are shifting towards more affluent food consumption patterns containing more animal products [19], [33], [28]. Most areas of the world show economic development that results in increased purchasing power, causing not only demand for more food, but also a change in types of food [27]. In recent decades, demand for animal products, such as meat, milk and eggs, has increased due to changes in food consumption patterns [2], [15]. In affluent countries, the protein intake is generally larger than required, particularly due to the excessive consumption of animal products. In general, the per capita consumption of meat and other animal products increases with average per capita income until it reaches some level of satisfaction [17]. If in developing countries, populations continue to increase, especially in combination with economic growth, as is expected in countries like Brazil and China [26], [2], demand for animal products is predicted to increase. This would require more water. Water consumption and pollution can be assessed using the water footprint concept (Hoekstra et al., 2011), which distinguishes a green WF (consumption of rainwater), a blue WF (consumption of surface and groundwater) and a grey WF (pollution of surface or groundwater). The production of meat requires and pollutes large amounts of water, particularly for the production of animal feed [4], [32], [37], [6], [21], [22], [31], [34], [35]. Globally, agriculture accounts for 92% of the global freshwater footprint; 29% of the water in agriculture is directly or indirectly used for animal production [25]. On top of the water needs for growing feed, water is needed to mix the animal feed, for maintaining the farm, and for drinking of the animals. In the period 1996–2005, the annual global WF for animal production was 2422 Gm3 (of which 2112 Gm3 green, 151 Gm3 blue and 159 Gm3 grey). Of this amount, 0.6 Gm3 of blue water (0.03%) was needed to mix the feed, 27.1 Gm3 (1.1%) was drinking water and 18.2 Gm3 (0.75%) was needed for the maintenance of livestock farms [31]. Water for animal products, therefore, mainly refers to water consumed or polluted to produce animal feed. |
Responses:
None
[ Envirowatchers ] [ Main Menu ]