animal agriculture

Extreme heat and dairy production

May 6, 2025 By EarthWise Leave a Comment

Climate change is causing more frequent and intense heat waves in the United States. Studies show that not only are heat waves now occurring more often, but that the average heat wave season is nearly 50 days longer now than it was in the 1960s. The overall rise in temperatures, linked to climate change, has led to increased health risks and fatalities from extreme heat.

As humans face increasing health risks from this extreme heat, livestock are also suffering from the effects of rising temperatures. Extreme heat negatively impacts dairy production by causing heat stress in cows, which can reduce milk yield, quality, and the cows’ overall health.

A new study by researchers from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign analyzed milk production data from 18,000 dairy farms across nine Midwest states between 2012 and 2016. The researchers found that high heat and humidity have led to a 1% decline in annual milk yield. While this might not sound like a lot, it amounts to about 1.4 billion pounds of milk over five years from the 18,000 herds included in the study – equivalent to about $245 million in lost revenue.

The study, which was recently published in the journal Food Policy, found that small farms are hit harder than large farms. Larger farms may be able to mitigate some of the effects through management strategies, such as open barn sides, fans, and sprinklers.

Using projections from 22 different climate models, the research team estimates that more frequent extreme heat will increase milk yield losses by about 30% by 2050.

**********

Web Links

Illinois study: Extreme heat impacts dairy production, small farms most vulnerable

Photo, posted March 13, 2018, courtesy of Gosdin via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio

Industrial agriculture and the risk of pandemics

August 16, 2024 By EarthWise Leave a Comment

The domestication of pigs, cows, chickens, and other animals as livestock for their meat, milk, and eggs was historically revolutionary. It boosted food security by giving people a readily-available means of feeding themselves as opposed to more traditional methods such as hunting and fishing.

But the industrialization of agriculture has led to horrendous conditions for animals. Many are kept in huge quantities and packed together with little regard for their health and welfare. This approach is designed to maximize production while minimizing costs.

With its chemical inputs and toxic outputs, intensive animal agriculture is also a major threat to the environment. In fact, it’s a major driver of habitat degradation and biodiversity loss all around the globe.

According to a new study led by researchers from the University of Exeter in the U.K., intensive livestock farming can also increase the risk of new pandemics. These findings go against the widely held belief that industrialized farming reduces the risk of disease transmission between animals and humans.

Zoonotic diseases are those that are spread from animals to humans. According to the CDC, zoonotic infections account for three in every four new or emerging infectious diseases in humans. The current bird flu outbreak in the U.S. is an example of this.

In the paper, which was recently published in the journal Royal Society Open Science, the researchers conclude that the effects of intensifying animal agriculture “are at best uncertain and at worst may contribute to emerging infectious disease risk.”

Industrial animal agriculture is a threat to both human health and the health of our planet.

**********

Web Links

Intensive farming could raise risk of new pandemics

Photo, posted January 29, 2016, courtesy of Farm Watch via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio

Antibiotics In Animal Agriculture | Earth Wise

April 13, 2023 By EarthWise Leave a Comment

In animal agriculture, farmers use antibiotics to treat, prevent, and control animal diseases, and to increase the productivity of their operations. According to the FDA, approximately 80% of all antibiotics sold in the U.S. are purchased for use in food-producing animals.

The routine administration of antibiotics to farm animals for non-therapeutic purposes promotes the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, with repercussions for human and animal health. As antibiotic-resistant bacteria spreads, medicines used to treat human diseases can become less effective.

According to a new study led by researchers from the University of Washington, a California policy restricting the use of antibiotics in farm animals is associated with a reduction in one type of antibiotic-resistant infection in people in the state. The findings, recently published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, suggest that regulations limiting the use of antibiotics in livestock can significantly impact human health.

In 2018, California Senate Bill 27 banned routine preventive use of antibiotics in food-animal production and any antibiotic use without a veterinarian’s prescription. Last year, the European Union passed a law restricting antibiotic use to only sick animals on farms. And coming this June, most antibiotics – those that are medically important to humans and animals – will be by prescription only in the United States.

Despite these changes, antibiotic resistance is projected to remain one of the biggest threats to human health over the next 50 years because resistance continues to grow and few new antibiotics are coming online.

**********

Web Links

Restricting antibiotics for livestock could limit spread of antibiotic-resistant infections in people

Ranchers should prepare now for 2023 animal antibiotic guidelines

Photo, posted May 8, 2018, courtesy of Preston Keres / USDA via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio

Fake Meat And Climate | Earth Wise

March 10, 2023 By EarthWise 1 Comment

Investors have poured billions of dollars into efforts to replace animal proteins with plant-based substitutes or even laboratory-grown animal cells. Replacing meats with these products is certainly a favorable development for the climate, but it is not likely to offset livestock agriculture’s climate and land use impacts anytime soon.

According to research at Stanford University, even optimistic estimates are that only something like 5% of dietary protein will come from these technologies by 2030. That just isn’t fast enough to put a real dent in the food-related emissions problem.

Stanford environmental scientist David Lobell suggests that there should be much more focus on reducing emissions of animal-based systems. There really hasn’t been much effort in this area because it is only recently that the climate impact of animal agriculture has been a topic of public concern. One problem is that it is difficult for investors to monetize investments in approaches for lowering animal agriculture emissions. These might include alternative feeds or supplements or vaccinations that inhibit methane-producing microorganisms in animals’ digestive systems.

Another approach to the problem is changing the mix of animal proteins in people’s diets. Chicken and pork are half as bad as dairy per pound of protein, and about one-tenth as bad as beef, in terms of emissions.

Dairy is a major issue. There has been quite a lot of progress in increasing the use of dairy-free milk, but over the past 40 years, Americans have cut their consumption of milk in half but doubled their consumption of cheese. Progress in dairy-free cheese has not been anywhere near as successful as that of dairy-free milk. But new products are entering the marketplace all the time.

**********

Web Links

Is fake meat a real solution? Stanford expert explains

Photo, posted June 17, 2019, courtesy of Christolph Scholz via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio

Spending Habits And Carbon Emissions | Earth Wise

September 1, 2021 By EarthWise Leave a Comment

According to a new Swedish study recently published in the Journal of Industrial Ecology, men spend their money on greenhouse gas-emitting goods and services, such as meat and fuel, at a much higher rate than women.

The study looked at the carbon emissions created by consumption among categories like food, clothing, furniture, and vacations to see if households could reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by buying different products and services. The research team reviewed Swedish government data through 2012 and analyzed the spending habits of households, single men, and single women.

According to the study, single Swedish men spent about 2% more money overall than single Swedish women. But the stuff that the men bought created 16% more greenhouse gases than the stuff that the women bought. That’s because men were more likely to spend money on high-emitting categories, like fuel for cars, while women spent more on less-emitting categories like furniture, health care, and clothing.

For both men and women, vacations were a major source of emissions, accounting for approximately one-third of their total carbon footprint.

While the carbon impact of men’s and women’s diets were nearly equal, men spent more money on meat while women spent more on dairy. Both meat and dairy production are major sources of global greenhouse gas emissions.

The study found single people were responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than married people or people in households.

According to the research team, people could decrease their carbon emissions nearly 40% by making more environmentally-friendly choices, including switching to plant-based foods and traveling by train as opposed to flying or driving when possible.

**********

Web Links

Men have a bigger carbon footprint than women, climate study finds

Photo, posted June 17, 2012, courtesy of Stephen Ausmus/USDA via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Livestock Expansion And Global Pandemics | Earth Wise

August 18, 2020 By EarthWise 1 Comment

The domestication of cows, pigs, chickens, and other animals as livestock for their meat, milk, and eggs was historically revolutionary. It boosted food security by giving people a readily-available means of feeding themselves as opposed to more traditional methods such as hunting and fishing.

But animal agriculture has plenty of drawbacks. The industrialization of animal agriculture has led to horrendous conditions. Animals are kept in huge quantities and packed together with little regard for their health and welfare. This approach to agriculture is simply designed to maximize production while minimizing costs.

But it’s not just animals and the planet that pay a price. Humans have inherited several lethal pathogens from livestock over the years, including the influenza virus that likely jumped to humans from poultry.

According to a study recently published in Biological Conservation, there is a connection between the global increase in the emergence of infectious diseases and epidemics, the accelerated loss of biodiversity, and the expansion of livestock. In the study, the research team from the Institute of Evolution Sciences of Montpellier cross referenced databases on human and animal health, livestock expansion, and biodiversity loss between 1960-2019. The team found that the number of epidemics identified in humans increased in correlation with both biodiversity loss and livestock expansion.

In the era of COVID-19, it’s important to understand how global livestock expansion directly threatens both human health and the health of the planet.

**********

Web Links

Livestock expansion is a factor in global pandemics

Photo, posted July 22, 2018, courtesy of Artem Beliakin via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.