LESS MEAT TAKES A BITE OUT OF GLOBAL HUNGER
Founding director of A Well Fed World
Good news—reducing personal meat consumption has been proven to have even farther-reaching benefits than previously anticipated. In addition to the oft-cited health, environmental, and animal protection improvements, reducing meat consumption also positively impacts global hunger concerns and global food security more generally.
The livestock industry undermines hunger alleviation efforts in many ways, from climate change to pollution to energy consumption. This essay, however, is going to specifically focus on the livestock industry’s crop use inefficiencies. Put simply, farmed animals consume much more food than they produce. A recent report calculates that 36 percent of the world’s crops are used as animal feed, yet only 12 percent of that total winds up contributing to the human diet as animal-sourced foods.1
The stark caloric inefficiency that occurs when farms convert staple crops (wheat, corn, soy, etc.) into meat is reflected clearly in feed conversion ratios (FCRs). Feed conversion ratios refer to the amount of animal feed/crops needed to produce a unit of live weight gain or unit of edible meat. For example, a 10:1 ratio means that ten pounds of food must be consumed by an animal to produce one pound of weight gain (live weight FCRs) or one pound of ready-to-purchase meat (edible meat FCRs). Feed conversion ratios are important, but they can be confusing. As a general rule of thumb, calculation details should be included whenever possible, as FCRs vary greatly depending on species/breed, rearing/processing methods, presenter bias, and a multitude of other factors.
Despite FCR variability, some generalizations and observations can be made. For instance, to promote animal agriculture as efficient, the livestock industry often uses the more conservative live weight FCRs, which downplay the immense crop consumption of animals raised for food. It’s more accurate to consider the amount of crops needed to produce a unit of edible meat (after bones, blood, excess fat, and other nonedible parts are removed). Edible meat FCRs are usually between two and three times higher (more inefficient) than live weight FCRs.
At the low end, the poultry industry often boasts a 2:1 live weight FCR, meaning that chickens eat about two pounds of feed for every one pound of weight gained. Of course, if 50 percent of food was being wasted by a restaurant, it would be cause for great concern. Yet when 50 percent of crops are lost in the conversion to poultry meat, livestock lobbyists celebrate. Indeed, poultry is often hailed as the most efficient land-based livestock, yet after deboning, fluid draining, and other processing, our caloric investment yields low returns. For larger animals, the inefficiencies run much higher. According to scientist and policy analyst Vaclav Smil, the edible meat FCR for pigs is more than 9:1, while the ratio jumps to 25:1 for cows.2 By this calculation, grain-fed cattle require roughly twenty-five pounds of staple crops to produce just one pound of beef.
With over 70 billion land animals slaughtered annually, livestock’s immense role in resource depletion as well as its lack of sustainability is cause for serious concern. In addition to these problems, high levels of animal-sourced food consumption can lead to food price increases. Not to overstate the causal relationship—factors such as speculation, protectionism, and subsidies remain influential—but generally speaking, high demand for animal feed crops puts upward pressure on food prices. Higher prices in turn often lead to decreased purchasing power, especially for the world’s urban poor, who already spend a large percentage of their income on food. To the degree that supply can readily keep pace with demand, food prices tend to be more stable. However, with expanding population, increasingly scarce natural resources and intensifying climate disruptions, food supply is likely to tighten relative to demand if meat consumption remains unchecked.
Anyone concerned about the negative consequences of food waste and/or biofuel use should be even more concerned about the livestock industry. Many of its problems related to crop use/waste are far greater, and the environmental consequences potentially more catastrophic. Indeed, given the crop-intensive and resource-intensive nature of animal agriculture, unnecessary meat consumption could be seen as a wasteful form of overconsumption. Similarly, wasted meat can be considered a “multiplier of waste,” further compounded by meat’s highly perishable nature. On the upside, reducing or eliminating meat and other animal-sourced foods can be considered a form of food and resource conservation. The greater the reduction, the higher the reward.
While the United States is one of the world’s highest ranking per capita consumers of meat, recent years have seen a decline in aggregate national consumption despite increases in population. Globally, however, meat consumption is rising dramatically. In emerging economies—where growth is greatest—meat is often considered a “prestige food,” and consumption is fueled in part by a desire to emulate wealthier countries. Reduced meat consumption among the world’s higher-income consumers therefore provides a vital counternarrative, setting a better example and improving our credibility on hunger and environmental issues.
Thus, in addition to tangible improvements in the global food system, meat reduction also positively impacts cultural norms and policymaking. Similar gains can be achieved by reinforcing meat reductionist trends at the national level. Meat reducers bolster the popularity of plant-based foods and meat alternatives. This spurs greater investment and product development in plant-based foods, making reduced meat consumption more convenient, affordable, and mainstream. These ripple effects and positive feedback loops make meat reduction at the individual level even more meaningful in the long term.