Acres of Food
With a world population of around 8 billion and growing we need to think seriously about how we feed that population. In recent years we have seemed set on cutting down great swathes of trees to convert huge areas of forest into farm land, either to rear livestock for us to eat or soya for them to eat. The vast majority of all soya grown is used for animal feed, not human consumption, with only around 7% being used for direct human consumption. It is also the world’s second largest source of vegetable oil after palm oil.
More than half of the world’s soya is grown in South America, and between 2000 and 2019, the production of the crop on that continent doubled, and consequently the production area has also doubled, from 26.4 million hectares in 2001 to 55.1 million hectares in 2019. Most of this expansion occurred in Brazil, which saw a 160% increase in the area of soya bean cultivation. Most of this expansion has happened in Brazil, which showed a 160% increase in the area given over to growing soya.
The extra area being used to grow soya can only come from a change of use of existing land. It has become obvious that soya is being planted in what had been previously for, cattle pastures, and as soya takes over, cattle farmers are being forced to find pastures new and it is this that is driving deforestation and the burning of forests.
Although soya can be seen as a largely indirect driver of deforestation, arguments around deforestation must acknowledge that if it were not for the increasing demand for soya, there would be no need to clear forests to create grazing land for cattle. It should also be recognised that burning forests, as has been common practice in deforestation, is detrimental to the growth of crops such as soya, as burning the ground removes many of the nutrients required for healthy plant growth. On that basis soya farmers would not engage in burning as a way to clear forests.
Not only does forest burning remove nutrients from the ground but like general deforestation it destroys the habitat of many creatures native to the forests which may eventually lead to extinction for many of the species.
Ultimately though, the most serious damage caused by deforestation is caused by the removal of trees which are natural storers of large quantities of harmful carbon dioxide. Without these trees, the carbon dioxide they would have stored will now be released into the atmosphere, adding needlessly to the build-up of greenhouse gases which are responsible for global warming. Added to the gases released because the trees have been felled, the practice of burning the trees will only worsen the situation by sending carbon laden smoke into the atmosphere.
This situation is becoming a vicious circle…the population grows…we need more food ….so more livestock is needed… which means more soya for animal feed….therefore we need to cut down more forest to free up more acreage.
As things stand at the moment, 35% of soya produced is used to feed chickens and poultry, 20% is fed to pigs, 6% to farmed fish, and 2% for beef and dairy production. Around 14% of soya is used to produce vegetable oil.
Is it worth considering what effect a vegetarian diet would have on this ‘circle of life’? If we ate less meat….we could rear less livestock…this would mean we need less animal feedstuff…. meaning we would need less acreage to grow soya. This could put a stop to the deforestation we have witnessed in recent years and might allow us to replant trees in some areas and use these new trees to soak up some of the carbon dioxide which is at present being allowed to pollute the atmosphere.
It is also worth considering that farming livestock requires large areas of land. It is estimated that a cow needs around 1.5 to 2 acres of grazing land, while 5 sheep could be grazed per acre. A UK football pitch is equivalent in area to 1.5 acres. So is that a good use of land when considering food production for a growing population? Or is there a better option?
It is widely accepted that a family of four can grow enough vegetables to feed themselves on an area of around 200msq….around the size of a singles tennis court. On a global scale, there is sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that plant-based agriculture is much more land efficient than animal-based agriculture.
At present, almost 75% of the world’s agricultural land is used as pasture, with the remainder for growing crops. Just under half of the crops grown are for animal feed, so by moving away from a predominantly meat based diet, we would not only dramatically cut the area of pasture we need, but as we would need less animal feed, we could also cut down the crop we grow to feed these animals. We would of course need to increase the production of crops for human consumption, but could potentially see an overall drop in the area required for crop growth.
As things stand at the moment, a world population of around 8 billion and growing, is driving the need to produce more food. If we continue with mainly meat based diets we will continue to destroy huge areas of forest which are capable of storing carbon dioxide and will instead release more of this harmful gas into the atmosphere. Should we instead consider moving to a more plant based diet which would allow us to reinstate much of the valuable forest we have torn down and let it do its job of storing carbon dioxide? This would slow down the rate of global warming, while at the same time, release more land for the production of crops which would directly feed our population.
By releasing even half of the land presently used as pasture we would have more than enough acreage to grow plant crops in sufficient quantities to meet the needs of our population. If we were able to do this, we would also see the bonus of the regeneration of the ecosystems and native species to forest areas.