So this is my seventh blog post concerning the environmental impacts of intensive cattle farming, and I just wanted to say that the inspiration for this blog and what really triggered my interest in this topic was a documentary called ‘Cowspiracy' that I watched a couple of weeks before beginning and In my opinion, it is a fantastic documentary, and well worth a watch.

Now, since watching this film I have been aware of the fact, that cattle - and more specifically the huge human hankering for meat - is ruining our environment. That is why, for now just under two months I have been attempting to become vegetarian - however, this has been harder than I thought, and I have surrendered to the odd burger when out with friends, and found it exceptionally difficult to stay within the rules when shopping on a student budget.

Nevertheless, it has been estimated that each day, a person who eats a vegan diet saves 1,100 gallons of water, 45 pounds of grain, 30sq ft of forested land, 20lbs CO2 equivalent, and one animal’s life (Scarborough et al. 2014). This is a startling set of figures, and if this can be achieved by cutting out our meat consumption it is something I believe we should all sincerely attempt to adopt.

Figures 1 & 2 from 'Shrink that footprint'

  These figures from ‘Shrink that footprint’ illustrate the carbon footprints of various diet choices, the FAO published the fact that 18% of greenhouse gas emissions result from livestock, so it is clear that cutting meat (especially beef), from ones diet can really alleviate the environmental ramifications that are associated.

But, it is not only the impacts on the earth that need to be evaluated when considering a meat free diet. ‘Hunger is caused by poverty and inequality, not scarcity’. With the human population expected to peak at 10 billion in 2050, it is going to be necessary to bridge the growing dichotomy between food and the poverty stricken.

Source: http://food-inequality.weebly.com

It is widely accepted that we currently produce over one and a half times enough food to feed everyone on the planet (Seufert et al. 2010), but unfortunately most of this food is being fed to cattle which are not then consumed by the people who are going hungry but the glutinous and greedy developed citizens of the world which is totally unjust to anyone I discuss this topic with, and something that is not normally considered.

This is why a shift to agroecology has been championed by the UN (Eric Holt-Giménez. 2012), to enable poor famers with the tools required to sustainably produce the required resources in areas of poverty.

Agroecology in Burkina Faso. Source: http://www.amurt.net/agroecology-in-burkina-faso/

I think it is going to be important in the future to therefore assess the agricultural yield in terms of 'humans nourished' rather than the current feed to edible food conversion ratios favoured by the 'developed' world. This is tackled successfully in this report by Cassidy et al. (2013).

Source: http://africanleadership.co.uk/blog/?p=3023

So, to conclude, eliminating meat and primarily beef from your diet will undoubtedly have a positive effect on the environment, and would even relieve human poverty. So why doesn't everyone do something about it. Ignorance, laziness or greed? To solve these environmental and social dilemmas we must educate, end inequality and begin to adopt the lifestyles we advocate rather than continually ignoring what has been, and continues to be, so clearly indicated to us.

Within this post I want to explore some of the aquatic impacts associated with the poor waste mismanagement that I have hitherto discussed.

Cattle faeces has been calculated to contain approximately 0.79% ammonia, 0.43% potassium and most crucially - 0.43% phosphorous (Bond et al. 2014.), which is singled out as the ‘primary biological limiting factor’ for most aquatic species.

Stream, lake and riparian environments may all undergo the process of eutrophication when subjected to such nutrient rich inundation of animal waste. The response of eutrophication or ‘hypertrophication’ most commonly causes the sudden explosion of large algal blooms in the ecosystem, that can even be seen from space in the most extreme cases!

Algal bloom in Lake Erie

These algal blooms have a very unfavourable cascade effect on the remaining part of the ecosystem, ‘algal mats’ can cause the lower parts of the water column to become shaded and shift previously favourable photic zones into darkness, rendering the environment unfit for photosynthesis and hence eradicating some plant species. This was investigated by Croel (et al. 2011) who investigated the effects of cattle waste on Californian vernal pool plants in experimental mesocosms’ and saw a sharp reduction in species richness and abundance.

Furthermore, such blooms cause the aquatic system to become deleted in oxygen - this ‘anoxia’ is caused by increased respiratory activity by the algae and eventually depletes the waters oxygen reservoir.

As well as anoxia, the turbidity - or water transparency is severely effected by the injection of waste into the system.

These two factors lead to acutely adverse effects on species diversity, an interesting study I uncovered that relates to this, is a paper by Schmutzer (et al. 2008) that explores the impact of cattle waste on amphibian larvae on the Cumberland Plateau of Tennessee, U.S.A. In general, the species richness and diversity of amphibian larvae are seen to be considerably greater in wetlands without cattle, which I can imagine you don't find especially shocking. The associated poor conditions also cause the extermination of vast fish stocks, as there food sources have been lost and the anoxic conditions suffocate them in the water.

These ecosystem responses are experienced naturally in aquatic ecosystems, but are considered to be exacerbated tremendously by the poor waste management from intensive animal farming that I have already explained. In my opinion I think it is unacceptable to knowingly inflict this stress on such fragile habitats, what do you think of the situation? Please let me know. Thanks

After reading a little further into the impacts of animal waste on the water quality I have come across something that as a geologist has a particular interest to me.

The impact of animal waste on groundwater. This is a topic that I didn't see much material on whilst researching water pollution. However, I have recently uncovered this paper by D C Gooddy et al. from 2001. This study looks into the impacts of cattle slurry on such groundwater stores in the UK.

UK aquifer location and levels. Source BGS

The groundwater in the UK predominantly comes from three aquifers; the Permo-triassic sandstone, the jurassic limestone and the chalk formations (GroundwaterUK). These aquifers supply 25%, 15% and 60% respectively.

With a total abstraction of 2400 million meters cubed per year from groundwater sources in England, for industry agricultural and domestic use - the UK definitely has a significant dependence on groundwater as a source of freshwater - right?

So, if these repertoires of water are slowly being polluted that is a severe problem for the entire country. However, the concern about livestock pollution hasn't seemed to have cause for concern!

There are estimated to be over eleven hundred slurry pits in England and Wales (Nicholson & Brewer 1997) many of which could potentially be sitting above the aforementioned aquifers.

The study be DC Gooddy et al. highlighted the ease of which pollutants can leach through fractures in the chalk lithology to depths of 15 meters below the surface.

However, due to strict regulations in the UK regarding the lining and earth baking beneath slurry pits the impacts on potable water were seen to be negligible. Nevertheless, in countries or states with less strict regulations the outcome may not be as trivial - food for thought considering groundwater is the source of drinking water for 99% of the rural American population (Estimated use of water in the USA 2000) and the EPA don't think it necessary to regulate the water standards of private drinking wells - of which 13.5 million American households depend.

Groundwater pump in the USA. source: waterEducation

Part II - Water Pollution from Waste Mismanagement

As I began to mention in my last post, the way in which the cattle interact with their environment is very important for the quality of local water resources.

The intensity of grazing in a region can increase the potential for contamination. Donkor et al. (2002) found that because of the compaction of the land due to cattle moving around the area and hooves compressing the soil, runoff is relatively higher in an area of heavy grazing compared to a lightly grazed region. So the contaminated agricultural waste that I discussed previously is even helped to the water source indirectly due to the cattle!

A now antiquated, but in my eyes very relevant study from Schepers and Francis in 1982 illustrated the problem clearly. They conducted a study of a 32.5 ha cattle pasture in Nebraska, recording the levels of nutrients in the runoff in areas where cattle were grazing and not grazing.

They determined that the influence of grazing cattle had a huge impact on the levels of nitrates, soluble phosphorus, chemical oxygen and chloride concentrations in the runoff.

Dissolved nutrients in runoff was seen to increase from 6% (where no cattle resided) to 78% when livestock were grazing in the area!

Cattle also usually have direct access to water as part of some farming practices. This direct access allows immediate deposition of waste into the water system. Cattle can also severely effect the river bank ecosystems by overgrazing and from aforementioned soil compression.

Cattle interacting directly with a water source. Source omafra  

Whats more crucial is the fact a fully functional riverbank zone is pivotal for maintaining a stream ecosystem, which can aid in maintaining the quality of water by acting as a natural buffer to incoming nutrients and materials.

River bank degradation. Source Getty images

So…. animals facilitating waste entry into the water system and manure mismanagement can be caused by a variety of processes - the specific effects of these pollutants are going to be tackle in my future posts, so stay tuned!

P.S (I realise that most of the factors discussed in this post also relate very closely to land degradation, I am also planning on exploring this environmental impact in more detail at a later date)

Part I - Water Pollution from Waste Mismanagement

The gargantuan amount of waste from cattle farms can eventually infiltrate the earths water system, this unpopular percolation can be due to mechanical or human error in agricultural situations. 

This is because farms have to store this large amounts of manure that is produced by livestock - theoretically this is manure can be dealt with sustainably by redistributing it into the environment by using the manure as fertiliser. 

However, the rate of production usually exceeds that of redistribution, this leads to the excess manure being stored in containers or at larger practices ‘waste lagoons’

Aerial shot of waste 'lagoon' from Mishka Henner

If the machinery the waste is stored in is neglected the integrity of the equipment may be compromised, this can lead to unwanted  waste leaking into the environment. Additionally, if the technology of the waste storage is outdated then this can see a further loss of waste into the environment.

I have found that in addition to mechanical complications, specific human irreverence and laziness can result in waste entering the water system.

For example lets say a valve connected to this canister of dung is inadvertently left open, this could allow manure to flow into a collection pit, and then overflow and drain into the environment - this possibility is highlighted in Ackerman and Taylors paper.

These two factors may seem a little unscientific in the grand scheme of things but they do have a considerable contribution to the leaching of this waste into undesirable locations. 

The main techniques that have been suggested are from the Nader et. al. (1998) investigation that suggested managing the water quality by redesigning of the river uses along the source - i.e. having water developments upstream from the agriculture to avoid pollution. 

They also suggested altering the spatial distribution of cattle and implementing pasture rotation - to keep the animals away from the source. These last two points will be discussed further in the next instalment!