Foodprint: The Surprising Ecological Footprint of a Little Meat

"It turns out the diet with the smallest possible footprint (for New York state) contains a portion of meat and dairy. That's right, the smallest foodprint is a mix of veggies and meat."

I don't think that's what the article says at all. It says the most efficient use of land would be to add a little dairy and meat. The smallest footprint is still a vegetarian diet.

However, that being said, it discusses 'efficient' use of the land. What does that mean? What kind of land practices did they use in order to come up with 0.44 acres per vegetarian? I'm sure that could be bumped up a bit, not to mention soil management of the 'pasture.' If we're discussing 'efficient' land use, then let's really talk about using it efficiently, not talk about current practices in one specific area and try to generalize it to the most 'efficient.'

Jason, not sure I understand. Doesn't more efficient = less energy = smaller footprint?

the issue of eating meat versus maintaining a vegetarian diet is a red herring that sucks massive amounts of credibility out of the environmental movement.

this article is not news and let's move on to more important and relevant topics.

Vegetarians at the very least help to balance out all the folks who are very resistance to eating less meat.

But if New York were to move towards an entirely vegetarian society (not likely anytime soon), then the land that is left fallow could be grazed by wild animals. In a sense land left fallow in this way shouldn't count as part of your "food print" as it is temporarily returned to a wild state.

More land use info at http://veg.ca/environment

"It turns out the diet with the smallest possible footprint (for New York state) contains a portion of meat and dairy. That's right, the smallest foodprint is a mix of veggies and meat."

This is certainly a misrepresentation of the findings of this paper. The paper is about how many people the agricultural land of New York can feed, not ecological footprints. They find that New York can feed the most people if everyone ate a low fat vegetarian diet. The also found that if everyone ate a low fat and low meat diet you could feed more people than if everyone ate a high fat vegetarian diet. So the point is that fat matters as much as meat, not that a small amount of meat is better than no meat at all.

____
Authors Note:
An Ecological footprint measures human demand on nature. Literally the footprint of land used would be considered an aspect of an ecological footprint. Further, the point of the post points out that the 'ecological' aspect of the footprint is dependent on the local environment, and management practices.

From the article:
"A low-fat vegetarian diet is very efficient in terms of how much land is needed to support it. But adding some dairy products and a limited amount of meat may actually increase this efficiency, Cornell researchers suggest."

I would disagree that the point of the article (chronicle) is specifically about the fat and the meat, as much as it is about smart land use, and the surprising result that it is 'more efficient' (possibly has a smaller ecological footprint or foodprint as it were) to have a little meat.

Jason, not sure I understand. Doesn't more efficient = less energy = smaller footprint?

Rob,

"Efficient" is a word that essentially means nothing without context. All "efficiency" denotes is the ratio of a chosen input to a chosen output. Something is "more efficient" on the chosen input if it produces more of the chosen output than some other option while the input is held constant.

In other words, "land efficiency" can often mean "For a given size of land, total calorie output from agriculture is greater given strategy X rather than Y." Energy efficiency is different. Efficiency with respect to emissions is also different. It's not enough to be efficient without picking what you're efficient with respect to, or else it's easy to assert a dense feedlot is more efficient than pasture.

Mr. McGee,
I feel as if you are drawing false information from Susan Lang's article in Cornell Chronicle. Your quote "That's right, the smallest footprint is a mix of veggies and meat" is completely untrue! The graphic illustration in the article specifically shows that the vegetarian diet has the smallest footprint using only .44 acres of land per year. The diet mixing vegetables and small amounts of meat had a footprint of close to .6 acres.
I feel that the article is merely saying that because the majority of New York State’s soil and land is not of a high enough quality to grow fruits and vegetables it is more efficient to grow hay on the poor quality soil to feed to livestock. In this way less transportation is needed. Across the US this is NOT the case!
I am alarmed at the gross misinterpretation of the article and I will be leery to trust the truthfulness of your articles in the future.

_______
Authors Note: Yes- I see our misunderstanding. The smallest 'footprint' (in the picture given), is indeed the low-fat vegetarian diet. However the smallest 'foodprint' is the one with meat. This is what I'm referring to- Sorry if the language proves confusing. I have updated the article to highlight this issue for future readers.

And to follow on to the next point- the end of the post contains:

"Naturally, your specific foodprint depends on where you live, and the availability of such resources as soil, water, and sunlight."

So I'm not sure how you are getting that I'm generalizing. I'm honestly curious so I can better communicate this in the future.

The smallest possible 'footprint' in the study is a low-fat plant-based diet

~0.44 acres are used for a low-fat vegetarian diet.
~0.6 acres are used in the "moderate-fat plant-based diet with a little meat and dairy.
~2.11 acres are used in a high-fat diet with a lot of meat.

The smallest possible 'foodprint' in the study is the mixed diet with little meat and dairy.

The ecological footprint of any foodprint depends on your local area. But at least in New York- the most efficient use of land likely includes the well managed use of animals as well as crops. This might be surprising to some who consider plant crops as the 'best' option for lowering their 'footprint'.

I would like to lastly point out that the 'most efficient' use of land is not always the best goal. I think it a far better goal to create and conserve the sustainable resources, traditions, and tastes of your local area. This includes those tasty artesian cheeses I can't get enough of.

Tim McGee,

Could you then define 'foodprint'?

This sounds more like some kind of red herring.

We agree that the diet with the smallest footprint is a vegetarian diet. However where it's unclear, at least to me, is what it means to be the most 'efficient' (from the article) or what foodprint means.

I understand about maximizing how many people we can cram into the state of NY and still feed based off local foods would be greater if they ate a little meat and dairy. However does this really mean then that "Omnivores now have some serious eco-credentials"? More people would be a larger toll on the land. How is that eco-friendly? Not to mention pasture land can be transformed into 'high-quality cropland' since after all you brought up 'well managed use.' I don't think the article or study really took that into account.

We can also cram more people (ie be more efficient land use) if we fish the oceans. This doesn't give us any eco-credentials...

____
Authors Note:
Jason,

The term foodprint is used to represent our dependency on resources, mainly land area and ecosystem services, for our food consumption. I tried to stick to this definition in my use.

Sometimes the way people see information is different based on experience. What I saw in this article, was a new finding that supports a growing body of evidence showing the relationships between diversity, efficiency, resilience and sustainability. (Bear with me)

If you begin to read about systems thinking, the concepts described above begin to 'pop' out in the news. I suggest these links about resilience as a good place to start.

http://rs.resalliance.org/
http://www.resalliance.org/

Also the book omnivores dilemma offers a good starting point in the philosophy of food production- particularly the bit about polyface farms. (http://polyfacefarms.com/)

When I speak of better land management- it is to polyface that I look.

Lastly, the eco-cred I speak of is that there is (for the first time in my research) evidence showing that conventional land practices using a mix of grazing and plantings CAN be more efficient at feeding people than plantings alone. I had suspected as much based on anecdotal stories, but had not seen a paper addressing the issue.

Keep in mind this is not a recommendation of this food strategy. Indeed, the world is far to vastly local for any single solution to make sense. But it does highlight the important truth that through an interdependent relationship you can create increases in efficiency- for whatever system you are working with. (In this case the interdependent relationship centers around the soil and how the crop rotation and the cattle create a positive feedback loop)

Mr. McGee,

Still, I feel misled by your statements. Are you aware that the word "foodprint" does not appear once in the body text of the cited article? Yes it seems to appear in the illustration but is never defined as a term and the illustrated graph seems to show that the vegetarian diet has the smallest footprint and "foodprint". Only in the caption under the illustration does the author say that the diet that includes very little meat and dairy is more efficient in New York State because it makes use of the widely available pasture land.
And I still would say that the pasture land could be used to plant edible perennial crops such as legumes, thus making the vegetarian diet most efficient.
I am aware that we can disagree on the topic of efficiency and what to plant on the "pasture land", but I just want to make it clear that your statement,

"It turns out the diet with the smallest possible footprint * foodprint (for New York state) contains a portion of meat and dairy. That's right, the smallest foodprint is a mix of veggies and meat."

is still untrue.

____
Authors Note:
I'm sorry you feel that way, I disagree.

I have to commend the author for wading into the intolerant vegan waters. No amount of data or rationality is necessary if one believes "the gospel" - ie, the concept that consuming animal products is immoral.

It's heartening to see that traditional agricultural wisdom has an ecological corollary as well.

Good work.

This as long been a fact in many places. Although veges may content that it is less footprint to grow crops, some areas are more suited to grow hay to feed animals. This is why groups like Heifer Int. show other countries how to raise animals since their land may not be good enough for vegetables or fruits.

the problem is however, that the lowest foodprint only works if you are truely eating a local diet. If I were to only eat 2oz of meat in a day, from a CAFO, my impact would be much larger than eating 2oz of local raised, grass-fed, organic meat. Two ounces can ever have a large variance in foodprint whether it is chicken, goat or beef also.

Most vegetarians miss the point completely. If you are against killing of animals, than being vegetarian is for you. But for all others who just avoid meat but purchase soy products from former rainforests around the world, they are using more energy than someone eating local meat.

We do not have to be extremists on low impact. If you eat a diet consisting of mostly local vegetables and fruits, with some local grains, and some local meat, than your diet is very low impact. If everyone ate that way, quality and prices of food would be in our favor, moreso than they are today.

Long story short, most any food in your grocery store is packaged, processed, laden with pesticides/herbicides/fungicides, has reduced nutrition, and was shipped from across the country or world. Go to the farmers' market and eat well!

Well then, I'll leave the task to my uncle whom even post-aortic-aneurysm, continues to eat a steak sans vegetables with every meal to make up for my nearly vegan diet.

I suppose I should stay out of the gym as well to reduce my 'foodprint'?

If I read the article and comments correctly, the counter-intuitive conclusion is due to transport. So maybe the title should be changed into: "a little local meat, better than veggies from far away."

In real life ofcourse the local meatstock is fed with soja from far away for which rainforest have been cut. More kilos of soja go into one kilo of meat than into one kilo of tofu.

Well then, I'll leave the task to my uncle whom even post-aortic-aneurysm, continues to eat a steak sans vegetables with every meal to make up for my nearly vegan diet.

Funny how that "perfect diet" of yours so frequently leads to schadenfreude.

Tell me, when they interview people with the absolute greatest longevity, how many of them are vegan?

If your diet makes you into a jerk, maybe it's not a perfect diet.

Smallest footprint = local foods. You can argue meat vs. fruit, but if it ain't local, you're wasting your breath. A diet of magoes and macadamia nuts in NY vs. HI has quite a different footprint.

Reducing food miles makes a tremendous difference across many environmental issues, regardless of the type of food.

And as McGee points out, a local diet is part of a local culture, which has many rewards.

Everyone, just please read "The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals" by Michael Pollan.

Are we seriously arguing over 2 oz of meat a day?

Maybe if the average american meat consumption level ever gets that low we can argue about it then...

Big picture: Less meat = less footprint

There are also ethical concerns. Eating a sentient being is wrong, in absense of extraordinary circumstances.

This is one of those studies that really brings morals into focus. Whether or not this study is object and true, this information could be used as "justification" for murder. Nice going, Christian Peters, you*******

___
Authors Note:
**** Content edited. Please keep comments civil.

McGee,

"The term foodprint is used to represent our dependency on resources, mainly land area and ecosystem services, for our food consumption. I tried to stick to this definition in my use."

So the dependency on resources like land area and ecosystem services would still be less for a vegetarian diet as from the article. It takes less land and less destruction of 'pasture land.' So I don't see where you the smallest foodprint comes from a diet with a little meat and dairy...

If something uses less land to feed it (based on local foods) then it seems pretty clear that it does have a very low impact. Using any further land increases any the impact. I don't see how that can be dodged to develop a new word (foodprint) to try to say this new term (which is really nebulous and now objectively defined) is then better.

To Andy:

I'm not sure what you're on about. The article is about local foods. You're comparing soy products from a rainforest to local meat? Well that's kind of a no-brainer. A local soybean or a local apple has less of an impact than one shipped from around the world... Same is true with local meat. Local meat has less of an impact than meat shipped from around the world...

This is nothing new.

On the topic of soy, most soy, especially imported soy does in fact go to animal feed and not to produce soy products.

So is your point eat local?
--

To other's who rip on veggies, I find it funny that if someone objects to something like this, people automatically assume you're a veggie, vegan or whatever, rather than someone trying to be careful and clear...

Eating a sentient being is wrong, in absense of extraordinary circumstances.

A radical and baseless opinion.

This is one of those studies that really brings morals into focus. Whether or not this study is object and true, this information could be used as "justification" for murder.

"Murder"? Have you ever eaten any meat at any point in your lifetime? If so, that makes you guilty of murder, according to your use of terms. When will you go turn yourself in to serve a life sentence in prison?

Nice going, Christian Peters, you*******

Great language there, Mr. Perfect Diet. How come your "perfect" diet makes you foul-mouthed and angry, as well as a muddy thinker? Maybe you should have a burger and you'll calm down and think more clearly.

This is just illogical. Meat takes more land, water, and energy resources to produce than vegetation. Every conservation biologist, ecologist, and farmer knows this. Every economist knows this.

FANTASY LAND is the only place where all meat comes from cows who roam free so everyone can eat small and local. In REALITY there isn't enough land to support an increasing population's demand for an energy-inefficient food product like meat. New York State is not even close to a major producer of meat - this model is Science Fiction.

The real advice? Eat Less. Less of everything. All food takes huge amounts of resources. Especially meat!

(If you are going to eat meat, do it the way other animals do. Hunt down your prey, tear it open with your claws and teeth - and eat its organs raw. Otherwise, don't call yourself a "natural omnivore".)

This is just illogical.

Poor Spock.

If you are going to eat meat, do it the way other animals do. Hunt down your prey, tear it open with your claws and teeth - and eat its organs raw.

Right after you swim across the ocean if you go overseas.

Jason -
To have a balanced diet with good protein and B12, meat or some soy products would suffice. I know where the meat I eat is raised, but I haven't been able to find any local soy farms, or even regional. My point was that some/many vegetarians tell me that their impact is less, when in fact their soy products are made with far-away sources, often ones that included destroying rainforests in slash and burn style to grow the soy.

Dr. K,
I hope you don't have a doctoral degree in this... it's a fact that some land (mostly in more arid conditions) would take far more energy and resources like water to grow vegetation than to grow simple grasses than goats could eat. Just imagine the scenarios:

1) You're in a landscape getting half an inch of rain each month. To grow vegetables, you need to use almost all the rainwater to irragate the land to grow edible plants, taking away from available water for residents.

2) You grow simple grasses and let goats graze on the grass. No irrigation is needed, and more calories can be taken from the land.

Your point - that it is easier to grow vegetables then raise meat - suffices in many landscapes, but is not always the case.

A sustainable farmer should rotate their crops, but that also means keeping some areas of land for non-food production as part of the rotation. Ideally, that should include 50 years of growing forest in the rotation also. Fitting in some time to grow simple grasses for pasture should be part of this rotation plan also. It's not as simple as your backyard garden.

Andy,

You stated:
"To have a balanced diet with good protein and B12, meat or some soy products would suffice."

I disagree.

There are plenty of beans, and legumes that grow in most places that would suffice for protein sources, not to mention every vegetable has protein in it (just not enough to meet the 'complete protein' category).

As for B12, meat, dairy, or egg would suffice or sources where vegetarians get them from (I suppose they could be made local). However in reality, many people have problems absorbing the B12, omnivores and veggies alike.

Jason,
Your disagreement confuses me. You don't think that meat or soy suffices? Your response doesn't elaborate on a disagreement, you just added to what I posted.

Living in New York State, soy, beans and nuts are just not easily found locally, although I have heard of some soy being grown in Canada.

Find me some sources of protein other than meat that I can get sustainably grown in my region, and I'll give you a gold star.

Personally, I don't see a problem with eating sustainable raised meat. Considering my meat consumption averages 2 pounds per month, and I eat over 90% local foods, I would say my diet is is less impact than that of most vegetarians.

Sure it is possible to live off all vegetables, but being an omnivore I don't see a need to omit all meat.

"Find me some sources of protein other than meat that I can get sustainably grown in my region, and I'll give you a gold star."

Well, for starters, every vegetable has protein. Second, it's hard to imagine that meat is the 'only' source of protein grown in your area, if so, it sounds like a great opportunity to start a bean/legume farm in your there.

"Personally, I don't see a problem with eating sustainable raised meat. "

I guess that's your limitation.

"Considering my meat consumption averages 2 pounds per month, and I eat over 90% local foods, I would say my diet is is less impact than that of most vegetarians."

You might say that, but it doesn't make it true. That's a pretty bold claim, which you have no evidence for.

It is crucial that people study this issue from more informed sources. Go to acresusa.com. You will realize that there are brilliant people all over the world who understand what truly ecological organic farming is. Only local farming can yield truly biologically sound, complex and much more bountiful sources of food and life. Land used sustainably and with respect means meat is a natural part of the ecology. It is the way meat is raised and prepared that changes our perception of it. Industrial farming is killing people--and killing farmers (look at REAL statistics of farmers all over the world, including here in the United States, who have been killing themselves over the greed of forced industrial practices). Local farming is the key to health and community. One farm can yield plenty to make a farmer and his consumers happy,but there is a MYTH that the world will starve--that MYTH is propagated by corporated greed that only understands profit and MONOcultures of unnatural crops that have lost their complexity. We have turned cows into monoculture crops who stand in their own shit. Lets put them back in the pastures, where their shit naturally recycles back into the land, and not into methane. Go to acresusa.com.

While I don't feel qualified to argue one point or the other, I do have to say that it always seems someone is trying to find a reason to say that veganism isn't the answer. There's nothing wrong with veganism, folks. It ain't that radical. Besides that, do you eat "locally raised" meat when you go to a restaurant or a friend's house? Do you ask, "Where did this steak come from?"

And for the record, veganism is not just a diet, it is a lifestyle, and so arguing about food alone will never convince a vegan to revert back to eating meat. But hey, I'm just some vegan asshole. :)

Professor Arnold Ehret, "Mucusless Diet Healing System"
we all need to eat less. Who eats soy and why. Do we really need to eat so much animal based protein? Legumes too?
I love this topic...

Re: locally grown soy...

Organic Valley soy is grown in the US, and they they split their farms into regions. Products you buy in New York are from farms in the North East. Better than buying White Wave soy that has been grown in the Amazon...

Truth is a pathless land.

And for the record, veganism is not just a diet, it is a lifestyle, and so arguing about food alone will never convince a vegan to revert back to eating meat.

Um, I don't think I have ever witnessed a meat-eating person try to convince a vegan to revert back to eating meat. I have, however, encountered people such as yourself who cannot stand anyone who doesn't convert to his form of puritanism and usually gets quite nasty about it.

Um, I don't think I have ever witnessed a meat-eating person try to convince a vegan to revert back to eating meat.

I have witnessed that, quite a bit.

I also witness people who eat meat try to justify their choices with ecological arguments. All things being equal, vegetarianism is simply more ecological than meat eating.

Why not accept that you just like to eat the flesh of other specific animals?

Well Anonymous... just because every meat has protein doens't mean it's going to be a great source of it. I don't see why you bothered even posting that other than to defend your meat-is-murder statement. As for growing my own legumes... I do have beens growing here, but it's not enough to serve myself enough protein for a year, which is why I also eat meat. Do you eat locally grown protein? Are you a farmer? I doubt it. Prove me wrong. Of all the veges I know, they eat soy products. I hope to meat some that truely have less of a foodprint than I do. Until then, I feel fine criticizing vegetarians.

Cody,
I do ask that. And if it's not sustainably raised, I don't eat it. If someone serves me meat from unknown origin, I feel the right to say no thanks. Is that mean... not wanting CAFO meat with literal feces in it? I'm so glad many of my friends eat sustainably raised meat like I do so I don't have to worry about it. Last year I brought my own meat to Thanksgiving. Maybe it's crazy, but if a vegetarian can refuse meat for whatever reason, I don't see why I can't be picky on my foods too.

What Andy?

Well Anonymous... just because every meat has protein doens't mean it's going to be a great source of it. I don't see why you bothered even posting that other than to defend your meat-is-murder statement.

You have meat on the brain in your last post. I said every vegetable has protein in it. And when did I make a "meat-is-murder" statement? Please show me where.

I find it amusing how people jump to so many conclusions. You make a lot of assumptions about where my food comes from as well as how your food consumption compares to "most vegetarians."

Well, I guess that's your limitation. It's sad really, because you're so convinced you're right, you can't even have a discussion.

This article is written irresponsibly.

Even if it were true that including some sustainably raised meat in the diet created a lower impact than not, the key word is "sustainable", and cannot be over-emphasized.

And in that sense, we're hearing nothing new. Simply the same old truth: our current methods of animal agriculture are harmful and must be stopped.

Only this time the truth is presented in a way that has the opposite feel, something like, "Everything's fine, keep on doin' what you're doin'!"

___
Authors Note: That was not the intent, but I can appreciate the criticism. The systems of agriculture, specifically industrial agriculture deplete the natural capitol of our land, our health, and our economy. I agree with many of the commenter's here, and tried to show (although perhaps not as well as intended) that there is no single right solution.

Instead agriculture must consider the local conditions, and adjust their land use to provide sustainable, beneficial practices. Sometimes, as this research points out this includes grazing animals.

Anyone with half a brain knows you can't TRULY be a meat eating environmentalist. If anyone (ie TreeHugger) tries to say otherwise, they are clearly trying to ignore their guilt. ** The livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent than transport (18% vs. 13.5%).
Specifically,
** It accounts for 9% of the CO2 derived from human-related activities.
Why not advocate eliminating the animals? Eliminate in the sense of don't breed them for food. No demand=no supply. Cows are only allowed to live 2-4 years anyway, so if they weren't bred, there would be drastic improvement in a very short amount of time.Given that methane cycles out of atmosphere in about 10 years, while carbon dioxide cycles out in about a hundred, if we address the methane problem directly,
we'll see change happen faster than just focusing on carbon dioxide.

If lessen or better yet ELIMINATE their animal food intake by 10%; the result is the same: reduction in greenhouse gases. One thing the federal government could do that would make
a drastic improvement would be to stop subsizing
factory farms.

Truth is - we are all know VEGAN is best for the EARTH. Spin it however you like, TreeHuggers. It just is.