Why do I keep seeing Heifer International mentioned here as if somehow giving livestock to people is even remotely Tree Hugging? Using animals is a BAD THING. The data could not be more clear about that. We need to stop using livestock - not pretend that a misguided "charity" such as Heifer International is somehow a good thing.

Because poverty-stricken third world people eking out an existence on marginal land often need livestock to survive (bad soil, drought etc.) and goats are one of the best animals for that; they're resilient and can make the difference between survival and starvation. They can't just hop in their Prius and go buy Tofurkey at the local Whole Foods. Geddit?

Using animals for agricultural purposes is a bad thing? Animals are a part of local ecosystems, fertilize the soil, provide eggs, dairy products and meat and certainly make a much lower impact than diesel-belching tractors. Heifer is a wonderful organization that helps people in need, and their philosophical underpinnings are well-thought out, promote social justice and improved lifestyles and are eco-friendly. One of them is (quote):
Improving the Environment: includes such agroecological techniques as improving soil fertility with animal manure, promoting forestation, respecting and encouraging biodiversity, monitoring watershed conditions and minimizing erosion.

Amazing that anyone who claims to care about the environment can still maintain that animal agriculture is a sustainable practice. See:

http://earthsave.org/globalwarming.htm

If that appears to be a bit agenda driven, just google for "hog" and "atomspheric amonia".

Or see this from the UN:
“Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems,” senior UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) official Henning Steinfeld said. “Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.”
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20772&Cr=global&Cr1=warming

Wow so kill all the livestock and save the earth? What was Noah thinking??!

Hey Atoms you may actually want to read the report your quoting from and check whether it is an actually valid resource before trying to shut down other peoples opinions. Firstly that article only mentions cows as a the source of methane which is due to the way the bacteria in their stomach processing the grass and grain. Goats do not produce anywhere near the same amount of methane. And hey if your going to blame everything on methane from animals why don't you start holding in your own methane and become totally greenhouse neutral before dissing a charity that is trying to help people out...

The issue is a bit more complicated than either "livestock=good" or "livestock=bad." On one hand, yes, it is true that livestock leaves a higher carbon footprint per the same amount of calories for the meat consumed.

On the other hand, what Heifer Int. says is also true--livestock is a 'renewable resource' in the sense that one animal continuously provides milk, meat, and wool. (As well as compost, which tends to be less good when it comes from plants vs. animals, from what I've heard.)

The key here is balance. When people talk about how livestock is bad for the environment, they aren't talking about, at least for the most part, the people who Heifer Int. is giving livestock. They're talking about huge industrial farms with hundreds of cattle used to produce only meat. Goats are often touted as being superior to cattle in many ways; they are easier to feed (they often eat pest plants!), they produce milk & cheese, they are edible for their meat, and they can be shorn for wool. Cows are much harder to feed and only do some of those things--and some cows are really only used for their meat! So in terms of the "axis of evil" of eating animals, Goats are a very good choice.